Loading...
Agenda Packet 1999-07-13 CITY COUNCIL ~"11 0/ AGENDA ~ [ff1lande Michael A. Lady Mayor Robert L. Hunt City ~anager Tony M. Ferrara Mayor Pro Tem Timothy J. Carmel City Attorney Thomas A. Runels Council Member Kelly Wetmore Director. Administrative Services Steve Tolley Council Member Jim Dickens Council rJIember AGENDA SUMMARY CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, JULY 13, 1999 Arroyo Grande City Council Chambers 215 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande 1. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 P.M. 2. ROLL CALL . 3. FLAG SALUTE: ARROYO GRANDE POLICE DEPARTMENT EXPLORER POST NO. 542 4. INVOCATION: PASTOR PAUL JONES, RETIRED 5. SPECIAL PRESENT A TIONS: a. Proclamation - Welcoming the 561 st Air Force Band of the California Air National Guard 6. AGENDA REVIEW: 6A. Move that all resolutions and ordinances presented tonight be read in title only and all further readings be waived. ----.- AGENDA SUMMARY - JULY 13, 1999 PAGE 2 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: a. Conditional Use Permit 98-572 - Russ Sheppel. 880 Oak Park Boulevard (ENGEN) (Action Required: Approve Planning Commission Recommendations) b. Conditional Use Permit 98-573 - Kevin Kennedy. Oak Park Boulevard and James Way (ENGEN) (Action Required: Approve Planning Commission Recommendations) 8. CITIZENS' INPUT, COMMENTS, AND SUGGESTIONS: Persons in the audience may discuss business not sched.uled on this agenda regarding any item of interest within the jurisdiction of the Council. The Council will listen to all communication but, in compliance with the Brown Act, will not take any action on items that are not on the agenda. Upon completing your comments: . You may be directed to staff for assistance; . A Council Member may indicate an interest in discussing your issue with you subsequent to the Council meeting; . The Council may direct staff to research the issue and subsequently report back to the Council (generally in the form of a memorandum or staff report); or . No action is required or taken. 9. CONSENT AGENDA: The following routine items listed below are scheduled for consideration as a group. The recommendations for each item are noted in parentheses. Any Council Member may request that any item be withdrawn from the Consent Agenda to permit discussion or change the recommended course of action. The City Council may approve the remainder of the Consent Agenda on one motion. a. Cash Disbursement Ratification (SNODGRASS) (Action Required: Approval) b. Statement of Investment Deposits (SNODGRASS) (Action Required: Approval) c. Cash Flow Analysis/Approval of Interfund Advance from the Sewer .EwK1 (SNODGRASS) (Action Required: Approval) AGENDA SUMMARY -JULY 13,1999 PAGE 3 9. CONSENT AGENDA: (continued) d. Minutes of City Council Meeting of June 22. 1999 (WETMORE) (Action Required: Approval) e. Rejection of Claim - Mike Adams (WETMORE) (Action Required: Reject Claim) f. Award of Contract to DMG-Maximus for Mandated Cost Recovery (SNODGRASS) (Action Required: Approval) g. Authorization to Solicit Bids - Replacement of Two Police Department Vehicles (TERBORCH) (Action Required: Approval) h. Authorization to Solicit Bids - Replacement of Main Parking Lot Gate Controller (TERBORCH) (Action Required: Approval) i. Authorization to Solicit Bids - Public Works Vehicle (SPAGNOLO) (Action Required: Approval) j. Authorization to Solicit Bids - Fair Oaks Water Line. Project No. 60-98-5 (SPAGNOLO) (Action Required: Approve Staff Recommendations) k. Authorization to Solicit Bids - Public Parking Lot Behind City Council Chambers. Project No. 80-99-1 (SPAGNOLO) (Action Required: Approve Staff Recommendations) I. Certificate of Acceptance - Bikeway Proiect One - Paulding Middle School Bikelanes - Project No. 90-98-1 (SPAGNOLO) (Action Required: Approve Staff Recommendations) m. Award of Contract for Soils Testing on Grand Avenue. Elm Street to Halcyon Road. Project No. 60-70-90-98-6 (SPAGNOLO) (Action Required: Approve Staff Recommendations) n. Award of Bid - Montego Street Sidewalks. Phase 1 (South Side). Project No. 90-98-7 (SPAGNOLO) (Action Required: Approve Staff Recommendations) o. Award of Bid - Optical Detection Devices at East Branch Street/Mason Street. Project No. 90-99-2 (SPAGNOLO) (Action Required: Approve Staff Recommendations) AGENDA SUMMARY - JULY 13,1999 PAGE 4 9. CONSENT AGENDA: (continued) p. Disa9vantaged Business Enterprise Program Plan for FY 1998/99 and FY 1999/00 (SPAGNOLO) (Action Required: Approve Staff Recommendations) q. Authorization for Payment of Emergency Expenditures to Repair Fire Engine (FIBICH) (Action Required: Approval) r. Authorization to Solicit Bids for Parks Division Vehicle (HERNANDEZ) (Action Required: Approval) s. Award of Bid for Electric Vehicle (HERNANDEZ) (Action Required: ApprQval) t. Authorization to Close City Streets and Use City Property for Summer Events (ENGEN) (Action Required: Adopt Resolution) u. Acceptance of Improvements - Morning Rise II (SPAGNOLO) (Action Required: Approval) 10. CONTINUED BUSINESS: a. Consideration of Historical Society's Proposal for City-owned Property at 134 Mason Street (HERNANDEZ) (Action Required: Provide Direction to Staff) b. Proposed Ordinance Limiting Non-Taxable Sales in Retail Stores Exceeding 90.000 Square Feet (ENGEN) (Action Required: Adopt Ordinance) c. Water Master Plan (SPAGNOLO) (Action Required: Approval) 11. NEW BUSINESS: None AGENDA SUMMARY -JULY 13, 1999 PAGE 5 12. COUNCIUAGENCY COMMUNICATIONS: Correspondence/Comments as presented by the City Council 13. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: Correspondence/Information for the City Council presented by the City Manager 14. ADJOURNMENT "._-_._----~-"'. ---- ~-,~---- AGENDA SUMMARY - JULY 13, 1999 PAGE 6 * * * * * * * Copies of the staff reports or other written materials relating to each item of business referred to on this agenda are on file with the Director of Administrative Services and are available for public inspection and reproduction at cost. If you have questions regarding any agenda item, please contact the Director of Administrative Services at (805) 473-5414. * * * * * * * In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in a City meeting, please contact the Director of Administrative Services at the number listed above at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to ensure that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting. * * * * * * * Note: This agenda is subject to amendment up to 72 hours prior to the date and time set for the meeting. Please refer to the agenda posted at City Hall for any revisions, or call the Director of Administrative Services at (805) 473-5414 for more information. www.arroyogrande.org ~~._- CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE - ABBREVIATIONS revised 05127/99 A Agricultural Preserve AB Assembly Bill JPA Joint Powers Authority ADA Americans with Disabilities Act LAFCO Local Agency Formation Commission AG General Agriculture LOCC League of California Cities AGMC Arroyo Grande Municipal Code LLA Lot Line Adjusbnent AGPOA Arroyo Grande Police Officers' Association LUE Land Use Element APN Assessor's Parcel Number MER Lot Merger APCB Air Pollution Control Board MF CondominiumITownhouse APCD Air Pollution Control District MFA Apartments ARC Architectural Review Committee MHP Mobile Home Parks ASCE American Society Civil Engineers 0 Office Professional ASD Administrative Services Department OCSD Oceano Community Services District AWWA American Water Works Association OSCE Open Space and Conservation Element BD Building Division PC Planning Commission CA City Attorney PD Police Department CC City Council PF Public/Quasi Public CCC California Conservation Corps PPR Plot Plan Review CCCSIF Central Coast Cities Self-Insurance Fund PRD Parks & Recreation Department CD Community Development PRE-APP Pre-application CDBG Community Development Block Grant PSHHC Peoples' Self-Help Housing Corp. CE Circulation Element PSP Planned Sign Program CEC Califomia Energy Commission PUD Planned Unit Development CEQA California Environmental Quality Act PW Public Works Department CIP Capital Improvement Program RE Residential Estate CIWMP California Integrated Waste Management Plan RFP Request for Proposals CM City Manager's Office RFQ Request for Qualifications CMC California Men's Colony RH Hillside Residential CMP Congestion Management Plan RHNP Regional Housing Needs Plan cae Certificate of Compliance RR Rural Residential CPI Consumer Price Index RS Suburban Residential CUP Conditional Use Permit RTA Reversion to Acreage DARE Drug Abuse Resistance Education RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board DC Development Code SAC Staff Advisory Committee CEA Drug Enforcement Administration SB Senate Bill E.C. Election Code SCAT South County Area Transit EDU Equivalent Dwelling Unit SEIU Service Employees International Union EIR Environmental Impact Report SF Single Family EIS Environmental Impact Statement SLO San Luis Obispo EVC Economic Vitality Corporation SLOCOG San Luis Obispo Council of Governments FAU Federal Aid Urban SLOHA San Luis Obispo Housing Authority FD Fire Division SLONTF San Luis Obispo Narcotics Task Force FDAA Federal Disaster Assistance Administration SLORT A San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency SLOWRAC San Luis Obispo County Water Resources Advisory FID Financial Services Department Committee FPPC Fair Political Practices Commission SR Senior Housing FTA Federal Transit Administration SSLOCOWA South San Luis Obispo County Water Association FY Fiscal Year SSLOCSD South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District G.C. Government Code SRRE Source Reduction & Recycling Element GC General Commercial SWRCD State Water Resources Control Board GF General Fund TPM Tentative Parcel Map GP General Plan TT Tentative Tract Map GPA General Plan Amendment TTAC Transportation Technical Advisory Committee HCD Califomia Department of Housing and Community TUP Temporary Use Permit Development UBC Uniform Building Code HOP Home Occupancy Permit UFC Uniform Fire Code HUD Housing and Urban Development Dept. USA Underground Service Alert I Industrial and Business Park VAR Variance ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation VC Village Commercial VSR View Shed Review ZONE 3 San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District - Zone 3 (Lopez Project) --,~" _.-,-_._-"" CITY COUNCIL ~ity 0/ AGENDA ~ [ff~ Michael A. Lady Mayor Robert L. Hunt City ~anager Tony M. Ferrara Mayor Pro Tem Timothy J. Carmel City Attorney Thomas A. Runels Council Member Kelly Wetmore Director, Administrative Services Steve Tolley Council Member Jim Dickens Council ""ember AGENDA SUMMARY CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, JULY 13, 1999 Arroyo Grande City Council Chambers 215 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande 1. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 P.M. 2. ROLL CALL . 3. FLAG SALUTE: ARROYO GRANDE POLICE DEPARTMENT EXPLORER POST NO. 542 4. INVOCATION: PASTOR PAUL JONES, RETIRED 5. SPECIAL PRESENT A TIONS: a. Proclamation - Welcoming the 561 st Air Force Band of the California Air National Guard 6. AGENDA REVIEW: 6A. Move that all resolutions and ordinances presented tonight be read in title only and all further readings be waived. AGENDA SUMMARY - JUL Y 13, 1999 PAGE 2 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: a. Conditional Use Permit 98-572 - Russ Sheppel. 880 Oak Park Boulevard (ENGEN) (Action Required: Approve Planning Commission Recommendations) b. Conditional Use Permit 98-573 - Kevin Kennedy. Oak Park Boulevard and James Way (ENGEN) (Action Required: Approve Planning Commission Recommendations) 8. CITIZENS' INPUT. COMMENTS. AND SUGGESTIONS: Persons in the audience may discuss business not sched.uled on this agenda regarding any item of interest within the jurisdiction of the Council. The Council will listen to all communication but, in compliance with the Brown Act, will not take any action on items that are not on the agenda. Upon completing your comments: . You may be directed to staff for assistance; . A Council Member may indicate an interest in discussing your issue with you subsequent to the Council meeting; . The Council may direct staff to research the issue and subsequently report back to the Council (generally in the form of a memorandum or staff report); or . No action is required or taken. 9. CONSENT AGENDA: The following routine items listed below are scheduled for consideration as a group. The recommendations for each item are noted in parentheses. Any Council Member may request that any item be withdrawn from the Consent Agenda to permit discussion or change the recommended course of action. The City Council may approve the remainder of the Consent Agenda on one motion. a. Cash Disbursement Ratification (SNODGRASS) (Action Required: Approval) b. Statement of Investment Deposits (SNODGRASS) (Action Required: Approval) c. Cash Flow Analysis/Approval of Interfund Advance from the Sewer E1Allil (SNODGRASS) (Action Required: Approval) -,-.---. .~--- AGENDA SUMMARY - JULY 13, 1999 PAGE 3 9. CONSENT AGENDA: (continued) d. Minutes of City Council Meeting of June 22. 1999 (WETMORE) (Action Required: Approval) e. Rejection of Claim - Mike Adams (WETMORE) (Action Required: Reject Claim) f. Award of Contract to DMG-Maximus for Mandated Cost Recovery (SNODGRASS) (Action Required: Approval) g. Authorization to Solicit Bids - Replacement of Two Police Department Vehicles (TERBORCH) (Action Required: Approval) h. Authorization to Solicit Bids - Replacement of Main Parking Lot Gate Controller (TERBORCH) (Action Required: Approval) i. Authorization to Solicit Bids - Public Works Vehicle (SPAGNOLO) (Action Required: Approval) j. Authorization to Solicit Bids - Fair Oaks Water Line. Project No. 60-98-5 (SPAGNOLO) (Action Required: Approve Staff Recommendations) k. Authorization to Solicit Bids - Public Parking Lot Behind City Council Chambers. Proiect No. 80-99-1 (SPAGNOLO) (Action Required: Approve Staff Recommendations) I. Certificate of Acceptance - Bikeway Project One - Paulding Middle School Bikelanes - Project No. 90-98-1 (SPAGNOLO) (Action Required: Approve Staff Recommendations) m. Award of Contract for Soils Testing on Grand Avenue. Elm Street to Halcyon Road. Project No. 60-70-90-98-6 (SPAGNOLO) (Action Required: Approve Staff Recommendations) n. Award of Bid - Montego Street Sidewalks. Phase 1 (South Side). Project No. 90-98-7 (SPAGNOLO) (Action Required: Approve Staff Recommendations) o. Award of Bid - Optical Detection Devices at Ea~t Branch Street/Mason Street. Project No. 90-99-2 (SPAGNOLO) (Action Required: Approve Staff Recommendations) AGENDA SUMMARY - JULY 13, 1999 PAGE 4 9. CONSENT AGENDA: (continued) p. Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program Plan for FY 1998/99 and FY 1999/00 (SPAGNOLO) (Action Required: Approve Staff Recommendations) q. Authorization for Payment of Emergency Expenditures to Repair Fire Engine (FIBICH) (Action Required: Approval) r. Authorization to Solicit Bids for Parks Division Vehicle (HERNANDEZ) (Action Required: Approval) s. Award of Bid for Electric Vehicle (HERNANDEZ) (Action Required: ApprQval) t. Authorization to Close City Streets and Use City Property for Summer Events (ENGEN) (Action Required: Adopt Resolution) u. Acceptance of Improvements - Morning Rise II (SPAGNOLO) (Action Required: Approval) 10. CONTINUED BUSINESS: a. Consideration of Historical Society's Proposal for City-owned Property at 134 Mason Street (HERNANDEZ) (Action Required: Provide Direction to Staff) b. Proposed Ordinance Limiting Non-Taxable Sales in Retail Stores Exceeding 90.000 Square Feet (ENGEN) (Action Required: Adopt Ordinance) c. Water Master Plan (SPAGNOLO) (Action Required: Approval) 11. NEW BUSINESS: None AGENDA SUMMARY - JUL Y 13, 1999 PAGE 5 12. COUNCIUAGENCY COMMUNICATIONS: Correspondence/Comments as presented by the City Council 13. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: Correspondence/Information for the City Council presented by the City Manager 14. ADJOURNMENT AGENDA SUMMARY - JUL Y 13, 1999 PAGE 6 * * * * * * * Copies of the staff reports or other written materials relating to each item of business referred to on this agenda are on file with the Director of Administrative Services and are available for public inspection and reproduction at cost. If you have questions regarding any agenda item, please contact the Director of Administrative Services at (805) 473-5414. * * * * * * * In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in a City meeting, please contact the Director of Administrative Services at the number listed above at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to ensure that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting. * * * * * * * Note: This agenda is subject to amendment up to 72 hours prior to the date and time set for the meeting. Please refer to the agenda posted at City Hall for any revisions, or call the Director of Administrative Services at (805) 473-5414 for more information. www.arroyogrande.org ~---- CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE - ABBREVIATIONS revised 05127/99 A Agricultural Preserve AB Assembly Bill JPA Joint Powers Authority ADA Americans with Disabilities Act LAFCO Local Agency Formation Commission AG General Agriculture LOCC League of Califomia Cities AGMC Arroyo Grande Municipal Code LLA Lot Line Adjustment AGPOA Arroyo Grande Police Officers' Association LUE Land Use Element APN Assessor's Parcel Number MER Lot Merger APCB Air Pollution Control Board MF Condominium/Townhouse APCD Air Pollution Control District MFA Apartments ARC Architectural Review Committee MHP Mobile Home Parks ASCE American Society Civil Engineers 0 Office Professional ASD Administrative Services Department OCSD Oceano Community Services District AWWA American Water Works Association OSCE Open Space and Conservation Element BD Building Division PC Planning Commission CA City Attomey PD Police Department CC City Council PF Public/Quasi Public CCC Califomia Conservation Corps PPR Plot Plan Review CCCSIF Central Coast Cities Self-Insurance Fund PRD Parks & Recreation Department CD Community Development PRE-APP Pre-application CDBG Community Development Block Grant PSHHC Peoples' Self-Help Housing Corp. CE Circulation Element PSP Planned Sign Program CEC Califomia Energy Commission PUD Planned Unit Development CEQA California Environmental Quality Act PW Public Works Department CIP Capital Improvement Program RE Residential Estate CIWMP California Integrated Waste Management Plan RFP Request for Proposals CM City Manager's Office RFQ Request for Qualifications CMC Califomia Men's Colony RH Hillside Residential CMP Congestion Management Plan RHNP Regional Housing Needs Plan COC Certificate of Compliance RR Rural Residential CPI Consumer Price Index RS Suburban Residential CUP Conditional Use Permit RTA Reversion to Acreage DARE Drug Abuse Resistance Education RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board DC Development Code SAC Staff Advisory Committee CEA Drug Enforcement Administration SB Senate Bill E.C. Election Code SCAT South County Area Transit EDU Equivalent Dwelling Unit SEIU Service Employees Intemational Union EIR Environmental Impact Report SF Single Family EIS Environmental Impact Statement SLO San Luis Obispo EVC Economic Vitality Corporation SLOCOG San Luis Obispo Council of Govemments FAU Federal Aid Urban SLOHA San Luis Obispo Housing Authority FD Fire Division SLONTF San Luis Obispo Narcotics Task Force FDAA Federal Disaster Assistance Administration SLORTA San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency SLOWRAC San Luis Obispo County Water Resources Advisory FID Financial Services Department Committee FPPC Fair Political Practices Commission SR Senior Housing FTA Federal Transit Administration SSLOCOWA South San Luis Obispo County Water Association FY Fiscal Year SSLOCSD South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District G.C. Govemment Code SRRE Source Reduction & Recyding Element GC General Commercial SWRCD State Water Resources Control Board GF General Fund TPM Tentative Parcel Map GP General Plan TT Tentative Tract Map GPA General Plan Amendment TTAC Transportation Technical Advisory Committee HCD Califomia Department of Housing and Community TUP Temporary Use Permit Development UBC Uniform Building Code HOP Home Occupancy Permit UFC Uniform Fire Code HUD Housing and Urban Development Dept. USA Underground Service Alert I Industrial and Business Park VAR Variance ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation VC Village Commercial VSR View Shed Review ZONE 3 San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District - Zone 3 (Lopez Project) ~-~--~---,-_.- -~"---~'- 5~.. . Honorary Proclamation .... .... ... ... . . . . "WELCOMING THE 561ST AIR FORCE BAND OF THE CALIFORNIA AIR NATIONAL GUARD" WHEREAS, the thirty-five (35) piece, 5618t Air Force Band of the California Air National Guard, stationed at Moffett Field, California will be conducting a performance, at no charge, on Thursday, July 15, 1999; and, WHEREAS, the performance will be held on the lawn area at Nelson and Short Streets in the Village of Arroyo Grande at 6:00 p.m. the evening of the 15th; and, I WHEREAS, the Air Force Band has performed throughout the United States I and abroad since its inception in 1948, where performances included a wide I variety of music, from patriotic selections to the classics, and the band is staffed I by some of Northem California's finest musicians, many of whom are graduates of outstanding universities and schools of music; and, WHEREAS, this event will be a vastly entertaining cultural event for the City and the Historic Village of Arroyo Grande. