Loading...
PC Minutes 2009-03-03ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. AGENDA REVIEW: None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None. A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: None. There were no public comments. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 3, 2009 6:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER - The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Ray presiding; also present were Commissioners Barneich, Brown, Keen and Ruth. Staff members in attendance were Community Development Director, Rob Strong and Associate Planner, Teresa McClish. B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS AFTER AGENDA PREPARATION: 1. Supplemental information from Associate Planner, Teresa McClish regarding Item III.A. (article printed from the American Planning Association website titled "Integrating Energy and Climate into Planning "). III. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT CASE NO. 07 -003; CONSERVATION ELEMENT UPDATE FOR THE GENERAL PLAN — ENERGY; CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Associate Planner, Teresa McClish, presented staff's preliminary policy analysis for the Energy Element of the General Plan Conservation Element Update and provide direction to staff. She described the reasons for doing the update, including State mandates, grant opportunities, and local needs. She reviewed the proposed new Table of Contents, new CEQA guidelines for greenhouse gases (GHG), and the next steps towards addressing impacts. In response to commission questions, Ms. McClish stated that: in regards to section 4.3.7, probably an inspection company would be hired by applicants to do an energy audit as a requirement of the sale; in regards to "compact development" (4.3.5), the trick for our community is to create a rural small -town character, while still reducing impacts from energy and air quality (it's a policy that deserves debate, but can be done and will be a continuing issue as the City grows); and regarding section 4.2.5 "major" developments can be redefined, so it's not as subjective. Planning Commission questions and comments: Brown • He expressed concern about how much has to be done and how much is voluntary, particularly if there will be major policy shifts in the way projects are reviewed because of the State. Ms. McClish responded that while the State has made certain mandates, they are somewhat flexible on how to achieve them, so PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 3, 2009 Ruth • In response to her question, Ms. McClish responded that the alternative transportation policy will include paths for walking in addition to bikes and cars. Alternate modes of transportation and connections /accessibility /transit opportunities are important. • Ms. Ruth asked if that could be stated more specifically. In response, Ms. McClish answered yes, and there could even be a whole section on it if it's the priority of Planning Commission. • In response to her question about what happens when a HOA won't allow the things described in section 4.3.1, Ms. McClish responded that for new developments, the City approves CC &R's, so it won't be an issue. For existing ones, the City won't be able to keep obstacles or maintain language. There will likely be a code amendment, for example making it easier to develop solar energy. Ray PAGE 2 a lot will depend on Planning Commission recommendations and City Council adoption. • In response to his questions about new CEQA guidelines, Ms. McClish responded that projects may need to be redesigned to be consistent with new policies. • Please ensure that the numbers and formatting correspond. • The bike plan should be referenced in this section. • Previously, a LESA model has been discussed. Do we have some sort of model for qualitative analysis, and what would quantitative look like? Ms. McClish responded that the inventory will be quantitative and the new policies will be qualitative. • What enforcement powers does the State hold over us with the new mandates? Ms. McClish responded that we don't know yet, but will find out soon, because several other communities have asked the same question. However, it's better to do a comprehensive program than ad hoc or project by project. Keen • In response to his question, Ms. McClish replied that these won't have to be sent to the State for certification like the Housing Element. o Mr. Strong added that if someone contests that the City's General Plan is out of date due to lack of the updated Conservation and Open Space Elements, the State could require that the City stops issuance of building permits and subdivisions. The State Attorney General is pursuing action against communities that fail to address issues like greenhouse gases and energy conservation. Information was received by Planning Commissioners. No motion was necessary. B. STAFF PROJECT CASE NO. 09 -002; CITY INITIATED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT /DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT PROPOSALS Community Development Director, Rob Strong, presented the staff report for Planning Commission consideration