Loading...
CC 2017-01-10_10a E Cherry PresentationEast Cherry Avenue Specific Plan General Plan Amendment 15-001; Development Code Amendment 15-001; Specific Plan 15-001; VTTM 15-001; CUP 15-004 Consideration of the East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan and related entitlements allowing development under the Specific Plan January 10, 2017 1 Purpose of the Meeting Consider project plans, staff report and environmental review for the East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Consider input from advisory bodies Receive public comments Recommend that City Council adopt resolution certifying the Final EIR and approve project as conditioned 2 2 Project Actions General Plan Amendment 15-001 Specific Plan 15-001 Development Code Amendment 15-001 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 15-001 (Subarea 2) Conditional Use Permit 15-004 (Subarea 3) 3 3 Specific Plan – a regulatory framework 4 Specific Plan is a “mini-General Plan” for an area, with requirements set forth under state planning law Specific Plan allows for flexibility in zoning requirements, and provides regulations particular to the area Specific Plan will guide land use, design, circulation, and infrastructure Specific Plan coordinates infrastructure phasing 4 GPA and Development Code Amendment 5 General Plan Amendment Modify land use map to show revised land use designations consistent with Specific Plan concept Modify General Plan Creek Locations Map to indicate drainage at southern boundary is not a Waters of the U.S. or under jurisdiction of CDFW—consistent with EIR Development Code Amendment Needed to replace existing zoning within the Specific Plan area with regulations included in the Specific Plan 5 Project Location 6 6 Project Description 7 7 Properties and Development Concept 8 8 Subarea 2 Development: VTTM 15-001 9 11.12 acres (+/- 0.5 acres on Lot 54 moved to Subarea 3) 54-lot subdivision with 51 single-family homes Neighborhood park (0.41 acres, on lots 28 and 37) 4,331 to 9,811 SF lot sizes (average about 6,210 SF) 5 units/gross acre All alley-loaded homes are single story (including along E. Cherry) Architectural styles: Bungalow, Craftsman, Spanish Eclectic, Cottage, Hollywood-Agrarian Access: from new Collector (Road A) and proposed Road C All roads are public, except alleys, which are privately maintained 9 Proposed Site Plan: Subarea 2 10 10 Proposed Subarea 2 - Tentative Tract Map 11 11 Development Concept: Subarea 2 12 12 Development Concept: Subarea 2 13 13 Development Concept: Subarea 2 14 14 Subarea 3 Development: CUP 15-004 15 2.01 acres (+/- 0.5 acres added from Subarea 2) Historic and cultural development Farm stand Historic walking paths and gardens Cultural gardens Public assembly room 10-unit senior housing, with caretaker’s unit B&B guest house Parking Access is proposed from E. Cherry Avenue 15 Conceptual Site Plan: Subarea 3 16 16 Development Concept: Subarea 3 17 17 Specific Plan Infrastructure Phasing 18 18 Organizing Design Standards and Guidelines 19 Reliance on Existing City Development Standards Traffic Way Mixed Use (Subarea 1) Village Residential (Subarea 2) Village Mixed Use (Subarea 3) Design Guidelines and Standards for Historic Character Design Guidelines and Standards for Design Overlay District Specific Plan Design Guidelines 19 Previous Public Outreach by Applicants Kickoff “Tent Revival” Meeting 1-31-15 Neighborhood Group formed Met with neighbors about several times Updates via email/mail Provided calendar of tentative dates for hearings Met with St. Barnabas Church Met with Adjacent Mobile Home Park Updated website 20 20 Previous Advisory Body Review Staff Advisory Committee June 10, 2015 April 13 and 27, 2016 November 9, 2016 Architectural Review Committee March 7, 2016 August 1 and 15, 2016 Traffic Commission July 25, 2016 21 21 Previous Advisory Body Review Planning Commission September 6, 2016 September 20, 2016 October 4, 2016 22 22 Previous City Council Direction and Review Authorized Specific Plan preparation (7-8-14) Considered mitigation for agricultural impacts per City policy 7-28-15 (Subarea 2) 7-26-16 (Subarea 3) 23 23 Previous Advisory Body Review Staff Advisory Committee Refined project design Reviewed and refined project conditions Architectural Review Committee Reviewed and modified Design Guidelines Suggested design changed included in plan Traffic Commission Reviewed roadways and parking concepts Modified traffic mitigation and access design 24 24 Previous Advisory Body Review Planning Commission direction Include dual water use system Modify timing of roadway infrastructure Include electric vehicle charging facilities Require homes to be solar ready Delay building permits to address drought Reduce the number of lots facing E. Cherry Add one uncovered parking space for each lot alley Widen alley to meet City standards Defer CUP for Subarea 1 25 25 Project Modifications based on Recent Input Withdraw CUP Application for Subarea 1 Incorporates Planning Commission direction Other Key Changes Reduce the number of residential lots to 51 Lots 1-18 include more