Loading...
PC Minutes 1999-11-161 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 1999 PAGE 1 CALL TO ORDER Chair Greene called the regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL X Commissioner Costello X Commissioner Keen X Commissioner London X Vice -Chair Parker X Chair Greene APPROVAL OF MINUTES I.A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None I.B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None / II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS II. A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99 -014; LOCATION -137 TALLY HO ROAD; APPLICANT — L.C. LA VINE (CONTINUED FROM 11 -2 -99) Joe Prutch, Contract Planner, stated that Mr. LaVine was asking for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to convert an existing 627 -sq. ft. residence to a second residential unit. Currently a single - family residential unit is under construction on the front of the parcel. Mr. Prutch stated that a building permit was issued for the residence that is under construction. The exterior of the existing residence will be changed to match the exterior of the new residence. A portion of the old driveway will be removed and new pavement will be installed to accommodate the second dwelling unit, as well as the three -car garage for the single family home. A bond has been issued to insure that the Conditional Use Permit is acquired for the second residence dwelling unit. Commissioner London asked if the street was a public street and who was responsible for the maintenance of it? Kerry McCants, Community Development Director explained that it was a private street and the property owners were responsible for the maintenance. Commissioner London stated that the lot size for this kind of development indicates that it is supposed to be a specific square footage. In circumstances where the topography is such that part of the land is not usable, how does this factor into the allowable lot size? ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 1999 PAGE 2 Mr. McCants replied that the minimum lot size is exactly that, the size of the legal lot. Unless there is a specific provision that describes a "buildable" area, it would not make a difference. Mr. London asked if there was any prohibition against renting the second unit out to anyone other than a family member and if any such restriction could be placed on it? Mr. Prutch replied that the owner must live in one of the two residences. Other than that there is no restriction against one being rented. Commissioner Keen asked why this had not come before the Planning Commission for approval before the building permit had been issued? Mr. Prutch explained that when this project first came to the Community Development Department, the building permit had already been issued and construction had been started. There was a bond posted to ensure the applicant would obtain the Conditional Use Permit. Vice -Chair Parker asked if it was permissible in this area, with this zoning to allow a second - residential use and it could be rented out? Mr. Prutch replied that this was correct. With regards to the garage, Mrs. Parker stated that it was required to have a covered parking space for the second unit. Since this project was offering one space in the new S- car garage, was this allowed? Mr. Prutch was not sure if this was allowed or not. He would have to do some more research to answer this question. He did explain that the Development Code only stated that there has to be one covered space and one uncovered space. It did not specify that it could or could not be in conjunction with the parking for the main residence. Mrs. Parker questioned the fact that there would be two gas meters on the property. She understood that this was not allowed. Mr. McCants stated that whatever the plans show at this time with regard to the meters, when they are submitted to the Building Department they will have to comply with the Building Code. Commissioner Costello stated that the issue he was concerned about was the issue of water. He asked, when the City looks at build out and when the City takes lots like this and split them then calculates the water supply, were these kinds of situations looked at originally? Or, is there going to be a problem with reaching building out that the City then discovers that there isn't enough water? 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 1999 PAGE 3 Mr. McCants replied that he did not know if the water allocation was based on the potential development of second residential units. Mr. Costello asked if this was a significant concern for the Planning Commission? Mr. McCants stated that he would have to look into this with the Public Works Department. Commissioner Keen stated that there could only be one meter for the two residences. Chair Greene asked how many residences were served by this common driveway and did any of the other residences have second residential dwellings? Mr. Prutch stated that five or six residences were serviced by the common driveway and that he did not recall of any other second residential dwellings existed on the other lots. Chair Greene opened the Public Hearing. Mr. LaVine stated that the private road was under a road maintenance agreement and that there were six lots serviced