Loading...
PC Minutes 2001-07-181 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR GENERAL PLAN UPDATE HEARING July 18, 2001 PAGE 1 Chair Costello called the meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande to order at 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL X Commissioner Brown X Commissioner Fowler X Commissioner Guthrie X Vice -Chair Keen X Chair Costello I. A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Otis Page spoke to the Planning Commission on their responsibilities in regard to the General Plan Update, and what the General Plan's use is. Copies of the General Plan Law were given to each commission member. B. Written Communications A memo was given to each Commissioner regarding administrative issues. II. A. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW OF THE 2001 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR. Introduction by Chair Joe Costello- This is a special meeting for Planning Commission review of the General Plan documents. The Commission will make recommendations for the City Council. This meeting is a public hearing and the Commission will be listening to the public. Speakers for the public are to fill out a sign up sheet which will then go to Chair Costello. There will be another meeting tomorrow night at 6:30 p.m. and depending on the turnout it may go to the Women's Center. We ask that all comments stay between 3 -5 minutes. We will not be directly answering individual questions, but after the comments we will be able to answer questions in the discussion later. General Plan Consultant, Rob Strong with Strong Planning Services, presented the following staff report and discussed the 12 Land Use Study Areas and the Draft Elements with the Planning Commission. The 2001 General Plan Update started in 1998. It contains seven required elements by law: Land Use, Circulation, Open Space, Housing, Conservation, Safety, and Noise. There are three optional elements that the City has included as well: Parks and Recreation, Agriculture, and the Economic Development. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR GENERAL PLAN UPDATE HEARING July 18, 2001 PAGE 2 Brief History to date: In 1998 Envicom, the original consultant for the update, conducted workshops in February and June. A citizens survey was conducted from November of 1998 through January of 1999, independent of the consultant. A draft plan was then prepared by Envicom, which included Agriculture, Open Space, Conservation, and Land Use policies, and was then circulated in March 2000. Rob Strong was hired in October 2001 to assist in completing the plan. In December of 2000 a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was issued notifying governmental agencies and interested adjacent jurisdictions. Responses were received for the NOP. In March and April of 2001 The Long Range Planning Committee addressed change areas that have been reported to the Planning Commission and the City Council. The City Council addressed what the proposed General Plan will illustrate on these key properties, where change was anticipated, or where clarification was needed. The remaining process will include at least one public hearing related to the adoption of the General Plan Update. The General Plan can be modified up to four times in any year. The areas we are focusing on include three spheres of influence. The spheres of influence include: To the Southeast about 185 acres known as the Fredricks Property, to the North East including Printz Road and Oak Park Road about 760 acres where annexation can be considered, and on the East side of Halcyon Rd at the South edge of the city. The Environmental Impact Report includes areas outside the City limits, but are included in the area of environmental concern. The environmental document is integrated as part of the General Plan. We are trying to synthesize all the information and summarize the technical data to create a concise package. Within the Draft EIR there are two tables that are relevant. One table identifies fifteen topic areas that are a part of CEQA. The table provides a summary of relevant information such as the areas of environmental concern, the key areas of proposed mitigation, and summarizes the key elements of the General Plan related to mitigation of these key areas. Then a conclusion is reached in the environmental impact report as to the significance of that impact after mitigation. The assumption is that the City Council and the Planning commission will consider the plan to some degree self- mitigating. On the second page of the table water resources, air quality, and transportation circulation show that there may be a significant effect upon them even after mitigation measures. This requires the Planning Commission to consider certain findings and make certain overriding considerations in adopting the plan. The City Council will have to address the statement of findings and overriding considerations before the plan is adopted. 