Loading...
PC Minutes 1998-08-041 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 4, 1998 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Lubin presiding. Present are Commissioners Haney, Greene, Parker, Keen and Chair Lubin. Also in attendance are Acting Community Development Director Helen Elder, Associate Planners Bruce Buckingham and Lezley Buford, and Senior Consultant Engineer Craig Campbell. Chair Lubin welcomed Commissioner John Keen to the Planning Commission. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Haney corrected the minutes of May 5, 1998, stating there were three substantial corrections. After listing the recommended corrections, Commissioner Haney stated he would provide the secretary with a copy of the corrections. Commissioner Greene corrected the second to last sentence, first paragraph on Page 2 to read: "Gateway tower #1 should remain but should only list the name of the Center and should not list any tenants whatsoever". On motion by Commissioner Haney, seconded by Commissioner Greene, motion carried with three abstentions, the minutes of the regular meeting of May 5, 1998 were approved as corrected. On motion by Commissioner Greene, seconded by Commissioner Haney, motion carried with one abstention, the minutes of the regular meetings of May 19, 1998 and June 2, 1998 were approved as prepared. Chair Lubin suggested that tonight's agenda be revised and the non - public hearing items be placed first on the agenda. After a brief discussion, on motion by Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Parker, and unanimously carried, the revised agenda was approved by the Commission. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING TO SOLICIT COMMENTS FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF A PROPOSAL TO SUBDIVIDE AND DEVELOP APPROXIMATELY 27 ACRES AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF JAMES WAY AND LA CANADA IN THE RANCHO GRANDE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, TENTATIVE TRACT 1998; APPLICANT: CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Associate Planner Lezley Buford reviewed the staff report dated August 4, 1998. She gave a brief overview of the environmental review process as to where we are today and what will take place in the future with regard to the environmental review of this project. She advised that the City has completed the initial review of the project and has determined that an Environmental Impact Report should be prepared to resolve environmental issues. The necessity of the review was determined mainly because there are endangered and listed species on the site and because of the existing wetlands on the site. She described the three main steps. First is the scoping hearing to obtain comments from the Planning Commission and public regarding the environmental concerns that may be associated with the project. Second, there will be a Notice of Preparation distributed to the responsible agencies. Following the Notice of Preparation will be the selection of the consultant to prepare the EIR and the final scope of the EIR. The draft EIR for public review will be available around January 1, 1999. She stated a consultant has been hired to do some of the initial biological and botany work. Following the 45 day public review period of the draft EIR will be preparation of response to comments, comments on the EIR revisions to the Draft EIR and any other study that might need to be prepared, would be incorporated and we would have a proposed final EIR. Also, there would be preparation of the mitigation monitoring program in response to mitigation measures that are identified in the Final EIR. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 2 August 4, 1998 Ms. Buford advised that following this process is certification of the EIR, which is a statement on the part of the decision - making body that the EIR is adequate and has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and reflects the independent judgement of the City. She further advised that the costs of the EIR are borne by the applicant, with an additional 15 % on for administrative costs. Additionally, once the EIR has been certified by the decision - making body, this is the point when the proposed project is actually ready to be considered by the decision - making body. She noted that, in this case, because the project is in the Planned Development district, the Planning Commission would be making a recommendation to the City Council. Finally, if approval action is taken on the project, the City would then file a Notice of Determination. With regard to the project itself, Ms. Buford referred to the tentative map, stating there are 40 lots ranging in size from approximately 4,800 to 24,000 square feet, however, most of the lots are approximately 5,000 square feet. This project would also require a Planned Unit Development permit because of the irregular size of the lots being proposed and, therefore, would be inconsistent with the normal zoning. Preliminarily, there have been issues identified to the drainage because of cut and fill associated with the project; because of the creek and wetlands located on the project, and because of the soil types that are there and the potential for liquefaction, as well as high ground water. Other issues are the biology and plant life, oak trees and other trees and vegetation, and patches of Pismo Clarkia which is listed as an endangered species by both federal and state agencies. With regard to public services, there is a potential for increase in the demand for public services, and potentially with schools and parks. Ms. Buford advised the access to the project would be via Rosemary Lane and, at this time, the applicant is contemplating making the internal circulation system private roads. Commissioner Parker asked about the significance of the streets being private rather than public streets. Ms. Buford advised that private streets can be built to different standards than public streets. Also, with