by it. Further 143 Tally Ho Road does have a second residential unit. There is one at the corner of James Way and Tally Ho Road and at the corner of Colina Way and James Way. He explained that he understood that the Building Code allowed only one electric meter and they have accommodated that. Presently the only electricity on the property is in what will be the second residence but this will be removed. The Gas Company chose to leave the gas meter at the existing residence and there is a lateral installed to the main house. As far as the covered parking spaces, he has built 2 other "granny units" in Arroyo Grande and the way he has complied before was to extend the garage to create the third space. Previously, when he came before the Planning Commission these was a question of ample parking, so this time he showed there was off street parking with room for about eight vehicles. He went on to say that this job is almost complete. The subject residence had a new roof and new stucco has been applied to it matches the new home. By this time next week he expects the job to be finaled. The Building Inspector had been at the site this week he only found two minor items that had to be done and he will be ready to sign off on the project. Finally, he pointed out to the Planning Commission that there is only one small area on the parcel that is too steep for building. The remainder of the parcel is a gentle slope. The total parcel is approximately 21,000 -sq. ft. and his understanding of the Development Code is that, for a detached second residential dwelling, only 10,000 -sq. ft. is required. He asked that he be able to speak again to rebut any comments that are subsequently made and that the secretary makes sure that the recorder is going so that all comments are recorded. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 1999 PAGE 4 Kenneth Hill, 141 Tally Ho Road, stated that he was concerned at the last meeting that this project was being postponed until now and be a status quo. He wanted the Commission to know that he appreciated all their questions and he was concerned that the staff had no substantial answers. It was his understanding that when a person applies for a permit to build a home with an existing unit on it, that this would require that the people in the area would have to be noticed. Why did it take so long before the people in the area were notified? In reading a brochure he had received from the Community Development Department, he felt that this was too much of a "done deal ". He wondered what the point was of even having a meeting? Mr. Hill stated that he had had problems with the way Mr. LaVine does things in the past. He felt he was "coming in the back door" with this project. One of the reasons he was at the meeting tonight was to asked why, when the building permit was issued, wasn't everyone notified? Finally, as far as the additional traffic was concerned, especially with children playing in the cul -de -sac, adding another home will create more traffic and make it even more difficult. Alicia Garcia, 139 Tally Ho Road, stated that she just brought her property about three months ago. When she was in escrow, she was concerned about anyone building in this area. She understood that the existing smaller house was going to be used as a shop and no one would be living there. She felt that it was too small of an area for two separate houses and it would make it two crowded. She bought her home for the peace and quite and she is afraid that it will be gone. Eric Wall, 135 Tally Ho Road, just wanted to say that there was a house on Tally Ho Road that his friend owned that had a second residential unit. When his friend bought the house he was told that he could not rent it out. He asked if the same kind of stipulation could be put on this project? He also felt that this should have been addressed. L. C. LaVine stated that this project had been in the making since 1996. In June of 1999 it was presented to the Chief Building Inspector and the City Attorney and at that time it was decided that a cash bond would be put up to assure compliance. Mr. LaVine stated that he had met the cash bond requirement. Mr. LaVine stated that this was handled through the City Attorney or the permit would have never been issued. So, this was not a back door kind of thing and the City has his money in the form of a cash bond. As far as Mrs. Garcia's concerns, Mr. LaVine stated that he sympathized with her but while she was looking at the Real Estate, prior to an escrow being opened, she was given a set of plans and the word "existing residence" was on the plans. Further, it was explained to her through the broker that this was the intention of the project. When she asked what would happen if the residence did not comply with building codes, she was told it would then become a shop. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 1999 PAGE 5 Mr. LaVine stated that this project meets all Development Code requirements, in fact exceeds them, and the Community Development Department found that it did not have a significant environmental impact. Further, the two homes and the parcel is now listed with a real estate broker at $434,000. Commissioner London asked Mr. LaVine if he was going to live at this address? Mr. LaVine stated that it will be sold and there will be a deed restriction that will require the property owner to live in one of the residences and that the parcel cannot be split into two. Chair Greene asked Mr. LaVine how many people reside off the cul -de -sac and use that driveway? Mr. LaVine stated that six people use the cul -de -sac, one parcel is prior to the cul -de -sac. Chair Greene then asked if it was reasonably foreseeable that the purchasers of the larger house would rent out, or allow someone to occupy the smaller house? Mr. LaVine stated that he could not say for sure what would happen, however he has made sure that everything was done to code. Commissioner Keen asked if had to get a separate permit to remodel the existing unit? Mr. LaVine stated that he owed some fees for that. Commissioner Keen asked Mr. LaVine then, if he had gone ahead without a permits? Mr. LaVine stated that he had had permits and that Mr. Schmidt from the Building Department had been on the project several times. Chair Greene closed the Public Hearing Commissioner London stated that he had visited the site and was concerned about the traffic in this cul -de -sac because so many single - family homes were serviced by it. He stated that he did not agree with Mr. LaVine, and whatever staff member he had spoken with, that it met the Development Code requirements. In Section 9- 03.050 -p it states "a proposed use would not impair the integrity and character of the district it will be located in ". He feels that it would impair the area with increased traffic. Mr. London stated that this should be looked into before and from this standpoint this project should not have gone forward. Commissioner Keen stated that he did not see anyplace where the City Attorney could tell someone to go ahead and build a house. He feels that the intent of the Development Code was not to have a garage with in the main building. It was to a covered parking space by the second residential unit. He stated that when the property is sold, whoever buys this ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 1999 PAGE 6 property will not want a tenant in and out of their garage. He again stated that he did not feel this was the intent of the Development Code and that it is a way to try and get around the covered parking space and he objects to this. Mr. Keen said that he knows that State law allows for these second residential units as long as they meet Development Code requirements however, he does not feel this project meets the parking requirement and he objects to this project until this is taken care of. Vice -Chair Parker stated that she too was confused about why this project was coming before the Planning Commission at this point. If the Planning Commission denies the Conditional Use Permit, what will this mean? Will he have to tear down the second structure? She is also confused about the bond. Mr. Prutch stated that the bond was issued to make sure Mr. LaVine would come in for the Conditional Use Permit. If the permit is denied, then the money is in place to either, tear down the second unit, or to take out the kitchen and restroom and not allowing anyone to dwell there. Mrs. Parker asked if Mr. LaVine was somehow given an indication that, if he got the bond, that the project would be approved? Mr. McCants explained that the Community Development Department was not a part of the original discussion with Mr. LaVine so they could not answer that question. However, if the use permit is denied, than that unit will either have to be torn down, or the facilities that make it a residence will have to be removed. Mrs. Parker stated that it seems unfortunate to her that this has happened. It is amazing to her that this has happened and this puts the Planning Commission in a very difficult position. Mr. McCants stated that he understood Mrs. Parker concerns and that the applicant had essentially assumed that risk when he chose to proceed with the project. There are no guarantees that a project will be approved, and further the Planning Commission is not compelled to approve this project. The Planning Commission has to weigh the facts and if they can make the findings, approve it. If they can't make them, then they will have to deny the project. The Planning Commission should deal with this project in the same way they would deal with a violation of the Development Code. In other words, Mr. McCants stated that if someone had done something in violation and then had come before the Planning Commission to have it corrected, it is the same situation. Commissioner Costello reviewed the facts of the case, as he understood them. He then asked how many covered spaces were missing? Mr. Prutch said that there were three spaces located in the main garage. 