1 1 1 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR GENERAL PLAN UPDATE HEARING July 18, 2001 PAGE 3 The next page deals with biological resources, energy, hazards, noise, and public services and shows that less then significant impacts will occur here. The final page deals with utilities, services, aesthetics, cultural resources, and recreation conclude potentially Tess then significant impacts depending on mitigation. Planning Commission must recommend to City Council whether or not the EIR is adequate. The response to comments made has been added to the EIR. The letters are grouped by topic with responses at the end. The EIR is not required by law to be re- submitted, but it may be re- submitted depending on the type of changes that are made. The plan has an introduction section that includes Objectives and Policies and possible implementation measures. It also explains how the EIR, Development Code, zoning, specific plans are integrated in the General Plan. The city contains 16,096 residents based on the federal census as well as building permits issued in 2000. The critical resource with regards to population is water. Air quality and traffic are two more issues that are significant. The key issues in the update suggest dropping the possibility of annexing the 760 acres to the north and request that the county increase the planning area standard so that only 2.5 acre Tots can be created. The county should also collect traffic impact fees when they issue permits. In the Urban Land Use Element, we are dealing with changes in name and areas of designation. Changes of name are in the residential areas. Changes in the density of Agricultural districts are proposed from 1 unit /10 acres to 1 unit /10 acre density, but a minimum of lot size of 20 acres. Conservation /Open Space is proposed to be divided into three different designations 20 acres, 10 acres, and 5 acres. The next density change is county Residential Suburban going from three acre lots to two and a half. Very low classification will be equal to the current residential estate designation. Low density will be classified as Residential Hillside, or Rural Residential, which are 1.5 unit /acre or 1 unit /1 acre. The low medium category is equal to the City's Residential Suburban at 2.5 units /acre. Also there is a medium density that is equal to the City's Single Family zoning at 4.5 units /acre. There is a proposed Multi- family Residential medium /high density that is equal to the current Townhouse Zoning and allows 9 units /acre. A mobile home classification will allow ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR GENERAL PLAN UPDATE HEARING July 18, 2001 PAGE 4 12 units /acre. The high density classification will allow 14 units /acre which is equal to the multi family apartment zone now. The very -high classification will be 25 units /acre as well. Mixed use, Village Core, Office, Planned Development, Specific Plan and Community Facility. The mixed use areas will now allow residential units and a development code change will be needed. Key objectives that involve Agriculture and Open space are: No net Toss of prime land, conservation of non -prime land, allocating ground and surface water for agricultural use, minimizing fringe development that would divert resources from Ag, defining current acreage of Ag uses within areas of environmental concern, also if there is conversion of agricultural land there is a provision for mitigation. Other issues are supporting of agriculture for an area of economic activity, promoting the co- existence of agriculture and other urban uses including a provision for a buffer. In the Conservation /Open Space element things such as protecting visual resources, safeguarding biological resources, planning for pedestrian trails, preserving cultural resources, conserving open space, and managing resources are all included. There are twelve land use categories in the Land Use element, and each has specific requirements included. Most of the housing element and the parks and recreation element reflect the current elements, but some items have been reformatted. The noise element is essentially the same as well. The safety element was produced on a county wide basis, and the primary policies are those recommended by the consultant Crawford Multari and Clark. Questions from the commissioners were made at this point to Mr. Strong most of them being about population numbers. In the introduction goals are not mandatory but are general, and the policies are there to provide the means to get to the objectives. The General Plan is a policy document that is subject to interpretation, where the development code and zoning are laws set in stone. What is affordable housing? The housing element defines affordable based on regional income and housing numbers. The definitions for "prime" and "non prime" are based on soil classifications. B. PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Mike Zimmerman, PO Box 166 Arroyo Grande CA 93421- About the AG /Japanese Welfare Assn. Property: Japanese association would like to sell the property and donate the money to the city for a community facility. If 1 1 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR GENERAL PLAN UPDATE HEARING July 18, 2001 PAGE 5 changed to R -1 zoning and homes can be built here, more money can be made off of it rather then it just being AG. 2. Victor Tose, 295 Alder St- Want to remodel property for senior housing proposed zoning for his area would not allow him to continue his senior housing facility. 