regard to maintenance, the responsibility would be either up to the Home Owners' Association or some other body, but would not be the City's responsibility. Senior Consultant Engineer Craig Campbell explained the applicant would have to take their project through the Planned Development process that would define whether they are public or private streets. He stated that the project before the Commission is set up for private streets because the streets are more narrow and the property lines are located closer together than they would be with a public street. Commissioner Parker also asked if there was permission to use the road on the corner of James Way and La Canada. Staff advised that they did not have permission to use the road except for watering it down for dust. In answer to Commissioner Greene's question if any rights or entitlements been granted to the applicant by previous Commission action, Ms. Buford advised that this project is part of the overall Rancho Grande Planned Development and was the subject of the Development Agreement of the entire development, which expires in November 1998. Basically, it is not really an entitlement; it is a statement in the Development Agreement that this is designated as a 40 unit clustered development, which is an overlay designation. However, it must go through all of the City's processes and must also meet all City, state and federal laws in terms of any development that may actually be approved on the parcel. She noted that the City Attorney is reviewing the Development Agreement at this time to determine whether or not there are any other implications associated with it. Hearing no further comments from the Commission or staff, Chair Lubin advised this is a non- public hearing item, however it would be opened for discussion by the public. He invited the applicant to address comments to the Commission. 1 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 3 August 4, 1998 Darren Shetler, applicant for the project, stated he has been involved with the Rancho Grande project for quite some time and, through that process, there has been a considerable amount of community interaction throughout the entire process and, in his opinion, we wouldn't have the project we have today without that interaction. He stated the feedback from people that are coming into the community and purchasing homes there is very positive about the project and he feels this final project will be as good as the previous ones. Robert P. Brownson, 653 Asilo, stated he is representing the homeowners in The Highlands development adjacent to the proposed development. He commented they were disappointed when they looked at the plans for the Castlerock Development because the plan as presented violates the General Plan of Arroyo Grande in countless ways. It is their belief that this development is rife with serious environmental abuses and their goal is one of environmental constraint on the part of the developer. He further stated that the concerns being addressed and identified come directly out of the General Plan. He reviewed that the concerns have been organized into eight categories that are from the General Plan. These are: natural beauty, preservation of the oaks, soil erosion and errodability, impervious surfaces causing erosion and pollution, basic land disturbances, biologically sensitive habitats, i.e. wetlands, woodlands and vegetation, native plants, grasslands, shrubs and brush, and endangered protected species. Mr. Brownson further stated there is an active stream identified by the U. S. Department of Interior Geological Survey located above the area. There is a watershed that comes down filling the wetlands and creating a stream. That particular stream continues on through the area down along James Way and eventually it joins with the Pismo stream, and together they continue on to the Pismo Lake Marsh preserve. Mr. Brownson referred to the General Plan and specifically addressed each one of the foregoing concerns. He addressed some specific building sites, stating their concerns about general and disturbances, cutting into hillsides, removal of oak trees, creating impervious surfaces causing erosion, runoff, pollution and siltation. Mr. Brownson spoke regarding preserving the wetlands and protection of endangered and protected species. He stated that unconsolable tampering with sensitive habitat cannot be permitted by unrestrained development covering over of wetlands, removing riparian habitats, and filling up streams. He stated the stream is environmentally critical for sensitive habitat. It is also a headwater stream leading to the protected Pismo Lake Marsh, and the developer's plan to fill in part of the stream and the adjacent wetlands and displacing habitat is unbelievable and cannot be allowed to happen. Mr. Brownson pointed out that the proposed plans show a wall to be built on the lip of the stream without any setbacks or buffers and the very erosive soil base inside the stream will not support the walls on the edge of the stream. He urged that there be a full scale Environmental Impact Report done and requested an early draft of the report so that experts can be brought in to review the report. He presented slides and photographs to the Commission and audience. Dave Chippin, 1530 Baywood Drive, Los Osos, California Native Plant Society, stated he hopes when scoping the EIR, the Commission will look at the cumulative impacts of Tract 1834, 1994 and 1997. He stated that the original EIR hardly discussed the tract that is being discussed here tonight. It was shown to be 40 units clustered at that particular time. However, in reading the document, there was almost no mention at all made as to how the oaks and vegetation were to be treated. In the accounting for oak trees, it was stated 616 oaks were going to be taken out of 1834; 36 out of 1994 and 18 out of 1997. Mr. Chippin requested that the EIR look at entire complex of tracts, and also look at what actually happened to suggested and planned mitigations. He stated a cumulative impact analysis should not be forwardly directed; it should be past directed and should link the entire complex of tracts that were looked at in the original EIR back in 1990. