PC Minutes 2006-11-06ANNOUNCEMENTS: None.
AGENDA REVIEW: No changes.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 6, 2006
6:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER - The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session
with Chair Fellows presiding; also present were Commissioners Brown, Tait, and Ray;
Commissioner Parker was absent. Staff members in attendance were City Manager,
Steve Adams, Public Works Director, Don Spagnolo, and Associate Planner, Kelly
Heffernon.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait to approve the
minutes of October 3, 2006 with requested clarifications on pages 12, last paragraph &
page 14, section V.II. The motion was approved on a 4/0 voice vote, Commissioner
Parker being absent.
A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Kristen Barnriech, 212 Canyon Way, stated her support of the City of Arroyo Grande
sales tax initiative, Measure `O', explaining the reasons why the half -cent tax increase
was vital for the City and urged all citizens to vote yes on this measure.
B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS (received after Agenda preparation):
1. Commissioner Parker's Comments re Cherry Creek.
2. Fax from Sara Dickens re Cherry Creek: Mitigation Measure 2:3.
3. Letter from the Le Point Committee, dated October 31, 2006, re City Council
decision on Creekside Center.
4. 2006 -07 State Annual Report from Community Development Department.
5. Letter from the Atkisson's re Viewshed Review 06 -006 for consideration at the
11/21/06 Planning Commission meeting.
6. Letter received November 3, 2006, from Mike Miner regarding the Cherry Creek
project — Item II.A.
7. Letter received November 3, 2006, from Megan Bochum regarding Newsom
Springs.
8. Letter received November 6, 2006, from LMUSD regarding the proposed Stanley
Street footbridge.
II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
A. CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 06 -003, VESTING
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 04 -002, AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 04-
002; APPLICANT — CREEKSIDE ESTATES OF ARROYO GRANDE, LLC;
LOCATION — EAST OF NOGUERA PLACE AND NORTH OF EAST CHERRY
AVENUE EXTENSION (CHERRY CREEK).
Chair Fellows gave an abbreviated history of the application and description of the
proposal to assist the public in understanding the framework of the proposal.
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
NOVEMBER 6, 2006
Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon, then presented the staff report for consideration of
an amended and recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration and residential
development project, for a proposed thirty (30) lot residential subdivision in a Planned
Unit Development configuration on nine (9) acres. In addition, Ms. Heffernon explained
that the Planning Commission will consider a Development Code Amendment to
change the Residential Rural (RR) zoning designation to Medium Density Single Family
Residential (MD —SFR) for the nine (9) acre project site, consistent with the 2001
General Plan. On October 10, 2006, Council determined that the proposed Mitigated
Negative Declaration is adequate with minor changes to the Agricultural Resources
section and the addition of a mitigation measure to require an in -lieu fee of $56,000 to
mitigate the loss of approximately 1 acre of prime soil. The Mitigated Negative
Declaration has been recirculated with these modifications.
Ms. Heffernon then discussed the traffic circulation including the street widths, the ag
buffer, the HOA, open space, maintenance of creek setback areas, Newsom Springs
drainage plan, prime soil mitigation, biological impacts for riparian habitat and water
quality, affordable housing, and the traffic impact study for the project and it's effect on
the City traffic circulation.
In conclusion, Ms. Heffernon recommended that after consideration of the project plans,
staff report, and environmental review for Subarea 1, the Commission adopt a resolution
recommending adoption of the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and approval of the
Development Code Amendment 06 -003, Vesting Tentative Tract Amendment 04 -002, and
Planned Unit Development 04 -002 to City Council. Staff also recommended deleting
condition of approval No. 111, regarding concrete lining of the drainage ditch along the
western property line since this condition is obsolete with the revised plans, and add
Mitigation Measures 1.1 and 1.2 to the conditions of approval regarding aesthetics. As
an alternative the Commission can either recommend modifications to the project or
recommend denial.
