Loading...
PC Minutes 1997-08-271 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING AT 6:30 P.M. AUGUST 27, 1997 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met with Chair Lubin presiding. Present were Commissioners Greene, Haney, O'Donnell; absent Commissioner Rondeau. Community Development Director Doreen Liberto - Blanck and Associate Planner Helen Elder were in attendance. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None PUBLIC HEARING ITEM: PLANNING COMIVIISSION TO REVIEW AND PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS ON FOUR (4) ITEMS REFERRED BY CITY COUNCIL REGARDING REVISED PLANS FOR THE CENTRAL COAST TOWN CENTER; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 96-541, TENTATIVE TRACT 2220, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 96-001; APPLICANT, AGRA, INC. (CENTRAL COAST TOWN CENTER); LOCATION, WEST BRANCH STREET, CAMINO MERCADO AND RANCHO PARKWAY (RANCHO GRANDE); REPRESENTATIVE, HOWARD MANN Chair Lubin opened the public hearing regarding item #2 - traffic impacts. No one wished to speak; he asked the applicant and Citizens Committee for responsible Development (CCRD) if they had any additional information to present; both parties declined. There being no further comments from the audience, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Haney asked staff about the traffic impact fee; the origins of the Higgins Report; how Condition of Approval (COA) No. 134 was added to the project; discussed ITE methodology for this type of project; questioned the City's Long Range Traffic Study; asked about the cost of roadway improvements; and discussed school peak hour trips. Community Development Director Liberto -Blanck and City Engineer John Wallace replied to specific questions; provided history of traffic impact fee; noted that COA was added to include restrictions not to allow new uses; staff noted that the "sum of uses" method was not used in the traffic report, many consultants utilize different methods in their analysis; noted that the Long Range Traffic Study had been placed on hold by the City until specific studies which might impact the results were completed by SLOCOG, these studies would also provide some cost estimation information; and noted that the cost of improvements was dependent upon many factors such as phasing and /or integration with other improvements. Chair Lubin asked staff if the 150% impact fee that the developer would be paying had been imposed upon other projects and asked about the original traffic study for the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Community Development Director Liberto -Blanck replied that this was the first time a fee of this nature had been imposed and it was due to the fact that specific costs were unknown when the project was approved; stated that the original traffic study was a component of the EIR and discussed the AB 1600 fee study. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 2 August 27, 1997 Chair Lubin asked if there were other questions of staff; the Commissioners had none and so their comments were requested. Commissioner Haney noted that he had contacted SANDAG and spoken with their representative at length regarding their calculations; noted that the specific uses involved in the center had not been evaluated; stated that when the EIR was adopted specific constraints were understood, there are now higher counts which cause additional impact; stated that additional COA and mitigations are necessary; noted that he doesn't feel the additional sales tax will cover the increased costs that will be incurred; and summarized his points of findings and recommendations to the City Council. Commissioner Greene noted that the draft EIR identified the major tenant as a regional use; noted that the traffic estimates are undervalued; stated that he finds the present proposal significantly different than the originally approved project; discussed what he believes to be appropriate methodology to evaluate vehicle impacts; finds that project will establish major impacts that were not appropriately studied in the EIR due to the change in the intensity of the project; referenced the ITE manual suggested methods of analyzing a shopping center; finds that the EIR analysis is flawed; discussed portions of the General Plan and how they seem to relate to the known project; recommended that the Council consider full evaluation and estimation of impacts by the project based upon known tenants; suggested that the Council uphold the appeal and made suggestions regarding proposed studies. Commissioner O'Donnell agreed that the traffic impacts have been shown to be increased from the original studies; stated that information provided in last few weeks comes under the CEQA requirements for subsequent EIR; recommended further study; referred to Councilmember Lady's memo regarding individual "sum of uses" calculation and need for full range of study for trips and fees; suggested that the Planning Commission would not be able to make the findings of conformance with the General Plan based upon the revised project and the more intense uses than those approved in 1996; and recommended that the traffic be reconsidered based