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 4 August 4, 1998 Ella Honeycutt. 560 Oak Hill Road. stated that this tract was done in the 1980's and the EIR covered oak trees and was a very good Environmental Impact Report. In 1990 it was rewritten and it was watered down. She stated the City has a whole new staff now and there is no corporate memory left provide some of this past history. She commented that a decision was made to build on the hillsides and not build on the farmland. The soils on these hillsides are classified by the United States Department of Agriculture as the most erosive in the world. In the 1970 Pismo Lake was a dying marsh. The Conservation District raised over $500,000 to get the marsh cleaned up and it took over 8 years to get the funds. She commented that to keep these wetlands open is a conservation issue more than an environmental issue. Another issue is the operation and maintenance of the siltation basins, and it is her understanding that the homeowners have to maintain those basins. If the mud is going to come off of that hill as it did the last year, they are going to be paying a high price to keep those retention basins open and, if eventually they fill up, then we have another dying marsh. She suggested that the Commission look at the original Environmental Impact Report. Bill Denneen, 1040 Cielo Lane, Nipomo. stated he is a retired biologist and it was gratifying to hear someone feeling so strongly toward the protection of the wetlands. He advised that in California we have destroyed 95% of our wetland habitat and these are very important habitats with great species diversity. Hearing no further comments from the audience, Chair Lubin closed the public discussion portion of the meeting. He advised the process is long and will include numerous public hearings, and no decisions will be made on this project tonight other than moving the scoping forward so that we have the proper information to make the right decision. Commissioner Haney stated one thing he is unclear about is the issue of going back and looking retrospectively and re- examining the prior tracts with regard to the oak tree management program, and he is not sure if this is a normal process. He requested that this be looked into. He also stated it appears that all of the other issues will be addressed in the EIR. Ms. Buford briefly reviewed the mitigation monitoring process, stating that presently under state law there must a mitigation monitoring program that is adopted along with the EIR. Chair Lubin stated he would like to look at the 1980 EIR that started this project. Commissioner Greene expressed concern about public safety issues that are presented by single access to the project and narrow streets in view of the remote location of this project and the fire and public safety dangers represented by the surrounding community. He expressed concern about the safety of people living there if the only access is the single road that crosses the streambed. He stated he would like the EIR scoping to include an exploration of that particular issue, in addition to all the issues that Mr. Brownson and the other speakers raised. In addition to the other issues raised, Chair Lubin stated he would like to add traffic in general to the list and how those streets will interact with the environment and the additional traffic on James Way. He stated it is his belief that it is the goal of this Planning Commission to create a positive environment in the City of Arroyo Grande, and it is hoped to bring this project to a conclusion that will hopefully satisfy everyone. 1 1 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 5 August 4, 1998 PUBLIC HEARING (CONTINUED) - REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 89 -459; APPLICANT: COASTAL CHRISTIAN SCHOOL; REPRESENTATIVE: LANCE TULLIS; LOCATION: 1220 FARROLL AVENUE Chair Lubin read a letter from Kathy Spencer, dated August 3, 1998, stating that the awnings and trellis have been installed, and the larger plants have been put in place. The letter indicated that the improvements have improved the appearance of the modular units. The letter stated she has no further issues with the school and she supports the continuation of the Conditional Use Permit. Acting Community Development Director Helen Elder advised that, in addition to Kathy Spencer's letter, she was contacted by the principal, Mr. Tullis, and he indicated a representative would be present at the meeting to represent the school. She further advised that staff did look at the site, and the improvements have been installed as described by Ms. Spencer. Bud Gunter, Coastal Christian School, stated he is a member of the Board of Directors. He provided a picture to the Commission showing the improvements to the modular. He was advised that there would be another annual review in July 1999. After a brief discussion, on motion by Commissioner Greene, seconded by Commissioner Haney, and unanimously carried, the Commission found the use to be in compliance with the conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit Case No. 89 -459. PUBLIC HEARING - BERRY GARDENS SPECIFIC PLAN (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 97 -002; DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 97 -007, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2260), ADOPTION OF THE BERRY GARDENS SPECIFIC PLAN ESTABLISHING A LAND USE PLAN FOR THE 50 ACRE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA; ESTABLISHING DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN STANDARDS FOR SUB -AREA 1 INTO 160 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES, 31 ATTACHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES; A 0.75 ACRE PUBLIC PARK, AND A 2.5 ACRE DRAINAGE BASIN FOR A TOTAL