PC Minutes 2007-10-161
1
1
CALL TO ORDER - The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session
with Chair Ray presiding; also present were Commissioners Barneich, Keen, Marshall,
and Tait. Staff members in attendance were Community Development Director, Rob
Strong, Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon and Assistant Planner, Jim Bergman.
ANNOUNCEMENTS: None.
AGENDA REVIEW: No changes.
A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 16, 2007
6:00 P.M.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Marshall made a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Tait, to approve the minutes of September 4, 2007 with, corrections to
name spellings; the motion passed on a 4/0 voice vote, Commissioner Keen abstaining
due to his absence. Chair Ray made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to
approve the minutes of September 18, 2007 as written; the motion was approved on a
4/0 voice vote, Commissioner Barneich abstaining due to her absence.
B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
Chair Ray stated that three additional Administrative Items (Agenda Item IV) were
brought forward for Planning Commission consideration in addition to those already
listed on the Agenda:
1. Minor Exception Case No. 07 -010, Applicant, Bayliss, 263 Rodeo Drive
2. Temporary Use Permit Case No. 07 -012, Applicant, Prim, 324 Poole Street
3. Temporary Use Permit Case No. 07 -020, Applicant, Rabobank, 1026 E. Grand Ave
II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 07 - 009; APPLICANT — WOOD
WINERY; LOCATION —136 BRIDGE STREET
Assistant Planner, Jim Bergman, presented the staff report for consideration of a
proposal to establish a wine tasting room within an existing mixed -use building. An art
gallery is also proposed in the adjacent building. In conclusion, Mr. Bergman stated that
staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the resolution approving Conditional
Use Permit case no. 07 -009. Change- owner will also open art gallery also.
Staff answered Commission questions.
Chair Ray opened the public hearing for public comment.
Mr. Wood, applicant, described their proposal and asked the Commission if they had
any questions. The Commission had no questions.
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
OCTOBER 16, 2007
PAGE 2
Chair Ray closed the public hearing for public comment.
Commission comments:
Barneich:
• Approves of the proposal as submitted.
Keen:
• Concurred with Commissioner Barneich.
Tait:
• He agrees with the applicant's statement that this would be great for tourism and
great for Village and an ideal location.
Marshall:
• He is really pleased to see this in town rather than out in a rural area and
hopefully it will be a model for other businesses in the County. Condition No. 5 in
the Resolution was a typo and should be removed.
Ray:
• She agrees with the other Commissioner's comments.
• This will bring in foot - traffic, which will be good for other businesses also.
Commissioner Marshall made a motion, seconded by Chair Ray to approve Conditional
Use Permit Case No. 07 -009, and adopt:
RESOLUTION 07 -2048
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE
NO. 07 -009, APPLIED FOR BY WOOD VINEYARD AND WINERY,
LOCATED AT 136 BRIDGE STREET
The motion was approved on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Marshall, Ray, Barneich, Keen and Tait
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 16th day of October, 2007.
PAGE 2
B. Continued from 9/18/07 meeting: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT CASE NO.
07 -002 & DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 07 -005 —
AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS; APPLICANT — CITY OF ARROYO
GRANDE; LOCATION — CITYWIDE
Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon, presented the staff report for consideration of a
Planning Commission recommendation to City Council to approve a General Plan
Amendment and Development Code Amendment to update the 2005 Amended Housing
Element, amend Chapter 16.80 of the Development Code regarding Affordable Housing
1
1
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
OCTOBER 16, 2007
PAGE 3
Commission comments and questions:
PAGE 3
requirements and adding Chapter 16.82 regarding density bonuses for consistency and
compliance with State law.
Ms. Heffernon introduced Lona Laymon, Rutan & Tucker, LLC, consultant for the City
for help with the update of the Housing Element and Development Code in response to
State law.
Keen:
• Has a concern regarding the discussion on page 4 of the staff report about
"concessions or incentives" being granted to developers, reducing development
standards when necessary to make a project "economically feasible" and how
this would be determined.
• Has a concern regarding the discussion on page 7 regarding parking standards —
the numbers quoted would not be high enough to include any guest parking.