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that I, Michael A. Lady, Mayor of I the City of Arroyo Grande, on behalf of the City Council, do hereby proclaim July 15, 1999 as a day of recognition for the "561st Air Force Band of the California Air National Guard Day" and, further, hereby commend and acknowledge the hard work of the event organizers in bringing this special event to the community. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the City of Arroyo Grande to be affIXed this 13th day of July, 1999. MICHAEL A. LADY, MAYOR ---p--- - .~_.~.._-"-_.~_._.. ,-,,,-,-"--'-~---'- Unit History . On July 8th, 1942 the Air Force band became an Historical Data offidal military unit. It was activated at Columbia &fure we wen' the J 6 ht Army Air Base, Columbia, South Carolina, and was At Band, CA ANG... assigned to the 3rd Air Force. Since that time the band has reorganized as follows: o redesignated the 61st Army Air Force Band, Columbia Army Air Base, Columbia, S.C. on 11 August 1942 o redesignated as the 561st Army Band and was reorganized on 27 December 1943 o redesignated as the 561st Army Air Forces Band, and all personnel were Air Corps o moved from Columbia AAB, Columbia, S.c. to HRPE, Va.-readiness date 1 February 1945 o 561st AAF Band was assigned upon arrival at Cairo, Egypt to the CG North Mrican Div. ATC on 26 March 1945 o inactivaed by the CG, Air Transport Command effective 10 April 1946 at Cairo, Egypt o allotted to the National Guard on 24 May 1946 o 561st Army Air Forces Band was redesignated as 561st Air Force Band on 26 September 1947 o allotted to the State of California Air National Guard with strength of 29 in 1948 o 561st AF Band was authorized to reorganize at National Guard Center, Alameda, California o attached to 144 Fighter Wing effective 1 November 1950 o station changed from Alameda ANG Base, Alameda California to Hayward ANG Base, Hayward Municipal Airport on 15 February 1953 The 561st Air Force Band of the California Air 561 st AF Band, CA National Guard has performed throughout the ANG Unit History United States, and abroad, since its inception in 1948. The band is commanded/conducted by Major Gary 1. Wulbern, the third officer to hold this position. In 1948 the band was commanded by CWO-4 John D. Schary. During this time they had the honor of performing for President Eisenhower's inauguration, as well as successfully completing good wiIl tours throughout Europe. In 1976, upon Mr. Schary's retirement, lLT Michael Garda commanded the band. In 1978 Major Gary L. Wulbern took command of what is known today as the Air Force Band of the Pacific Coast. Page 1 of 2 j Unit History Performances The band has distinguished itself, the Air Force, and the Air National Guard on goodwill tours of Denmark, Great Britain, Puerto Rico, Greece, Jamaica, and throughout the United States. The 561st has presented numerous special performances, from Eisenhower's inauguration in 1953, to a 1989 joint performance with the San Francisco Symphony Orchestra to open the annual Pops Concert Series. Musk Band performances include a wide variety of music, from patriotic selections to the classics, and from the music of the Big Band Era to the latest in Jazz. The band is staffed by some of Northern California's finest musicians, many of whom are graduates of outstanding universities and schools of ~ music. The band's 35 musicians perform in: ~ Concert Band ~ Jazz Band ~ Joint Chiefs ofJazz ~ Brass Quintet ~ Woodwind Trio ~ Marching Band . Page 2 of 2 ~.-....- --. ._~_..._------ ---..-----..--..--- . Sponsor Information Guide Introduction In the future the 561st Air Force Band, California Air National Guard will perform in your community. We know you would like as many people as possible to enjoy this event. As sponsor, your important job will be to: J obtain the best possible concert site J inform the dtizens in your area of the Band's appearance Jencourage them to attend Jmaintain control of the free admission tickets, if necessary. There are many ways to accomplish this and undoubtedly you have already thought of some of them. This guide is designed to bring your ideas and ours together. After all, our success will be your success. Contact If you have any further questions after reading the Sponsor Information Guide, please feel free to contact: Director of Operations Technical Sergeant Gary Lipe (209) 521-4239 '. Public Service These concerts are presented as a public "iLNice to Concerts the community and must be free of chatge and open to the general public, regardless of t~ce, color, or national origin. Air force Policy Under the policy now in effect, the United States Air Force defrays all expenses .incurred in travel, on Expences such as transportation, housing and meals. There is no fee, as such, for the 561st Air Force Band. Any other costs, such as auditorium rental, lighting; heating, printing of programs, janitorial fees, cost of hiring union labor when required, etc. are the responsibility of the local authorities or sponsor(s). These cannot be paid for by the United States Government. Page 1 of 7 --~.._-_..._----,- , ~ ~~o% ~~ en~-t 2>2>~ ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .... "'<I\OJ 2>.... ,.,-:s: :Z:Z<l\ :S:""2> :z:z: "" 2>"'~- ""-",, 00,., ""r-:z '0'" 2> ~~i! <<it"" ~ ." 01 ""0"" U\ ~ '" '" ~ 0 r-p:o ~~ ,., ~~ t"02> 0-<1\ 2> ~~""O '" 2>... _ ,.,:z ,.,<", 2 0 2> 2> 0 -Ut ,.,- ... <1\ q~'O ...i='" X :% N ,., :z "'O~ ""0 '0 0 G\ :s: ~... ~ '0 N 0 0 <I\:ZO 0... ,., 2>0:S: ~~S <1\ ... .... :s: "" "'<1\ ~~ ij ~~I~ ig' O:Z~ ... 0 0 0 z ,., 2"'''' ::.:z~ ... ... <1\- ~~!" 2> .,.. :s: 2> en ",0::' -'" ::'Ci\ ~ ~~ ~en'O 0 "0 "' :z OJ :z." ... ic: ~ :!:s: 00- "'0::' :II: .,.. ~ o:t 2> 2>...2> 00 0 ~o~ '" 2> N:S::Z "":II:'" ,... 2> <1\ ~ ~~ 01 ~~SAn ...2> 2>'0- :II: en::. U\ ~ 0 OJ :z N"'O '" ~<I\ :z~~ <1\,.,01 2> .,.. 2> '0 . 0 m ~'" ""0 r-'O:t:g ,., ""g'" x :z -t~_ -OJ ~p: O-c: 2> ,., ,... q '" ",OJOo ...r-_ O:z<l\ 0 ~ '0 :S:<I\:Z :Z8 ~ X~!€'" :z:r-<I\ ""0 2> "'<1\0 ~ ~~~~ I~ ,.,...:S:: :s:.o 0 :s:: 8 N OI-r- 0 00'" <1\<1\.,.. 0 N 2>0C: ""0 ; 0'" c:...;! :z<l\'O ~~ I="'~OJ c:c:'O :z ~ ,... '0;.'" ",022> :zOO en"'- ~o'" "" q g<l\ :% <1\'" :s:<I\;:;: m 2> ':z2> en ~CD2>:Z "':s: 00"" "'~CD :z Z ~ ~'O~ _"0 .,.. "'''''0 <'" c:.,..r- ?!':S:2> <1\ '0 "".,..- :Z"' 0 .,.,-~ ~CA ... 0;'" "':z ; m ,.,'0 -'" ,., P:g2> 2>~ ..."'... 2>0 :z 0 ::'0"' '00 -< 02><1\ :s::z:S: ~o 11 <1\ 0 c:::.< ~,., .. g enr-6 r-~ "'::."' t"0 "' "' 3 ~...2> . ::. :z~ g~ C:2>~ O~ OJ 3 3 O:s::~ "' ... N~:Z :z",- 01 -"'"' 0 -:II:'" -.,.. ... OJ 2>3'" ... g "'2>0 ~n ... - 2 c::. ~c:-< 'O,.,~ ""0,., :s:: "' en 2> ~O "0<1\0 ,., 2> .,.'00 e~ 0,.,... 0 :< ~~~ U\"'- .,. 3 "'-.,.. ~~ ,.,03 c: ...2>0 02> ~ 2>"':Z ;< ""Oc: 2>",'" 0"'<1\ 02>:S:: ! ... or 2> ...2> "'...- g :s::~... "',.,r- 3:s::0 "' :s:: <I\_~ ~~ -"';, ... . ... <..."' ~ ~2> O~ ~ OJ ,., ... z~~ 0-< -0 :s:: :z~ en::. "' en "' ~ 2>0 c: ",:!!<I\ "0- -<.,.. OJ "0 :e,.,'" I C:2> <1\""0 2>2> :z ",<1\- "':z 2>'" :Z... =i :s:"'~ ~'O 3~ 0'" "" in g 0'" me 0 ~ 0"' U\ ~ <1\ ,.,~ :z<l\ ,.,... 2>- ... <1\ 0 ...<1\ ...0 2> ... s:> :s:(5 ~ - :z 0 <1\ !" CD U\ CI\ -t r;3 oU\~U\ cra-t :.U\CI\-t,-,-t,,-t ~u: ~-t~U\~3 ;::~~~ "'u\ IG\oen ~U\ SiU\"'U\:IOU\!U\ ~~~f~U\ i... ~"... ;;ten -ti; ~~ _ en ~ en ~ en en i1~ ..... o ... i1'" ~ ... ~ ... ;;"'i"';::~ io_OJ ~'" ...20,., i1r- "'OJ"'2~q-", ~3 ~t"i~'~ :s:: ,., ~ t P ~ ~2> ~~~OOO~2> ~ 2> '" 2> "'- I~ "',., ~ ~ ! ~ :.r-",:z "'''' ~:S::~,., '" <1\ ~3 ~~ ~ ,., :s:: < ~-< ... 2> 1IC "' ... "" 2>:":z0", 1'Im ~~!~ ~~;:;"'~~<I\ ~~~3~~ ~ m ~ ~ CI\~ 1'1~ 1'10 ~:s:"':z ..."' "'.,.. ~ ~~~~ o~~ CD!:: 1'1 "0 ~ 2> '" _ 1'1 ,., R<I\ o ~ - ~3 ~~ CI\",~~!"'" ~O "';c ~"' :z ~ ~ ~m H"'~o ~~s ~:D~-~O ...:11: ~ <1\ "'~I":Z -~o ~,., 2> :z ~ :s:: ::t30 ~O craO i-< ... <1\ ~ <1\ r; :z ~ ~ ~ ,-,0 c:~o '" x ~ :z CI\ ~ Iii ~ ~ <1\ ~ '0 :z ... ~ ~ 0 ~"'~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :z 00 ~ '" ",,::IO~ .... ~G)~ ~~"' a~e (lJr-O ~~:'3~U\ ~U\a'U\ ~U\~3 ~~t'~W~t'~ ~-tCl\U\r-tCl\3> bEi ~nSi~~f ~~~~ CI\;~~ !;U\~'" ~~- Cl\C:~ i1 en ~ en n ... ~ en ien",3>C'\ 20 i1 .... i1 ... (Ii ... ~... ... ... !r'" ~ m '" ... CZJr- ~ 0 '" ... ... 0 "'~q ~OJ... ~~ i"Ci\ ~-t 0...'" '" ~ ~ 3> iOf",qa~'\1io ~ 3~:s:: iG\:"", ~"' 2 "'i ~ i= ~2>i~ 8 = :10 ; -<~01'l0~0 -2>a~ ~:.'" ~ :10 r- - i< :z ~~~:s:: CI\~~I= ~,.,~~~~o~ CI\~ ~~~~t~ -:." ~"' "' ~'O~ -< j;I==~~ a:z :ZgO "' Pl::!~"' ~r-~-< ...~ r-~:Z ~~~"O lIt"<~~,,,Q~~ :Z...<I\ _'" ~ CI\ '" ~,., ~ 0 ~ ~ ~! ~ n :'"':"'O~-:"en :a:U\~",:.""O 00 ~;::::!o "' 2> .~-~...;: ~ <1\ ~ g "'0'" ",., " ~ < ~ ~ ~ ~ 1ft ...<1\ o o lit 2> ",NlICO ~;:: "'~~0i"0 ""OCl\ ~"'R'" '" -< !II !II 3 Ot~~-... ~,., i:z ...:z CD <1\ ~ :!I '" 2> ~ ~ '02> ~ ~ 0 ... i ~ ! ... ~ '0... :!I ~ .. ~:II:'O '" :% ~ 8 f It; ~ ~ ~ i ~ a ~ !) ~ ~-- "--._-~._------_..- --"-~_.__.,~.- "-" , 7... , CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande on the following project: CASE NO. Conditional Use Permit 98-572 APPLICANT: Russ Sheppel LOCATION: 880 Oak Park Blvd. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Mitigated Negative Declaration per CEOA Guidelines REPRESENTATIVE: Kim Hatch, Pults and Associates PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The City Council will consider a Conditional Use Permit for construction of an 11, 335 square foot office building with 30 parking spaces, with other common parking facilities, and a revision of the Master Plan for circulation, parking and drainage. In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning Commission has recommended approval of the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration on the above project. Any person affected or concerned by this application may submit written comments to the Administrative Services Department before the City Council hearing, or appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the project and the environmental impacts at the time of hearing. Any person interested in the proposals can contact the Administrative Services Department at 214 E. Branch Street, Arroyo Grande, California, during normal business hours (8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M.). IF YOU CHALLENGE AN ITEM IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIBED IN THIS NOTICE, OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE PUBLIC HEARING. FAILURE OF ANY PERSON TO RECEIVE THE NOTICE SHALL NOT CONSTITUTE GROUNDS FOR ANY COURT TO INVALIDATE THE ACTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE BODY FOR WHICH THE NOTICE WAS GIVEN. Date and Time of Hearing: Tuesday, July 13, 1999 at 7:00 P.M. Place of Hearing: Arroyo Grande City Council Chambers 215 E. Branch Street Arroyo Grande, California 93420 dministrativeServices Director! Deputy City Clerk MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: HENRY ENGEN, INTERIM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTO~ SUBJECT: SHEPPEL OFFICE BUILDING PROJECT; CUP 98-572 DATE: JULY 13, 1999 RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends the City Council: (1) adopt the attached Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 98-572, subject to the Conditions of Approval, and (2) approve the Negative Declaration completed with regard to the project. FISCAL: There is no direct fiscal impact to the City should the Council adopt the attached resolution approving the project DISCUSSION: This project is within the Oak Park Acres Planned Development area and all such projects require final approval by the City Council. Related Droiects: The proposed project is an 11,335 square foot professional office building located in the Oak Park Health Plaza (the "Plaza"). The Plaza is a 3.74-acre site. As part of the previous approval, a conceptual master site plan (the "master site plan") was developed, which provided standards for parking, circulation, and drainage easements, as well as the proposed square footage for the build-out of each of the six parcels on the Plaza site. Pursuant to the master site plan approved as part of the original project in 1988, and revised by the Planning Commission in 1996 (Attachment H), the applicant and Kevin Kennedy entered into an agreement for reciprocal parking, access, and drainage easements. Consistent with the master site plan, the applicant constructed an office building at the corner of Oak Park Boulevard and James Way following the project approval in Case No. CUP 88-435. CITY COUNCIL JULY 13, 1999 PAGE 2 Kevin Kennedy has also applied for a conditional use permit (CUP 98-573) to construct a 18,925 square foot health club facility in the Plaza. Master Plan: The Plaza has been the subject of master site planning. The Plaza does not have direct access to Oak Park Boulevard; therefore, access is taken from James Way. The master site plan is an effort to assure that adequate access, circulation, parking, and drainage exist on the site. The master site plan as revised and approved by the Planning Commission and City Council in 1 996 designates the individual parcels of the Plaza, proposed square footages of the buildings, and the number of parking spaces required. The various parcels in the Plaza are identified as follows: Reference in this Leaal DescriDtion Owner staff reDort Size Parcel 2, AG 92-027 Kennedy Kennedy Site 0.934 AC (site of CUP 98-572) Parcel 1, AG 95-108 Sheppel Sheppel No. 1 (existing office building) 0.42 AC Parcel 2, AG 95-108 Sheppel Sheppel No. 2 (site for proposed 0.54 AC building) Parcel 3, AG 95-108 Sheppel Sheppel No.3 0.592 AC Parcel 3, AG 82-035 Lehrack Parcel 5 0.509 AC Parcel A, AG 79-838 Oak Park Parcel 6 0.711 AC Partnership 3.74 AC The Planning Commission, as part of its recommendation for approval, has recommended that changes in the master site plan be approved by the City Council. These changes include (1) revising the square footage to reflect the actual square footage of the existing office building, and the square footage for the projects now being considered, (2) revising the Plaza site plan to reflect the parking areas and number of spaces now existing and as approved, and (3) revising the areas of the Plaza subject to the reciprocal parking and access easements. The proposed revised master site plan is attached as Attachment G. CITY COUNCIL JULY 13, 1999 PAGE 3 A portion of the Plaza is now subject to a reciprocal easement agreement. Upon project approval, the three parcels currently owned by Russ Sheppel (Sheppel Nos. 1, 2, and 3), and the parcel owned by Kevin Kennedy, would each be made subject to the reciprocal easement agreement. Issues: Access: The Oak Park Health Plaza site has a single entry/exit on James Way. Two adjacent parcels in the Plaza, Parcels 5 and 6, may be developed in the future, and may provide a second entry/exit, but there is no indication that plans exist to develop either of those parcels. The Planning Commission, therefore, reviewed the conceptual Plaza master site plan circulation to make sure that the access and circulation worked based on current development proposals. The Planning Commission was satisfied that the revised master site plan (Attachment G) will provide adequate parking, circulation, and access. The project is conditioned on a reconstruction of the driveway to the project to provide curb returns, concrete cross gutter and spandrels. In addition, if Public Works deems it necessary, the applicants will be required to move the existing fire hydrant. The existing driveway entrance is the sole point of ingress and egress. The Planning Commission concluded that the existing driveway was not of sufficient width, or adequate design, to safely allow vehicles to enter and exit at the same time. Parking: A traffic and parking analysis was conducted by Penfield & Smith. The study concluded that parking at the site is adequate, based on the reciprocal easements establishing common parking facilities. The common parking facilities are adequate based on the standards of the Development Code. In the event Sheppel No.3, on which some parking will be constructed as part of this project, is later developed with an office building, the applicant would be required to comply with the parking regulations then in effect. Traffic: The traffic study concluded that the project would have no significant impact on local intersections. The applicant will contribute to the cost of installing an Opticom device at the Oak Park/James Way intersection. The project is consistent with the General Plan and zoning designations for the site. The project has received favorable review by the SAC, ARC, and Planning Commission. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: A Mitigated Negative Declaration was completed for the project, and circulated for public comment. The comment period ended on June 28, 1999. No comments were received. The document is attached as Attachment F. CITY COUNCIL JULY 13, 1999 PAGE 4 Alternatives The following alternatives are presented for Council consideration: 1 . Adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation and approve the Resolution. 2. Modify the Planning Commission's recommendation and approve the Resolution. 3. Deny the project application and direct staff to prepare the appropriate resolution for City Council action. 4. Provide direction to staff. If the Council selects alternative 3, staff will return with the appropriate resolution/or resolutions at a later meeting. Attachments: Resolution of Approval Exhibit II A ": Conditions of Approval Exhibit liB": Overall Site Plan, Grading Plan, Elevations, and Landscape Concept Plan, June 14, 1999 A. Staff Report 6-29-99 Planning Commission B. Traffic & Parking Study C. Minutes of Planning Commission meeting 6-29-99 D. Minutes of SAC 1-12-99 E. Minutes of ARC 3-22-99 F. Final Negative Declaration G. Revised Oak Park Health Plaza Master Plan H. Oak Park Health Plaza Master Plan 1 996 . RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, INSTRUCTING THE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR TO FILE A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION, AND APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-572, APPLIED FOR BY RUSS SHEPPEL, LOCATED AT OAK PARK BOULEVARD AND JAMES WAY WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande has approved PC Resolution No. 99-1699 recommending that the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration prepared for this project and approve Conditional Use Permit 98-572; and WHEREA.S, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande has considered Conditional Use Permit 98-572, filed by Russ Sheppel, to construct an 11,335 square foot office building at the southeast corner of Oak Park Boulevard and James Way in the Oak Park Health Plaza; and WHEREAS, the City Council has held a public hearing on this application in accordance with City Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council has found this project to be consistent with the General Plan and the environmental documents associated therewith; and - WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the Final Negative Declaration under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Arroyo Grande Rules and Procedures for Implementation to CEQA; 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 p~rmitted within the subject district pursuant to the provisions of Section 9-03.050 of the Development Code, and complies with all applicable provisions of the Development Code, the goals and objectives of the Arroyo Grande General Plan, and the development policies and standards of the City. 2. The proposed use will not impair the integrity and character of the district in which it is to be established or located. 3. The site is suitable for the type and intensity of use or development that is proposed. 4. There are adequate provisions for water, sanitation, and public utilities and . RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 2 services to ensure the public health and safety. 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. 6. The revised master plan is a conceptual planning tool and is not an entitlement for future development. Future proposed buildings on Parcel 3, Arroyo Grande 95-108, Parcel 3 Arroyo Grande 82-035, or Parcel A Arroyo Grande 79-038 must receive required review and approval and must satisfy parking and other Development Code requirements. California Environmental Quality Act and Department of Fish and Game Required Findings of Exemption: 1. The City of Arroyo Grande has prepared an initial study pursuant to Section 1 5,063 of the Guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), for Conditional Use Permit Case No. 98-567. 2. Based on the initial study, a negative declaration was drafted for public review. The City Council has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received and considered during the public review process. The Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. 3. The City Council finds that through feasible conditions placed upon this project, the significant impacts on the environment have been eliminated or substantially mitigated to a level of insignificance. 4. The dO(fuments and other materials which constitute the records of proceedings upon which this decision is based are in the custody of the Secretary of the City of Arroyo Grande City Council, City Hall, 214 E. Branch St., Arroyo Grande, California. 5. Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 requires the City to adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the project it has adopted or made a condition of approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects of the approval, and such changes, with their corresponding permit monitoring requirements, are hereby adopted as the monitoring program for the project. The monitoring program is designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. 