OF 191 RESIDENTIAL UNITS; APPLICANT: CHARLES BAKER; REPRESENTATIVE: ROB STRONG; LOCATION: SOUTH OF GRAND AVENUE, EAST OF OAK PARK BOULEVARD, NORTH OF ASH STREET, AND WEST OF SPRUCE STREET Associate Planner Bruce Buckingham presented the staff report dated August 4, 1998. He advised that the applicant is requesting approval of the Berry Gardens Specific Plan consisting of approximately 50 acres. The City's General Plan requires that a specific plan be prepared for this area. The purpose of a specific plan is to establish policies for the allowed land uses, such as residential or commercial; density or how many units should be allowed; development standards; design standards, and location, distribution and size of required infrastructure. The specific plan must be consistent with the overall purpose and intent of the City's General Plan, however, a specific plan does not necessarily have to mirror the existing standards contained in the City's Development Code, and allows for flexibility in development code standards. Mr. Buckingham stated that the Berry Gardens specific plan area has been divided into four sub- areas to coincide with the four property owners within its boundaries. He briefly reviewed the sub - areas, listing the owners. He noted that the applicant, Charles Baker, has joined with the Kawaoka's to develop Sub -Area 1, and the three remaining property owners have declined to participate in the specific plan at this time and, therefore, the specific plan does not change the existing densities or establish certain design standards for Sub -areas 2, 3 and 4. The only changes to Sub -areas 2, 3 and 4 created by approval of the project would be the infrastructure planning and off -site improvements that would be developed, such as the extension of Court land to Grand Avenue. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 6 August 4, 1998 Mr. Buckingham advised that the specific plan for Sub -area 1 would allow for an increase in density as proposed. The existing underlying zoning for that sub -area allows for development of 113 residential units. The specific plan proposes a maximum density of 191 residential units, for a density increase of 78 dwelling units. The specific plan would establish development and design standards for a neo- traditional style single family home development. Mr. Buckingham briefly described the design of the overall project and features of the plan. He advised there are five items for the Planning Commission to consider tonight and make a recommendation to the City Council: Certification of the Environmental Impact Report; General Plan Amendment 97 -002; Development Code Amendment 97 -007; adoption of the Berry Garden Specific Plan and Vesting Tentative Tract 2260. With regard to the Environmental Impact Report, Mr. Buckingham stated the report was prepared by Firma, a local environmental consulting firm. In summary, the EIR has identified potential impacts and determined that all impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that the decision making body certify that the EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA before considering the project. Mr. Buckingham noted that staff has received two letters since the staff report was distributed on Friday, both regarding the economic viability of agricultural operations on the site, and all other letters received are included with the staff report. In conclusion, Mr. Buckingham stated that the Architectural Advisory Committee and the Staff Advisory Committee have reviewed the project and recommend that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution recommending approval of the project to the City Council. Mr. Buckingham described some minor amendments to the Conditions of Approval. In answer to Commissioner Parker's question regarding low income housing, Mr. Buckingham advised that there is a standard condition requiring that a certain number of the homes be made affordable to low income families based on the City's existing Housing Element policies. Chair Lubin declared a 10 minute break at 10:00 p.m. The meeting resumed at 10:10 p.m. with all Commission Members reporting present. Chair Lubin announced that a letter was received from the applicant on the Paseo Street Extension requesting a postponement and, therefore, Public Hearing Item III.B will be continued to the meeting of August 18, 1998. After discussion by the Commission and staff, Chair Lubin opened the hearing for public discussion and invited the applicant and his representative to give their presentation. Charles Baker, Box 370, Arroyo Grande, stated he is one of the applicants. He presented petitions with approximately 140 signatures of persons in favor of the project. He noted that almost two years have spent on the development of the specific plan and this is about the third time it has come before the Commission. Rob Strong, 444 Higuera Street, San Luis Obispo, stated the is the consultant representing the applicant. He advised that there are four parts for consideration tonight: the Environmental Impact Report must be certified before the Commission can favorably act on the project. There is a General Plan amendment that is associated with the Specific Plan request, and there is the Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 7 August 4, 1998 specific plan which has been developed with staff assistance and Advisory Committee review; pre- application consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council, and ultimately the environmental impact analysis. Assuming that the above three items are acceptable, the tentative map would implement the project in three phases. The details that are discussed in the staff report with 106 conditions generally are acceptable to the applicant without exception. He stated there is one issue that was brought up, which is the extension of Courtland to Ash Street. The applicants feel this is unnecessary and the project can provide either two or three access points. He added they are