• Housing Element, page 82, regarding water availability; he understands the State
wants more housing for low- income families, but if the City runs out of water by
making density bonuses this may not be fair to someone that has a project that
has lived here /waited for many years and then may not be able to build. Ms
Heffernon: With regards to any projects that come forward they will have to go
through the environmental review process.
• Page 87, No. 6, discusses what the Council is supposed to be doing to alleviate
the water situation by putting the Conservation Element into play; however, he
has not seen this happening.
Kristen:
• Agrees with Commissioner Keen on his concerns regarding "concessions or
incentives" being granted to developers. In addition, if a developer asks for
concessions and modifications on development standards the City may have to
prove why they are required. Plus if the City grants unlimited waivers, we could
end up with a project that is not livable. Ms. Laymon described how the State
law, regarding density bonuses, had been dramatically revised and is a huge
concern for local agencies. Although the statute does not provide any findings
there are two different areas of the statute where the City has some power - the
incentives and concessions, which are based upon the number of affordable
houses provided, and the waivers and modifications of development standards
(so called unlimited), which are based upon a developer claiming that these are
necessary to make the density bonus feasible. However, the applicant would
have to prove to the City that the concessions and waivers of standards are
necessary, and if the approving body does not believe that substantial evidence
has been provided with respect to the findings it can deny them. This is defined
in the Government Code as being, "a significant, quantifiable, direct and
unavoidable impact based upon objective, identified, written public health or
safety standards, policies, and conditions, as they existed on the date the
application was deemed complete ".
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
OCTOBER 16, 2007
PAGE 4
PAGE 4
Marshall:
• Would the impacts have to be related to CEQA or could other things be
considered impacts? Ms. Laymon: The statute does not define this, but
supported written findings such as from your General Plan, that relate to public
health and safety standard or condition could be used (CEQA like standards).
Kristen:
• Understands that affordable housing is necessary, but she has a concern
regarding quality of life standards and would like to make sure that the City would
be able to demand such from a developer. Ms. Laymon: Developers will usually
want to work with the City so they can go forward with their project; the City can
encourage which incentives and concessions they would recommend they ask
for.
Tait:
• In reference to Commissioner Keen's comments regarding water availability, this
could be a "specific adverse impact ".
• Could a developer receive a density bonus by paying an in lieu fee rather than
providing affordable units? Ms. Laymon: No, they have to build the units.
• Page 3, Continued Affordability, 2nd sentence, questioned the requirement for
moderate - income condominium units. Ms. Laymon: The reference to moderate -
income condominiums units should be removed as this has been changed.
Marshall:
• The staff report contains phrases such as "It is unclear... ". Is someone working
on the clean -up legislation? Ms. Laymon: There may be some clarification from
the legislative level during the next few years, but she is not aware of any at
present.
• He hopes the City will participate in the League of California Cities for help with
legislative cleanup.
• He asked for clarification on land donations. Ms. Laymon explained, with an
example used by APA, how a 500 unit market rate project can receive a density
bonus by donating land zoned at densities that can accommodate and are
suitable for a 50 unit very low income project — that brings them to 10% which
gets them the first threshold level of the additional density under the land
donation; the developer has to get the permits and approvals (for development of
the donated land) as a condition of donating land.
• This land donation potentially contradicts our other policies to assimilate
affordable housing into the neighborhoods; it would contradict what we have
been trying to achieve; it is not good to have lot of affordable housing in one
project.
• The "Child Care" statute provides no guidance on how findings are to be made
and enforced.
1
1
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
OCTOBER 16, 2007
PAGE 5
PAGE 5
• In the Ordinance, Page 6, 16.82.050, it states that the applicant may also request
a meeting with the City; this should be clarified by stating "City staff'.
• Page 13, 16.82.090, A.1. Child Care Facility Density Bonus — asked for
clarification. Ms. Laymon: Her interpretation is that if the Child Care Center is
not large enough the square footage would have to be rounded up to provide one
unit, or the density could be distributed by increasing each individual home by a
number of square feet.