on-lot guest parking Larger park area, to be maintained by HOA Collector Road “A” modified to avoid MHP conflicts Easterly access becomes public road (not private alley) Revise drainage and utility easements New signal at Fair Oaks/Traffic Way installed prior to first Subarea 2 building permit New right turn lane at E. Grand/W. Branch installed prior to first Subarea 2 building permit 26 26 CEQA Process: Public Review NOP Process and Initial Study Draft EIR circulates publicly (4-8-16 to 5-23-16) Draft EIR Workshop (5-17-16) 27 27 CEQA Process: Issues Analyzed Aesthetics Agricultural Resources Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Biological Resources Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use Noise Recreation Transportation Utilities and Public Services 28 28 CEQA Process: Significant Unavoidable Impacts Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions AQ-2. Long-term emissions AQ-5. Consistency with the 2001 Clean Air Plan Cumulative impacts of long-term emissions Transportation TRANS-3. East Grand/West Branch long-term operations Cumulative impacts at the above intersection 29 29 Key Issues based on Public Input Agricultural Resources Transportation Water Use 30 30 Key Issue - Agriculture Overall Specific Plan less than significant per LESA because of small site size and neighboring land uses Prime soils and AG designation on Subarea 2 and 3 require potential mitigation review per City policy City Council determined that 1:1 offsite purchase of 9.9-acre ag conservation parcel satisfied mitigation requirement for Subarea 2 City Council determined design of Subarea 3 meets the intent of ag preservation policy, because of no historic ag use and introduction of retain farm stand on site 31 31 Key Issue - Agriculture Intent of General Plan policies, including Policy Ag1-4, is to provide some flexibility on the determination of what is considered adequate mitigation for the loss of prime farmland soils Policy Ag1-4.2 states that “other potential mitigation measures…include payment of in lieu fees or other such mitigation acceptable to the City Council” City Council found that 9.9-acre Flora Road site offset 9.79-acre impact associated with Subarea 2, once public roadways are discounted (per Policy Ag1-1.2; 7-28-15 staff report) 32 32 Key Issue - Traffic E. Grand/ W. Branch intersection Applicants to create right turn lane for SB approach of W. Branch to E. Grand Applicants to pay fair share of long-term improvements to result in acceptable LOS Collector “A” (Subarea 2) Designed to accommodate potential update to Circulation Element to provide long-term access south of project area Portion adjacent to MHP entirely on Subarea 2 property Safety and School Impacts Signal at Fair Oaks expected to improve safety EIR examined AM peak hour trips to determine mitigation 33 33 Key Issue - Water City has long-term supply for GP buildout - 3,813 afy Tri-Cities Mesa GW Basin (adjudicated) – 1,323 afy Pismo Formation groundwater – 200 afy Lopez Reservoir – 2,290 afy Existing Water demand on site Per FEIR, about 41.3 afy (assuming one crop per year): 6.4 afy on Subarea 1, and 34.9 afy on Subarea 2 Projected Water demand on site Per FEIR, about 36.2 afy (Table 3.11-5) (Subarea 1—13.8 afy; Subarea 2—19.7 afy; Subarea 3—2.7 afy) Net decrease in water demand of about 5.1 afy 34 34 Key Issue - Water Flora Road Ag Mitigation Parcel Water Use 9.9-acre parcel has historically been in irrigated agriculture Intent of the mitigation measure is to ensure this parcel remains in agricultural use This use would not change, so there would be no expected increase in existing historic water use Irrigation water comes from Pismo groundwater basin, which is separate from the adjudicated Tri-Cities Mesa basin 35 35 Water Resources Associated with the Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Jim Garing Interim City Engineer 36 36 June 1979 California Department of Water Resources Report: Ground Water in the Arroyo Grande Area Conclusions Irrigated agricultural lands within the Arroyo Grande Plain, Tri-Cities Mesa (Study Area) use 5,300 AFY (acre-feet per year). Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Area is part of irrigated agricultural lands area developed for DWR 1979. 37 37 1983 Gentleman's Agreement In 1983, Grover City, Arroyo Grande, Pismo Beach, OCSD and the San Luis Obispo Board of Supervisors adopted resolutions, amounting to what today is known as “The Gentleman’s Agreement”. The agreement provided for subdivision of the safe yield of the Tri-Cities Mesa Groundwater Basin among the Cities of Arroyo Grande, Grover City, Pismo Beach, OCSD and the agricultural community. This agreement provided that the division of the safe yield of the basin be accomplished based upon the following figures: 38 38 1995 Groundwater lawsuit begins near Santa Maria and grows to over 1,000 litigants including Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, Pismo Beach, Oceano CSD, and all large landowners from Sisquoc to Pismo Beach. 