willing and able to do whatever the Commission decides is . appropriate. He reviewed previous history of the property and a prior proposal for approximately 242 units. That developer did not want to produce a specific plan when one was requested by the City and, therefore, the developer did not proceed with the project. Mr. Baker prepared a pre - application for 223 units and came to the Commission and talked about the design concepts of a neo- traditional subdivision and modified grid with open space primarily concentrated into a proposed southwest area park/ponding basin combination. At that time the City did not want a public park to function as a ponding basin and indicated they would like to see fewer units and would like the park to be centralized. A revised plan was resubmitted for 204 units with a park in the center and the ponding basin was separated from the park, functioning as private open space. The plan included townhouses, patio homes and detached single family homes. That plan is the one that the EIR describes and, therefore, the EIR actually discusses a project with more units than the one before the Commission tonight. He stated that the EIR also discusses all of the possible impacts that 200+ units would have, such as traffic, noise, park requirements, effect on the environment, potential removal of some eucalyptus trees at the west edge of the project, and the basic concern of density. Mr. Strong stated they have offered, in accordance with the policies of the General Plan, a diverse mix of housing types with the concept of ownership housing. Single family detached compose 160 lots, multi - family development ranging from 9 to 20 units per acre, and adjacent to that proposes a patio home designation, which would allow a density of approximately 5.1 dwelling units. He noted that there is an open space provision within the development code and, in some cases, can be hillsides, creeks, ponding basins or recreation areas. This project proposes the ponding area as a private open space, not as a primary recreation area. It is believed that the ponding basin can be a functional recreation area nine months or more of the year. It will be maintained by a Homeowners' Association which will be composed of the 31 patio homes. There is also a private driveway that serves those 31 patio homes, which will have special pavement treatment, special landscaping, including trees, lighting and parking areas convenient for guests. Basically, the exterior parameter, the private driveway and the ponding basin will all have a private maintenance association. Each one of the patio homes will have their own private areas. Mr. Strong stated that the reason the General Plan amendment is essential is because if the Rural Residential designation stays on the General Plan map and a one acre minimum lot is required on the western 15 acres, no project of a single family nature, anything characteristic of the surroundings, which are all 6,000 square foot lots, would conform. The Commission has a basic decision to make related to density, i.e., do you want to create an infill single family residential development in an area that has been designated since 1990 for residential conversion, or do you want it to be Rural Residential? The staff and a variety of public agencies, such as the Air Quality Control District, are recommending more compact use of infill to preclude sprawl, and to encourage more efficient and convenient completion of the neighborhood. Mr. Strong pointed out this project is basically less dense than the surrounding projects. He commented, in his opinion, the actions that the Commission needs to take are fully justified by the staff report and presentations. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 8 August 4, 1998 John Mack. 251 Oak Park Boulevard. Architect, reviewed the residential housing design. He stated one of the concepts regarding the traditional design is all about neighborhoods, people, and bringing the people outdoors and a sense of community. He reviewed the three elevations that depict traditional style. He noted that one of the strong concepts is to hide the automobile and to encourage more pedestrians and people to the front of the homes. The porch in front of the home is also brought forth over the entrance for the cars, which is basically tucking the vehicle to the rear of the home. What this does is hide the automobile; you don't see it from the street and it also converts the driveway into an open courtyard. This concept wraps the home around the courtyard and becomes liveable, outdoor useable space. He described the layering of the homes, noting that on the lefthand side is a single story home and on the right is a two -story home. This layering design with the second story portion tucked to the rear of the home provides a small home one -story concept. Jack Allen. 15015 Baxter Blvd.. Pacific Palisades. stated he owns the property at 1305 Poplar Street which immediately abuts this project. He requested that the hearing be continued for one month for the reasons he did not receive a copy of the staff report until this evening, and also because he never received a notice of this project prior to this hearing; never had an opportunity to participate, and was never advised of the fact there was a draft EIR out for review. He requested that the Commission continue the hearing to the next meeting, giving him time to submit written comments. Mr. Allen referred to the project itself, stating that the developer is asking for much higher density than is permitted by the existing General Plan and Zoning, which is probably the most important concern in this project. The second concern is the access into and out of the project is very poor and too limited. The third issue of this design is that it squeezes as much floor area as possible on as small a lot as possible. Other issues are the 10 foot setbacks and the wood fencing. Mr. Allen stated this is of particular concern to him because of the fire hazard