6. After holding a public hearing pursuant to State and City Codes, and considering the record as a whole the City Council considered the Negative Declaration and found that there is no substantial evidence of any significant adverse environmental effect, either individually or cumulatively on wildlife resources as defined by Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code or on the habitat upon which the wildlife depends as a result of development of this . RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 3 habitat upon which the wildlife depends as a result of development of this project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby adopts a Negative Declaration, instructs the Secretary to file a Notice of Determination, approves Conditional Use Permit 98-572, with the above findings and subject to the conditions as set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. On motion by Council Member , seconded by Council Member , and by the following roll call vote, to wit: '" AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 13th day of July 1 999. - ---------- . RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 4 MICHAEL A. LADY, MAYOR ATTEST: KELL Y WETMORE, ADMINISTRA TIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR/ DEPUTY CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ROBERT L. HUNT, CITY MANAGER - APPROVED AS TO FORM: TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY -------.--..---..--- RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT A PAGE 5 EXHIBIT II A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SHEPPEL OFFICE BUILDING; CUP 98-572 Corner of Oak Park Boulevard and James Way COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GENERAL CONDITIONS This approval authorizes the construction of a 11 ,335 square foot office building, with approved landscaping and 30 parking spaces, and subject to the follo~ing conditions of approval: 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 Case No. CUP- 572, and the site shall be developed as depicted in the revised Master Plan for the Oak Park Health Plaza date-d June 25, 1999. 3. This application shall automatically expire on July 13, 2001 unless a building permit is issued. Thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the approval, the applicant may apply for an extension of one (1) year from the original date of expiration. 4. Two years after the issuance of building permits, the Conditional Use Permit shall be reviewed by the Community Development Director for determination of whether adequate parking has been provided pursuant to the Master Plan for the Oak Park Health Plaza. A public hearing and review by the Planning Commission may, at the discretion of the Community Development Director, be required to review potential concerns. In such event, the applicant shall submit funds to cover the cost of the public hearing and a current mailing list of property owners (and occupants) within 300 feet of the project. 5. Development shall occur in substantial conformance with the plans presented marked Exhibit "B", approved July 13, 1999. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, applicant shall file Reciprocal Easements for access parking and drainage acceptable to the Community Development Director. 6. The applicant shall. agree to defend at his/her sole expense any action brought . RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 6 against the City, its present or former agents, officers, or employees because of the issuance of said approval, or in anyway 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 fee's 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 his/her obligations under this condition. 7. Development shall conform to PD 1.1 (Oak Park Acres Planned Development) zoning requirements except as otherwise approved. CONDITIONS IN ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT 8. D~st generated by the development activities shall be kept to a minimum with a goal of retaining dust on the site. Applicant shall follow the dust control measures listed below: a. During clearing, grading, earth moving, excavation, or transportation of cut or fill materials, water trucks or sprinkler systems are to be used to prevent dust from leaving the site and to create a crust after each day's activities cease. b. During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems sh,al! be used to . keep all areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent dust from leaving the site. At a minimum, this shall include wetting down such areas in the later morning and after work is completed for the day, and whenever winds exceed 1 5 miles per hour. c. Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation. 9. The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and order increased watering as necessary to prevent transport of dust off-site. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. 10. In the event archaeological or cultural resources are discovered during the construction process, all work on the site shall cease. A monitor with knowledge of archaeological resources shall be contacted, and shall view and assess the materials discovered. A written mitigation plan shall be prepared and approved by the City. All costs associated with the employment of a qualified archaeologist shall be paid by the applicant. The following note shall be placed on the grading and improvement plans for the project: D/n the event that during grading, construction or development of the project, archeological resources are uncovered, all work shal/ be halted until the significance of the resources are determined. If human remains __...n._____ . RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 7 (burials) are encountered, the County Coroner (781-4513) sha/I be contacted immediately. The applicant may be required to providE! archaeological studies and/or additional mitigation measures as required by the California Environmental Quality Act if archaeological resources are found on the site. " 11. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit an updated soils report addressing any changes in the condition of the parcel which may have occurred since the date of the Soils Report, March, 1 988, and identifying measures to responds to such changes, if identified. In the alternative, applicant may submit a new soils report which adequately addresses the issues raised in the Soils Report. 12. Structures shall be designed to earthquake standards of the Uniform Building Code Zone 4. Prior to plan check, the applicant shall submit building plans inq;cating standards to the satisfaction of Building and Safety. 13. Construction operations, especially grading operations, shall be confined as much as possible to the dry season, in order to avoid erosion of disturbed soils. 14. All graded areas, including road subgrades and building pads which are rough graded areas but not constructed until subsequent construction phases shall be revegetated. This vegetation shall be irrigated and maintained on a regular basis. _ This vegetation shall be removed as necessary in later phases when finish grading, paving and building construction occurs. 15. Project landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of fast growing ground covers to stabilize soils soon after construction is completed. 16. Demolition or construction activities, including truck traffic coming to and from the site for any purpose, shall be limited to daytime, (non-holiday) hours (7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.) Mondays through Saturdays. 17. All landscaping shall be consistent with water conservation practices including the use of drought tolerant landscaping, drip irrigation, and mulch. To the greatest extent possible, lawn areas and areas requiring spray irrigation shall be minimized. 18. . All new construction shall utilize fixtures and designs that minimize water usage. Such fixtures shall include, but are not limited to, low flow shower heads, water saving toilets, instant water heaters and hot water recirculating systems. Water conserving designs and fixtures shall be installed prior to final occupancy. ---...,--- . RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 8 LIGHTING 19. All lighting for the site shall be downward directed and shall not create spill or glare to adjacent properties. DEVELOPMENT CODE 20. Development shall conform with the H-S subzone zoning requirements except as otherwise approved. 21. Signage shall be subject to the requirements of Development Code Chapter 9 - 13. 22. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, all ducts, meters, air conditioning equipment and all other mechanical equipment, whether on the grQund, on the structure or elsewhere, shall be screened from public view with materials architecturally compatible with the main structure. It is especially important that gas and electric meters, electric transformers, and large water piping systems be completely screened from public view. All roof-mounted equipm~nt which generates noise, solid particles, odors, et cetera, shall cause the objectionable material to be directed away from residential properties. 23. Prior to issuance of a building permit, all walls, including screening and retaining walls shall be compatible with the approved architecture and . Development Code Standards, subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director. 24. All parking spaces adjacent to a wall, fence, or property line shall have a minimum width of 11 feet. This does not apply to garage or carport spaces which shall each have a minimum clear dimension of 1 0 feet wide by 20 feet deep. 25. The developer shall comply with Development Code Chapter 9-14, "Dedications, Fees and Reservations." 26. Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, the developer shall comply with Development Code Chapter 9-15, "Improvements". All above ground utilities shall be undergrounded. 27. Prior to paint or stucco color coat being applied to the building, the applicant shall paint a test patch on the building including all colors. The remainder of the building may not be painted until . inspected by the Community Development Department or Building and Fire Department to verify that colors are consistent with the approved color board. A 48 hour notice is required for this inspection. ._---. . RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 9 SOLID WASTE 28. Solid waste pick-up location as identified is acceptable. 29. In such cases where trash bin enclosures are to be installed abutting structures, the common wall shall be of a noncombustible masonry type material with no openings for vents or windows. 30. Trash enclosures shall be reserved exclusively for dumpster storage. Miscellaneous boxes, bins, racks, etc., will not be allowed within the enclosure. 31. To reduce the possibility of the gates damaging vehicles parked next to the enclosures, an overhead type door is strongly encouraged. (See City Standard Detail.) 32. Inferior vehicle travel ways shall be designed to be capable of withstanding loads imposed by trash trucks. POLICE DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS 33. Prior to issuance of building permit, applicant to submit exterior lighting plan for Police Department approval. . 34. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall post handicapped parking, per Police Department requirements. 35. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall install a burglary [or robbery] alarm system per Police Department guidelines, and pay the Police Department alarm permit application fee of ($30.00). BUILDING AND FIRE DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS UBC/UFC 36. The project shall comply with the most recent editions of the California State Fire and Building Codes and the Uniform Building and Fire Codes as adopted by the City of Arroyo Grande. The applicant shall include, to the approval of the Fire Department, occupancy classifications and required separations. FIRE LANES 37. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall post designated fire lanes, per Section 22500.1 of the California Vehicle Code. -~------_._- . RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 10 38. All fire lanes must be posted and enforced, per Police Department and Fire Department guidelines. 39. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant'shall submit a site survey regarding the presence of archaeological resources on the site. The survey shall be performed by a qualified archaeologist. FIRE FLOW/FIRE HYDRANTS 40. Project shall have a fire flow of one thousand five hundred gallons (1,500) per minute for a duration of three (3) hours. 41. Prior to bringing combustible materials on site, fire hydrants shall be installed, per Fire Department and Public Works Department standards. SECURITY KEY BOX 42. Prior to occupancy, applicant must provide an approved "security key vault," per Building and Fire Department guidelines. FIRE SPRINKLER 43. Prior to occupancy, all buildings must be fully sprinklered per Building and Fire Department guidelines. OPTICOM DEVICE 44. The applicant shall participate in cooperation with the applicant in Case No. CUP 98-573 (Kevin Kennedy) to install an opticom traffic signal pre-emption device at the James Way-Oak Park Blvd. intersection, that meets Building and Fire Department requirements, per the approval of the Fire Chief. ABANDONMENT INON-CONFORMING 45. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first, applicant shall show proof of properly abandoning all non-conforming items such as septic tanks, wells, underground piping and other undesirable conditions. OTHER PERMITS 46. The applicant shall pay any review costs generated by outside consultants. . RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 11 PUBLIC' WORKS DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS All Public Works Department conditions of approval as listed below are to b~ complied with prior to recording the map or finalizing the permit, unless specifically noted otherwise. GENERAL IMPROVEMENT REQUIREMENTS 47. All project improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City of Arroyo Grande Standard Drawings and Specifications. 48. The driveway entrance shall be constructed with curb returns, cross-concrete and spandrels. The existing fire hydrant shall be relocated if necessary. 49. All project improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City standards and specifications. Plans within the right-of-way shall include profile drawings. Improvement plans (including the following) shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Public Works Department: a. Grading, drainage and erosion control. b. Street paving, curb, gutter and sidewalk. c. Striping and signage plan. d. Public utilities. e. Water and sewer. 50. Parking lot spaces shall be delineated with double striping. 51. Upon approval of the improvement plans, the applicant shall provide a reproducible mylar set and 3 sets of prints of the improvements for inspection purposes. Prior to acceptance of the improvements, the applicant shall provide reproducible mylars, and 2 sets of prints o'f the approved record drawings (as builts) . 52. The developer shall be responsible during construction for cleaning city streets, curbs, gutters and sidewalks of dirt tracked from the project site. The flushing of dirt or debris to storm drain or sanitary sewer facilities shall not be permitted. The cleaning shall be done after each day's work or as directed by the Director of Public Works or the Community Development Director. 53. Prior to approval of an improvement plan the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City for inspection of the required improvements. 54. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining an encroachment permit for all work within a public right-of-way. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 1 2 UNDERGROUND UTILITIES/EASEMENTS 55. The developer shall comply with Development Code Chapter 9-15.050. All existing above ground utilities shall be relocated underground. 56. A Public Utility Easement (PUE) shall be dedicated a minimum 6 feet wide adjacent to all street right of ways. The PUE shall be wider where necessary for the installation or maintenance of the public utility vaults, pads, or similar facilities. 57. Private easements shall be recorded for all reciprocal easements as depicted in the revised Master Plan for the Oak Park health Plaza as approved by the City Council on . GRADING AND DRAINAGE . 58. All-grading shall be done in accordance with the City Grading Ordinance. 59. The Department of Public Works may' require further reports on the soils. All earthwork design and grading shall be performed in accordance with the approved soils report. 60. The applicant shall submit an engineering study regarding flooding related to the project site. The study shall be prepared for the approval by the Director of Public Works. Any portions of the site subject to flooding from a 100 year storm shall be shown on the recorded map or other recorded document, and shall be noted as a building restriction. 61. The on-site water system, which supplies water to fire hydrants, shall be a public facility. This will require public improvement plans and dedication of a 1 5 foot wide easement. WASTEWATER 62. All sewer mains or laterals crossing or parallel to public water facilities shall be constructed in accordance with California State Health Agency standards. PUBLIC UTILITIES 63. All new public utilities shall be installed as underground facilities. 64. Prior to approving any building permit within the project for occupancy, all public utilities shall be operational. 65. All improvement plans shall be submitted to the public utility companies for and comment. Utility comments shall be forwarded to the Director of Public Works for approval. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 13 FEES AND BONDS FOR ALL CITY DEPARTMENTS The applicant shall pay all applicable City fees, including the following: 66. FEES TO BE PAID PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT a. Water Mitigation fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance, involving water connection or enlargement of an existing connection. b. Water Distribution fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance, in accordance with Municipal Code 6- 7.22. c. Water Service charge, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance, in accordance with Municipal Code 6- 7.22. d. Water Supply charge, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance, in accordance with Municipal Code 6- 7.22. e. Traffic Impact fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance, in accordance with Ord. 461 C.S., Res. 3021. f. . Traffic Signalization fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance, in accordance with Ord. 346 C.S., Res. 1955. g. Sewer Permit fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance, in accordance with Municipal Code 6-6.405. h. Drainage fee, as required by the area drainage plan for the area being developed. i. Park Development fee, the developer shall pay the current parks development fee for each unit approved. for construction (credit shall be provided for existing houses), to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance in accordance with Ord. 313 C.S. j~ Street Tree Planting fee, the developer shall pay the current street tree planting fee/deposit. One 1 5 gallon size or larger street tree is required for every fifty feet (50') of project frontage. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the developer, with the approval of the Park and Recreation Director, may install all 15 gallon trees and receive a refund of deposit. To be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance, in accordance with Ord. 431 C.S. k. Construction Tax, the applicant shall pay a construction tax pursuant to Section 3-3.501 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code. I. Alarm Fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 14 development in accordance with Ord. 435 C.S. m. Strong Motion Instrumentation Program (SMIP) Fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of development in accordance with State mandate. n. Building Permit Fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of development in accordance with Title 8 of the Municipal Code. ,. - . ----.- ATTACHMENT A Agenda Item No. 1.A Hearing date: June 29, 1999 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING TO BE HELD IN THE CITY COUNCil CHAMBERS 215 EAST BRANCH STREET APPLICANT: Russ Sheppel FllE/INDEX: CUP 98-572 PROPOSAL: Construction of 11,335 square foot office building lOCATION: Southeast corner of James Way and Oak Park Boulevard REPRESENTATIVE: Kim Hatch, Pults & Associates Hearing Notices sent on 6/18/99. Staff Report Prepared by Tom Buford. Site Inspection by Tom Buford on June 22, 1999 Parcel Size: 24,982 square feet Terrain: Level: Has been graded for development Vegetation: Site has been cleared for development Existing land Use: Vacant General Plan Designation: Oak Park Acres P.O. #140 C.S. Zoning Designation: PO 1. 