39 39 2002 Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, Pismo Beach and Oceano CSD join together to reaffirm the 1983 “Gentleman's Agreement” and add provisions to reflect actual practices. 1.) “Agreement Regarding Management of the Arroyo Grande Ground Water Basin” 2.) Added Agricultural Conversion Irrigated agricultural lands within City or District which are converted from irrigated agriculture to urban use results in a credit of 3 AF per acre of land converted. 3.) Reaffirmed safe yield distribution from the 1983 “Gentleman’s Agreement.” 40 40 2005 Groundwater litigation settled. All provisions from the “Agreement Regarding Management of Arroyo Grande Groundwater Basin” were incorporated into the settlement agreement. Also known as “The June 30th, 2005 Stipulation.” 41 41 2015 42 Mitigation for loss of agricultural land: City council approved placing a parcel of land on Flora Road in permanent agriculture. This parcel is within the Arroyo Grande Alluvial Groundwater Basin, separate from the Arroyo Grande Plain, Tri-Cities Mesa Ground Water Basin. The Flora Road Parcel has been irrigated in the past and has it’s own entitlement to groundwater associated with the Arroyo Grande Alluvial Basin. 42 Conclusions 43 The environmental document for the Cherry Avenue Specific Plan presents the agricultural water credit associated with the specific plan of about 41 acre-feet per year. After deducting the projected new urban water use from the agricultural water credit associated with the Specific Plan, the City would realize a net increase in water supply of about 5 acre-feet per year. 43 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Overview of Traffic Impact Analysis City Council January 10, 2017 44 Overview of Project Traffic Analysis Initial Study – Project Description, Study Intersections & Methodology Data Collection – Existing Traffic Volumes (AM, Mid-Day & PM) Analysis – Existing and Forecast Volumes, Intersection Operations, Project Impacts & Mitigations 45 Notice of Preparation (NOP) Draft EIR 45 Study Intersections 46 46 Data Collection AM, Mid-Day and PM Peak Hours 47 1,413 1,342 1,642 47 Project Trip Distribution 48 48 Scenarios Evaluated Existing Existing plus Approved/Pending Projects Existing plus Approved/Pending Projects plus Project Cumulative no Project Cumulative plus Project 49 49 Project Impacts Traffic Way at Fair Oaks Avenue W. Branch Street at E. Grand Avenue 50 50 Project Mitigations – Draft EIR 51 MM TRANS-1a. Construction Transportation Management Plan MM TRANS-2a. Fair Oaks Avenue/Traffic Way traffic signal MM TRANS-3a. E. Grand/W. Branch. Modify to create right turn lane MM TRANS-3b. E. Grand/W. Branch. Fair share funding for improvements to create acceptable LOS MM TRANS-5a. Circulation and Access Study for Subarea 1 51 Project Mitigations – Draft EIR 52 MM TRANS-3a. E. Grand/W. Branch 52 Draft EIR Comments & Responses 53 Issues Raised at May 17, 2016 Draft EIR Workshop Queuing at Traffic Way and Fair Oaks Avenue – effect on Allen Street? Impacts at Intersection of Allen Street/Traffic Way? Project traffic impacts on Allen and Mason Streets? 53 Final EIR - June 11, 2016 Tech Memo 54 Queuing at Traffic Way and Fair Oaks Avenue – effect on Allen Street? 54 Final EIR - June 11, 2016 Tech Memo 55 Impacts at Intersection of Allen Street/Traffic Way? 55 Final EIR - June 11, 2016 Tech Memo 56 Project traffic impacts on Allen and Mason Streets? 7% To/From E. Branch St. “Locals” Trips: 7%(44) = 3 AM Trips 7%(59) = 4 PM Trips 56 Final EIR - June 11, 2016 Tech Memo 57 Summary Retain “Keep Clear” markings at Allen Street/Traffic Way intersection Planned Traffic Way/Fair Oaks signal provides sufficient mitigation at Allen Street/Traffic Way No significant impacts on Allen and Mason Streets 57 Alternatives for City Council Action Adopt the attached resolution certifying Final EIR, related CEQA Findings and MMRP; and approve related project actions (GPA 15-001; Specific Plan 15-001; CUP 15-004; VTTM 15-001); introduce ordinance approving Development Code Amendment 15-001; Make necessary or appropriate modifications, then adopt attached resolution, and introduce the attached ordinance; Refer project back to staff for additional analysis; Provide specific findings for denial and direct staff to return with appropriate resolutions denying the project; or Provide other direction to staff 58 58 Alternatives for City Council Action Questions and Comments? 59 59 60 60 Fair Oaks Ave Operations Improvement Project 61 Limits: Traffic Way to Valley Road Scope: Intersection Improvements; Lane Reconfiguration; Multi-Modal Improvements Funding: $350,000 SLOCOG / Local Match First Step: Feasibility Study (Local Funded) 61 Road “A” 62 62 Project Trip Generation Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 63 63 Subarea 1 Access – Tech Memo Sep. 14, 2016 64 64 Speed Surveys 65 2012 Citywide Engineering & Traffic Study (E&TS) Report, Begur Consulting, Nov. 2012 65 Collision History 66 66 Proposed E. Cherry Avenue Cross Section 67 67 Proposed Road “A” Cross Section 68 68 Proposed Roads “B” and “C” Cross Section 69 69 Proposed Alley Cross Section 70 70 Proposed Subarea 2 - Site Plan 71 71