Staff then answered Commission questions for clarification of the staff report regarding
the Noguera easement, the bioswale in respect to Newsom Springs drainage, the
engineering analysis and grading to accommodate a full 100 -year flood event, "dirt
Cherry", the buffer, safety concerns with the traffic study as it relates to East Cherry and
Traffic Way, how the City Council calculated the one -acre loss of prime soils, street
widths, pedestrian bridge bicycle linkage adjacent to the property, open space
calculations, drainage system for the vegetative bioswale (runoff into the creek), interior
street widths for the project, riparian areas of sensitivity included in creek setbacks,
addition of a condition to address 24 -foot width of Mrytle Street, and conditions of
approval and mitigations measures addressing the box culvert filtration system (further
research to decide viability /availability), native plants in riparian areas of the creek,
creek path access restoration plan, HOA's maintenance responsibilities, street tree
maintenance, Council recommendation for preparation of the LESA model, and time of
year grading should take place.
7:40 p.m.
The Commission took a 5- minute break.
PAGE 2
1
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
NOVEMBER 6, 2006
PAGE 3
John Knight, RRM Design Group project manager, also answered Commission
questions regarding the buffer planting for the "dirt Cherry" area, time frame for buffer
maturity, how it was determined that there was only one -acre of prime soil that needed
to be mitigated, the ownership of "dirt Cherry" and the possibility of "friendly
condemnation" (only for those strips of land where the owners cannot be located), the
meandering pedestrian path and potential pesticide runoff, and proposed future plans
for the Vanderveer and Stillwell properties.
Commissioner Ray requested the name of Surefire Street be changed to Stillwell to
honor the family. Cliff Branch replied that this could be done.
Chair Fellows opened the public hearing for public comment.
Bill Summerfield, 831 E. Cherry Avenue, stated concern for the mentioned eminent
domain on "dirt Cherry". Chair Fellows explained that this would only be used if owners
were absent or had passed away and were not able to be contacted.
Nora Looney, 444 Lierly Lane, Subarea 2, stated concerns regarding the emergency
access road and that she has not heard of anyone opposed to improving this road. She
is opposed to downzoning of Subarea 2 as the density proposed for this area does not
reflect the vision of the neighbors with development potential. The traffic study is based
on much higher numbers than the actual lots proposed now and for the future lots for
Subarea 2. She requested to meet with all Planning Commissioners to see her
property; she had already met with some Council members.
Polly Tullis, 236 Garden Street, stated reasons why the prime soil loss mitigation that
was included in the Council's motion on October 10,' 2006 was incorrect and should be
further reviewed. The mitigation of $56,000 for the one -acre of prime soil lost is
insufficient and the one -acre should be preserved, kept to rural residential, and be used
for community outreach. This project should not be approved until Newsom Springs
drainage EIR is completed. There are a large number of important trees that really
need to be designated as trees that will be saved.
Otis Page, 606 Myrtle Street, requested that the 130 -foot buffer be reconsidered and
reduced to 100 feet to give some relief to the applicant on the width of the road
(standard road widths for the City are 40 -feet, not 36 -feet wide). The lots should be a
minimum of 7,200 square feet; with the low cost units relocated from Myrtle to Cherry
Avenue. The project should not be approved until a road is established on East Cherry
Avenue. Future implications of Cherry Avenue crossing Lopez stream should be
included in considering the project drainage and circulation; The project should be a
lower density.
Susan Flores, 529 East Branch Street, stated that she could see a lot of inconsistencies
with the project. The driving force of the project was the drainage and she was in
support of this; staffs opinion should be trusted. LMUSD does not want the pedestrian
dge because it would take up part of the school yard: 7,200 square foot lots are not
necessary, people live on much smaller Tots.
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
NOVEMBER 6, 2006
Colleen Martin, 855 Olive Street, spoke at length on behalf of her mother Lynn Titus,
404 Lierly Lane, explaining why the Commission should not recommend approval of the
project. Comments included concern that the Planning Commission and City Council
had not had time to review each others comments from prior meetings; the
neighborhood plan had not been discussed, there is no commitment to the plan for the
East Cherry Road; no commitment regarding the continuation of the ag buffer into Sub-
area 2; comments had not yet been received back from recirculation of the Mitigated
Negative Declaration; she would rather see a concrete sidewalk along curb and gutter in
the buffer area than the proposed meandering D.G. path; their were no backup plans if
homes that back into the bio -swale put up privacy fencing and use the buffer area as an
extension of their back yards; the emergency access roads should be at least 36 ft.
wide; secondary dwelling units have not been discussed; 15 of the 30 lots are under
7,200 sq. ft. (minimum requested); concern on the amount of monitoring required —
suggested the applicant be bonded and a contract set up with the biologist to make sure
this happens before the tract map is recorded; no progress should be made on
proposed grading and roads etc. before the EIR for the drainage comes back; there
should be no clear cutting of trees of height as the habitat for a certain amount of birds
would be taken away; Vanderveer residence should be given more attention due to its
historical significance;left hand turn onto East Cherry Avenue should be made safer and
off street parking on the dirt (close to the intersection) should not be allowed for safety
reasons; transitional zoning should be considered due to the ag land; the Vanderveer
home should not have sprinklers — make the streets wider instead; the literature should
contain information regarding the proposed landscaped parkways and not just on the
plans.