• Condo Conversions: Why would we want to do this? Ms. Laymon: This was
added due to the statutory provision; the APA interpretation is that this would
only come up in the rare instance where the conversion creates additional units
on the site. Ms. Heffernon: Our Housing Element is quite strict on condo
conversions and the City discourages this.
Ray:
• Are we just rubber - stamping State law tonight? Ms. Heffernon: We are going
through this process to try to understand the new statute and to translate it into
our ordinances.
• The Child Care concession would not work.
• These mandates seem like an undue burden on the City. Is what we are looking
at tonight the law or an interpretation of the law to put into the City's Municipal
Code? Ms. Laymon: 92% of it is verbatim from the State law; most of the
language we added has to do with the redevelopment agency under the
affordability governance.
• Page 4, 2 bullet - regarding concessions on affordable units for very low
income, lower income, and moderate - income units and how this can be defined.
Ms. Laymon: The explanation is referenced in the definitions and refers out to
the Code; for moderate income households these are set by HCD and change
every six months; agreed with Commissioner Ray that it would be more clear if
language were included on page 4 of the staff report, 2nd and 3 bullet, after
"...moderate income units..." add "... common interest development
households...".
Ray:
• Is this encouraging apartment buildings due to parking ?. Ms. Laymon: If
anything it may discourage apartments as a developer would have to build low
income or very low income units and these are much more expensive to provide
than moderate income.
Director Strong explained that provisions are triggered when a developer requests
consideration of a density bonus; experience will be the best education. Staff will
probably consult on requests where we need to make findings.
Chair Ray opened the public hearing for public comment and hearing none closed it.
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
OCTOBER 16, 2007
PAGE 6
Tait:
• Has a big concern that by having land donations the City may end up with
segregation by income if all the low- income housing is kept together.
The Commission had no further comments. The Commission thanked Ms. Layman, for
the good discussion and for clarifying their questions on the staff report and proposed
Ordinance regarding the City's density bonus and affordable housing incentives.
Commissioner Marshall made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Keen, to approve
the Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the Resolution approving the
General Plan Amendment and the Ordinance approving the Development Code
Amendment regarding the Affordable Housing Element with the following suggestions:
• Clean up the phrase "meeting with the City" — Page 6, Ordinance, 16.82.050.
• Make sure the information regarding the income levels and information defining
the units is consistent.
In addition, (not part of the Resolution) the Commission recommended that the City
should encourage the League of California Cities to pursue items currently still unclear.
and adopt:
RESOLUTION 07 -2049
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A
RESOLUTION APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 07 -002 AND
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 07-
005 TO UPDATE THE 2005 AMENDED HOUSING ELEMENT AND
AMEND CHAPTER 16.80 OF THE DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING
AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS AND ADDING CHAPTER
16.82 REGARDING DENSITY BONUSES FOR CONSISTENCY AND
COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW
The motion was approved on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Marshall, Keen, Barneich, Tait, and Chair Ray
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 16th day of October 2007.
7:45 p.m.:
The Commission took a 10- minute break.
PAGE 6
1
Case No:
;., 3
,App. '
Aaliressu
' � De c tior
=..a. p
q '
Actio
PP_
P l n ner
a
1. ASP 07 -022
John Scharin
1400 E. Grand Ave.
Office Signage on small monument
sign in Spencer's Shopping Center.
A.
J. Paulding
2. ASP 07 -021
AT &T
1138 W. Branch St.
Replacement of existing Cingular
sign with new Alta Wireless Sign
A.
J. Paulding
3. MEX 07 -010
Frank &
Carolyn
Bayliss
263 Rodeo Dr
For an exception to fence height due
to sloping topography proposed to
be up to 8 feet for privacy.
A.
J. Paulding
4. TUP 07 -012
Joan Primm
324 Poole St
To allow a 5"' wheel trailer on
applicants property during home
renovation
A.
J. Bergman
5. TUP 07 -020
Rabobank
1026 E. Grand Ave
To allow a 28 -ft tall illuminated
artificial Pine tree.
A.
J. Bergman
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
OCTOBER 16, 2007
PAGE 7
III. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: None.
