Loading...
PC Minutes 1989-06-06ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 1989 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chairman Gerrish presiding. Present are Commissioners Flores, Soto, Moore and Gallagher. Absent is Commissioner McCann. Also in attendance are Planning Director Liberto- Blanck and Current Planner Spierling. Chairman Gerrish introduced Judy Skousen, new City Attorney for Arroyo Grande. Chairman Gerrish also announced the resignation of Commission Charles Scott. NON- PUBLIC HEARINGS AMENDED ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 87 -384, GUIDETTI SQUARE, WEST BRANCH STREET AND WESLEY AVENUE - COLORS AND MATERIALS BOARD AND REFINEMENT OF ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES. (J. AND J. GUIDETTI) Planning Director Liberto - Blanck advised that the applicant has requested just an informal meeting of the Planning Commission to talk about the colors board. A couple of weeks ago we discussed the colors and material board and the Planning Commission requested they come back with more neutral colors. The applicant would like to talk more about the colors and after the Commission has agreed upon some of the colors they would like to come back with a rendering and refine the architectural features at that time. Steve Pults, 1401 Higuera Street San Luis Obispo, stated that they have concentrated more on concepts for colors on this project rather than specific colors. We have a rough scheme to see if this is the direction the Commission might be going. We would like to get some feed back. We have no color samples, we will put a color board together. The Commissioners agreed that the new colors are fine, nice and soft and should fit well into the Village. VIEWSHED REVIEW PERMIT NO. 89 -06, 141 TALLY HO ROAD (SKIP LAVINE). Current Planner Spierling advised that on May 4, 1989 the Planning Department received an application for a Viewshed Review Permit from Skip Lavine at 141 Tally Ho Road. A Notice of Intent to Construct was sent out on May 8, 1989 to property owners within 150 feet of the project. Staff received no public comments on this proposal, therefore, this Viewshed Review Permit was approved subject to a ten day appeal period. VIEWSHED REVIEW PERMIT NO. 89 -07, 399 TALLY HO ROAD (BILL & MARY ANN ECKERT). Mr. Spierling advised that the second viewshed review was for Bill and Mary Ann Eckert at 399 Tally Ho Road. We received the application on May 9, 1989 and the Notice of Intent to Construct was sent out on May 12, 1989 to property owners within 150 feet of the project. Staff received no public comments against this proposal, we received one letter in favor of the proposal. Therefore, we approved this Viewshed Review Permit also subject to a ten day appeal period. PUBLIC HEARING - RANCHO GRANDE, (OTTSE, INC.) - PD ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (REZONE) NO. 88 -212, DEVELOPMENT PLAN 186 C.S., TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 1642, ADDENDUM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. Chairman Gerrish noted that the Commission and Staff received a letter from Trudy Jarrett, 555 Windermere Lane, Arroyo Grande and a packet from RRM Design Group. Current Planner Spierling advised that on October 10, 1978, City Council approved Ordinance 186 C.S. which rezoned the Rancho Grande area from "A ", Agriculture to "PD ", Planned Development. The Rancho Grande PD area includes approximately 464 acres of land and stretched from Noyes Road, on the north, to West Branch Street, on the south. The area was further bounded by Oak Park Acres (Tract 604) on the west, and what is now Royal Oaks (Tract 1390) on the east. The Planned Development Ordinance approved a development plan in 1978 for 354 single - family dwelling units, 40 acres of commercial area and designated an unplanned area as "PD" proposed not to exceed 133 units, subject to an ordinance amendment and approval of a revised conceptual master plan. In accordance with the Ordinance 186 C.S., the applicants have revised the Rancho Grande conceptual master plan. The new conceptual master plan shows the proposed 83 unit subdivision. :4¢`5 4`6 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION, 06/06/89 Page 2 On November 22, 1983 the City Council adopted Ordinance 302 C.S. which approved a development agreement between the City and Ottse, Inc. for Rancho Grande. A development agreement offers the developer substantial assurance that the project can be completed. In exchange for this assurance, the developer agreed to construct improvements that were more costly or more extensive that would normally be required. In essence, the Rancho Grande development agreement gives Ottse Inc. the right to develop 527 single - family dwelling units. These units must, however, be developed in accordance with Ordinance No. 186 C.S., the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), policies, rules and regulations which were in effect at the time the development agreement was approved, and the project must be subject to conditions of approval. In order to deny development of these units, the City would have to make findings that the units were not being developed in accordance with these