In reply, Mr. Branch stated that they had agreed not to begin any grading or building
until the EIR is completed and the City has given their approval. The density issue has
been discussed over a 3 -year period and a lot of favorable public comment has been
received and taken into consideration on the design of this project. The traffic study
reflects a higher density than what is planned to go into this development.
Larry Turner, 323 Noguera Place, stated that the plans show water and drainage
easements deleted and marked not necessary, but the staff report does not reflect
these deletions. He would like to see the project go forward and many of the mitigations
have been addressed. It is getting to look like a good project.
Tony Janowicz, 445 Lierly Lane, stated his support of the project and thanked staff and
Commission and Council for all the time put in on this project.
Staff answered Commission questions for clarification on the concerns and comments
expressed by public comment.
Commission comments on the project:
Development Code Amendment (DCA)
Ray:
• The change to the Zoning Map is appropriate.
PAGE 4
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
NOVEMBER 6, 2006
PAGE 5
• The issue here is transition — transitions are everywhere throughout this project;
what is being proposed is almost 25% less than the 4.5 units per acre change
requested.
• Build out of Phase 2 cannot reach 4.5 units per acre (east of project), but
development will occur in the future and the transition will get softened.
• Granny units will also affect a relative density and the affordability issue and will
help soften transition also.
Brown:
• Did not push for density as he had requested a 130 -foot wide buffer. If the buffer
works, then there does not need to be an argument for transitional zoning.
• Ultimately he could vote for the DCA, although he did not think that this is an
appropriate method (planning in reverse).
Tait:
• He agrees with Commission Ray's comments and Commissioner Brown's first
comment — density does play a role in affordability and he is fine with the 27 units
proposed.
• He can support the DCA.
Fellows:
• Several years ago, these properties could have been bought and developed as
residential rural, but it is too late and would not be the right thing to do now.
• He can support the DCA to bring the zoning up to Single - Family Residential,
medium density for Subarea 1.
Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Ray:
• She could make all the findings for the PUD.
Brown:
• He could make the findings for the PUD even though this is planning in reverse.
• Due to the constraints with this property a clustered development using a PUD is
appropriate.
Tait:
• He could also make the findings for the PUD.
• Comment on Condition of Approval No. 89: he does not believe a 36 foot wide
street with a 25 mph design is a traffic calming device. The safest street is
approximately 24 -feet (Urban Sprawl and Public Health 2004). 25 mph is too fast
for the interior streets — recommend reducing the street widths and lowering the
mph for the interior streets.
Fellows:
• The PUD process is overused and in order for it to be used for this project he
would have to see a change in how close the houses could be — he would like to
see the interior setbacks on the homes to be 5 feet on one side and 10 -feet on
the other — measured from the structure itself and from any projections in that
area.
• Just because the maximum density is 4.5 units per acre, this project does not
have to go to that maximum.
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
NOVEMBER 6, 2006
PAGE 6
Tentative Tract Map (VTTM)
Ray:
• The issue of number of units, etc. has been addressed with her comments
regarding the transitional area.
• The issue of the bridge is a moot point at this time as it is still open and is a
public right of way and can be addressed at a later date.
• She likes the widths of the streets.
• A recommendation needs to be made to initiate the process to get public
ownership of East Cherry Avenue.
Brown:
• A VTTM is the most important legal issue as it is a matter of specific findings that
must be met (there are 7 findings) and there are findings at this time that cannot
be met due to the current state of environmental review. The regional
environmental drainage issue must be resolved before the findings for the VTTM
can be met, specifically Nos. 3 & 4.
Tait:
• He agreed with Commissioner Brown — he also could not make finding No. 3 —
the MND is not sufficient.
• The bridge is very important and in the future we may need to add conditions of
approval or mitigation measures to create development impact fees to contribute
to the funding of this.