3. Chuck Fellows 507 Le Point St- Nice homes along Mason and Neloson, and the area should be medium density and not village core. 4. Bruce Berlin ,221 Avenida De Diamante- Water cannot be forgotten in this process, and more parks should be built in the city. The area around James Way and Rodeo Drive should be a conserved corridor. 5. Hal Rosen- Executive officer for a non - profit group for affordable housing. Affordable homes need to be considered and we would like to work with the city in providing affordable housing.. 6. Otis Page, 606 Myrtle- We need to keep water in consideration and the traffic study should be circulated for public comments. Why does the city have a law " „ 7. Lee Webb, 1 16 Vista Dr.- Ag land should be defined productive if it provides a living. His property was voted to be changed to SF 8. L.E. Vanderveer 756 Myrtle St.- We would like to see our neighborhood be R -1 9. Wu Pierce, 687 Printz Rd.- I would like more information on the area around Printz Rd. 10. Ed Dorfman, 285 La Crasta- Speaking about Cherry Ave. parcel 10 acre parcel in the middle of residential, it is an island in the residential area. That property should not stay Ag. 11. Frank Lindne,r PO Box 1048- The 10 acre parcel on Cherry should be residential and not Ag. 12. Laurie Williams, 411 E. Cherry- Don't keep the 10 acre parcel in Cherry fenced if it is to remain Ag. If Cherry is to be widened allow for on street parking. 13. Dennis Allan, 690 Heritage Ln- Japanese Assn. Property should be residential and not Ag. 14. Tonv Janowitz, 447 Lierlv Ln.- 7E should be R -1 and keep that original zoning 15. Jamie Wachtel, 500 E. Cherry- Ditto to what Dorfman said. Cherry property should be residential. 16. Mike Titus, 404 Lierlv Ln.- Cherry should be widened. We need two kinds of zoning in 7E area. 17. Reuel Estes, 811 E. Cherry- Cherry Myrtle area should have increased zoning to single family medium density. 18. Bob Brownson, 653 Asilo- want to protect that 26.6 acre at La Canada and James way in the highlands. 19. John Farnsworth, 407 E Cherry- Echo Mr. Webb and Dorfman, afraid of contaminants from Ag property a concern ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR GENERAL PLAN UPDATE HEARING July 18, 2001 PAGE 6 20. J Johnson for Grace Stilwell, 734 Myrtle St.- Grace Stilwell would like to see her land on Myrtle St. be zoned Medium Density. 21. John Knight, 3765 S. Hiquera Suite 125 San Luis Obispo- RRM design group. In favor of mixed use on grand. Need higher density senior housing 35 /acre. 22. Patty Welsh, 1 151 Pradera Ct.- In favor of development on Cherry Ave. 23. Ed. Gordon, 272 Tempus Circle- 4 -1 should be a minimum for a vote by planning commission and city council. End of Public Comments Commissioner Guthrie- Would we need to circulate the circulation element and get comments? Rob Strong- The technical report was not requested by anyone and it is not an integral part of the EIR so it would not need to be circulated further. John Keen- We need a map identifying where the people live in the "7" area so I can envision what they are talking about. Rob Strong- Mitigation for conversion of the Ag parcel on Cherry has not yet been discussed if the property is to be converted to Residential. With a general plan update you are not entitled to change the zoning. Joe Costello- With regards to property rights, where do you draw the line between individual property rights and rights for the community? Rob Strong- There must not be a taking but the city is able to help citizens. We look at what the supreme court in the past has supported as far as property rights. Decisions should be made tomorrow night on the EIR. Commissioner Brown- Are the EIR and General Plan Update treated as two individual documents or do we recommend suggestions with them together? Rob Strong- They are separate documents, however the EIR is required in the process. Commissioner Keen- Can the northern Sphere of Influence be adjusted? Rob Strong- It is possible, and the EIR discusses urbanizing the Printz Rd. area. The public comments were more in favor of two and a half acre lots out in that area rather then one acre lots out by Printz Rd. 1 1 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR GENERAL PLAN UPDATE HEARING July 18, 2001 PAGE 7 III. ADJOURNMENT On motion of Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Keen, the meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m. ATTEST: Ryan Hol tter Acting Commission Clerk 41 It ► 1 AS T s CON NT: Kerry ' cCants Community Development Director Joseph Costello, Chair