1-Planned Development (H-S) subzone Surrounding land UselZoninglGeneral Plan Designation: North: James Way, Four Square Church/PD Planned Development/ Neighborhood Commercial East: Vacant/PD Planned Development/Highway Commercial South: Casa Grande Motel/PO Planned Development/ Highway Commercial West: Oak Park Boulevard Related Proiects: The project site is located in the Oak Park Health Plaza (the Plaza). The Plaza is a 3.74-acre site. As part of the previous approval, a Master Plan was developed, which provided standards for parking, circulation, and drainage easements, as well as proposed the square footage for the build-out of each of the six parcels on the Plaza site. Pursuant to the Master Plan, (refer to Attachment 2 of CUP 98-573 Staff Report) the applicant and Kevin Kennedy entered into an agreement for reciprocal parking, access, and drainage easements. Planning Commission CUP 98-572 Oak Park Health Plaza: Sheppel June 29, 1999 Page 2 The existing office building was approved in Case No. CUP 88-435. Kevin Kennedy has also applied for a conditional use permit (CUP 98-573) to construct a 18,925 square health club building in the Plaza. A history of the site is set forth below: RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 98-572, subject to the Conditions of Approval, and approve the Draft Negative Declaration completed with regard to the project. BACKGROUND: This project is within the Oak Park Acres Planned Development (PD 1 .1) which has specific development standards separate from the Development Code. All projects within an approved Planned Development require approval of the City Council. Hence, the Planning Commission must make a recommendation to the Council regarding this project. The Oak Park Health Plaza is a 3.74-acre site located at the southeast corner of Oak Park Boulevard and James Way. When development was originally proposed on the site, the applicant and Kevin Kennedy were the common owners. When ownership was later divided, a parcel map was recorded. A later subdivision has occurred. The applicant owns three parcels, and Kevin Kennedy now owns one parcel. The various parcels in the Plaza can be identified as follows (refer to Attachment 2 of CUP 98-573 Staff Report): Reference in Legal Description Owner this Staff Report Size Parcel 2, AG 92-027 Kennedy Kennedy Site 0.934 AC Parcel 1, AG 95-108 Sheppel Sheppel No.1 0.42 AC (existing office building) Parcel 2, AG 95-108 Sheppel Sheppel No.2 0.574 AC (Site for proposed building) Parcel 3, AG 95-108 Sheppel Sheppel No. 3 0.592 AC Parcel 3, AG 82-035 Lehrack Parcel 5 0.509 AC Oak Park Parcel A, AG 79-838 Partnership Parcel 6 0.711 AC 9.74 AC Planning Commission CUP 98-572 Oak Park Health Plaza: Sheppel June 29, 1999 Page 3 Parcels 5 and 6 are located to the south of the Kennedy and Sheppel sites. The owners of these parcels are not a party to the current proposals, and have not participated in planning for access, drainage, and parking. The parcels are vacant, and the City is not aware of any plans to develop these sites. The Kennedy Site has an easement for courtyard purposes over a portion of Sheppel No.1. This courtyard is designed in the Kennedy project. The entire Kennedy site, the entire Sheppel No.1, and a portion of Sheppel No.2 and Sheppel No.3 are subject to reciprocal easements for access, parking, and drainage. These easements were required in connection with the approval of the existing building on Sheppel No.1. The staff report for the original CUP 88-435 noted: As requested by the City, the applicants have worked out a master plan for this area with the adjoining property owners. The Staff Advisory Committee consisting of representatives from the Public Works, Planning and Bui/ding, Parks and Recreation, Fire, and Police departments, has reviewed the master plan and finds it acceptable and superior to the previous proposal. The proposed master plan answers the concerns expressed by the City regarding access and circulation, emergency access to the Casa Grande Motel, and coordination of easements throughout the properties. The aoo/icants have indicated that the other orooertv owners are in aareement with the orooosal and willdeve/oo their orooerties in substantia/ conformance with this olano (emphasis supplied) The Master Plan was revised in August, 1996. The revision occurred in connection with the application by Sheppel for approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 96-530 to subdivide a 1.59 acre parcel into three lots [resulting in Sheppel Nos. 1, 2, and 3], and to approve a variance to reduce the minimum lot width for one lot from 100 to 70 feet on Sheppel No.1, and to amend CUP 88-435 to modify the master plan to change the location of previously approved buildings. The applications were approved by the City Council on September 10, 1996. The staff report in connection with the 1996 applications noted: The proposed Conditional Use Permit Amendment revises only those portions of the master plan owned by Dr. Sheppel. Other portions of the project are unaffected by the revisions except for minor drafting revisions and modifications to the previously approved parking spaces to bring them into compliance with current standards. Planning Commission CUP 98-572 Oak Park Health Plaza: Sheppel June 29, 1999 Page 4 HThe revised master plan (or CUP) is required because the proposed land division set forth in Tentative Parcel Map Case No. 96-530. The proposed changes do not affect the floor area of the previously approved buildings. The location of buildings on proposed Parcel 2 and Parcel 3 has been modified because the property line bisected the buildings in their original location. The original master plan showed two buildings, sharing a common courtyard, situated in the center of the property currently identified as proposed Parcels 2 and 3... (Staff Report to Planning Commission, August 20, 1996, page 2) The current application proposes construction on the Kennedy site. The Kennedy site would not provide sufficient parking to meet City standards, and additional parking would be provided on Sheppel No.3, with a reciprocal easement between the parties. DISCUSSION: Master Plan-Parkina: As noted above, the Master Plan for the Plaza was last revised in August, 1996. At that time the Master Plan provided for the following building sizes and parking on the site: Standard Compact Handicap Total Parcel Office Scace Scaces Scaces Scaces Scace Kennedy 16,008 SF 79 0 3 82 Sheppel No. 1 7,560 SF (combined with Kennedy site) Sheppel No. 2 7,200 SF 37 0 2 39 Sheppel No. 3 7,200 SF 36 0 2 38 Parcel 5 6,600 SF 34 0 1 35 Parcel 6 10.600 SF 54 0 2 56 Total 55,168 SF 240 0 10 250 The total number of parking spaces required for Kennedy and the three Sheppel sites under the above Master Plan is 159. The building constructed on Sheppel No. 1 included 8,721 square feet. The building proposed for Sheppel No.2 is larger than the building provided for in the Master Plan. The building proposed by Kennedy is also larger than the building provided for in the -~-_..._.._.._---~-- Planning Commission CUP 98-572 Oak Park Health Plaza: Sheppel June 29, 1999 Page 5 Master Plan. Staff has no information regarding plans for construction on Parcels 5 or 6. The 1996 staff report indicated, with regard to parking: The revised master plan increases the overall parking for the project. The original master plan utilized 10' x 20' standard spaces and 9' x 18' compact spaces. The revised master plan includes the current 9' x 18' standard spaces. This results in a better utilization of available area and an overall increase in the number of parking spaces. The revised master plan increases the total parking from 238 to 250 spaces and increases the availab/e handicapped parking from 8 to 10 spaces. In accordance with Development Code standards, the required parking for the project is 221 spaces, 5 of which are required to be designated for handicapped parking. (Staff Report to Planning Commission, August 20, 1996, page 2) The current Sheppel project proposes an office building with 11,335 square feet. 30 parking spaces would be provided. This is not sufficient to meet the requirements of the Development Code, which requires 45 spaces at a ratio of 1 space: 250 square feet. The applicant proposes to continue the common parking on the Plaza site, and to provide the required parking on Sheppel No.3. Kennedy has proposed a health club facility with 18,925 square feet. The project is required to meet the requirements of the Development Code, Chapter 9-1 2 "Parking and Loading Requirements." The zoning ordinance has no specific standard for health clubs. Parking requirements for health clubs were discussed at length in the staff report for the original CUP 88-435. The applicants at that time had proposed a ratio of one space per each 300 square feet of floor area, with a reduction for common parking facilities. The maximum allowable reduction at that time was 12%, and is now 30%. The staff report indicated the Planning Commission accepted the applicant's proposed ratio. The applicant later postponed the project. A ratio of 1 space per 300 square feet would result in a requirement of 63 spaces. The Institute of Traffic Engineers (lTE) has suggested that a ratio of 4.37 spaces per 1,000 square feet be used for health clubs. This would result in a requirement of 83 spaces. Section 9-12.050 of the Development Code provides that common parking facilities may be provided in lieu of individual requirements if the total number of parking spaces equals the requirements for individual users, as long as the parking facilities are located within 200 feet of the associated use. Section 9-12.050.1 allows for a reduction of up to 30% in parking requirements for common parking facilities provided Planning Commission CUP 98-572 Oak Park Health Plaza: Sheppel June 29, 1999 Page 6 that a parking study, prepared by a licensed engineer or architect, confirms that the shared uses have different hours of operation that do not conflict. Any such reduction must be reflected in a conditional use permit. In addition, any agreement between the parties regarding the use of common facilities must be supported by evidence of such an agreementt to be filed with the Planning and Building departments, and recorded with the San Luis Obispo County Recorder. Using a ratio of 1/300, a parking requirement of 63 spaces would be imposed on the project. The applicant proposes to provide 58 spaces, in addition to parking for bicycles and motorcycles. The applicant proposes to provide parking to meet anticipated demand through a reciprocal easement for parking on other parcels within the Plaza. Parking would be provided as follows: Parking Parking Parcel Reauired Provided On-Site Net Kennedy 63 56 (7) Sheppel No.1 35 22 (13) Sheppel No. 2 45 30 .l1Ql 143 108 (35) This leaves a deficit of 35 spaces. This shortfall would be met through the construction of 48 spaces on Sheppel No.3. With the construction of these spaces, the Oak Park Health Plaza would have an excess of 1 3 spaces over the minimum required, assuming the ratio of space: 300 square feet for the Kennedy project is applied. A traffic and parking study was performed by Penfield & Smith, dated June 2, 1999. The study utilized standards from the Institute of Traffic Engineers and the Urban Land Institute to estimate parking needs at the Plaza. The Study assumed that 155 spaces would be provided on site for the benefit of the proposed uses (page 1). The traffic study projected that the office component of the existing and proposed uses would require a total of 57 parking spaces at the peak of office parking demand at 10-11 a.m. The health club parking demand generally peaks at 6-7 p.m., with a projected space requirement of 83 spaces. The combined parking requirements for the two uses could be as high as 140 spaces, but the two uses do not peak at the same time. The traffic study concluded that the office parking demand at 6-7 p.m. would be approximately 23% of the peak, or 13 spaces. During this peak at the health club, a total site parking demand of 96 spaces would exist. At the office peak of 10-11 a.m., the health club parking demand would be negligible. At mid-day, the office parking Planning Commission CUP 98-572 Oak Park Health Plaza: Sheppel June 29, 1999 Page 7 demand would be approximately 51 spaces, based on the Urban land Institute parking demand data. Assuming that the mid-day health club demand could be 50% of the evening peak, the health club parking demand could be 42 spaces, for a total site parking demand of 93 spaces. The traffic study concluded that the amount of parking provided by the two projects, which would include approximately 48 spaces on Sheppel No.3, would satisfy on-site parking demands for these projects. The Development Code provides that the total parking requirement for common parking facilities may be reduced to 70% of the required standard if a parking study, prepared by a licensed engineer or architect, can clearly show that the shared uses have different hours of operation and would not conflict in their time of use. The applicants have not proposed such a reduction, and instead have provided on-site parking that meets the standards of the Development Code without such a reduction. The Traffic Study conducted in connection with this project, and previous parking studies conducted in connection with the project proposed in 1988, have supported a finding that the peak hours for the health club and the office building uses are in fact different. Staff believes that the analysis set forth in the traffic study is sound, and that the proposal to provide additional parking spaces on Sheppel No. 3 would provide sufficient parking. No proposal for development of Sheppel No. 3 with a building is proposed at this time. If the Master Plan provision for this site were not changed, and a 7,200 square foot office building were constructed, the Development Code would impose a requirement of 28 parking spaces. Of the 48 spaces provided onSheppel No. 3 as proposed, 35 would be required to meet parking requirements elsewhere in the Plaza. Given the findings of the Traffic Study, it appears likely that that the applicant for any development proposal for Sheppel No. 3 would seek a reduction in parking requirements based on the differences in peak hours. The Planning Commission could review such a request at that time, with the experience of the existing buildings and parking facilities to review. Staff does not, therefore, recommend a change in the Master Plan for the building size proposed for Sheppel No.3. Access Issue: Parcel 6 has access to James Way, and previous planning for the Plaza has assumed that the access from Parcel 6 would serve as an exit, while the existing access on James Way would serve as the entrance to the Plaza. This approach was feasible as long as the only development on the site was the building on Sheppel No.1. Access and circulation issues were minimized as long as only one parcel was developed. With the development of three parcels in the Plaza, staff recommends that the Planning Planning Commission CUP 98-572 Oak Park Health Plaza: Sheppel June 29, 1999 Page 8 Commission review circulation on the site, without assuming that Parcel 6 would eventually provide an exit to James Way. Ingress and egress, parking, and circulation in the Plaza should be designed assuming that no further development in the Plaza will occur. If Parcels 5 or 6 are later developed, the design of the Plaza can be reviewed. Setbacks: A front setback of 3 feet is required. The applicant revised the plans originally submitted to satisfy this requirement. Heiaht Limitation: The maximum height permitted in the H-S District is 35 feet. The applicant indicates the maximum height of the proposed structure is 35 feet. Minimum Lot Size: The minimum lot size for general offices and professional offices is 10,000 square feet. The parcel exceeds the minimum lot size. The parcel exceeds the minimum lot width of 100 feet. Maximum lot coverage is 50%, and the proposed project would result in approximately 25% coverage. General Plan Consistency: The project is located in the Oak Park Acres Planned Development. The General Plan provides for commercial uses on the site, and the project is consistent with the General Plan. Because it is in a PD district, final approval of the project is required by the City Council. Staff Advisorv Committee: The SAC reviewed the project on January 12, 1999. The minutes are attached as Attachment 4. Architectural Review Committee: The Architectural Review Committee reviewed the project plans on March 1, 1999. The ARC approved the project as proposed. The Minutes are attached as Attachment 5. The ARC commented on the landscaping plans as they related to the proposal by Russ Sheppel, CUP 98-572, at the same location. Because the landscaping plans were prepared by the same company, the ARC suggested that a closer integration of landscaping between the two projects might be achieved. The ARC reviewed the signs proposed by the applicant. The ARC indicated that it approved the signs to the extent required by the Community Development Department, and the signs did not require further review by the ARC. Master Plan Revision: Staff recommends that the Master Plan be revised as follows: 1 . The square footage for Sheppel No. 2 should be consistent with the action taken by the Planning Commission in Case No. CUP 98-573. Planning Commission CUP 98-572 Oak Park Health Plaza: Sheppel June 29, 1999 Page 9 2. Parking requirements should be revised as noted above. 3. Building footprints for Sheppel No.2 and 3 should be revised for consistency with project approvals, and grading completed at the site pursuant to the City's grading permit. Approval of this use permit, in effect, serves to modify the prior overall master plan approval. Therefore, an updated Master Plan for the Oak Park Health Plaza has been prepared and is included as Attachment 9 of the CUP 98-573 Staff Report. Environmental Assessment: Staff has conducted an initial study for the project, and has determined that no significant environmental impacts would be created by the project. The Draft Negative declaration, circulated for public review, has been provided to the Planning Commission. The comment period closed on June 17, 1999. Two comments have been received concerning the proposed projects at the site. On January 14, 1999, staff received a telephone call from the office of Beth Hutton, D.D.S., a tenant in the office building constructed on Sheppel No.1. Staff was advised that parking at the site was sometimes a problem. Afternoon parking was identified as a problem, and the caller indicated that some patients find it necessary to park in fire lanes. On June 21, 1999, staff received a telephone call from Mrs. Schoeffler, the operator of the Casa Grande Motel. Ms. Shepler indicated that her concern was the traffic that would be generated by the health club facility. She was especially concerned regarding users who might enter the facilities via the Oak Park Boulevard entrance to the Cas a Grande Motel. She indicated that health club facilities tend to be under- parked, and wished to express her concern that the project be properly planned so that the Casa Grande Motel would not be impacted. Staff does not believe changes are required in the Draft Negative Declaration based on these comments. The mitigation measures included in the Negative Declaration are part of the project conditions, attached as Exhibit A of the Resolution. Public Comments: A public notice was sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the proposed project and a public notice was placed in the Times Press Recorder. With the exception of the comments set forth above, no comments have been received as of the date of this staff report. Planning Commission CUP 98-572 Oak Park Health Plaza: Sheppel June 29, 1999 Page 10 * achments: esolution of Approval Ex . 't" A": Conditions of Approval ": Overall Site Plan, Grading Plan, Elevations and Lands an, June 14, 1999 2. Traffic and Park. Study, Penfield & Smith, June 2, 199 3. Minutes of SAC, Jan y 12, 1999 4. Minutes of ARC, March , 999 5. Minutes of Planning Commiss vember 1 7, 1 998 (Pre-Application Screening) 6. Draft Negative Declaration 7. Update letter regarding the S SeDarate Cover Oak Park Health Pia aster Plan, revision approved August Attachment 2 Kennedy staff report). Oak Park th Plaza Master Plan Revision, June 25, 9 wit ennedy Staff Report) Color boards (will be presented at hearing). *WITHOUT A TT ACHMENTS DRAFT ATTACHMENT C ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 29, 1999 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Greene presiding. Present were Commissioners Costello, Keen, London and Parker. Also in attendance are Interim Community Development Director Henry Engen, Contract Planner Tom Buford and Senior Consultant Engineer Craig Campbell. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of May 18, 1999 were unanimously approved as written with Chair Greene stepping down for the vote. He was not present at the May 18, 1999 meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 1. Memorandum from Kathleen Fryer: Planning Commission Summer Vacation Schedule 2. Letter dated June 21, 1 999 from William Schoeffler, owner of the Casa Grande Inn, regarding the proposed Kennedy Health and Fitness Club. Henry Engen, Interim Community Development Director, introduced Kim Romano, Associate Engineer from Public Works. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 98-572 APPROVAL TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN 11,335 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF JAMES WAY AND OAK PARK BOULEVARD. RUSSELL SHEPPEL, APPLICANT. Contract Planner Tom Buford reviewed the staff report dated June 29, 1 999. He reviewed the history of the project and prior reviews before the Commission. He noted that the Planning Commission has two projects before them concerning the development of the Oak Park Health Plaza. The first is the item introduced which is the office building proposal by Russell Sheppel, and the second is the next item on the June 29, 1 999 agenda, which is a project proposed by Kevin Kennedy, Conditional Use Permit 98-573 to construct an 18,925 square foot Health and Fitness Club. He explained that Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Sheppel have been associated on this project site since the 1980's. There has been recognition in the past by the Planning Commission that planning for the entire site made sense in terms of access, drainage, parking and circulation easements. This came about because there had been an initial indication from the applicants that they wanted to have the access for the project from Oak Park Blvd. When it was determined this was not feasible and they would have to have access from James Way, it was decided to adopt a Master Plan for the entire site. The last revision of the Master Plan was in 1996. Mr. Buford summarized the staff report with special attention given to the issues of traffic and parking. He further stated that Mr. Sheppel's and Mr. Kennedy's cases are separate issues and joint action does not need to be taken on both cases. However, many of the aspects in terms of site planning, involve both projects. ~-----~--~- Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT June 29, 1999 Page 2 Commissioner London's first concern was that in the staff report it stated that staff recommends that the Planning Commission act on the Use permits without assuming that Parcel 6 would eventually provide an exit onto James Way. In looking at the site map, there is only one way in and he was concerned about people stacking up as they are trying to get in and out of the one driveway. Mr. Buford replied that Staff felt having one ingress and egress would work for the following reasons: 1. The Fire and Police Departments had both taken a look at the project and they were satisfied with the safety requirements on site. 2. Staff had an update of the Traffic Study done to make sure someone from the outside had looked at the project and determined its safety. 3. From a design standpoint, there are design standards for parking lots and parking spaces and these have been satisfied. Commission London asked if it was the guess of staff that the circulation and parking would work for the project? Mr. Buford replied that it was more than a guess. Staff has a lot of respect for Penfield and Smith who did the traffic study as well as Public Works who had looked at the project. Commissioner London asked if a portion of lot 6 could be obtained for a parking easement? Mr. Buford replied that the City did not have the authority to condition a project on an easement over property that is not under control of the applicant. If the applicant proposed this they would be required to show that they had the owner's consent. Commissioner London asked if there had been any discussion between the applicants and the owner of lot 6? Mr. Buford answered that he was not aware of any discussion. Commissioner Parker stated that she assumed that since the owners of the adjacent parcels were not present at the meeting that they had not entered into the agreement of the reciprocal parking? Mr. Buford replied that as far as he knew they had not and that there was no agreement. It had been contemplated that if there was no agreement at the time of approval the City could make that a condition with the applicants. The owners of parcels 5 and 6 would not be a part of any agreement. Mrs. Parker wanted to make sure that she was clear on the existing Master Plan. She stated that she understood that the Master Plan had already been approved Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT June 29, 1 999 Page 3 several years ago. So, was she understanding it correctly that the footprint of the proposed building is being increased at this time? Mr. Buford replied that that was correct. Mrs. Parker then asked if the Master Plan were to come back at a later date and another applicant asked for an increase to the footprint of the buildings on the remaining parcels from another Commission could they grant that? Or, once the Master Plan has been approved are changes allowed? Would they be entitled to a 7,200 square foot building whether it complied with the City's established codes or not? Mr. Buford replied that it was clear from the previous Planning Commission minutes and resolutions that this Master Plan was viewed as a planning tool for the site. It did not indicate that there was any entitlement granted with this Master Plan. As the different owners came forward with their projects, they would make their application for the appropriate permits and satisfy the Development Code requirements at the time they make the application. He went on to say that this was not stated specifically on the Master Plan. However, because this is not a Planned Development Permit, which does designate specifics and is a permit, there is no indication that this Master Plan was anything other than a planning tool. To be very clear, Mrs. Parker asked if, at a later date, the size remaining buildings could be changed to meet Development Code standards? Mr. Buford replied that that was true. Commissioner Costello had questions about the parking. He stated that the original staff report from 1 966 stated that the standard parking spaces were 10 feet by 20 feet with compact spaces being 9 feet by 1 8 feet. The revised Master Plan includes spaces that are 9 feet by 1 8 feet. Have the standards for spaces gotten smaller? Craig Campbell, Contract Engineer, replied that they are 9 feet by 18 feet. He has never seen 10 feet by 20 feet spaces allowed since he has been here. Mr. Costello asked if the parking agreements that had been proposed were revocable? Mr. Buford answered that it would be subject to the approval of the Planning staff and this issue had never come up. Staff would intend that these agreements would be irrevocable. Mr. Costello asked what would happen if three years from now someone else bought the property and did not want to be part of the agreement any more? How binding would the agreements be? Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT June 29, 1999 Page 4 Mr. Buford replied that it was not intended to be irrevocable. The question that has come up is that, the developer of parcel number 6 would have a parcel that is shown on the Master Plan as having 7,200 square feet of building space and has forty-five parking spaces and this may not be correct. He believes that with this Master Plan that is before the Commission tonight would be a relevant concern. Chair Greene asked if City Staff was aware of any complaint by the Sheffler's, the owner's of the Casa Grande Inn, of any unauthorized use of their parking lot as access to James Way? Mr. Campbell was not aware of any. Chair Greene had some questions about the Resolutions that had been submitted for the Commission's approval. On page one, under Conditional Use Findings, Finding 2 refers to Village Commercial District, is this correct? Mr. 'Buford replied that it was supposed to be Highway Commercial. Mr. Greene asked about Page 6 of Exhibit A, Condition 11 that refers to a soil report. He asked if the soils report that was submitted in the packet was the soils report the Commission should be referring to, or would the applicant have to do another one? Mr. Campbell answered that there was a letter in the Commission packet that updates the soils report and this was adequate to satisfy that Condition. He asked if in the Sheppel Conditions, number 50 and 57 were being deleted? Mr. Buford stated that was correct. Mr. Greene then asked about Condition 58, on page 12 of the Conditions. This was the Condition that talked about reciprocal easements. This Condition stated that the project was to be approved by the City Council on July 13, 1999. He wondered if this date should be left open? Mr. Buford answered that that date should be removed. Mr. Campbell wanted to add that the reciprocal easements applied to drainage, utilities, and so forth. Mr. Greene asked about the Master Plan and stated that there is language on the revised Master Plan showing the changes from the original Master Plan. With respect to the Parcel that Dr. Sheppel wants to develop, this is Parcel 2, AG 95- 108, which Mr. Buford has been referring to as Sheppel 2? The original Master Plan showed a building of 7,200 square feet and now the applicant is proposing to build a building of approximately 11,300 square feet. Then, looking at Parcel 2 AG AI 92-027 that would be the Kennedy Parcel? Again, the original Master Plan Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT June 29, 1999 Page 5 designated 16,000 square feet and the new proposal is almost 19,000? If or when the property owner for Sheppel 3 makes an application to develop that parcel, is that person required to go through the Planning Commission and the City Council for approval? Mr. Buford replied that any further development would be required to go through the application process. Mr. Greene asked how the Commission could be assured that any decision tonight by the Commission to approve the Sheppel and Kennedy projects is not some de facto approval of that 7,200 square foot building on Sheppel No.3. Mr. Buford replied that having this stated in the minutes and findings would help. However, the best way is to have this in the Conditions of Approval or as a deed restriction, which is recorded, or, assuming that the Commission asked the applicants and they agreed that this was not an entitlement for Parcel No.3, notice on the Master Plan would be appropriate. Chair Greene opened the Public Hearing. Kim Hatch, Pults and Associates, the representative for Mr. Sheppel spoke to the Commission. He stated that he hopes the Commission would approve the project and recommends approval to the City Council. He felt all the topics that needed to be discussed had been. He stated that the Master Plan was probably the most controversial aspect of this hearing. In answer to one of Commissioner London's questions, the topography of this project make it difficult to plan where the parking and the exits should go. The site access and egress is located to the furthermost point east of the site, so if it is the furthermost it can be located from the corner of James Way and Oak Park. Given the constraints of the site, they have done the best they can do without interfering with someone else's site. He stated that the Traffic Report was favorable to this as well as the levels of service. He explained that the Parcels five 5 and 6 were not being changed at all. The three sites that are the subject of this discussion have not been revised to any extent. He discussed why the applicants had designed the parking as they had. He stated that the new parking plan: gives landscaping that was not part of the original plan; handicapped parking; allows for the topography of the site; and allows better access to the building. The parking is acceptable to the Fire and Public Works departments, as is the drainage. Mr. Hatch finished by saying that he was in agreement with the Staff Report. He had a change in the Staff Report on page two; the acreage should read 3.74 versus 9.74. He would like the words "James Way and Oak Park intersection " added to Condition No. 45. It was his understanding that they were required to contribute to this intersection only. --~---- Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT June 29, 1 999 Page 6 Commissioner Costello stated that his only concern was the parking agreement and his desire to make sure it was not revocable. He understood that the Commission had had a recent bad experience with this kind of easement agreement. Mr. Campbell answered that the City has done Grant Deeds for easements. He felt there should not be a problem if the Deeds are written carefully and then reviewed by the City Attorney. Commissioner Keen stated that the City Council had made a' determination that there would be no compact parking spaces allowed in the City. Therefore, the parking spaces shown are for any vehicle. Commissioner London asked if anyone had had any contact with the owner of Lot No.6? Mr. Hatch replied that they had not had any contact with the owner. Commissioner London then asked if there was a change of grade between the parcel that Mr. Kennedy was building on the Lot No.6? Mr. Hatch answered that he was not sure what the difference of grade was. However, with the grading that will be done it will bring the two lots closer in grade. Commissioner London asked why no contact had been made with the property owner? Mr. Hatch replied that they did not see it necessary for the development of their site to contact the owner. They did not feel they had made major revisions to the Master Plan beyond increasing the size of the buildings. Furthermore, the owners have been notified through the public hearing noticing process. They have not come forward to ask the applicant or the City any questions. Chair Greene stated that the colors for the new building were a little different than the existing, building. He asked Mr. Hatch why those colors had been chosen? He also asked if the buildings were architecturally similar? Mr. Hatch explained that the colors were a little darker. He said that the colors were a little light, they were dated and showed dirt easier. The buildings were similar by volumes, by the actual shapes and location in the site. This buildi~g is a little more refined. Mr. Greene asked if Mr. Sheppel, the applicant, and also the owner of the adjacent Parcel No.3, had any development plans for that parcel? Mr. Hatch explained that Mr. Sheppel was aware of the "risk" and problems with Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT June 29, 1999 Page 7 the square footage of that site. He has no plans in the immediate future for development. Carol Florence, Oasis Landscaping, landscape architect for the projects, spoke to the Commission and explained the landscape design to them. She told the Commission that she had designed the projects to go together. Commissioner London asked if the vegetation on Parcel No.3 would stay green after it was planted? Was there going to be an irrigation system of that Parcel? Chair Greene asked if language could be added to Condition No. 14 that would require an irrigation system be installed? Chair Greene closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Keene was concerned about the entrance off James Way. He felt it was too difficult to get in and out of and presented a hazard. The driving lane east bound on James Way is right against the curb, and if someone is driving out of the driveway it is impossible to turn into it. The fire hydrant is too close. He proposed the following: 1. Move the fire hydrant. 3. Install a radius curb. The driveway has to be modified to make the ingress and egress work. He had spoken to the Fire Chief and he was told it would not be a problem to move the fire hydrant. Mr. Keene questioned the Conditions Nos. 1 6 and 20. The language was contradictory about the times construction was allowed. He was concerned about the times because of the motel in such close proximity and the church if construction was allowed on Sunday. He proposed eliminating one of the conditions. He had a concern with the parking issue and the fact that the applicant had not asked for a 30% reduction in parking because of different times and types of use. His concern was that when the next applicant came in they would ask for the 30% reduction. Finally, Mr. Keene suggested that if the motel has a problem with people driving through the easement to their motel, which is there for a fire access, he suggested they put in a "break down" fire barrier. Addressing what Mr. Keene had suggested concerning Conditions 16 and 20, Mr. Buford said Condition No. 20 should be deleted. The time in Condition No. 16 will be changed to 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The words "Noise generating" will be eliminated from the Condition. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT June 29, 1999 Page 8 Commissioner Parker had a question concerning the EIR. She asked if Page 8, No. e) had to be marked? Mr. Buford replied that it should be marked and it will be changed. Mrs. Parker stated that she was concerned about the combined parking easements that were proposed. She stated that in the Development Code standards for Common Parking Facilities, page 359, Section 9-12.050 it stated "Common parking facilities may be provided in lieu of individual requirements if the total number of parking spaces is the sum of the requirements for individual uses and the parking facilities are located within 200 ft. of the associated use." It was her understanding that since the buildings do not themselves provide the required spaces, the Commission may consider this section. This would mean that the Kennedy facility combined with the three (3) Sheppel facilities would require a total shared parking lot of 172 spaces. The four (4) facilities are offering is a combined total of 140 spaces, which means they are 32 spaces short.. The Development Code also says: "The total parking requirement may be reduced to 70% of the required standard, if a parking study, prepared by a licensed engineer or architect, can clearly show that the shared uses have different hours of operation and would not conflict in their time of use." The draft Negative Declaration uses a duration of peak hours for Kennedy Nautilus Center as from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m. However, at the November 17, 1998 Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Hamrick, representing Kevin Kennedy, stated that the peak hours for use of the club were from 4:30 p.m. to 7 p.m. Since offices usually close around 6 p.m., this leaves a cross over time of about 2 to 2 /12 hours. Since our Development Code specifically requires that to earn the 30% reduction in shared parking, "it must clearly show that the shared uses have different hours of operation and would not conflict in their time of use." This development does not conform. She further stated that the Negative Declaration would need to be redrafted to conform to the accurate information. As for the peak time of use for the Kennedy Health Club, the Negative Declaration cites the Urban land Institute parking demand data. According to this data, at non- peak hours, the office parking demand would be approximately 51 spaces or 81 % of its peak, dropping off to 23% of office peak, to 13, but only after 6 p.m. This would mean that during the hours of 4:30 and 6:00 p.m., the center would need a combined total of 166 spaces. This covers all three (3) buildings including the future building of 7,200 square feet. The Development Codes calls for a combined shared total of 172 parking spaces, even taking into consideration peak and off-peak shared spaces, 166 parking spaces are required according to the data provided by the Urban Land Institute. This development offers 140, not nearly enough for the four (4) buildings to share. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT June 29, 1 999 Page 9 According to a letter from the current tenant in Sheppel Building 1, there is already inadequate parking for afternoon hours, forcing patients to park in the fire lane. Commissioner Parker stated that to approve a further deficiency in parking would be unsafe and not competent. The only way she can see that this would work with the shortfall of 26 to 32 spaces, is to bring the Sheppel No. 3 building project in with less square footage. She further stated that she could not find it possible to approve the sharing of parking sites on Development Sites five (5) ,and six (6) which are owned by another part. Mrs. Parker stated that it was difficult to make decisions based on what might happen instead of based on current studies. It seems to her, that in the future if a study was made and then building 3 was brought before the Commission, the applicant could use the study between the times of actual use and what the third building would require. Mrs. Parker stated she was concerned with leaving the Parcel 3 building at 7,200 square feet. She had worked out the numbers and said that considering each space to be 9 feet by 1 8 feet with 24 feet between each, two spaces would work out to be 540 square feet. For each 1,000 square feet taken off the building footprint, four less spaces are needed and four spaces are also gained by the available square feet. This means that the future building could be 5,200 square feet. She would like to propose language to state that the building size, shown on the Master Plan as 7,200 square feet, is limited to 5,200 square feet. Commissioner Costello's question was, after reading Condition No.4, and finding that parking is inadequate, what recourse does the City have? Mr. Buford stated that it would not be in the applicant's best interest to build a project that doesn't work. He feels that the applicants are honest people and the intention of both parties has been to fully park the site. In fact, they are fully parked with regard to the Development Code. The Commissions best protection is to determine that the project is adequately parked. Mr. Buford explained to the Commission that Mr. Kennedy has a great deal of experience in running Health Clubs. In 1988 he had a project approved by the Planning Commission. At that time a Traffic Study was done by Garing, Taylor and Associates and he gave very concrete data to them at that time. Penfield and Smith updated the study just recently and staff is confident that the numbers are correct. . Commissioner London asked if the double striping could be a Condition as well as making sure that Parcel No.3 had an irrigation system? Craig Campbell stated that both things could be written into the Conditions of Approval. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT June 29, 1999 Page 1 0 Chair Greene stated that the Architecture Review Committee had reviewed the designs and approved them. He felt the new design was very good and that the building would be an asset to the Community. His concerns were related to the driveway. He asked if language could be added to the Conditions of Approval that would address Mr. Keen's concern with the driveway. Mr. Campbell suggested the following language be added to the Conditions of Approval: "The driveway entrance should be constructed with curb returns, concrete cross gutter and spandrels. The existing fire hydrant shall be relocated. " Chair Greene also had a concern about parking. He would like some language added to the Master Plan and the Conditions of Approval to make sure that the Commission was not approving the 7,200 square foot building on Parcel No.3. Mr. Buford stated that the Master Plan should be revised to reflect the changes the Commission wanted. The notes on the Master Plan should include a provision that reads: "The revised Master Plan is a planning tool and is not an entitlement for future development. Future proposed buildings on Parcel 3 AG 95-108 and Parcel A, AG 79--38 must receive required review and approvals and must satisfy parking and other Development Code requirements then in effect. Chair Greene suggested that this be added to the Conditional Use Permit findings as Finding No.6. Commissioner Parker had a comment on the Negative Declaration that was to be approved. . She stated that on page 15 the information was incorrect. Or, the Planning Commission minutes of November 1 7, 1 998 were incorrect because the times of peak hours at the Health Club from the two documents do not coincide. Mr. Buford explained that the hours of use for Kennedy Health Club start to build up at 4:30 p.m. and actually peak at 6:00 p.m. Therefore the highest use at the Health Club is 6:00 p.m. when the parking for the office building is lower. The language in the Negative Declaration was changed to read: "Health Club parking requirements begin increasing significantly at 4:30 p.m. and peak between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m." Commissioner Keene moved that the Planning Commission approve Resolution No. 99-1699 of the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande recommending that the City Council adopt a Negative Declaration and approve Conditional Use Permit Case No. 98-572, applied for by Russell Sheppel located at Oak Park Boulevard and James Way including Attachment A and the following changes of the Planning Commission: 1. Condition of Approval #58 - omit date of July 13, 1999 2. Add the following language as No. 6 in the Conditions of Approval findings: "The revised Master Plan is a planning tool and is not an ~__m Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT June 29, 1999 Page 11 entitlement for future development. Future proposed buildings on Parcel 3 AG 95-108 and Parcel A, AG 79--38 must receive required review and approvals and must satisfy parking and other Development Code requirements then in effect. " 3. Delete Conditions of Approval Nos. 50 and 57 4. Add James Way and Oak Park intersection to Condition of Approval No. 45 5. Master Plan to be revised to reflect the language from Conditions of Approval findings: "The revised Master Plan is a planning tool and is not an entitlement for future development. Future proposed buildings on Parcel 3 AG 95-108 and Parcel A, AG 79--38 must receive required review and approvals and must satisfy parking and other Development Code requirements then in effect. " 6. Condition of Approval No. 14 to include the following language: "This vegetation shall be irrigated and maintained on a regular basis." 7. A new Condition of Approval shall be added that states: "The driveway entrance should be constructed with curb returns, concrete cross gutter and spandrels. The existing fire hydrant shall be relocated if the Public Works Department deems it necessary." 8. Condition of Approval No. 16 to be modified with the words "Noise generative" removed and the time changed to 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m." 9. The Negative Declaration was modified on Page 14 to read: " Health Club parking requirements begin increasing significantly at 4:30 p.m. and peaks between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m." 10. Check box 7.e, on Page 8 of the Negative Declaration shall be checked. 11. A new Condition shall be added to the Conditions of approval that will state that "Double striping would be required between parking spaces. " Commissioner London seconded the motion. There being no further comments, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 99-1699 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 98-572, APPLIED FOR BY RUSSELL SHEPPEL, AT OAK PARK BOULEVARD AND JAMES WAY. AYES: Commissioners Costello, Keen, London, Parker and Chair Greene NOES: None ABSENT: None Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT June 29, 1999 Page 1 2 The foregoing resolution was adopted this 29th day of June, 1998. Chair Greene called for a 10 minute recess. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 98-573 APPROVAL TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN 18,925 SQUARE FOOT HEALTH CLUB FACILITY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF JAMES WAY AND OAK PARK BOULEVARD. KEVIN KENNEDY, APPLICANT. Contract Planner, Tom Buford, presented the Staff Report for the project. He explained that 'the planning for this project, although separate from the Sheppel Conditional Use Permit 98-572, was done in tandem with that project. Mr. Buford explained that the Conditions for the Kennedy CUP 98-573 were not exactly the same as the Sheppel CUP 98-572, however they are very similar. Based on the Commissions discussion and subsequent changes to the Sheppel Conditions of Approval, Mr. Buford had the following changes that should be made to the Conditions of Approval for the Kennedy CUP 98-573: 1 . Delete Conditions of Approval 51 and 58. 2. Change Condition of Approval No. 45 to indicate that the Opticom device the applicant needs to pay for is at the Oak Park Boulevard and James Way intersection. 3. Include the language on the Master Plan. 4. Add a finding on the Resolution regarding the same. 5. Add to Condition of Approval # 1 4 the language for irrigation and landscaping. 6. Add the Condition for curb and moving hydrant. 7. Delete Condition of Approval No. 20 and change Condition No. 16 by eliminating the words IINoise generating. II 8. Check box 7.e on Page 8 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 9. Change the Mitigated Negative Declaration on page 1 5 to include the following language: "Health Club parking requirements begin increasing significantly at 4:30 p.m. and peaks between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. II 10. Add a Condition to the Conditions of Approval to require double striped parking in the parking lots. Chair Greene opened the Public Hearing. Warren Hamrick, Hamrick Associates, representing Kevin Kennedy, addressed the Commission. Mr. Hamrick stated that he had read the Staff Report and had some questions for Staff. He asked if, in Condition No. 45, they were responsible for one intersection or two? It wasn't clear from the wording in the Condition. Mr. Campbell replied that he would have to look at the SAC minutes to determine Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT June 29, 1999 Page 1 3 exactly what was intended. Mr. Hamrick asked if the changes made to Condition No. 14, the irrigation and landscaping on the adjacent undeveloped parcel, applied to the Kennedy project as well? Mr. Buford replied that it would be best to refer that question to the Planning Commission for their decision. Mr. Campbell told the applicant that the SAC minutes stated the Opticom device was for the intersection of Oak Park Boulevard and James Way only. Mr. Hamrick questioned Condition No. 50 and asked if the landscaping needed to be done by a registered Engineer. He also questioned Condition No. 57 concerning the public utilities easement. He wondered if that was in addition to the six-foot easement that was already there? In Condition No. 69, talking about the fees for all City departments, under Item J, street tree planting fees, will they be charged for those? He also wondered, in connection to Condition No. 69, Item M, what Strong Motion Instrumentation was? Mr. Campbell stated that the landscaping does not need to be done by a registered engineer; the six foot easement was the one shown on the map; they would not be charged a fee for trees that were already there; and Strong Motion Instrumentation was a building code that deals with earthquakes. Commissioner London asked what the anticipated number of members would be at the Health Club? Mr. Hamrick stated that he would let Mr. Kennedy answer that question. Also, to address Mr. London's question about the owner of the neighboring parcel, the owner has been contacted and they were not interested in taking part in this project at all. Commissioner Keen commented that since Mr. Kennedy was sharing the Sheppel parking, he felt Mr. Kennedy should not worry about sharing the planting, maintenance and irrigation of the neighboring parcel. Chair Greene asked what the screening between the parking lot and the pool was made out of? Mr. Hamrick stated that it will be a retaining wall about two feet above the pool deck and then an open ornamental iron work above the retaining wall covered with landscaping material. Kevin Kennedy, Kennedy Health Club, told the Commission that his history with this property went back about 1 3 years when he first purchased the property. Atone time they had the property approved and the permits pulled, however because of a moratorium on building in this area because of the Oak Park overpass, they did not ~._--~----~.. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT June 29, 1999 Page 1 4 build at that time. He explained that it had been a long and frustrating battle to get this project up and going. He told the Commission that he was concerned about having to move the fire hydrant. Commissioner Parker again expressed her concern about the parking issue stating that she hoped this did not give the applicant's a false sense of security by having the parking easements and hoped they did not have a problem with this. She felt that she had a good understanding concerning the peak time of operation hours. Commissioner Costello asked if Mr. Kennedy would be interested in expanding his business on to Lot 6? Mr. Kennedy replied that he was interested in that and had contacted the owners of the other properties. Chair Greene asked Mr. Campbell to comment on Mr. Kennedy's comment concerning moving the fire hydrant. Just because it was made a Condition, did it mean that it has to be moved? Or, could the Public Works use their discretion and delete this Condition if they found out it did not have to be moved? Mr. Campbell replied that if Public Works found the hydrant did not have to be moved they would delete this as a Condition. Chair Greene explained to the applicant that easier access to their project would benefit them in the long run. Mr. Hatch spoke to the Commission again and .asked if the driveway and fire hydrant issues would be reviewed by Public Works and they would make the determination if these things needed to be addressed? Mr. Campbell replied that the Condition is directed towards using corporate turns to the driveway entrance as opposed to a driveway apron. He stated that he supports this change which does take some added width. He is not sure if the fire hydrant needs to be moved. If it did not need to be removed, would it be determined that the applicants had met that Condition. Commissioner Keen spoke again to the problem of the entry to the driveway and stated that he felt very strongly that it needed to be changed. Chair Greene closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner London stated that he likes the project and felt that it would look good in this area. He was concerned about the cars stacking up at the entry and wanted to see the changes made to the driveway. Commissioner Costello stated simply that he echoed Mr. London's comments. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT June 29, 1999 Page 1 5 Commissioner Keen wanted it put in the minutes that the access to the motel was their problem to resolve. He also felt this was a very good project. Commissioner Parker stated that she was in favor of the project. She was very glad to see a pool going into the area. Chair Greene stated that Mr. Hamrick questioned the language in Condition No. 50 concerning the landscaping and irrigation language. He asked if that could be deleted? Mr. Buford replied that it would be deleted. Chair Greene stated that with regard to the fire hydrant, he feels that by enhancing the entrance and making it user friendly, it will be a benefit to all owners and tenants. Commissioner Keen moved to adopt the following Resolution with Attachment A and modifications: RESOLUTION NO. 99-1700 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 98-573, APPLIED FOR BY KEVIN KENNEDY, AT OAK PARK BOULEVARD AND JAMES WAY. Seconded by Commissioner Costello and with the following roll call to wit: AYES: Commissioners Costello, Keen, London, Parker and Chair Greene NOES: None ABSENT: None The foregoing resolution was adopted this 29TH day of June 1998. -~- "'.,---..---------- ATTACHMENT D ST AFF ADVISORY COMMITTEE - CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Meeting Notes of January 1 2, 1 999 STAFF ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS Community Development Department - Jim Hamilton and Tom Buford Fire Department - Absent Chief Building Official - Larry Schmidt Police Department - Dan Wolfing Public Works Department - Craig Campbell Parks and Recreation Department - Dan Hernandez I. Oral Communications - None. II. Projects A. 1. Applicant: Russell Sheppel 2. Representative: Pults and Associates 3. Case Number: Conditional Use Permit 98-573 4. Proposal: The Applicant IS proposing construction of an 11,335 sq. ft. office building at the corner of Oak Park BI.vd and James Way. 5. Location: Oak Park Blvd. and James Way Contract Planner Tom Buford gave a brief history of the project site. Craig Campbell, Public Works, asked if there would be parking on Parcel 3 of the Master Plan to meet the parking requirements? Mr. Hatch stated that the project would use Parcel 3 for parking. He also explained that there has been some grading done on the 2nd site and there is a five-foot drop off to that site. Jim Hamilton, Community Development, suggested that a deed restriction be placed on parcel 3 for the floor area, with the optimum goal being that for the three (3) developed parcels there would be adequate parking developed on site at the time they opened. Mr. Campbell stated that each application needed to show the total parking for the development existing, plus the total being developed. He would like to know what the total building is and see in writing what the parking actually is. The Committee and Mr. Hatch discussed the different issues concerning the numb~r of parking spaces that would potentially be needed when all parcels are built out. It was decided that the remaining parcels would be "encumbered" accordingly so there would not be a problem in the future. ~-------- SAC Meeting Notes DRAFT January 12, 1999, 1999 Page 2 of 6 Mr. Hamilton asked what numbers Mr. Hatch used for Parcel B when figuring the parking? Mr. Hatch replied that it was 1 to 300. Mr. Hamilton stated that consideration was being taken of the other two parcels by requiring the future access to the parcels. The parcels cannot be completely "divorced" from each other. Mr. Buford suggested that a restriction on lot number 3 to clearly indicate to any further property owners that parking on that site has been allocated and there is a limit on the number of square feet that can be built on that parcel. It was discussed that the Kennedy project was underparked on their project without the use of shared parking. Community Development sees the following as issues: 1. Traffic generation from the site 2. Access 3. Circulation on site 4. Parking Mr. Buford asked if a new traffic study needed to be done to an.swer the questions on the preceding issues, and if so, how much of a study is needed? Mr. Hamilton stated that the Community Development Department would issue an RFP for the traffic study. Warren Hamrick, representative for Kevin Kennedy, joined the meeting. Mr. Campbell asked for an application for the preliminary grading and a title report. He also asked that the plans show the existing easements, existing and proposed utilities, including the common fire lines. Larry Schmidt reminded the applicants that they would need an archeological report before they could get their building permits. He also asked that they show the location of the fire hydrant. Mr. Buford asked where the drainage would be? Mr. Hatch explained the drainage would be down the driveway into the creek. B. 1. Applicant: Kevin Kennedy 2. Representative: Warren Hamrick, Hamrick Associates 3. Case Number: Conditional Use Permit No. 98-573 4. Proposal: Construction of an 18,925-sq. ft. health club and fitness center 5. Location: Oak Park Blvd. and James Way SAC Meeting Notes DRAFT January 12, 1999, 1999 Page 3 of 6 Mr. Buford explained that the some of the same issues that existed for the Sheppel project existed for this one: 1. Access 2. Traffic generation 3. Circulation He explained to Mr. Hamrick that the Committee had discussed planning the site as a whole for parking and circulation. He told Mr. Hamrick that they had discussed possibly limiting through deed restriction Parcel 3, either in terms of square footage or terms of notice that there is parking committed on site to other parcels. Mr. Buford further explained that the Kennedy project does not have adequate parking on their site. If a parking reduction is asked for, Mr. Hamrick will have to have documentation to show that they do have adequate parking when the project goes to . the Planning Commission. Mr. Hamilton explained the parking requirements to Mr. Hamrick and the need to update the Traffic Study. Mr. Hamrick stated that, based on direction from the Planning Commission, he had added more landscaping. Because of this he had reduced the parking by 2 spaces. He stated that 61 spaces are provided within the boundaries of his site. With regards to the Traffic Study, Mr. Hamrick stated that, since one had already been done, would it be possible just to update it? The developers discussed splitting the cost of the study SO/50. Mr. Campbell asked Mr. Hamrick to provide: 1. A Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan 2. A Title Report 3. Existing and proposed utilities including common fire lines on the Plans Mr. Campbell asked how much traffic there was at the Health Club on Sunday morning? There was discussion about lining up the driveway with the driveway of the church across James Way. Larry Schmidt, Building and Fire had the following issues: 1. All buildings must be sprinkled and have alarm systems. 2. County Health Department approval is required for Swimming Pool. 3. Include occupancy classifications of rooms and provide separations. 4. Provide archeological report with building permit submittal. 5. There should be a mutual agreement with Sheppel for an opticom device at Oak Park and James way. Dan Wolfing, Police Department, asked what the hours of operation would be and if members would have access after hours? His concerns were: SAC Meeting Notes DRAFT January 12, 1999, 1999 Page 4 of 6 1. Adequate lighting around the entire building. 2. Recommends an alarm system. --- . . . Architectural Review Committee Notes ATTACHMENT E ~ March 1, 1999 Page 4 of 5 ""'.'1-'\' . C. 1. Applicant: Kevin Kennedy 2. Representative: Warren Hamrick 3. Case Number: Conditional Use Permit 98-573 4. Proposal: The Applicant is proposing construction of an 18,925-sq. ft. health club and fitness center and related signs. 5. Location: Oak Park Blvd. and James Way Community Development Director reminded the Committee that when this project came before them as a Pre-Application there were several issues they had been concerned with at the time. This issues were: 1. Bulk and scale of the building. 2. Addition of some landscaping to separate building from parking lot and the blank wall along James Way. 3. Use of different of color to enhance the articulation of the building. 4. Use of detailing around the base of the building. After the last meeting Mr. Hamrick has the project site surveyed and was able to put in more landscaping by removing two parking spaces. The reason he did this was because he did have the parking spaces needed for the project. Mr. Hoag asked if the Pine trees were to be taken out and more Palm trees will be put in? Mr. Hamrick said that the Pine trees would be replaced. With regard to signage, Mr. Hamrick stated that the only signage would be on the building. There will be two signs that will be in a "back-lit" box. The north elevation (James Way elevation) of the building will be broken up with trellis and plants until the landscaping is mature. There will be three (3) ornamental pear trees along that wall. Mr. Hamrick explained to the Committee that the actual colors might vary from the ones shown on the color board. He told them that when he builds a building he will paint a large area to make sure the color is correct. Chair Hoag told Mr. Hamrick that the Committee has asked builders to do that before and then the Committee can go to the site and inspect it to see if the color "works". The Committee liked the colors that were shown, but wanted to make sure they blended in with the other buildings neighboring it. Mr. Smith asked what kind of metal was being used for the sunshade. Mr. Hamrick said it was galvanized and will be colored a grayish blue. Chair Hoag liked the colors that have been used. J 4 Architectural Review Committee Notes DRAFT March 1, 1999 Page 5 of 5 Mr. Smith asked how the mechanical equipment on the roof would be screened. Mr. Hamrick replied that they would use parapets to do this. Because there was some comment from the residents living at the nearby Condo tract Mr. Hamrick had gone there, both during the day and night, to see if the project could be seen from the Condos. He said that at nighttime the lights from the project could be seen through the trees but during the day he did not feel it would be a real impact on them. The Committee did not feel that this project would impact people at the tract. Further the Committee stated that they liked the project and appreciated that the applicant had made the changes the ARC had suggested at the pre-application hearing. Mr. Ohler moved that the Committee recommend the project be accepted as presented. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously. The Committee briefly discussed the Planned Sign Program for this project. Mr. Hamilton explained that this might only need to be an Administrative Sign Permit because of the size of the signs they were proposing. The Committee agreed that if the signs remained the way they were presented at today's meeting, they (the signs) were acceptable and they Committee would not need to see them again. Mr. Hamilton asked the Committee if they would be willing to meet a second time in March. There are 4 projects that need to come before the ARC, including one involving the Quarterdeck Restaurant which Mr. Smith will have to step down for. The Committee agreed to meet on March 22, 1999. The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m. . ATTACHMENT F CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE INITIAL STUDY AND DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT TITLE: Sheppel Office Building Project, Case No. CUP 98-572 LEAD AGENCY NAME & ADDRESS: City of Arroyo Grande Community Development Department 214 E. Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 CONTACT PERSON & PHONE #: Tom Buford, Contract Planner (805) 786-4500 PROJECT LOCATION: Southeast comer of Oak Park Boulevard and James Way 880 Oak Park Boulevard PROJECT SPONSOR & ADDRESS: Russ Sheppel 930 Camille Lane Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Planned Development (PD) ZONING: Planned Development (PD) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed construction of a 11,335 square foot professional office building, with 45 parking spaces PERMIT APPLICATION AND ANY OTHER PERMITS: Conditional Use Permit ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS SHEPPEL OFFICE BUILDING PROJECT CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: The project site is located in the Oak Park Health Plaza, a 3.74 acre site located at the southeast corner of James Way and Oak Park Boulevard in Arroyo Grande. The Plaza is currently improved with one office building and a parking lot. A portion of the site has been graded for future improvements. The project site is approximately 24,982 square feet and is undeveloped. The site has previously been graded and relatively flat. The site does not contain any substantial vegetation. The proposed project is not located in an area or near an identified cultural resource site. The project site has been graded and leveled, and it is likely that any cultural resources present on the site have been covered or destroyed. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project would construct an office building on a parcel located at the southeast corner of Oak Park Boulevard and James Way in the City of Arroyo Grande. The project parcel comprises 24,982 square feet. The office building would have a total of 11,335 square feet. The project would provide 45 parking spaces, some of which would be located on a separate parcel under common ownership, using a reciprocal parking easement. Primary access would be via the parking lot located on the east side of the building. Access would also be available from the sidewalk on Oak Park Boulevard. No vehicle access would be available on Oak Park Boulevard. The only vehicular access would be via the existing driveway on James Way. Landscaping would be installed as part of the project. The applicant would install 45 parking spaces, including two handicapped spaces. A planned sign program would be implemented at the site upon project completion. The project parcel is subject to reciprocal access, drainage and parking easements with other parcels on the southeast corner of James Way and Oak Park Boulevard (Kennedy Club Fitness). CHECKLIST AND ANALYSIS Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant, No Impact Incorooration Impact Impact I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 0 0 ~ 0 Environmental Checklist 2 City of Arroyo Grande Sheppel Office Building; Case No. CUP 98-572 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, historic buildings and scenic corridors? D D l8I D c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? D D l8I D d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect clay or nighttime views in the area? D D l8I D DISCUSSION: The proposed facility would occupy a parcel that is currently vacant, and graded for development. Zoning for the parcel is consistent with the proposed use, with the approval of a conditional use permit. Design and materials have been reviewed by the City's Architectural Review Committee, which has approved the design and recommended the project for approval. Design of the structure would be compatible with the existing office building on an adjacent parcel under common ownership, and a proposed health club on a parcel with frontage on James Way (Kennedy Club Fitness). Landscaping for the project would be coordinated with landscaping existing on site, and landscaping proposed for the health club. The proposed building would be located within a line of sight from condominiums to the south of the project site. An existing office building immediately adjacent to the site for the proposed facility occupies a portion of the field of view from the condominium development, and the addition of the proposed building would not create a significant impact. II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? D D D l8I b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? D D D l8I c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? D D D l8I DISCUSSION: The project site is zoned for commercial use, and has been graded for building pads. No agricultural activity occurs on the project site, not would any agricultural activity be affected by the project. Environmental Checklist 3 City of Arroyo Grande Sheppel Office Building; Case No. CUP 98-572 - - -- ------ ENVIRONMENTALCHECKL~T m. AIR QUALITY: Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? D D ~ D b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air q~lity violation? D ~ D D c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? D D ~ D d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? D D D ~ e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? D D D D DISCUSSION: Construction activities would generate dust, which could cause potentially significant environmental impacts. Operation of the project would generate vehicle trips, and this is an additional environmental concern. In San Luis Obispo County, ozone and PMlO are the pollutants of primary concern, since exceedances of state health-based standards for those are experienced in portions the county in most years. For this reason San Luis Obispo county is considered to be in non-attainment of the state standards for both ozone and PMlO. In 1998 the state ozone standard was exceeded on 25 days in Paso Robles and on two days in Atascadero. The federal eight-hour standard for ozone was exceeded on 16 days at Paso Robles and one day at Atascadero. No other part of the county experienced ozone exceedances. Countywide exceedances of the state PMlO standard of 50 ug/m 3 occurred on 15 out of 60 different sample days in 1998, down from 17 different violation days in 1997. Paso Robles recorded one day ofPMlO exceedance in 1998. All other PMlO exceedances occurred near the coast on the Nipomo Mesa. There were no exceedances ofthe national air quality standard for PM 10 in the county in 1998. PMlO is also of continuing concern due to its presence in levels exceeding the state standards on a regular basis. The major sources of PMlO include mineral quarries, grading, demolition, agricultural tilling, road dust and vehicle exhaust. Grading and construction of the project would occur over a period of months. Short-term impacts related to dust generation from site preparation and grading could result in dust generation that could affect adjacent properties. Conditions placed on the project would reduce short-term dust generation during construction of the project to less than significant levels. See Mitigation Measures 1 and 2. A traffic study was conducted in connection with the project, and the proposed construction of an office building on an adjacent parcel. The project is expected to generate 124 daily trips. Air quality impacts Environmental Checklist 4 City of Arroyo Grande Sheppel Office Building; Case No. CUP 98-572 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST from the project operation would not exceed the applicable thresholds, and no significant air quality impact would be present. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special- status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? D D D ~ b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? D D D ~ c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defmed by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? D D D ~ d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? D D D ~ e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? D D D ~ f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? D D D ~ DISCUSSION: The project is proposed within an urbanized area, where fonner biotic habitat and natural vegetation has been replaced with wildlife that have adapted to the urban setting and with ornamental, non-native vegetation. Therefore, the project would not result in significant impacts to biotic resources. Because of the existing uses on the site and its history of development, no unique, rare or endangered species are expected to be present. Therefore, the project would not result in significant impacts to biotic resources. Environmental Checklist 5 City of Arroyo Grande Sheppel Office Building; Case No. CUP 98-572 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in ~ l5064.5? D D D ~ b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource pursuant to ~ l5064.5? D ~ D D c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of fonnal cemeteries? D D D ~ DISCUSSION: The proposed project is not located in an area that has been identified as a known site for cultural resources. The project site has been graded and leveled for development, and it is likely that any cultural resources present on the site have been covered or destroyed. The Arroyo Grande area was occupied for the previous 9,000 years by indigenous peoples, however, and the possibility exists that cultural resources may be encountered during the construction process. If that occurs, development activities at the site should cease until a qualified archaeologist has been employed to view and assess the discover, and prepare a mitigation plan. See Mitigation Measure 3. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk ofloss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. D ~ D D ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? D ~ D D iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? D D ~ D iv) Landslides? D D D ~ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? D ~ D D c) Be located on geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? D D D ~ Environmental Checklist 6 City of Arroyo Grande Sheppel Office Building; Case No. CUP 98-572 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B ofthe Unifonn Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? D D D ~ DISCUSSION: Other than standard construction grading and necessary design-specified soil compaction, the proposed project would not involve any substantial topographical changes. Project-related construction activities would not result in major soil displacement, compaction, or overcovering. Impacts with regard to geologic hazards are considered potentially significant if the proposed development activity, including any proposed mitigation measures, could result in substantially increased erosion, landslides, soil creep, mudslides or unstable slopes. In addition, impacts are considered significant when people or structures would be exposed to major geologic hazards upon implementation of the project. Impacts related to geology have the potential to be significant if the proposed project involves any of the following characteristics: (1) Allor any part of the project site is located on land having substantial geologic constraints, including parcels located near active faults or underlain by rock types associated with compressible/collapsible soils or susceptible to landslides or severe erosion (2) The project results in potentially hazardous geologic conditions, e.g., construction of cut slopes exceeding a grade of 1.5 horizontal to 1 vertical. (3) The project proposed construction of a cut slope over 15 feet in height measured ITom the lowest finished grade. (4) The project is located on slopes exceeding 20% grade. The project site has been the subject of previous grading activities, and a soils report has been submitted for adjacent properties. Mitigation Measure 4 would require the preparation of a soils report discussing existing site conditions, and would reduce the impact of soils-related impacts to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure 5 would require that any structure be designed to the earthquake standards of the Uniform Building Code Seismic Zone 4. Impacts ITom geologic conditions would be reduced to less than significant levels. See Mitigation Measures 4 and 5. Standard erosion control measures would address on-site construction period erosion by wind or water. Long-term erosion potential would be addressed through installation of landscaping 'and stonn drainage facilities, both of which would be designed to meet applicable regulations. The mitigation measures set forth below would, in addition, minimize the possibility that rainwater or other run-off ITom the project site would impact local drainages, or create significant impacts ITom erosion of the site. See Mitigation Measures 6, 7, and 8. With implementation of the listed mitigation measures, impacts in the area of geology and soils would be less than significant. Environmental Checklist 7 City of A"oyo Grande Sheppel Office Building; Case No. CUP 98-572 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST VB. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -- Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? D D D ~ b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? D D D ~ c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? D D D ~ d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? D D D ~ e) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? D D D ~ f) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? D D D ~ DISCUSSION: The project would be located in an urban area, on a graded pad, and would not present an increased fire hazard. The building would be fully sprinklered in compliance with Fire Department regulations. Impacts from hazards would be less than significant. vm. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? D D D ~ b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer Environmental Checklist 8 City of Arroyo Grande Sheppel Office Building; Case No. CUP 98-572 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? D D D ~ c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion of siltation on- or off-site? D D ~ D d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off- site? D D ~ D e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? D D ~ D f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? D D D ~ g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? D D D ~ h) Place within a lOO-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? D D D ~ i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? D D D ~ DISCUSSION: The elevation of the site is approximately 90 feet above mean sea level. Based upon soil investigations in the vicinity of the project site, groundwater at the project site is expected to be approximately 30 feet below ground surface and flow to the west and southwest. Construction and development of the site would not impact the groundwater quality or supply. The project site is located in the Meadowcreek Watershed. Drainage from this area generally flows to the south. Currently, the site is not covered with impervious surfaces. The development of the proposed project would likely decrease the area of pervious surfaces on the site. Drainage from the site would be to existing Environmental Checklist 9 City of Arroyo Grande Sheppel Office Building; Case No. CUP 98-572 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST drainage facilities. These are located south of the improved area of the parcel. The drainage facilities are adequate to accept the runoff from the site. The project site is located in Zone C, as shown on the Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map. This zone is defined as a minimal potential risk for flooding. Therefore, the project would not expose people or property in the project vicinity to water related hazards. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -- Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? 0 0 0 ~ b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 0 0 0 ~ c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 0 0 0 ~ DISCUSSION: The project would construct a professional office building in a Planned Development zone. The parcel is subject to the site development standards for the Highway Services (H-S) subzone of the Oak Park Acres Planned Development, and other ordinances of the City of Arroyo Grande. Construction of an office building in the Highway Service district requires a conditional use permit. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and zoning for the site, and no impacts in land use and planning would result. XI. NOISE - Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? 0 ~ 0 0 b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? 0 0 0 ~ c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 0 0 ~ 0 d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 0 ~ 0 0 Environmental Checklist 10 City of Arroyo Grande Sheppel Office Building; Case No. CUP 98-572 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST DISCUSSION: The project would construct a professional office building. The primary sources of noise would be from automobiles arriving and departing, and the conversation of individuals as they moved between the building and automobiles. This type and level of noise is consistent with existing uses on the site, and with the zoning of the project site. The operation of the proposed project would not significantly increase ambient noise levels. Construction activities would generate noise levels that would temporarily create noise impacts. It is anticipated that noise levels could reach between 70 and 88 decibels. Limiting the hours of construction would reduce this short-tenn impact to less than significant level. See Mitigation Measure 9. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? D D D ~ b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? D D D ~ c) Displace substantial numbers of people necessitating the construction of replacement D D D ~ housing elsewhere? DISCUSSION: The project would provide professional office facilities. No new housing would be associated with the proposed project, and no significant increase in demand for housing would be created by the project. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES -- a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other perfonnance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? D D ~ D Police protection? D D ~ D Schools? D D ~ D Environmental Check/ist 11 City of Arroyo Grande Sheppel Office Building; Case No. CUP 98-572 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Parks? D D 181 D Other public facilities? D D ~ D DISCUSSION: The proposed facility is consistent with the General Plan designation and zoning for the site. Adequate fire and police services exist in the community to serve the project, and the development would generate tax. revenues to contribute to the cost of ongoing public services. No housing is associated with the project, and no impact on schools would be generated by the project. XIV. RECREATION -- a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be D D ~ accelerated? D b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? D D D ~ DISCUSSION: The project would construct a professional office building. This use would not increase the demand for public recreational facilities, and any impact on recreational facilities would be less than significant. XV. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC -- Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume-to-capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at D D ~ D intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated D D ~ D roads or highways? c) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., fann equipment)? D D ~ D d) Result in inadequate emergency access? D D ~ D e) Result in inadequate parking capacity? D D ~ D Environmental Checklist 12 City of Arroyo Grande Sheppel Office Building; Case No. CUP 98-572 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? D D ~ D DISCUSSION: A traffic study was conducted for the project by Penfield & Smith. The Traffic Study also analyzed a proposed project on an adjacent parcel for a health club facility consisting of 18,925 square feet, including an indoor lap pool. An existing office building, consisting of7,560 square feet, is located on an adjacent parcel. The project site, the adjacent parcels referred to in the above paragraph, and three other adjacent parcels have been the subject of cooperative site planning in the past. Reciprocal easements for access, parking, and drainage exist with regard to a portion of these parcels, and additional easements would be created as part of the project. The intention of the applicants is that persons employed in and visiting the professional offices would have access to all parking areas on the larger site. The traffic study included consideration of these arrangements. The traffic study evaluated the impact of project traffic on nearby roadways and intersections, both for current volumes of traffic, and those expected to be generated by build-out of proposed and approved project in the City. The project is expected to generate 124 daily trips, with 18 trips during the morning peak hours (7-9 a.m.) and 17 trips during the evening peak hours (4-6 p.m.). The traffic study reviewed the impact of the proposed health club facility project for the adjacent parcel, and indicated that project was expected to generate 452 daily trips, with 25 a.m. peak-hour and 28 p.m. peak-hour trips. The traffic study noted that some of the persons employed at the office building could be expected to use the health club facilities. This would tend to reduce the number of trips generated by either of the projects. The traffic study did not include consideration of this possibility in the analysis, and the traffic study therefore analyzed a worst-case scenario. The traffic study assigned the trips generated by the project to project-area roadways based on the consultant's knowledge of travel patterns and previous traffic studies. The trips were assigned as follows: Kennedy Health Club Sheppel Office Building North on Oak Park Boulevard 5% 5% on U.S. Highway 101 35% 30% South on U.S. Highway 101 25% 25% on Oak Park Boulevard 10% 10% East on James Way 5% 10% on W. Branch Street 20% 20% Total 100% 100% Environmental Checklist 13 City of Arroyo Grande Sheppel Office Building; Case No. CUP 98-572 ~"--_._~~~------~-- ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The traffic study then analyzed the perfonnance of study area intersections to determine whether the project traffic would result in significant impacts. Significant impacts would occur if project traffic resulted in a decrease in intersection perfonnance to a level of service less than LOS C. The intersections analyzed by the traffic study were Oak Park at James Way and Oak Park at W. Branch Street. Project traffic was analyzed both with regard to existing conditions, and the "baseline" conditions that would exist when full build-out was achieved. The traffic study concluded that the level of service for the study area intersections would not decrease below LOS C with the construction ofthe Kennedy Health Club project and the Sheppel Office Building project. The following table illustrates the results of the traffic study with regard to the existing and baseline conditions: Location Type of Existing + Baseline Baseline + Baseline + Baseline + Control project Health Club Office both Oak Park Traffic LOSB LOSC LOSC LOSC LOSC Blvd.lJames Signal Way Oak Park Traffic LOSB LOSB LOSB LOSB LOSB Blvd.tw. Signal Branch St. The level of service does not decrease below LOS C for any of the scenarios. Traffic impacts of the project on the intersections studied would not create significant impacts. The traffic study also analyzed frontage improvements along Oak Park Boulevard and James Way. Because the intersections were projected to operate at satisfactory levels of service, no frontage improvements were recommended by the traffic study. The traffic study concluded that the site access on James Way was located an adequate distance from the James Way/Oak Park Boulevard intersection. The driveway to the Foursquare Church is located across James Way near the existing access to the project site. The traffic study concluded that access would be adequate given the different peaking characteristics of the two sites. The traffic study recommended that if the adjacent site to the east of the project site develops, a single driveway for the project site should be combined with the access for that site, and aligned with the church site across James Way. The traffic study also analyzed parking for the site. Utilizing data from the Institute of Traffic Engineers and the Urban Land Institute, the traffic study projected that the office component of the existing and proposed uses would require a total of 57 parking spaces at the peak of office parking demand at 10-11 a.m. The health club parking requirement generally begans increasing significantly at 4:30 p.m. and peaks at 6-7 p.m., with a projected space requirement of 83 spaces. The combined parking requirements for the two uses could be as high as 140 spaces, but the two uses do not peak at the same time. The traffic study concluded that the office parking demand at 6-7 p.m. would be approximately 23% of the peak, or 13 spaces. During this peak at the health club, a total site parking demand of 96 spaces would exist. At the office peak of 10-11 a.m., the health club parking demand would be negligible. At mid-day, the office parking demand would be approximately 51 spaces, based on the Urban Land Institute parking demand data. Assuming that the mid-day health club demand could be 50% of the evening peak, the health club parking demand could be 42 spaces, for a total site parking demand of 93 spaces. The traffic study concluded that the amount of parking provided by the two projects, which would include Environmental Checklist 14 City of A"oyo Grande Sheppel Office Building; Case No. CUP 98-572 --- ------------- ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST approximately 45 spaces on a third parcel owned by Sheppel, would satisfy site parking demands for these projects. A reciprocal parking agreement would also be present with regard to the existing office building on site. This office provides parking in excess of the parking requirements that now exist, and would not affect the conclusion of the traffic study. Based on the above analysis, transportation/traffic impacts from the proposed project would less than significant. XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -- Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 0 0 0 ~ b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 0 0 0 ~ c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 0 0 0 ~ d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 0 ~ 0 0 e) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? 0 0 ~ 0 DISCUSSION: The project is located on a site zoned for commercial use, and the use proposed is consistent with the General Plan. The City's water usage has been forecast, and the City has adequate water resources for the uses proposed in the general Plan. Development of the proposed project would require water for both domestic use and landscape irrigation. The water consumption by this project would further reduce the City's supply of available water. This impact could be mitigated through conservation and the development and implementation of an individual water neutralization program. The mitigation measure listed below would minimize water use for irrigation on site, and require installation of fixtures that would minimize water usage in the facility, and would reduce water resources impacts to a less than significant level. See Mitigation Measures 10 and 11. Environmental Checklist 15 City of Arroyo Grande Sheppel Office Building; Case No. CUP 98-572 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The proposed project would incrementally increase demand for and use of utilities on the site but not in excess of amounts expected and provided for in the project area, and would not be expected to have any measurable impact on utilities. The proposed facility would be served by existing utilities in the community, and no extension of utility service would be required. The facility would not include kitchen or food service facilities, and would not generate a significant amount of solid waste for disposal. Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No lmoact lncorooration lmoact lmoact xvn. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? D D D ~ b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulative considerable? ("Cumulative considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? D D ~ D c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? D D ~ D RECOMMENDATION BY STAFF On the basis of the Initial Study, staff finds that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures incorporated into the revised project description would successfully mitigate the potentially significant impacts. Staff recommends the preparation of an Negative Declaration. PROJECT EVALUATOR: TOM BUFORD INITIAL STUDY DATE: June 7, 1999 SIGNATURE: Tom Buford Environmental Checklist 16 City of Arroyo Grande Sheppel Office Building; Case No. CUP 98-572 ---------------- ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST MITIGATION MEASURES 1. Mitigation Measure 1: Dust generated by the development activities shall be kept to a minimum with a goal of retaining dust on the site. Applicant shall follow the dust control measures listed below: a. During clearing, grading, earth moving, excavation, or transportation of cut or fill materials, water trucks or sprinkler systems are to be used to prevent dust from leaving the site and to create a crust after each day's activities cease. b. During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to keep all areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent dust from leaving the site. At a minimum, this shall include wetting down such areas in the later morning and after work is completed for the day, and whenever winds exceed 15 miles per hour. c. Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation. 2. Mitigation Measure 2: The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and order increased watering as necessary to prevent transport of dust off-site. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. 3. Mitigation Measure 3: In the event archaeological or cultural resources are discovered during the construction process, all work on the site shall cease. A monitor with knowledge of archaeological resources shall be contacted, and shall view and assess the materials discovered. A written mitigation plan shall be prepared and approved by the City. All costs associated with the employment of a qualified archaeologist shall be paid by the applicant. The following note shall be placed on the grading and improvement plans for the project: "In the event that during grading, construction or development of the project, archeological resources are uncovered, all work shall be halted until the significance of the resources are determined. If human remains (burials) are encountered, the County Coroner (781-4513) shall be contacted immediately. The applicant may be required to provide archaeological studies and/or additional mitigation measures as required by the California Environmental Quality Act if archaeological resources are found on the site. " 4. Mitigation Measure 4: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit an updated soils report addressing any changes in the condition of the parcel which may have occurred since the date of the Soils Report, March, 1988, and identifying measures to responds to such changes, if identified. In the alternative, applicant may submit a new soils report which adequately addresses the issues raised in the Soils Report. Environmental Checklist 17 City of Arroyo Grande Sheppel Office Building; Case No. CUP 98-572 ~ -"....----.-----.---....- ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 5. Mitigation Measure 5: Structures shall be designed to earthquake standards of the Uniform Building Code Seismic Zone 4. Prior to plan check, the applicant shall submit building plans indicating standards to the satisfaction of Building and Safety. 6. Mitigation Measure 6: Construction operations, especially grading operations, shall be confined as much as possible to the dry season, in order to avoid erosion of disturbed soils. 7. Mitigation Measure 7: All graded areas, including road sub grades and building pads which are rough graded areas but not constructed until subsequent construction phases shall be revegetated. This vegetation shall be removed as necessary in later phases when finish grading, paving and building construction occurs. 8. Mitigation Measure 8: Project landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of fast growing ground covers to stabilize soils soon after construction is completed. 9. Mitigation Measure 9: Demolition or construction activities, including truck traffic coming to and from the site for any purpose, shall be limited to daytime, (non-holiday) hours (7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.) Mondays through Saturdays. 10. Mitigation Measure 10: All landscaping shall be consistent with water conservation practices including the use of drought tolerant landscaping, drip irrigation, and mulch. To the greatest extent possible, lawn areas and areas requiring spray irrigation shall be minimized. 11. Mitigation Measure : All new construction shall utilize fixtures and designs that minimize water usage. Such fixtures shall include, but are not limited to, low flow shower heads, water saving toilets, instant water heaters and hot water recirculating systems. Water conserving designs and fixtures shall be installed prior to final occupancy. Environmental Checklist 18 City of Arroyo Grande Sheppel Office Building; Case No. CUP 98-572 -----,..~,~-- ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST SOURCE LIST: 1. City of Arroyo Grande General Plan 2. City of Aroyo Grande General Plan Land Use Map 3. City of Arroyo Grande Development Code 4. City of Arroyo Grande Zoning Map 5. City of Arroyo Grande Existing Setting and Community Issues Report 6. City of Arroyo Grande General Plan EIR 7. San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District Clean Air Plan 8. FEMA: Flood Insurance Rate Map 9. Project Description 10. Project Plans 11. Site Inspection 12. Ordinance 431 C.S. 13. Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) TriD Generation Manual 14. Penfield & Smith, Traffic Study 15. Buena Engineers, Inc., Soil Engineering Report for the Proposed Oak Park Health Plaza, March, 1998 16. Earth Systems Consultants, Final Certification for Grading, December 8, 1998 Environmental Checklist 19 City of Arroyo Grande Sheppel Office Building; Case No. CUP 98-572 7.b. CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande on the following project: CASE NO. Conditional Use Permit 98-573 APPLICANT: Kevin Kennedy LOCATION: Oak Park Blvd. and James Way ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Mitigated Negative Declaration per CEQA Guidelines REPRESENT A TIVE: Warren Hamrick, Hamrick Associates PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The City Council will consider a Conditional Use Permit for construction of an 18, 925 square foot health club with 56 parking spaces, with other common parking facilities, and a revision of the Master Plan for circulation, parking and drainage. In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning Commission has recommended approval of the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration on the above project. Any person affected or concerned by this application may submit written comments to the Administrative Services Department before the City Council hearing, or appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the project and the environmental impacts at the time of hearing. Any person interested in the proposals can contact the Administrative Services Department at 214 E. Branch Street, Arroyo Grande, California, during normal business hours (8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M.). IF YOU CHALLENGE AN ITEM IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIBED IN THIS NOTICE, OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE PUBLIC HEARING. FAILURE OF ANY PERSON TO RECEIVE THE NOTICE SHALL NOT CONSTITUTE GROUNDS FOR ANY COURT TO INVALIDATE THE ACTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE BODY FOR WHICH THE NOTICE WAS GIVEN. Date and Time of Hearing: Tuesday, July 13, 1999 at 7:00 P.M. Place of Hearing: Arroyo Grande City Council Chambers 215 E. Branch Street Arroyo Grande, California 93420 dministrative Services Director/ Deputy City Clerk __......'___..n MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: HENRY ENGEN, INTERIM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR\\0 SUBJECT: KENNEDY HEAL TH CENTER PROJECT; CUP 98-573 DATE: JULY 13, 1999 RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends the City Council: (1) adopt the attached Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 98-573, subject to the Conditions of Approval, and (2) approve the Negative Declaration completed with regard to the project. FISCAL: There is no direct fiscal impact to the City should the Council adopt the attached resolution approving the project. DISCUSSION: This project is within the Oak Park Acres Planned Development area and all such projects require final approval by the City Council. Related Droiects: The proposed project is an 18,925 square foot health club facility located in the Oak Park Health Plaza (the "Plaza"). The Plaza is a 3.74-acre site. As part of the previous approval, a conceptual master site plan (the "master site plan") was developed, which provided standards for parking, circulation, and drainage easements, as well as the proposed square footage for the build-out of each of the six parcels on the Plaza site. Pursuant to the master site plan approved as part of the original project in 1988, and revised by the Planning Commission in 1996 (Attachment H), the applicant and Russ Sheppel entered into an agreement for reciprocal parking, access, and drainage easements. Consistent with the master site plan, an office building was constructed at the corner of Oak Park Boulevard and James Way following project approval in Case No. CUP 88-435. Russ Sheppel has also applied for a conditional use permit (CUP 98-572) to construct a 11,335 square foot professional office building in the Plaza. ~-- CITY COUNCIL JULY 13, 1999 PAGE 2 Master Plan: The Plaza has been the subject of master site planning. The Plaza does not have direct access to Oak Park Boulevard; therefore, access is taken from James Way. The master site plan is an effort to assure that adequate access, circulation, parking, and drainage exist on the site. The master site plan as revised and approved by the Planning Commission and City Council in 1 996 designates the individual parcels of the Plaza, proposed square footages of the buildings, and the number of parking spaces required. The various parcels in the Plaza are identified as follows: Reference in this Leoal Descriction Owner staff recort Size Parcel 2, AG 92-027 Kennedy Kennedy Site 0.934 AC (this application) Parcel 1, AG 95-108 Sheppel Sheppel No.1 (existing office building) 0.42 AC Parcel 2, AG 95-108 Sheppel Sheppel No.2 (site for proposed 0.54 AC building in CUP 98-572) Parcel 3, AG 95-108 Sheppel Sheppel No.3 0.592 AC Parcel 3, AG 82-035 Lehrack Parcel 5 0.509 AC Oak Park Parcel A, AG 79-838 Partnership Parcel 6 0.711 AC 3.74 AC The Planning Commission, as part of its recommendation for approval, has recommended that changes in the master site plan be approved by the City Council. These changes include (1) revising the proposed square footage to reflect the actual square footage of the existing office building, and the square footage for the projects now being considered, (2) revising the Plaza site plan to reflect the parking areas and number of spaces now existing and as approved, and (3) revising the areas of the Plaza subject to the reciprocal parking and access easements. The proposed revised master site plan is attached as Attachment G. --.--- .------.- CITY COUNCIL JULY 13, 1999 PAGE 3 A portion of the Plaza is now subject to a reciprocal easem'ent agreement. Upon project approval, the three parcels currently owned by Russ Sheppel (Sheppel Nos. 1, 2, and 3), and the parcel owned by Kevin Kennedy, would each be made subject to the reciprocal easement agreement. Issues: Access: The Oak Park Health Plaza site has a single entry/exit on James Way. Two adjacent parcels in the Plaza, Parcels 5 and 6, may be developed in the future, and may provide a second entry/exit, but there is no indication that plans exist to develop either of those parcels. The Planning Commission reviewed the Plaza master site plan circulation to make sure that the access and circulation worked based on current development proposals. The Planning Commission was satisfied that the revised master site plan (Attachment G) will provide adequate parking, circulation, and access. The project is conditioned on a reconstruction of the driveway to the project to provide curb returns, concrete cross gutters and spandrels. In addition, if the Public Works Department deems it necessary, the applicant will be required to move the existing fire hydrant. The existing driveway entrance is the sole point of ingress and egress. The Planning Commission concluded that the driveway was not of sufficient width, or adequate design, to safely allow vehicles to enter and exit at the same time. Parking: A traffic and parking analysis was conducted by Penfield & Smith. The study concluded that parking at the site is adequate, based on the reciprocal easements establishing common parking facilities. The common parking facilities are adequate based on the standards of the Development Code. In the event Sheppel No.3, on which some parking will be constructed as part of this project, is later developed with an office building, the applic