Fellows:
• He concurs with Commissioner's Tait and Brown on the TTM — it is premature to
approve this now.
Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait, to approve
Development Code Amendment Case No. 06 -003.
The motion was approved on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Brown, Tait, Ray, and Chair Fellows
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Parker
Commissioner Brown made a motion to deny Vesting Tentative Tract Map Case No. 04-
002 and Planned Unit Development Case No. 04 -002, as premature at this time
pending resolution of the regional drainage EIR.
Discussion:
Cliff Branch stated that if they were able to get entitlements they could do a lot of
preparation during the next six months on all aspects of the project although they would
not be able proceed with the grading.
Commissioner Tait stated he could not second the motion as it is now, as there is no
building permit until the EIR is complete, but if we revise that to include all grading he
could. Commissioner Brown agreed with Commissioner Tait and stressed that there
1
1
1
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
NOVEMBER 6, 2006
The motion was approved on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Brown, Tait, and Chair Fellows
NOES: Commissioner Ray
ABSENT: Commissioner Parker
PAGE 7
should be no legal entitlements of any kind by approving this VTTM until the
environmental review is done.
Commissioner Ray had a concern with Commissioner Brown's comments regarding
what entitlements the Commission is granting once the VTTM is approved. Mr. Adams
explained that if the conditions of approval could not be met it would mostly be the
applicant that would be taking the risk. Ms. Heffernon explained that there is also time
in between the tentative map and the final map, when things can change, before
Council gives their final approval and the map is recorded.
Commissioner Brown made a motion to deny the VTTM and PUD as finding numbers 3
& 4 could not be made, and that the Planning Commission as a majority believes that
an EIR is still necessary, but in the alternative that if the City Council determines that a
full EIR is not necessary, that the applicant wait until the project Newsom Springs EIR is
done before granting the VTTM & PUD. Commissioner Tait seconded the motion.
Commissioner Ray stated she did not feel that they had specifically dealt with the
Mitigated Negative Declaration. Commissioner Brown replied that it had been dealt with
in his motion when he stated: "the Planning Commission, as a majority, believes that
an EIR is still necessary ".
9:55 p.m.
Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ray, to continue the
meeting to 10:30 p.m. The motion was unanimously approved.
Commissioners Ray, Brown & Tait stated they had no further comments at this time;
they would submit any further comments to the Council in writing.
Fellows:
• The City may be seeking "The Safe Routes to School" grant in 2007, and this
could work very well in conjunction with the footbridge.
• Problems with crossing at Traffic Way — recommended a stop sign to address
public concerns.
• The arc in the road for new East Cherry Avenue is very important, as it would
allow the landscape to remove particulates from the air as it goes through that
part of the buffer.
• Agrees with no sidewalk on the north side (east/west portion) of Myrtle Street,
sidewalk on one side is fine.
• The rest of his comments would be put in writing to the City Council.
CaseeNo ",.'�
pp �
� �` Address �<
n_
Acton
,PlanneV
:D escription
VSR
06 - 017
„ „,A, ,�
R. & S.
Mitchell
256 Larchmont
Demolition of the existing garage for
a new garage and second story
secondary unit.
A.
M. Meier
TUP
06 -020
Rock -n -Dog
Restaurant
168 Station
Way
Temporary freestanding tent for
Rock -N -Dog restaurant, existing
behind the building to accommodate
outside seating during winter.
A.
J. Bergman
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
NOVEMBER 6, 2006
Colleen Martin stated that the Council would not get final minutes from this meeting
before their next meeting November 14 when Cherry Creek would be next considered:
she asked that a DVD be provided to the Council for their review. Mr. Adams agreed to
provide the Council with a DVD copy of the meeting.
IV. REFERRAL ITEMS FOR COMMISSION ACTION: None.
NOTICES OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS SINCE OCTOBER 3, 2006:
The Commission had no concerns with the above Administrative Items.
V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: None.
VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: None.
VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP:
None.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. on a motion by Commissioner Brown,
seconded by Chair Fellows.
ATTEST:
L N REARDON -SMITH
SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION
AS TO CONTENT:
ROB STRONG
COMMUNITY DEVELOP NT DIRECTOR
(Minutes approved at the PC meeting of January 16, 2007)+
PAGE 8
CHUCK FELLOWS, CHAIR