requirements. Tract 1132 was the first phase of the Rancho Grande project. It included 134 single family lots and also a 10 -acre park site was dedicated to the City. The new subdivision, Tentative Tract 1642 consists of 83 units across Rancho Parkway from Tract 1132. The 83 lots are in two areas that are separated from each other by Open Space. All 83 lots will be developed concurrently. The southerly section will see construction of 70 lots. The northerly section consists of a horseshoe - shaped road and the remaining 13 lots. Toward the southerly portion of the project is a single - family residence on an existing lot. This lot is Parcel 2 of Parcel Map AG 73 -380. Tentative Tract Map 1642 and the revised Conceptual Master plan show this parcel as being separate from the Rancho Grande Project. The original Conceptual Master Plan for Ordinance No. 186 C.S. did not show this parcel as being separate. The southerly section of this subdivision consists of one (1) through street, Los Aguilas, and five (5) cul -de -sacs. All the cul -de -sacs, save one, will be accessed from Los Aguilas. Via Sendero is a cul -de -sac that accesses directly to Rancho Parkway, just to the northeast of Los Aguilas. Seven (7) lots will front on Via Sendero. Lot sizes in this subdivision range from 9,000 square feet to 40,000 square feet. The smaller lots will generally be less difficult to develop, due to topography or vegetation. In addition to the residential lots, two areas of Open Space are being provided. The smaller of the two is attached to Lot 6 and is approximately 140,000 square feet in size. This parcel is located at the corner of Camino Mercado and Rancho Parkway and will be maintained by the Homeowners' Association and will be covered by a separate Open Space easement. Staff questioned the size lot of lot 6, and the applicant indicated that they hope to place a temporary sales trailer on the open space portion of Lot 6. This sales trailer would be used for all phases of the Rancho Grande Project. This means that the trailer could be in this location for many years. Staff does not feel that this is an appropriate use of a lot dedicated for open space. Furthermore, staff feels that it would be advisable to split Lot 6 into a residential lot and an open space lot, which will be owned and maintained by the Homeowners' Association, and record an open space easement. The larger open space lot is approximately 36 acres in size and is located along James Way and between the two sections of this development. This lot will also be maintained by the Homeowners' Association and will be covered by a separate open space easement. As part of the original review of the Rancho Grande project, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared in August of 1977. Because of the changes that have taken place in our area in the last twelve (12) years, an Addendum EIR was prepared by the Morro Group of Los Osos. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION, 06/06/89 Page 3 Don Asquith, Morro Group of Los Osos, advised that the Addendum EIR was required because the existing EIR was twelve (12) years old. The plans had been significantly revised and clarified. Therefore, grading, drainage and erosion, vegetation removal, and the visual aspects of the project could be clarified. In addition, things like traffic and circulation, resulting air quality and public services provided in the City have substantially changed in the last 12 years. Mr. Asquith stated that there are no significant adverse impacts due to the project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act. Impacts which can be mitigated include: 1) Drainage and Erosion. The site will increase runoff of rainfall and also that rainfall or at least a portion of it has to reach a tributary of Meadow Creek on the northwesterly part of the site adjacent to James Way. That can be handled by providing non - erosive storm drains to the bottom of that creek and a detention basin in the creek channel. The detention basin is proposed to accommodate increased runoff from all of that drainage area. 2) Traffic and Circulation. The project would increase traffic and the mitigation of that would be a fair share contribution by the project of $2,650.00 per residential unit. 3) Grading. The project will change the land form slightly, however, contour grading will be used which will not be standard cut and fill right angle straight slope type grading. This results in some lots would have steep driveways with greater than 15% slope. In order to mitigate this, those houses with driveways steeper than 15% would have sprinkler systems. 4) Vegetation Removal. There will be some loss of oak trees. The major portion of oak trees on the property is along the north facing slope on the northwesterly half of the site. That would remain in open space, however, some oak trees would be removed and that would be mitigated per conditions of approval whereby five 48 inch boxed oak trees will be replanted for each oak tree removed. Also, a fairly substantial portion of the loss of trees is in a area of a fill in the northerly part of the project. There is a possibility that the fill can be avoided by having sewer line on the surface that is protected but not necessarily buried. 