and the proximity to his property. In summary, Mr. Allen suggested that the developer reduce the density, increase the setbacks, put in masonry walls and put in another access road from Juniper, which would improve access for fire trucks. He further stated he is not against development of the property, however, 114 units would be in conformance with the existing code. Mr. Allen also stated his concern about the Poplar Street sump which is adjacent to his house, commenting that it flooded twice last year and threatened his property. Condition #89 proposes enlarging the basin to accommodate the existing overflow. He stated it doesn't work now and, in his opinion, it won't work when it is enlarged because it ponds. Karl Hogan, 1255 Poplar Street; Latisha Balko; Richard DeBlauw, 744 Alta Vista; Linda Fielder, 835 Charles Street, Grover Beach; Greg Dutra, Juniper Street; Patrick McKenna, 137 Juniper Street; Jack Hardy, Grover Beach; and Linda Fuller, Grover Beach spoke in favor of the project. Hearing no further comments from the audience, Chair Lubin closed the public hearing and restricted further comments to the Planning Commission. In response to Commissioner Parker's question regarding low income housing, Mr. Baker stated that is the reason they proposed the 5.6 acres designated for smaller lots for ownership at a moderate selling rate of approximately $149,000. He estimated that the single family homes would be priced between $170,000 to $180,000, and it is anticipated that some of the larger two story homes would go up to around $220,000. 1 1 1 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 9 August 4, 1998 Commission Review of the Environmental Impact Report. Regarding Commissioner Parker's question regarding secondary dwelling units for family members, Mr. Strong stated that the secondary dwelling unit is no longer proposed on any lot in Berry Gardens; there are no secondary units allowed on any of the single family lots. Commissioner Haney referred to Section 4.D -1 of the report, specifically looking at the traffic elements that were considered as part of the report. He stated that virtually all of the projects in Arroyo Grande were included, however, there was nothing for Grover Beach or for some of the buildouts in Oceano. Mr. Foote, preparer of the EIR, referred to Page III -9, the Cumulative Analysis Project List, stating that Table P1 shows projects 1 through 18 are projects within the City of Arroyo Grande or are annexation proposals outside of Arroyo Grande, and projects 19 through 30 are all projects within Grover Beach. Commissioner Haney inquired if, in the Commission's recommendation to the City Council, there is the option of accepting the Environmental Report, but with the environmentally superior project being 114 or 125 units, or something different than 165 units? Associate Planner Buckingham stated this would be a discretionary choice of the Commission, and would be agreeing with the conclusions of the EIR in recommending certification. Also, on the project itself, the Commission would be taking one of the recommendations of the EIR in the planning of the project which, in this case, would be to reduce density. As a matter of clarification, Mr. Foote advised if the density were an issue to zone it all single family, the superior project would be 161 units vs. 165 as stated in the report; this was just an incremental reduction. Commissioner Haney suggested that if the Commission does move ahead with a recommending certification of the EIR, that a provision be included stating that instead of the consultant's acknowledgment that an environmentally superior project is 165 units, that the Planning Commission believes that a less dense project would be an environmentally superior project. He commented he would feel more comfortable supporting 114 or 125 units. Commissioner Keen stated he believes when considering the whole area, the consultant is correct in his assumption that 165 units would be the superior project. In his opinion, Rural Residential is not the right zoning for that area and, therefore, considering single family, would result in the 165 units and that would be the environmentally superior project because it would be compatible with the area and would make this whole project the same. Commissioner Greene stated, in his opinion, the issue being addressed as to whether the environmentally superior project should be something other than 165 homes can be addressed by simply approving or denying the resolution. After further discussion regarding the appropriate number of units for an environmentally superior project, Commissioner Haney withdrew his previous suggestion. There was discussion regarding the voting procedure, and it was the consensus of the Commission to vote on each item individually. After discussion, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 98 -1660 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY COMPLETION AND MAKE FINDINGS AS TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE BERRY GARDENS SPECIFIC PLAN; APPLICANT: CHARLES BAKER. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 10 August 4, 1998 On motion by Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Parker, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Haney, Greene, Keen, Parker and Chair Lubin NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing resolution was adopted this 4t day of August 1998. Commission Review of the Proposed Amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element and the General Plan Map. Commissioner Haney stated he is opposed to the General Plan amendment. The density proposed for the project, in his opinion, is far too high, which is 70% greater than the General Plan. The standards, such as lot size, setbacks and coverage have been compromised too far for the project, and results in a greater intensity of use in the area. Also, it results in greater use of our community capacities, including streets and roadways. He further stated, if we