to initiate proposals to hold public hearings and consider 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 3, 2009 PAGE 3 making recommendations to the City Council for Amendments to the 2001 General Plan Land Use Element and current Development Code zoning map. He showed on a map the general location of seven different areas that staff requests Planning Commission initiation of General Plan and Development Code amendments (including public noticing and hearings). He discussed the financial impacts, including costs and benefits to the City. There were no public comments. Planning Commission questions and comments: • Chair Ray asked about the process, if they're just starting the public hearing process or actually approving the changes. Mr. Strong replied this will initiate the public hearing process, and Planning Commission can approve, change and /or deny each part as presented during later hearing dates. The reason for bunching the seven proposal together is the restriction of only 4 General Plan Amendments per year. • Mr. Strong presented items 1, 2, and 3, and there were no questions or comments. • Commissioner Ruth clarified City and County ownership of properties to be rezoned in areas 4 and 5. • Commissioner Keen asked about the City's responsibility for maintenance of the open space and the possible financial liabilities regarding area 5. • There were no questions on items 6 or 7. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Chair Ray to initiate all seven changes as proposed in the staff report. Motion approved: 5/0 voice vote. C. STAFF PROJECT CASE NO. 09 -003; EAST CHERRY AVENUE OFFER OF DEDICATION AT TRAFFIC WAY, DORFMAN HOMES, INC, TO CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Commissioner Brown stepped down due to the proximity of his home to this project. Community Development Director, Rob Strong, presented the staff report for Planning Commission consideration of the offer to dedicate a 30 by 390 foot strip of land for widening the East Cherry Avenue right of way east of Traffic Way as consistent with the 2001 General Plan including the 2003 Circulation/Transportation Element. There was no public comment. Planning Commission questions and comments: • Commissioner Keen asked if the Cherry Creek project applicants didn't have some sort of responsibility for this street widening. Mr. Strong replied that there may be some sort of financial contribution from them later, but this was part of the Traffic Way streetscape project and consideration between Ed Dorfman and the City. n<Case =No. ,^ pp Address r , d , ,� r Description F Action , :. Planners 1. PPR 09 -003 Gibson Bros. 1436 E. Grand Ave BBQ Restaurant A. JB 2. ASP 09 -003 Iconic Identity Solutions (for CVS) 1435 E. Grand Ave. New signage for business name change (Longs to CVS) A. KH 3. VSR 08 -001 Aleji Davar 592 LePoint St. VSR for a 2 -story secondary dwelling unit on a single - family lot. A. JB PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 3, 2009 PAGE 4 • Commissioner Ruth clarified that the length was only the distance recently graded and paved (today). Mr. Strong explained the timing challenges with the offer of dedication and packet preparation calendaring. City Council will consider the item on their March 10, 2009 agenda. • Chair Ray commented that she had no problem with the project and felt comfortable recommending acceptance to City Council in conformance with the General Plan. Ray made a motion, seconded by Keen, to approve Staff Project Case No. 09 -003 as submitted. Motion approved: 4/0 voice vote; Commissioner Brown abstaining. IV. REFERRAL ITEMS FOR COMMISSION ACTION /NOTICES OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS SINCE FEBRUARY 17, 2009: 1. Commissioner Barneich clarified that if complaints should arise before the six month review date, the project should be reviewed early. Mr. Strong gave a brief project history and responded that complaints would be dealt with in a timely fashion. Ms. Barneich followed that APCD should be contacted to check jurisdiction of the outdoor barbecue smoke. 2. Commissioner Brown asked if the new signs are basically the same size and shape as the Longs signs. Mr. Strong replied that there are no new sign locations, and the sign areas are similar, but the signs have somewhat different dimensions. 3. No questions. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: None. V.I. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: Commissioner Barneich made congratulatory remarks upon the appointment of Associate Planner Teresa McClish as the new Community Development Director (effective November 2, 2009). VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP: Mr. Strong also expressed his congratulations upon Ms. McClish's appointment. VIII. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:20 p.m. on a motion by Chair Ray, seconded by Commissioner Keen. 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 3, 2009 ATTEST: KATHY NDOZA r LYN REARDON- SMITH, CAREN , CHAIR SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION l/ AS TO CONTENT: (Minutes approved RO �, COMMUNITY DEVELO MENT DIRECTOR PAGE 5 4' 1 1 1