PAGE 7
IV. REFERRAL ITEMS FOR COMMISSION ACTION/
NOTICES OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS: SINCE SEPTEMBER 18, 2007:
Item No. 1
Commissioner Barneich stated that in regard to the proposed trees for the diamonds in
the parking lot, the existing native sycamores are not doing well and it would be better
to plant London Plane if these types of trees are to be chosen. She thanked Director
Strong for encouraging the owner to replace the non - conforming sign in the parking lot
(with the banners) and replacing it with the new monument sign.
Item No. 2
In reply to questions from Commissioner Tait, Director Strong stated that the sign has a
new logo and a two -line sign and meets all the specifications.
The Commission had no further concerns with respect to the administrative items
already approved by the Community Development Director.
V. DISCUSSION ITEMS:
1. Director Strong: Administrative Item CUP 05 -018, Equity Reach (pulled for
discussion by request of the Planning Commission at their meeting of 9/18/07)
Director Strong explained that the ARC had not approved the arches over the windows
of the Equity Reach building. In addition, the ARC had requested that the arches be
removed and the building patched and painted over after the removal; the faux marble
columns should be painted a neutral grey, and additional street trees be planted.
During further discussion with staff and Equity Reach it was decided that patching and
painting may not look good and it was agreed that it look better if awnings (with sides)
be installed over the windows to hide the arches and that faux stone wainscot be added
to all to all four sides of the building to add interest to it. The ARC approved the
recommendations. The cost of approximately $30,000 for installing these items may be
offset with a $10,0000 Facade Enhancement Grant.
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
OCTOBER 16, 2007
PAGE 8
PAGE 8
In reply to Commissioner Barneich, Director Strong stated that the trees would be City
recommended species.
Commission Comments:
Barneich:
• Is agreeable to the ARC recommendations.
• The work should be completed within six months, not one year, but the street
trees should be installed in the next couple of months and this could allow them
to be watered by the rain during rainy season.
Ray:
• She is in support of what the ARC is recommending.
• With construction going on, installing the trees first may not be a good idea.
Director Strong suggested they meet with the applicant and the Tree Guild on the tree
species and to determine where the street trees should be installed and also
incorporate with the City on the Village Green project. The work should all be
completed by March 2008, due to the timing of the Facade Enhancement Grant.
Keen:
• Likes these improvements much better than before.
Tait:
• Likes the improvement of the awnings and wainscot.
Marshall:
• He is satisfied with end result.
2. Director Strong: Draft 2007 -08 Annual Report on the General Plan
Director Strong explained that The State Annual Report would be transmitted to the
State by April 1, 2008, as this year the State had modified the submittal date from
October 1 to April 1 annually. After Council review of the State Report, Council Member
Guthrie directed staff to increase the priority of the CEQA Guideline Amendments; staff
will endeavor to achieve this, but consultant help may be requested. The principal
activity of the department is the Conservation and Open Space Element, which will be a
major undertaking and may require some consultant help also. A lot of the
commitments made in the General Plan will be updated in policy form and implemented
by Development Code Amendments.
Commissioner Tait asked if the Energy Conservation Element would be included in the
Ag Element. Director Strong said that it would probably be included in the Conservation
Element.
Commissioner Marshall stated that the information on Page 5, under Parks and
Recreation states that the bike and pedestrian path through Soto Sports Complex would
be completed in 2008, but this has already been done. Director Strong agreed and
stated that this was a typo.
1
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
OCTOBER 16, 2007
PAGE 9
Commissioner Ray asked for an update on customizing a LESA model for the City.
Director Strong stated that he would be reporting to the City Council on the Ag buffer,
and the Ag Element - the LESA model may be addressed at that time.
VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS:
Commissioner Barneich asked for an update on Chili's restaurant. Director Strong
stated that the building was proceeding; they are requesting utilization of the patio; there
are some concerns with the visibility of the proposed additional roof equipment.
VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP:
Applebee's Restaurant will be celebrating their Grand Opening on Friday and Saturday,
October 18 & 19.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m.
ATTEST:
n
LYN REARDON- SMITH,
SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION
AS TO CONTENT:
L
ROB
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
(Minutes approved at the PC meeting of November 20, 2007)
CAREN RAY, CHAIR
PAGE 9