upon the new information. Chair Lubin noted that the original EIR used the "overall approach" to traffic and that was accepted by the Planning Commission and City Council, it was agreed this was the method used when the tenants were unknown; noted that the addition of a grocery store was a significant increase in terms of traffic problems; expressed concern with the original assessment of the center now that the new information was presented; noted that traffic problems will exist regardless of whether this center is approved or not; suggested that the Council have the traffic problem studied in depth; and recommended creation of a subcommittee to establish the Planning Commission findings on item #2 to be presented to the City Council. The following action was taken: MOTION: That the Planning Commission create a subcommittee (consisting of Commissioners Haney and O'Donnell) to produce a report, following the request in the Lady memo, which would be presented to the entire Commission, and when adopted would address the recommendations and findings made by the Planning Commission regarding traffic impacts, otherwise known as issue #2. 1 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 3 August 27, 1997 On a motion by Commissioner Greene, seconded by ,Commissioner O'Donnell, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Greene, O'Donnell, Haney and Lubin NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Rondeau Chair Lubin read item #3 into the record: Consider alternatives to the site and location of the grocery store and clarification of the conformity of the Map Act regarding the lot line adjustment. Chair Lubin asked the applicant if he had any comments regarding this issue. Tom Winfield. Attorney for applicant - noted that there was no final map before the City which would require subdivision approval Tony Ferrara. Concerned Citizens for Responsible Development (CCRD) - provided a handout to the Planning Commission; discussed the proposed change to the approved tentative map; and noted the overlap of the last two issues before the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission discussed combining items #3 and #4 and concurred that they would hear both items together. Tony Ferrara. Concerned Citizens for Responsible Development (CCRD) - discussed the following topics: the Subdivision Map • Act; findings of Substantial Conformance; rules of "common sense "; changes to the 1996 approved project. He then presented overheads of the earlier proposals and the present proposal, alleged increase of 300 %; quoted a letter from the Community Development Director to the developer; discussed reasons for opposing supermarket/drug store combination on the site; and requested: 1) that the proposed garden center be removed from the map; 2) expressed concern with the lease agreement between Wal- Mart and the developer; and 3) that the project be built as originally approved. In summary, stated that the tract map and site plan influenced the original approval, the proposed changes are not minor, and referred to the recommendations as presented in the Planning Commissioner binders. Chair Lubin read item #4 into the record: Alternatives to relocating loading docks so they are not that close to residents. Tony Ferrara. Concerned Citizens for Responsible Development (CCRD). - discussed the five (5) proposed small stores in the July 9, 1996 approved plan and the roll -up doors for the loading docks shown on the site plan, indicated that there were no protruding loading docks implied on the plans; discussed the topography of the area and the natural amphitheater effect which amplifies sounds; referred to photographs he had presented of various Wal -Mart operations in other locations; discussed loading docks and truck circulation on -site; offered solution to loading for Major A by moving the docks to the west side of the building; suggested utilizing buildings as sound screen; suggested that a major CEQA violation existed with the approval of 65,000 sq. ft. grocery store with no analysis in the original EIR; stated that the City must either require a supplemental EIR or deny the project; stated that the applicant, and not the appellant or the City, Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 4 August 27, 1997 who was responsible for any delay in the project due to the proposed changes; and made the following recommendations: 1) project to be built as originally approved; 2) no 60' loading docks allowed; 3) truck circulation to be directed away from residences; 4) no market/drugstore allowed; 5) original five (5) small stores built as shown as plan; and 6) no approval by the Planning Commission of landscaping /parking plans until the City Council makes a determination. The Commission took a short recess. Chair Lubin opened the public hearing on items #3 and #4. Frank Bruner. 758 Via Bandolero - expressed concern with personal residence and how noise, pollution and traffic would affect it. He stated he was not against development but only the current form. Karen Lange, 146 Avenida de Diamante - noted that she was preparing a case study of the project and discussed the visual design of the project and why it does not correspond with the community design. Nancy Stiles. 