are going to increase the density that has been in place for the last nine years by more than 70 %, very strong justification is required. Similarly, if our development standards are going to be compromised, such as lot sizes, coverage, etc. by up to 25 %, in his opinion, the applicant has not provided enough justification to support that. The developers argument is that the neo- traditional architectural styling is one consideration he has made that justifies the decrease in standards. Commissioner Haney stated that this does have some merit, however, he doesn't believe this is enough compensation. Another argument was that the adjacent area use justifies a particular density. However, the General Plan specifically describes the density that has been in place since 1990 and what is expected there. Commissioner Haney further stated this area is one of the most dense areas in our community and could use some relief in the form of additional parks, etc. In summary, Commissioner Haney stated he would be in favor of supporting significantly less density than is being proposed. Commissioner Greene stated he is a supporter of the concept of returning the residential community to the citizens who live there to make it a comfortable and community oriented place to live. He likes the idea of off -set garages and neo- traditional designs, and he likes the idea of the traditional look, the inclusion of parkways, narrow streets and a centralized park are good objectives and persuasive, well thought out designs. He stated, however, he cannot support this project in its present density. One of his big concerns is the piece -meal way in which the project is being developed. The specific plan embraces the Matsomoto property, the Air -Vol property, the Toma property and the Berry Gardens property. Yet the proposal is to develop the Berry Gardens property without taking into consideration proper development of the surrounding parcels which are included in the specific plan. He stated his concern is that without a comprehensive plan, excessive pressure is being put on the surrounding properties to change and conform to the way the Berry Gardens parcel is being developed. The impact that this type of development will have on the community is going to be felt at all levels: traffic, schools, fire, public safety, police, etc. He stated his feeling that we need to involve as many property owners as possible within this specific plan. He agreed with Commissioner Haney's comments regarding density. Other concerns include water usage, drought conditions, the park is too small and needs to be enlarged and consistent with the Park Element of the General Plan, establishment of a price range for families with small children, the use of the basin as open space, traffic, the Courtland Avenue /Ash connection problem, and the issue of drainage. Another issue is the project design puts 8 or 10 houses along the Toma farming property, thus creating problems for those residents as well as the farming property. 1 1 1 1 1 Arroyo Grande PIanning Commission Page 11 August 4, 1998 Commissioner Parker stated she has some reservations about the project, and she also likes the different types of homes that are being offered. She originally thought they were going to be low income homes to justify the higher density and smaller yards. She stated she likes the look of the patio homes and, in her opinion, they would fit in nicely with the surrounding area. She commented that the units are being squeezed too much and she couldn't see any mitigation that would make it work for these people; they need some kind of compensation for the fact that they are now going to have no yard, 5 feet on the side yard and 10 feet in the back. She is concerned about the lot size because of all of the other factors. If the density and lot coverage wasn't real high, and if a sufficient sized park were proposed, there wouldn't be a problem with those particular issues. She further commented she would like to see two acres of park dedication in Berry Gardens. Also, there needs to be a buffer zone between the remaining agricultural land and the housing and commercial district that is going to be along Grand Avenue. In summary, Commissioner Parker stated if adequate parks were offered and a proper house to area ratio was provided, she wouldn't mind the increase in housing density so much. However, when the density is increased and the open space is decreased, decrease the park size and the private living space, it makes the people feel crammed in. The project does not follow the City's General Plan and does not maintain the rural character by cramming people together. Chair Lubin stated he has seen all of the proposals on this property in the last three years, starting with the higher density, and was pleased to see that the proposal was down to 191 homes. One of his concerns was the size of the park. He further stated he is highly in favor of the concept of the project. Also, he is very much in favor of the patio homes because, in his opinion, the City is very much in need of a smaller, more affordable home for this area. He advised he does not have any significant problems with this project and was prepared to vote in favor of the proposal tonight and, after hearing all of the concerns voiced by the other Commissioners, he stated he is still interested in seeing this project go forward. In response to Commissioner Greene's comments regarding using the entire specific plan area, Chair Lubin stated that when dealing with different owners with different time schedules, and different goals and objectives, it is difficult to bring it all into place. Sometimes we do have to move forward so we have a project in place and the surrounding areas have to decide how they are going to deal with that project. He also stated his feelings that this is one of the last few areas in the City that we have for infill that could handle this type of project. This is non - usable agricultural land which has been