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 1999 PAGE 7 Chair Greene felt that it was worth repeating that City staff did not do anything wrong in this case. Mr. LaVine assumed the risk by investing in the reconstruction and remodeling of the existing structure that the permit granted. City staff was following existing City codes and ordinances and doing things the way they should be doing them. Mr. Greene felt that any criticism was unfair. Mr. LaVine only received a permit to construct the new building and not to remodeled the old residence. Therefore, Mr. Greene stated that Mr. LaVine took the chance that Planning Commission would approve the Conditional Use Permit for the purposes of turning the existing residence into a second residential unit. As presented to the Planning Commission, it seems that the City was following the proper rules and procedures. Nevertheless, the Planning Commission retains the discretion to approve or deny the permit based on the criteria of the Development Code. The issues that concern Mr. Greene are the parking. Section 9-11-141.c. of the Development Code requires a covered space. He does not share Mr. LaVine's assertion that a covered space in the new garage satisfies the requirements of the Development Code. Secondly, in Section 9 -03 -050, one of the findings the Planning Commission has to make is that the evidence presented to them establishes that the proposed use will not impair the integrity and character of the district in which it is to be established. Mr. LaVine had previously come before the Planning Commission for a use permit for a "granny unit" on West Branch Street. The difference between that permit request, which was granted, and this one is that the one on West Branch dumped its traffic onto West Branch Street. This one will dump its traffic onto a common driveway, which is shared by other residences. Thirdly, Mrs. Garcia has some valid concerns. Furthermore if every one in the area is permitted to add "granny units" then the amount of traffic would be doubled, as well as the amount of water used. He agrees with Commissioner Costello's comments about the water issue with second residential units. He also agrees with Vice -Chair Parker in that the applicant has not met his burden and he is not prepared to make the Conditional Use Permit findings which are attached to the resolution before them tonight. It is unfortunate that Mr. LaVine has spent the amount of money to correct the outside of the existing residence but that was a risk he assumed by not going ahead and getting the use permit before he did the work. Vice -Chair Parker commented that if the use permit is not granted the second residence can either be removed or the kitchen and bathroom taken out. She felt that since it did not meet the qualifications, it cannot be rented out. However, it could be used as a studio because that would not cause any additional traffic. Mr. McCants stated that this would be decided by the Building Department. Commissioner Keen moved that the Planning Commission deny ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 1999 PAGE 8 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99 -014, APPLIED FOR BY L.C. LA VINE, LOCATED AT 137 TALLY HO ROAD. Commissioner London seconded the motion. The motion was approved by the following roll call vote: Roll Call Vote Aye Commissioner Costello Ave Commissioner Keen Ave Commissioner London Aye Vice -Chair Parker Ave Chair Greene II. B. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 99 -003; PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 99 -003; LOCATION — 1171ASH STREET; APPLICANT — BILLY D. SUTTON, SR. Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon, stated that the applicant had submitted a written request to have this item continued to a later date pending resolution of some of the conditions of approval. Staff is recommending this be continued to a date uncertain. Commissioner Costello moved that Item II. B. be continued to a date uncertain. Commissioner London seconded the motion. Roll CaII Vote Ave Commissioner Costello Ave Commissioner Keen Ave Commissioner London Ave Vice -Chair Parker Aye Chair Greene II.C. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 99 -004; LOCATION — 1254 POPLAR STREET; APPLICANT — AMELIA J. BARTHOLOMEW (CONTINUED FROM 10- 19 -99) Contract Planner, Joe Prutch, requested that this item be continued to a date uncertain. Commissioner Costello moved that Item II. C. be continued to a date uncertain. Commissioner London seconded the motion. The motion was approved by the following roll call vote: Roll Call Vote Ave Commissioner Costello Aye Commissioner Keen Ave Commissioner London Aye Vice -Chair Parker Ave Chair Greene 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 1999 PAGE 9 1I. D. PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM 99 -003; LOCATION 1132 WEST BRANCH STREET; APPLICANT - ALBERTSONS INCORPORATED Kelly Heffernon, Associate Planner presented the staff report and explained to the Commission that in November of 1998 the City Council approved the Planned Sign Program for the Five Cities Center which included signage for the Lucky's /Sav -On Supermarket. Albertsons has submitted an amendment to the approved Planned Sign Program to replace the Lucky's wall and monument signs with the Albertsons name and logo and reduce some of the secondary signage. The1 hr. Photo and Deli Bakery signs will remain and the food, drug and Bank of American signs will be eliminated. The Sav -On signage will also remain, but at a smaller scale. The aggregate sign area proposed for the Albertsons is 294 square feet which is about 55 feet less than what was originally proposed for the Lucky /Sav -On Supermarket. The proposed signs are typical of the standard signs, composed of panel channel letters with 2 -tone blue vinyl over white plexiglas. Each letter is individually illuminated with enclosed neon tubing. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 99 -1721, thereby recommending approval of the project to the City Council. Chair Greene asked if the Planning Commission had any questions for staff? Vice -Chair Parker asked if Albertsons and Sav -On were two different tenants and therefore the square footage for the signs would need to be considered separately. Ms. Heffernon clarified the signage requirements and stated that the proposed aggregate square footage is Tess than allowed by the Planned Sign Program for the Five Cities Center. Kerry McCants, Community Development Director, stated that in the case of Planned Sign Programs, the diagrams really show what is going to be allowed or not. What has been approved has been very specifically described and the decision tonight will be going to the City Council. Chair Greene opened the Public Hearing. Bill Hunter, contractor for the installation of the signs, stated that he was there to answer any questions from the Commission. He further stated that he and Ms. Heffernon had calculated a total reduction of 79.875 square feet from the original approved plans. Further, there is a reduction in letter height as well as a reduction in the size of the word Albertsons and Sav -On and deleted secondary copy. Chair Greene asked if the Photo and Deli- Bakery signs were already up and operational? Mr. Hunter stated that they were up because those signs were already approved. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 1999 PAGE 10 Jan Scott, 520 Via Vaquero, stated that she wanted to thank Albertsons for having better taste than the last City Council that approved larger, bigger signs. Any reduction is just great. Chair Greene closed the Public Hearing. Vice -Chair Parker stated that she agreed with Mrs. Scott's viewpoint about the downsizing of the signs. She felt that the signs looked better and approved of the new signage. Commissioner Costello stated that he agreed and that the signs looked better. Chair Greene stated that Mr. Hunter was correct and the secondary signage was approved by a vote of the previous City Council. Mr. Greene stated that he took the position then, and still does that the secondary signage was not necessary. The decision by Albertsons to reduce the square footage of the signs and dispense with a couple of the secondary signs is a really good idea. However, he stated that he was going to stand by the position he had taken originally, that secondary signage is unnecessary. He cannot accept this so he is going to cast a dissenting vote, which he realizes will not make any difference with this particular decision but this is a matter of principle to him. Commissioner Keen moved that the Planning Commission adopt: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM CASE NO. 99- 003, APPLIED FOR BY ALBERTSONS, LOCATED AT 1132 WEST BRANCH STREET Including Attachment A and Exhibits B 1 and B 2. Vice -Chair Parker seconded the motion. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: Roll Call Vote Ave Commissioner Costello Ave Commissioner Keen Ave Commissioner London Ave Vice -Chair Parker NO Chair Greene III. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS RESOLUTION NO. 99 -1721 III. A. POLICY FOR POSTING PROJECT SITES 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 1999 PAGE 11 Contract Planner, Joe Prutch, explained that in an attempt to implement the Council's direction to expand the City's public information efforts, staff is proposing a policy requiring the posting of signs at development sites prior to Planning Commission and City Council hearing as appropriate. This policy would be in addition to all current noticing requirements. If approved by the City Council, the program will be implemented on all new development applications. Commissioner Keen asked if a single lot split would be included? Mr. Prutch explained that staff had made a list of all projects that require discretionary review, and from that list they eliminated the projects where they felt no sign would be necessary. Commissioner London asked if it was standard for every municipality to require sign posting? Mr. McCants stated that it varied from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. However, given the interest in land use proposals in this City, he felt it was appropriate to go a little further with the noticing in order to make the public aware of what was being proposed. Commissioner London stated that a sign that is thirty -two square feet would require a considerable expense for a developer. He asked Mr. McCants if this was going to be mandatory for the projects that were listed as requiring posted signs? Mr. McCants replied that it would be mandatory. Commissioner Costello asked if the sign needed to be 8 x 4 feet? Mr. McCants replied that it was only stated that the sign needed to be 32 square feet. It could be added that it should be 8 X 4 feet. Vice -Chair Parker asked if the developer would be paying for the sign and be responsible for making it with all the information needed? If the time or date of the meeting were changed, would they be responsible for making sure the change was notice on their sign? Mr. McCants stated that they would be responsible for everything. Chair Greene stated that he thought this was a great idea and was glad when he saw the Village Glen sign. The only observation he had was that he would like to see the minimum number of days required to post before the meeting increased. Commissioner Costello stated that this would help eliminate the problem the Commission has heard about people not knowing about the projects. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 1999 PAGE 12 Commissioner Keen stated that he felt the Village Glen sign was too "busy ". He asked if it would be a good idea to come up with a standard sign with the basic information on it? Then everyone would not be making up his or her own signs. This may also make them more affordable. 11. B. DIRECTION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGARDING HIGHWAY 101 /BRISCO ROAD LEVEL OF SERVICE POLICY Kerry McCants stated that this was an item that the City Council had directed staff to bring to the Planning Commission as well as to the Traffic Commission. What the Planning Commission will be dealing with are the thresholds of significance in terms of the Level of Service for environmental review purposes. Also, dealing with the language in the General Plan that specifies the Level of Service for road within the circulation system being a Level of Service "C" as a minimum. Mr. McCants introduced Mayor Pro -Tem Ferrara who had a presentation to give to the Planning Commission concerning this issue. Mayor Pro -Tem Ferrara explained to the Planning Commission that the policies he would like them to look at were much broader than the LOS at Brisco /101 but includes problematic situations all over the City as regards to Level of Service. Mr. Ferrara stated that the City Council needed direction from the Planning Commission on how the City might achieve: ■ Standardization of City policy regarding traffic studies. • Standardization of City policy regarding Level of Service. • Better procedural guidance for staff with regards to these issues. Following Mr. Ferrara's presentation, the Planning Commission discussed what direction they would take with this issue and asked questions of Mr. McCants and Mr. Ferrara. Chair Greene invited the public to make comments on this item. Jay Faerigan, 745 Ridgemont Way stated that the City owes Mr. Ferrara a vote of thanks for the effort he has expended in his presentation and for recognizing a serious problem within the City. Mr. Faerigan has worked as a Civil Engineer and was often frustrated when a governmental agency did not provide any guidelines to applicants. It is not fair to have applicants come in with their projects and City staff tells the applicant to present something and then they will decide if it is appropriate or not. Mr. Faerigan stated that the only thing this accomplishes is to spend someone else's money and creates "bad will ". Finally, there are serious traffic problems that need to be addressed and this is a hard problem to solve when the City is split by the freeway. The freeway creates a barrier and makes a very difficult situation traffic wise. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 1999 PAGE 13 C.Z. Brown, 350 Old Ranch Road, stated that there are many problems with the traffic especially at the Brisco Road /101 intersection. The problem will escalate if Cal -Trans improves the traffic over Halcyon to the mesa. He felt that time out was needed to look at the issues and come up with standards. Also, what help staff might need for the Commission to come up with some specific recommendations to the Council. Possibly staff could use some consultant help. Mr. Brown commended Council Member Ferrara for bringing this matter to the Commission's attention. Robert Christianson, 2550 Bayside Place stated that he was very impressed by the clarity of Mr. Ferrara's presentation. He can't imagine trying to do traffic studies to resolve the problems the City is seeing without having some methodology that is uniform and well established. The thing that the City is seeing is an aggregate of small individual projects individually funded and the City needs to aggregate all the projects so the City can receive all the funds they need to not only correct, but to get the City up to the power curve on this issue. Pat Palangi, 1400 Sierra Drive stated that he IS a real estate agent representing a client who was thinking about developing some property on Grand Avenue. He explained that the property is in the pre - planning stages and his client has met with staff at about the time the City Council resolution came about. He wanted to give the Planning Commission some input about how this was received by his clients. The people who have seen the resolution only from the perspective of being in the planning process have not had the opportunity to review Mr. Ferrara's presentation. If they had that opportunity, it would be very helpful and he will relay this information to his client. He went on to say that he understood that it was not the Council's intent to create a moratorium, but this is how it was perceived. Without an understanding on what is to be required and how to proceed, specifically, it is very difficult to make business decisions