5) Visual. The visual effects of the project are concentrated primarily at the open space lot at Camino Mercado and Rancho Parkway. The plan as proposed would do some grading on that open space. It is not apparent why that needs to be done and the EIR recommends that the plan be redesigned to avoid that. 6) Air Quality. There will be additional impacts to air quality as a result of the increased traffic. However, if the traffic improvements are constructed then the congestion that normally exacerbates the quality problems can be avoided. 7) Public Services. There will be impacts to services, parks and recreation, and schools which can be mitigated through fees. There also a number of cumulative impacts. As the entire area builds out, traffic is going to increase this can be avoided through the implementation of the traffic improvement programs. The supply of water is the biggest long term problem. Available resources will meet the needs for additional development in perhaps two to three years. However, there may not be enough water for some of the areas proposed for development along the 101 corridor. Current Planner Spierling advised in regards to the conditions of approval; on Tuesday, May 30th, the applicant presented staff with a number of revisions to the conditions that staff had prepared. Many of these proposed revisions were reviewed by attorneys for the applicant. Our new City Attorney has not been able to go over these conditions. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission continue this item for two weeks so that the City will have time to continue to seek legal advise. Staff has included draft conditions of approval and we recommend that no decisions be made on these conditions until legal advise is provided by the City Attorney. 4'' `4;8 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION, 06/06/89 Page 4 Staff, therefore, recommends that the Planning Commission open the public hearing, accept testimony, discuss the project and continue the public hearing until June 20, 1989 at 7:30 P.M. Mr. Spierling emphasized that Staff feels strongly that this continuance is necessary so the City does not compromise its legal position. Planning Commissioner Flores asked about a time frame for a development agreement. Commissioner Flores also inquired about lot number 6. Director of Planning Liberto - Blanck advised that it is included within the development agreement and this development agreement is 15 years. If the project is not built within that time frame, then the development agreement would become void. Current Planner Spierling advised that the way the developer has proposed this development is that lot 6 be a combination open space and residential. We recommend requiring, at the very minimum, the open space section of that lot be maintained by the Home Owners' Association. Upon being assured by the Planning Commission Clerk that the public hearing for Ottse, Inc. had been duly published and property owners notified, Chairman Gerrish declared the hearing open. Peter Miller, attorney and representative for the applicant, 679 Monterey Street, San Luis Obispo, advised that the applicant has spent several million dollars based on the development agreement, including the connection of James Way all the way through, large scale improvements on West Branch Street not only in front of our project but also St. Patricks, large scale drainage structures and ponding, and oversized the sewer system anticipating the full built out of project. The applicant dedicated parkland for the whole development as part of Tract 1132, rather than donate incrementally. The applicant feels that the City would be better off having the ultimate land that they would get so they could deal with that in the mean time, rather than waiting for it piece by piece. They have tried to be good neighbors and good partners with the city in the development of this project. They do not believe that they are legally bound to contribute or dedicate any more property to recreational use but we are. There is some recreational use contemplated in this phase. They do not believe that they are legally bound to protect the oak trees, but we agree with the City that they need to be protected and although the development agreement exempts Rancho Grande from City Ordinance No. 333 C.S., a condition has been substituted which will provide protection of the trees. Although they do not believe they are legally bound to contribute to the traffic mitigation because of the development agreement, they have agreed to pay $2,656 per unit. This project has 95 different conditions of approval. The applicant has been planning this project for approximately three (3) years now. They have had lengthy discussions with Staff and agree with all the conditions, or are willing to live by them. They would like to build this Phase before the rainy season. The environmental review which did not originally appear to be needed, took much longer than expected. As far as lot size, the minimum size will be about 10,000. The development agreement does not set up a time frame. On lot 6, we do not have real strong feelings on what should be