recognized for a number of years, and is recognized in the General Plan. Being no further discussion, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 98 -1661 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT AND THE GENERAL PLAN MAP; GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 97 -002; APPLICANT: CHARLES BAKER. On motion by Commissioner Haney, seconded by Commissioner Green, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 12 August 4, 1998 AYES: Commissioners Haney, Parker and Greene NOES: Commissioner Keen and Chair Lubin ABSENT: None the foregoing resolution was adopted this 4 day of August 1998. Mr. Strong pointed out to the Commission that a specific plan cannot be adopted which is contrary to the General Plan, so if the property remains designated as Rural Residential, you are telling the developer to come back with one acre lots. He stated that the Commission could act on the General Plan amendment without adopting the specific plan, without accepting the tentative map, without endorsing a particular number of units, and without endorsing a particular lot size. He stated if the designation is from Rural Residential to Single Family, it is understood by the comments that have been made, that the developer needs to come back with larger lots and lower density, however, they cannot come back with a specific plan if the Rural Residential designation remains. RESOLUTION NO. 98 -1662 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING MAP OF ARROYO GRANDE, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 97 -007; APPLICANT: CHARLES BAKER. On motion by Commissioner Haney, seconded by Commissioner Greene, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Haney, Parker and Greene NOES: Commissioner Keen and Chair Lubin ABSENT: None the foregoing resolution was adopted this 4 day of August 1998. RESOLUTION NO. 98 -1663 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF THE BERRY GARDENS SPECIFIC PLAN; APPLICANT: CHARLES BAKER. On motion by Commissioner Haney, seconded by Commissioner Greene, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Haney, Parker and Greene NOES: Commissioner Keen and Chair Lubin ABSENT: None the foregoing resolution was adopted this 4 day of August 1998. 1 1 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 13 August 4, 1998 RESOLUTION NO. 98 -1664 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2260, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF GRAND AVENUE, EAST OF OAK PARK BOULEVARD, NORTH OF ASH STREET, AND WEST OF SPRUCE STREET; APPLICANT: CHARLES BAKER. On motion by Commissioner Haney, seconded by Commissioner Greene, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Haney, Parker and Greene NOES: Commissioner Keen and Chair Lubin ABSENT: None the foregoing resolution was adopted this 4 day of August 1998. Chair Lubin referred to the recent project on Farroll Avenue with some of these same concerns; small lot sizes, smaller setbacks, etc., pointing out that those houses were sold almost before they broke ground and there is a demand for those types of residences in this area. He commented we have to provide a good mix of homes for seniors, middle income couples with no children and young families. The neo- traditional look is going to help maintain our rural character because it is a family oriented environment. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98 -567 AND ASSOCIATED ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW; APPLICANT JOE DE LUCIA /VILLAGE CENTER; LOCATION: WEST BRANCH STREET AND WESLEY STREET Chair Lubin opened the public hearing on Conditional Use Permit Case No. 98 -567. There were no comments from the audience. On motion by Commissioner Haney, seconded by Commissioner Greene, and unanimously carried, the hearing was continued to the next Planning Commission meeting of August 18, 1998. CONSENT AGENDA - Architectural Review Case No. 87 -392, Amendment #6; Deck Addition over a Patio on an Existing Patio Home at 382 Chaparral Lane in the Royal Oaks Planned Development. Associate Planner Bruce Buckingham reviewed the staff report dated August 4, 1998. He advised that the applicant is proposing construction of a 12 foot by 24 foot wood deck above an existing patio on the rear of the house. In addition, they are also proposing an 11' x 8' patio cover; the highest point of the elevated wooden deck would be 11.5 feet above grade. He noted that the project has already been built and does not impact any of the adjacent neighbors. After a brief discussion, on motion by Commissioner Greene, seconded by Commissioner Haney, and unanimously carried, Architectural Review Case No. 87 -392, Amendment #6, was continued to the next meeting of August 18t with direction to staff to notify adjacent property owners within 150 feet of the subject property. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 14 August 4, 1998 PLANNING COMMISSION /COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ITEMS AND COMMENTS A. Update of Projects - Acting Community Development Director Helen Elder reviewed the revised agenda for the August 18 meeting. Chair Lubin advised he would not be present at that meeting. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 1. Letter dated July 31, 1998 from F. Joseph Schimandle, CPA, Re: Berry Gardens Specific Plan. 2. Letter dated August 3, 1998 from Kazuo Ikeda - Re: Berry Gardens Specific Plan. Oak Park Boulevard Landscape Plan. 3. Letter dated July 31, 1998 from Mick Bondello - Re: Paseo Street Extension. 4. Letter dated August 4, 1998 from Hans Vander Veen requesting Paseo Street Extension be continued to the meeting of August 18, 1998. 5. Letter dated August 3, 1998 from Kathy Ann Spencer - Re: Coastal Christian School. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 1:00 a.m. on motion by Commissioner Greene, seconded by Commissioner Keen, and unanimously carried. ATTEST: Pearl L. Phinney, Commission Cle AS TO CONTENT: Helen Elder, AICP Acting Community Development Director 1 1