Loading...
PC Minutes 2009-04-071 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 7, 2009 6:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER - The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Ray presiding; also present were Commissioners Brown, Keen, and Ruth; Commissioner Barneich was absent. Staff members in attendance were Community Development Director, Rob Strong and Public Works Director, Don Spagnolo. ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. AGENDA REVIEW: No changes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of March 17, 2009 were approved as presented. A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS AFTER AGENDA PREPARATION: 1. Additional Administrative Item: TUP 09 -007, March of Dimes walk. II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. SPHERE OF INFLUENCE ADJUSTMENT, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 09 -001; APPLICANT — CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION — SEVEN PROJECT SUBAREAS WITHIN THE CITY. Community Development Director Rob Strong presented the staff report for the proposed GPA/DCA for subareas 1, 2, 3 and 6, as listed in the staff report. He requested the Commission defer hearing and consideration for Subareas 4, 5, and 7 to the May 5, 2009 regular meeting. Subareas 1 and 2 will require additional study of mitigation measures; the County has requested continuance of Subareas 4 and 5 (per Attachment 1 to the staff report); and Subarea 7 should be considered after City Council direction. Subarea 1: Commissioners asked about access, how the ponding basin would be affected, and what the County's opinion is on annexation. Chair Ray opened the public hearing for public comment. Dona Nelson, 217 Pearwood Ave., voiced concerns about the project, including adjacent flooding in the ponding basin and limited City water supply for new development. She was also concerned about home values declining. She presented a package of signed petition letters (on file at Community Development Department). PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 7, 2009 PAGE 2 Rick Nelson, 217 Pearwood Ave., voiced concerns about the project, including harm to the natural wildlife (birds, coyotes, mature trees, etc.), noise and light pollution, traffic, and runoff. Harvey Palmer, 210 Pearwood Ave., spoke against the project. He's lived there many years. Pearwood Street has been in need of repair for a long time. There were previous developments that were stopped with referendums. There's been flooding in 1977 and 1995 where homes have been damaged. No road should be built through the ponding area, because it would probably exacerbate the flooding problem. Emily Howard, 216 Pearwood Ave., voiced concerns about the project: one of the previous referendums was due to lack of water (which is still a current issue for the City), mitigating water use in Strother Park may not be enough for new use, pesticides will run into the creek from runoff on newly fertilized lawns, and the "new" drainage pipes haven't been tested since there hasn't been much rain since the last flooding. Fred Champion, 198 Pearwood Ave., voiced concerns about the project, sharing the story of when his home flooded in 1995 (including costs to the City). Madonna Oxford, 198 Pearwood Ave., voiced concerns about the project. She's the original owner on the street (completed in 1963). It's right in front of where they put the new drainage underground, and it's very much in need of maintenance. She's witnessed the flooding and she doesn't want more traffic. The current neighborhood is very nice, but the new houses don't look good. Harvey Palmer, (returning), noted that when it rains, debris washes down into the guards around the pipes, and the City should be better maintaining it. Lauren Martin, 204 Pearwood, voiced concerns about flooding. He lives directly behind the drains and shared photos from 2005 after a large rain, (on file at Community Development Department), where the water was about 2 -3 feet from his property. Additional concrete and houses would only add to the flooding. It was physically undermining his property, and he checked the drains afterwards. They were completely blocked and there was a lot of debris blocking the culvert. Also, he has a small child and doesn't want to see more traffic. Ken McGavin, 215 Pearwood Ave., voiced concerns about the project. It sounds like the City's motivation for this is purely financial, but the negative impacts will outweigh the income from the initial income. We need to be good stewards of the land: from cleaning out drainage to sandbagging homes. Paving, lighting and street signage have been neglected. He submitted a letter regarding his concerns (on file at Community Development Department). Chair Ray closed the public hearing for public comment. 