done on that. If lot 6 is to remain in open space forever that is fine. One thing you should be aware of is that if lot 6 goes into the Home Owners Association ownership, then as soon as it is sold you have really locked in that use forever. If the City wants to change the use on that lot you, are going to need 100% vote from all the lot owners. If it is in private ownership, you could probably do it some other way. Mr. Miller stated that he would like to see the project approved, and a lot of time went into deciding the number of units. In doing this the entire project was reviewed. The 83 was a good number because it worked with the rest of project. Eventually, a request will be made asking that the entire balance be amended from the conceptual master plan. When the original EIR was proposed in 1977, it assessed approximately 990 units for this project rather than the 527 that were approved. Originally there were 150 units proposed where 83 are proposed. So the density has been reduced quite a bit from the original EIR. Rancho Grande's track record so far has been good. The comments received have been very good. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION, 06/06/89 Page 5 April Rosenlund, RRM Design Group, stated that she_has been with this project in the planning position with RRM since 1986. The priority for the project has been primarily in being very sensitive to the land masses. Re- evaluating of the approved conceptual master plan began in 1986, with the priority of taking a look at the oak trees and preserving as many as possible. This is why the plans are different from what was originally approved. Taking a look at the circulation, open space and the oak trees, the 83 units were designed with that in mind. It was a phenomenal task working on this project, because there have been 4 Planning Directors involved with the project, as well as the different Commissioners and staff members. Doreen and her staff have had a phenomenal task in evaluating the history of this project themselves and each of the directors through the history of this project. Extensive meetings with staff addressing many environmental concerns have been held. The mitigation measures that have been recommended and have provided conditions of approval for this project are some of the things that have been evaluated and negotiated with staff. The applicant and staff are in agreement at this time regarding the direction of this project. The applicant is very happy with the 83 unit plan that is being presented. RRM is here to provide background and answer any questions on how the site design came about. Dan Villegas, 104 Erna Way, Pismo Beach stated that he currently is building a family home within Phase I of the Rancho Grande development. Mr. Villegas reviewed the plans and Environmental Impact Report. First, he is concerned that the houses to be build at the Phase IIB site will have a large negative impact on the views of homes located in the northeast corner of Phase I of Rancho Grande. These homes in Phase I are located on lots which border Rancho Parkway and are near the intersection of Rancho Parkway and James Way. At the present time the prime views for these homes is across the Phase IIB site towards the ocean. The EIR does not consider the impact that the Phase IIB houses will have on the views of homes located at the northeast corner of Rancho Grande Phase I. The following statement appears on page IV -15 of the EIR: "Views of the Phase IIB area are primarily from Rancho Parkway (View B). These views are now limited by the topography of this area which is mostly below street level. Grading will lower the higher parts of this area which is mostly below street level. Grading will lower the higher parts of this area, and only the three homes along Rancho Parkway will be prominently visible from the road. These homes will block views across the valley that are now available from Rancho Parkway, generally north of the Phase IIA area. This effect will be visually adverse. However, the view corridors to the north and south of the Phase IIB development area will remain open, and this effect is not significant." The report appears to consider the views in all directions with the major exceptions of the ocean views to the west from the northeast corner of James Way and Rancho Parkway. Mr. Villegas believes this oversite raises the question as to what in fact will be the impact of Phase IIB on the ocean views of homes currently under construction. The grading plan for Phase IIB indicates that there will be a large negative impact on the ocean views of homes located in the northeast corner of Rancho Grande Phase I. The five homes currently under construction in that area have first floor elevations of 302 feet and 304 feet. If the houses at Phase IIB are built to the maximum allowable height they will reach elevations of approximately 300 feet to 320 feet. Views will be significantly obstructed and in some cases blocked altogether. He stated his understanding is that the maximum allowable height is 30 feet above the average natural grade. Mr. Villegas commented next on the visual aesthetics of the development at Phase IIB. Owing to the smaller lot sizes and the semicircle configuration of lots, the houses at Phase IIB will be in closer proximity than the homes in the surrounding developments. He stated in his opinion allowing the houses in Phase IIB to be built to the maximum allowable height will result in a level of density which does not fit in with the natural topography of the area. 4'9 (5! ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION, 06/06/89 Page 6 Mr. Villegas respectfully suggested that the Planning Commission consider a stipulation which would limit the height of houses to be built in Phase IIB to allow only one story above street level. The following paragraph appears on pages 27 and 28 of the Rancho Grande CC &R's: 7.17 Height Limitations: The maximum height of any structure constructed on a lot shall not exceed the maximum height for such a structure allowed by the City of Arroyo Grande, in similar areas of the said City. Within said maximum limitation, the Architectural Control Committee shall, pursuant to its objectives as stated in Paragraph 6.1 of this declaration, limit the heights of structures or portions of structures to be constructed. The Committee may, whenever deemed reasonably necessary in its judgement in order to preserve a significant view from a neighboring lot (without a multi- story building becoming necessary on that neighboring lot in order to enjoy said view) limit the height of a building to a single story or to a particular height dimension. In addition to this explicit policy in the CC &R's, the Rancho Grande Architectural Committee has an informal policy which limits the height of homes to one floor above street level on lots which slope down away from the street. Without exception every home on a lot of this type in Phase I has only one floor above street level. Clearly then the stipulation will have the effect formalizing already existing policy within Rancho Grande. (Note also that the City chose to regulate the height of houses in a similar situation on Ruth Ann Way. Mr. Villegas stated that he believes it is necessary to formalize this policy. All of the lots on the outside of the semicircle at Phase IIB slope down and away from the proposed street. In the absence of a clear and definite policy which limits the height of homes, there will be a tendency to increase building heights. A policy which is vague and confusing will merely add to the uncertainty of home construction and is not in anyone's best interests. Walt Clingman, 1069 James Way, stated that he does not like to see the addition of more homes, more traffic and possibly more crime. More important to the people that live on Meadow Way is Meadow Creek. Mr. Clingman understands that there is to be another dam and a retaining basin built along Meadow Creek. The theory being additional runoff caused by streets and other hard surfaces should be taken care of by this additional small reservoir. Mr. Clingman stated that his main concern is the condition of the stream bed being all grown up with willows and trash, he feels that steps should be taken to clear that up. Frankie Casey, 381 Spanish Moss Lane, stated she is in favor of Rancho Grande. Judi Southcott, 1011 Hodges Road, read a letter she signed along with 12 other home owners in Oak Park Acres. The letter outlines the concerns regarding the impact of traffic, open space and destruction of the live oak woodland area. Norman Tullis, 835 Tempus Circle, stated that he supports the development. He also would like to see the coastal oaks preserved as much as possible. Dr. Tullis stated that he is now looking for a place to move and is unable to find a lot to build on. The development pressure here is really tremendous and this type of development is good for the area. Traffic impact is a problem, but that is everywhere. Jane Johnson, 1033 Meadow Way, stated that during the eight years she has lived at this address she has. become more than a bit apprehensive about the possibility of meadow creek overflowing and destroying her home. Mrs. Johnson stated that the rushing water has awakened her several times when the water over flowed the dam. The dam was constructed when Oak Park Leisure Gardens was built, and is, at best, somewhat of a mickey mouse affair, not sufficient to withstand the on rush of 41% more runoff. The dam is more of a skate boarders paradise, than a dam to hold water. The impact report states that a Homeowners' Association would enter into an agreement for the maintenance of the basin and the creek. Mrs. Johnson stated that she strongly rejects this proposal. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION, 06/06/89 Page 7 Bill Early, 1017 Meadow Way, stated that he is currently president of Oak Park Leisure Gardens Home Owners Association, and represents approximately 47 homes that back up to Meadow Creek. In purchasing these homes much thought was given to the view of the open space, the oak trees, the environment, the creek and so forth. The last thing needed is more water in Meadow Creek. Mr. Early also strongly objected to this proposal. Greg Southcott, 1011 Hodges Road, stated his main objection is that the project will be known as Oak Stump Acres rather than Oak Park Acres. Mr. Southcott feels that this plan deviates from the original EIR. The original EIR stated under the placement of dwelling units, the higher density should be shifted away from the areas into the grass land areas. Under the vegetation, the coast live oak, which occurs commonly on the project site is a threatened condition, as in other California areas the oak trees may eventually be lost; project landscaping, the original EIR states, that this impact is exemplified by coastal live oak which is extremely sensitive to grading under canopy, and over watering, consequences which may be a result of residential landscape and activity; tree cutting, cutting these oaks would be a major negative impact. Finally from the original EIR, the destruction of wild life habitat can best be mitigated through appropriate site design which places the heaviest concentration of units on primarily grassland portions of the site. Mr. Southcott states that the new EIR mentioned that the project will be cutting between 200 to 300 trees just for roads and grading, the EIR states that this is insignificant. Mr. Southcott objected to the statement that this is insignificant and if for no other reason the EIR should be sent back so that can be changed. Paul Atkins, 1001 Hodges Road, stated that when he bought his home two years ago, he was told that open space and oaks facing his home is the green belt and would not be touched for 50 years. Mr. Atkins stated that apparently that is not true anymore and as a homeowner he did not appreciate it. Vere Straight, 1029 Meadow Way, stated that in the meeting in two weeks he would like to see a plan of the drainage system. Kirby Gordon, 401 Indio Drive, Pismo Beach, stated he feels that he can support the proposed project as the existing homes in Rancho Grande are a credit to the community, and they have maintained alot of the open space even between homes. Mr. Gordon supports the project and thinks it should be approved, and that the applicants should be encouraged to come back with sensitive plans for the remaining portion of the project. Bill Tappan, 1525 Chilton, stated that he was upset that there were going to be so many oak trees taken, however, after listening to Pete Miller say that the majority of the oaks are going to be preserved on the back side of the hill he is alot happier with the project. The impact fees that the applicant is going to donate to the City is a good idea. Mr. Tappan stated that he is in favor of the project. Dane Phillips, 122 Alpine Street, stated that he is in favor of the project. It is a beautiful area and the way the applicant has used the land is impressive. Peggy Caldwell, 565 Woodland Drive, stated that she supports the second phase of Rancho Grande. The developer has gone to great extents to be conscientious about the development. Wes Carlson, 1190 W. Branch, stated that the developer has been most sensitive in treating the area. He stated that Mr. Spierling mentioned that there was one change to the original conceptual plan, that his parcel was originally addressed as part of the project. Actually it was left off the map in error, but on every legal description of the project, every ordinance that was passed by the Council, his property is definitely excluded by definition and by legal description, his property is still designated agriculture. Mr. Carlson feels that there is a need for the development, and he is in favor of project. Richard Deblau, 744 Alta Vista Way, stated that he is in favor of the project. 5:1 5? ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION, 06/06/89 Page 8 Pete Miller stated that the consultants for the project were given 2 directions in designing this development. One was to be sensitive to the oaks trees and the other was to be sensitive to the terrain. The number of oak trees to be removed is 130. The number to be preserved is 1,864, and the 48% of project will remain in open space. Jim Garing, Garing Taylor & Associates, engineers for Rancho Grande advised that in regards to the drainage situation in Meadow Creek drainage area that has been studied in detail since 1950. There are 7 separate studies prepared by engineers regarding the area of Meadow Creek in the City limits of Arroyo Grande and Pismo Beach. In each case, the developers developed drainage retention, it is an engineering problem. The plan is for a retarding basin in the secondary drainage area that leads into Meadow Creek and the plan is to reduce the total drainage that gets to the Leisure Gardens area over what is there now. Drainage will be reduced. The retarding basin collects peak flows and stores them and meters it out at a much slower rate. Studies indicate that the downstream structures with the retarding are adequate to handle water flows. Pete Miller concluded that the applicant is willing to live by the 95 conditions of approval recommended by staff, and to proceed with the project. Chairman Gerrish asked about the actual count on the removal of the oak trees. Current Planner Spierling advised that in regards to the total number of actual trees to be removed. The current number of actual trees is 118. The Parks and Recreation Director felt that a more accurate count of the trees that are being removed is by the number of trunks. Oak trees have more than one trunk, some as many as three trunks. By counting trunks, the total number is 195: Mark Bell stated that in doing more detailed studies with actual road grades and cross sections. We counted the trees by hand, 130 trees to be removed counting single trees not clumps or clusters. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Gerrish declared the hearing closed. Commissioner Soto stated that he would like to see it continued for another two weeks, stated it is a super plan, with a decent EIR that addresses all the problems, and providing proper mitigation measures, with conditions that really mean something, and required time frames. Commissioner Soto would like to get the new city attorney's opinion regarding the conditions of approval. Commissioner Gallagher asked about Granny housing at Rancho Grande. Planning Director Liberto - Blanck advised that according to the CC & R's, no second units will be allowed. Commissioner Moore advised that his concern is still the oak tree removal. He was on the original inspection of the project in 1977. Everybody agreed that the trees sloping north would be left there for open space. The trees that are being cut down are 100 years old. Commissioner Moore's other concern is flood control. Money is needed for operation and maintenance which must be done 12 months out of the year. Commissioner Flores stated that he thinks it is an absolutely beautiful project. My concern is who are we developing for? Clearly we are not planning or building for Arroyo Grande citizens. Commissioner Flores feels the city has an obligation to serve the citizens in this community. The Rancho Grande project obviously has very beautiful homes. How many people in Arroyo Grande can afford these hones? Chairman Gerrish advised that he concurs with Commissioner Soto that the project should be continued for two weeks. He would like to have an opinion from the new legal staff on the conditions of approval. Chairman Gerrish wanted to know if there is anything in the minutes or in hearing information that deals with why this particular area was zoned PD as opposed to having a tract map. Also how many acres of this property does not have oaks on them? Projection of how many trees are going to be removed for house pads and their location. 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION, 06/06/89 Page 9 Planning Director Liberto -Blanck advised that a condition of approval, has been included which requires prior to recordation of the final map, development standards or building envelopes be provided for each lot illustrating where the oak trees are going to be preserved. Peter Miller stated that he sat on Architectural Control Commission for the first phase and that each lot was looked at in great detail and after an engineering topo pole was done, all the trees were located and we looked at how the houses are designed. Many changes were required to the design. Specifics were dealt with in trying to allow a house to be build and preserve the trees, and minimize the grading. The City Attorney, Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation could approve the standards that the Architectural Committee would use in deciding how the houses are built on the lot. It would be much more effective and much less wasteful than a building envelope. Commissioner Gallagher asked Mr. Miller to respond to Mr. Villegas concern about height limitation of 27 feet. Mr. Miller responded that if you are dealing with property that has a lot of oak trees on it and you have a 600 square feet left to build a house I would be reluctant to say single story. Mr. Miller indicated that at this time he is reluctant to agree with 27 foot height limitation. After further discussion, Commissioner Moore made a motion to continue the Public Hearing of Rancho Grande (Ottse, Inc.) - PD Ordinance Amendment (Rezone) No. 88 -212, Development Plan 186 C.S.,..Tentative Tract No. 1642, Addendum Environmental Impact Report, for two weeks. Seconded by Commissioner Soto and a roll call vote was taken as follows: AYES: Commissioners Flores, Moore, Soto, Gallagher and Chairman Gerrish NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Commissioner McCann - PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT /DISCUSSI( Planning Director Liberto -Blanck discussed the update of Traffic Way and West Branch Street General Plan Amendment. Staff is working with an engineering firm from outside the area who has advised that the re- alignment of Traffic Way and West Branch Street may not be necessary. It is possible to work within the existing public right -of -way, after obtaining an additional 12 feet on the south side of Grand Avenue. This proposal will be presented to the City Council next Tuesday for their input. The new proposal will allow traffic to flow smoothly once constructed, and the cost would be substantially less than the proposed re- alignment of Traffic Way with West Branch Street. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by the Chairman at 10:00 P.M., until June 19, 1989 for a joint meeting with the City Council on the General Plan ATTEST: Leinin r, sion Clerk William Gerrish, Chairman 53