487 Via Bandolero - expressed concern with the project since the beginning of the review especially the traffic, loading docks and noise. With no further comments from the audience, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner O'Donnell questioned the proposed tract map changes. City Engineer John Wallace responded by presenting an overhead of the approved tentative map overlayed with the site plan approved July 9, 1996; noted that the new lot lines do not follow the current building configuration, but no lot line adjustment would be required until after the final map is approved; the tentative map has been approved by the City; referred to letters by himself and the Community Development Director regarding substantial conformance of the map. There was general discussion regarding who would make the determination of substantial conformance; when the lot lines would be adjusted; potential of moving the buildings; and who would approve the final map. Commissioner O'Donnell asked about the Development Code requirements regarding loading zones and truck turning radius for the rear of the stores. Community Development Director Liberto - Blanck replied that these were addressed in the EIR; stated that loading docks were in the approved design guidelines for the project which were approved by the Architectural Advisory Committee (AAC); she stated that Planned Development permit allowed changes to the Development Code requirements; noted that the architectural and site plan approved were conceptual and would be compared to the approved Design Manual for the project; and stated that the turning radius had been checked but she would verify their accuracy. Commissioner Green indicated that during his review of the project, he had come across eight (8) different maps of the site and had discovered inconsistencies regarding the loading docks. 1 1 1 1 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 5 August 27, 1997 Community Development Director Liberto -Blanck replied that the map dated April 29, 1997 was the map reviewed for substantial conformance, the intention was to work with the developer and the approved design guidelines to establish the loading docks. There was further discussion regarding the placement of the loading docks. There was discussion regarding the noise impacts of the loading docks on the surrounding residences; the fact that loading docks were anticipated with the project but the locations were not specifically known; and the Development Code requirements. Tony Ferrara stated that approval of the project was based on the approved site plan not information provided in the EIR. Commissioner O'Donnell commented on noise and traffic for a store the size of Lucky as opposed to two standard commercial stores; and asked about the proposed garden center. Staff noted that the hours of operation and deliveries might be different for the market; and replied that the garden center was not approved. There was discussion regarding the potential for a single enterprise to expand within the center; City Council Resolution 3200 which limited Major A -I to 102,000 sq. ft.; the need for a business license within the City, which are ministerial approvals; leasing agreement between Wal -Mart and the developer; the mass and scale of Major E; the legal opinion provided to the Community Development Director regarding her ability to question issues during "substantial conformance" determination; and potential expansion for a garden center. Dan O'Donnell noted that he does not see any great differences in loading docks and circulation plan from what was approved; building footprint has changed but he would have expected loading docks to be located in the same place; indicated that traffic for Lucky /Sav -on would be more intense than small store; and expressed agreement with suggested change of loading dock to west side of building. Commissioner Greene expressed his opinion that a complete re- configuration would be required to allow inclusion of the grocery store rather than the three small stores originally proposed and approved; discussed the Subdivision Map Act issue and noted that the key question is if the changes conform with the tentative map approval in 1996; noted that the approved maps shows small rear service areas rather than large loading docks; discussed moving the more intense uses away from the residences; acknowledged the large effort engaged in by all concerned with the project; discussed the City Council intention when they passed Resolution 3200 to maintain the rural character of the community; expressed his belief that the new proposal was a radical change from the approved plan; noted that the most intensive uses were proposed to the most delicate areas of the site; listed the areas of the Land Use Element which he felt were violated; expressed his belief that the proposal was not in substantial conformance with the proposed plan; noted that the City has the authority to deny the final map and overturn the Community Development Director's decision; and agreed with the recommendation to move the loading docks from the north to the west of Major A -1. Commissioner Haney determined that the approved plan of 7 -9 -96 clearly provides less intensive uses overall especially closest to the houses; expressed need for compatibility with the General Plan and the existing community; noted that the proposal exceeds allowable noise impacts; expressed disagreement with the loading operations as proposed; stated he did not believe it was the intent of the Planning Commission or the City Council to approve such an intense development; noted if the project were reduced then the impacts would be as well; expressed need for a supplemental EIR for the expanded project; and discussed ingress and egress for the project based on Development Code requirements. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 6 August 27, 1997 Chair Lubin noted it was important to review the history of the project and expressed his believe that there was an excellent opportunity to create an acceptable plan for the developer and the neighborhood; noted that the original approval was based on small retail outlets; expressed a major concern was the viewshed over the loading docks; noted that there had been significant efforts, during the original project review, to move the buildings away from Rancho Parkway; stated that the significant loading docks proposed now were not included; agreed that a significant effort should be made to move the loading docks away from the residences; stated that the evidence is overwhelming that the project has changed in scope; expressed his discomfort with the new plan; noted that he was concerned with the ability of a major retailer to move into adjoining spaces with no City review; agreed with Commissioner Greene's interpretation of the Map Act; and noted the on -site truck circulation should be reviewed. The following action was taken: MOTION: That the Planning Commission create a subcommittee (consisting of Commissioners Greene and Lubin) to produce a report, following the request in the Lady memo, which would be presented to the entire Commission, and when adopted would address the recommendations and findings made by the Planning Commission regarding Subdivision Map Act concerns and proposed loading docks, otherwise known as issues #3 and #4. On a motion by Commissioner O'Donnell, seconded by Commissioner Haney, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners O'Donnell, Haney, Greene and Lubin NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Rondeau There was discussion regarding the need to give public notice of any subcommittee meetings; Director Liberto -Blanck asked that staff be advised of any meetings and noted the City Attorney's memorandum; the Commission concurred that the memorandum was overly - conservative to notice subcommittee meetings when they meet for one issue and are not a standing committee. There was further discussion regarding how the findings and recommendations generated by the subcommittees would be distributed to the Commission members and the public; presentation of the Planning Commission determinations to the City Council; the start time for the next regular meeting of September 2; and timing of the review of the landscaping and parking plan for the project. The Commission concurred that the landscaping and parking plan would be continued to the September 16 agenda which would be after the City Council meeting. Chair Lubin thanked the Planning Commission, the developer, CCRD and staff for their work on the four (4) issues from the City Council which enabled the Planning Commission to meet the requested deadline set by the Council. PLANNING COMMISSION /COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ITEMS AND COMMENTS - Update of Projects - Community Development Director Liberto -Blanck advised the Planning Commission of a possible joint meeting with the City Council on September 30 to discuss the General Plan Update. 1 1 1 1 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 7 August 27, 1997 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - 1. Memorandum to Sandy Lubin dated August 27, 1997, from Del Haney and Larry Greene regarding the August 23rd Planning Commission Subcommittee Report on findings regarding Overriding Considerations. 2. Agenda Item No. II.A. - Fax from Jim L. Osburn, Fortney Associates, Inc. received August 22, 1997 3. Agenda Item No. II.A. - Letter from Henry Horwege to the Planning Commissioners received August 27, 1997 4. Copy of Letter to Lynn Titus, dated August 17th signed by Sandy Lubin, Planning Commission Chair 5. Copy of Letter to G. K. Laumer, Division Chief of Planning for Caltrans dated August 22nd signed by Sandy Lubin, Planning Commission Chair 6. Notice of Approval of a Minor Exception for Applicant Kenneth Hill, Located at 141 Tally Ho Road dated August 25, 1997 7. Summer 1997 Issue of Planners' Casebook 8. 1997 Integrated Waste Management Guide ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, on a motion by Commissioner O'Donnell, seconded by Commissioner Haney, and unanimously carried, at 11:15 p.m. the meeting was adjourned to the regular meeting on September 2nd at 7:30 p.m. ATTEST: ucille \ Maki reese, Commission Clerk AS TO CONTENT: L„ Doreen berto - Blanck, AICP, Community Development Director