on how much money to spend in the pre - planning phase of a project. He wanted to know how they should proceed with their project in the interim period before the Council makes a decision? Mayor Pro -Tem stated that this was not a moratorium. What was happening was the Planning staff was sitting down with potential developers and looking at ways in which they could continue to advance and work toward mitigation strategy. The City Council is not turning its back on projects that are underway. Rather, the City is trying to look at them, in the absence of any structure, in a common sense way to look at traffic impacts and dispersal patterns and what some attainable mitigation might be. Ross Kongable, 255 Rodeo Drive, stated that he hopes the public will take part in the discussions about this issue. He would like so see some forums for the public so they can ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 1999 PAGE 14 better understand what is being done. He would be willing to work along with C.Z. Brown to try and generate some public interest. Jan Scott, 520 Via Vaquero, stated that when she first started attending Planning Commission meetings she thought that when a traffic study was done, truth was found out and things happened the way they were supposed to. She stated that she found out during the "Wal Mart Wars" that this was not true. She felt that having guidelines for a process where, the City is trying to learn something about what is going to happen and make predictions, has got to be valuable. Chair Greene closed the public comment period. Keith Higgins spoke to the Planning Commission and stated that for any number of reasons he had an understanding of what needed to be done in the City of Arroyo Grande. He felt that Mr. Ferrara's presentation had really "crystallized" the issues. Mr. Higgins stated that he had some input on some of the issues raised at tonight's meeting. He would be happy to answer any questions the Planning Commission had for him tonight. In response to Mr. Ferrara's question about hiring a full time traffic engineer, he stated that it would be reasonable for Grover Beach, Pismo Beach, and Arroyo Grande jointly to share the services of a traffic engineer. Chair Greene asked what, if any, direction should the City give regarding peak period traffic count, summer volumes vs. school year traffic volumes? Mr. Greene explained to Mr. Higgins the discussion the Commission had had before with Mr. Orosz concerning the traffic study for the Village Glen project. Mr. Higgins explained that deciding when to take the traffic counts often has to do with what kind of land use is being considered. If it is a residential subdivision, it is well established that the peak hours of traffic are between 7:00 and 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 and 6:00 p.m. In other words, the peak hours for a traffic count depend on the land use being considered. Commissioner Keen asked if Mr. Higgins knew of any cities that have taken their .own traffic counts from the "traffic controllers" on the intersection signals? And, would this be a more legitimate way of counting rather than having a different count done for each traffic study? Mr. Higgins answered that there are cities that have done this and it is a very good way of getting traffic counts. The City could also contract with SLOCOG to do traffic counts. Mr. Keen asked if the City could recoup the money from the traffic consultants by not having them do the traffic counts and then take the money and use it to make the City's control system count? 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 1999 PAGE 15 Mr. Higgins stated that this was a very good idea. One way to accomplish it was to include this amount in the administrative cost the City collects from the developer when a consultant is hired to do an EIR. Commissioner London asked if Mr. Higgins would recommend that the City do a more regional plan, including Pismo Beach, Grover Beach, and the County of SLO, to get a better picture of what the traffic issues really were and what is needed to resolve them? Mr. Higgins stated that it he felt it would be a very good idea to do this to establish the LOS and methodologies used, etc. Chair Greene asked why the City shouldn't set the measurement criteria for traffic consultants, in evaluating the level of service, to include all the things Mr. Higgins had discussed, such as delay time, volume and capacity, safety and design? Mr. Higgins talked about a Highway Capacity Manual, Operational Analysis Standard - Default Values, from the City of Santa Cruz, which delineates the standards for that City. The City of Arroyo Grande could establish the exact standards it wants and they would be available for everyone to use. Commissioner London asked if there was one study or manual that Mr. Higgins had reviewed that he would recommend as a starting point for the City of Arroyo Grande? Mr. Higgins stated that he would go to his staff that deals specifically with traffic issues and ask their opinion of which study or report would be best as a model. Commissioner London asked if there was any study on a regional basis that would be helpful to the City. Mr. Higgins stated that SLOCOG is the forum for this. He explained that there are many