1 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 7, 2009 PAGE 3 Commission comments: Ray: • What is the City's analysis of conditions for Pearwood Drive? Mr. Spagnolo replied that there are three drainage facilities: a small one under the homes on Pearwood Avenue, the new culvert they're talking about, and an overflow channel that goes out to Huasna Road. In terms of capacity, the new pipe was designed to take a 100 -year flood without consideration of the old pipe or overflow. They try to maintain it on annual basis, but are sometimes challenged with the amount of staff. As far as pavement, there's a City management program and it's a long time coming. They did slurry seal the street about 7 -8 years ago and it needed much more. In terms of the retrofit at Strother Park, Sprinkler King is going to all of the City facilities to make watering more efficient with special sprinkler heads, so it's a reduction in the amount of water used. • What was the motivation? Mr. Strong noted that the initial motivation was a request by the Klempke family for City sale and annexation of the property, giving additional details on the progression to this idea. • She would like additional information at the next meeting regarding 1) the City's purchase of the property, 2) the legal action surrounding it, and 3) street conditions. Keen: • Where is the flood water coming from? Mr. Spagnolo explained that most of it came from the top of the hill and down the ditch, but there has been more runoff with the construction of Canyon Crest. • Why is that City owned - drainage if it comes from Canyon Crest? The City purchased the property to protect the rear of the homes that face Pearwood. Additional drainage pipes have been added. • Is the proposed new elevation set so the basin will keep water for infiltration or to drain? It's to drain out to the creek, not for detention in the basin. Brown: • For the next meeting, he would like a history of the City purchase of the property. Particularly, does the 100 -year flood pipe cover the City's bases for future litigation? • There needs to be accountability when "saving" water at one location to make up for another. He thought the savings at Strother Park was to off -set a different project. He's not against the idea, but there should a safeguard against double - counting the same resource. Ruth • She would like more information at the next meeting, including: how will the four new houses affect drainage, is there currently an existing flooding problem, and /or will the new houses add substantially to it. Planning Commissioner consensus was to continue subarea 1 to the May 5, 2009 meeting. 7:05 p.m. The Planning Commission took a 5- minute break. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 7, 2009 PAGE 4 Subarea 2: Commission Comments: Ruth • She asked about how it would affect the vacant lot on Montego Street if it had access from the north. • This area is very busy when school starts and lets out. Keen • If the City were to sell, is there room for a second tank? Mr. Spagnolo said he believed so. He could draw one in to check a size that would fit. • He was concerned about constraining the Reservoir #2 site. If something happened to that one, a new tank would have to be constructed quickly and the old one disposed of. Subarea 3: Mr. Strong noted that the mobile home owners do not want to be annexed to the City, since they currently have rent control through the County. Annexing the area to OCSD to supply water will help with the City's water resource concerns. Commission Comments: Keen • He clarified current utility bill payment (by the park owners — not individual residents), that police protection is County Sheriff, and fire protection is already joint. Brown • He agreed with staff's presentation. Subarea 6: There were no Commission comments. Mr. Strong stated that he would return with a resolution recommending approval of Subareas 3 and 6, and address the other subareas at the May 5, 2009 Planning Commission meeting. Chair Ray made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Brown, to continue General Plan Amendment/Development Code Amendment Case No. 09 -001 to a date certain of May 5, 2009. Motion approved on a 4/0 roll call vote. III. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: None. I.V. NOTICES OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS: SINCE MARCH 17, 2009: �,Case�No „ 4 1 ASP 09 -009 2. TUP 09 -007 App. Wildwood Ranch March of Dimes Address Wildwood Rd. Walking Route starting at Elm Street Park ?escription New Entrance Sign Annual fundraising walkathon Action A. A. ;Planner; .`. L. Pennebaker J. Bergman 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 7, 2009 There were no comments or concerns about the administrative items. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: None. V.I. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: None. VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP: None. VIII. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. ATTEST: KATHY MEN' OZA FOR LYE' EAR • ON- SMITH, SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION AS TO CONTENT: irt7,* • ROB TRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR (Approved at the May 19, 2009 meeting) PAGE 5