parts to doing something like this. For example: • The type of computer software package that is used depending on the methodology that is established. • Get some consistency within the region. For instance, if there is a street with LOS of "C" in Grover Beach, it is the same as the LOS of "C" in Arroyo Grande and on a Cal Trans facility. Then everyone is "talking the same language ". • The same methodologies are not just for current conditions. These methodologies are taken and forecasted out to include the post project condition, with cumulative project conditions, and General Plan buildout conditions using the same software packages. However, sometimes even the sophisticated software packages can't accurately predict exactly what will happen. • It is important as decision - makers to have an understanding of what the traffic study is really showing. • There are many variables to doing a traffic study, so there are always some limitations to the study. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 1999 PAGE 16 Commissioner Keen stated that there are three (3) intersections in Arroyo Grande that either function with, or are interfaced with Cal Trans. There are problems with this because Cal Trans controls the signals. Mr. Keen went on to say that because of this the City needs to know what the standards are for Cal Trans and adjust some of its criteria to what Cal Trans does. Commissioner Costello stated that it is critical to establish measurable, concrete criteria and have them applied consistently to standardize our policy. Once this criteria is determined it will be a simple matter to have staff apply them. The City then will have the ability to evaluate projects more effectively. He is not sure how it would be best to handle the discussions on this issue. Vice -Chair Parker suggested that the Commission should write down their idea and turn them into the Community Development Department. She did not feel that this needed to be discussed at another meeting. Finally, this is such an important issue and is so needed that she can't believe the City does not have established standards. Commissioner London felt this was an overwhelming task and that it will be difficult to solve the problems that the City has with traffic. However, at least the Planning Commission could come up with some ideas to help solve a part of the problem. Commissioner Keen stated that Mr. Ferrara suggests that the Planning Commission: 1. Discuss the questions and issues. 2. Reach consensus 3. Develop specific recommendations Mr. Keen stated that he felt this is exactly what the Planning Commission should do. He felt that each Commission member should go through the information and write down what he /she feels the policy should be and then discuss the issues at the next Planning Commission meeting. Chair Greene stated that he felt there was a set of six (6) questions that the Commission had been asked to answer. He felt the Planning Commission should focus on these six (6) questions and then send an explanation of their findings to the City Council. He asked that the City Staff send the Commission some additional information regarding various options and explanations of why they should do one or the other of the alternatives that Mr. Ferrara has set forth in his six- (6) questions. Chair Greene proposed that the Planning Commission hold another meeting, that they do not have a public input period and come up with a consensus which they can then send on to the City Council. He asked if Mr. Higgins could provide them with two or three models from different cities so the Commission had something to follow. After further discussion it was decided that staff would place the Level of Service item on the December 7, 1999 Planning Commission meeting for public comment only. At the same time, staff will provide material to the Commission that will aid them in making 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 1999 PAGE 17 decisions on the issue. The Level of Service issue will be placed on the December 21, 1999 Planning Commission meeting for discussion and final decision making. IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS After a brief discussion it was decided that a Planning Commission meeting would be held on December 21'. ITEM V. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS Commissioner London questioned the color of the roof tiles at the Wal Mart shopping center and asked why the ARC had allowed the color of the tiles to be changed. Mr. McCants explained to Mr. London that the problem was that the tiles on the roof were different colors because the equipment that the tiles were supposed to "hide" on the roof was larger than originally thought. The weight of the tiles that had been used else on the roof was so heavy that the roof would not support them. Therefore, they had to use a different material and the colors did not match exactly. VI. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS None VII. ADJOURNMENT On motion of Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner London the meeting was adjourned at 12:00 a.m. to the next scheduled meeting on December 7, 1999. ATTEST: __Zaw_uta) Otsmit, Kathleen Fryer, Commission Ierk Laurence Greene, Chair erry ants Community Development Director