Loading...
PC Minutes 2006-07-131 MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 13, 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, Parker, Ray and Tait. Staff members in attendance were Community Development Director Rob Strong, Assistant Planner Ryan Foster and John Wallace and Associates (JWA) Engineer Craig Campbell. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Request for the public to turn off their cell phones during the meeting. AGENDA REVIEW: It was noted that item II.A. was requested by the applicant to be continued. Chair Fellows requested that the order of discussion items 1 and 2 be swapped. Consensus agreed to the change of order for discussion items. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Chair Fellows to approve the minutes of June 20, 2006, with the following changes: • Wants to get clarification on one thing • Pg 3, 2hd bullet, spell out "drop inlet" (instead of just "DI ") for clarification. • Pg. 8, 4 paragraph, clarify that one could be within "4 to 6 feet" of antennas mounted high on a pole and still be within safety standards established by the Federal government, (which is not the purview of Planning Commission to judge Federal standards). • Pg. 4, under Mr. Landsman's comments about slope erosion, staff shall check if it was happening 40 years ago, because it seemed like less. The motion was approved on a 5/0 voice vote. A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Otis Page, 606 Myrtle Street, described the City Council discussion on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 about the Mike Titus committee's request for an appeal to Planning Commission. City Council denied their request, but suggested the City Manager could do an informal administrative review. Their basis for appeal is General Plan Amendment issues only. Staff came forward with amendments and citizens have right to appeal them. Their intent was to have an appeal in front of Planning Commission, since that's who represents the citizens (whereas the City Manager represents staff). When a staff report comes before Planning Commission, it's too late for the City Manager to do an informal review, because it's already public record. He requested Planning Commissioners to encourage the City Manager that they should have the right to determine whether a matter be heard before going further. B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 1. Email from Rolanda Tennant, dated July 10, regarding Agenda Item II.B. Viewshed Review 06 -006, 190 Fairview Avenue, stating his concerns with the proposed project. PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES JULY 13, 2006 C. REFERRAL ITEMS FOR COMMISSION ACTION: None. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brown, Parker, Ray, Tait and Chair Fellows NOES: None ABSENT: None Chair Fellows opened the public hearing for public comment. PAGE 2 2. Letter dated 07- 13 -06, from Byron Grant, re Agenda Item II.A., TPM 06 -003 & CUP 06 -004 requesting continuance of this item. 3. Letter dated 07- 13 -06, from Fred Collins, Northern Chumash Tribal Council re Agenda Item III.C. giving their recommendations. 4. Project Referral response dated 06/29/06, from SLO Co. Agricultural Department, re Agenda Item III.C. stating there are no significant concerns, problems or impacts in the area of review. Chair Fellows added that in regards to Item II.B. (the viewshed review), he spoke with Mr. Gastineau, who withdrew his objection in the letter previously submitted. II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 06 -004 & TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 06 -003; APPLICANT — HENRY DEGROOT; LOCATION — FAEH STREET & EL CAMINO REAL The applicant submitted a letter requesting continuance and Mr. Strong requested it be on the date certain of August 15. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Parker, to continue this item to the regular meeting of August 15, 2006. B. VIEWSHED REVIEW CASE NO. 06 -006; APPLICANT — MIKE & NANCY ATKISSON; LOCATION — 190 FAIRVIEW DRIVE Assistant Planner, Ryan Foster, presented the staff report for consideration of a second story addition to an existing 1,400 sq. ft. residence with garage. The addition includes 1,728 sq. ft. of new living space, of which 479 sq. ft. is on the second floor. For the record, he noted that the Tennants had sent an additional letter with photos to Planning Commissioners earlier this morning (copies on file in Community Development Department). In response to Commissioner questions, Mr. Foster stated the time from application has been about six weeks, which is fairly normal turnaround for a Viewshed Review that goes to public hearing; the deck/balcony at 1231 Brighton seems to be from a single story home (not 2- story), but he wasn't sure; and with the addition, the new square footage of the home (not including garage) would be just under 3,100 square feet. Mike and Nancy Atkisson, applicants, spoke in support of the project. She noted that the Gastineaus had spoken with them and decided to withdraw their objection. They PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES JULY 13, 2006 PAGE 3 have owned this property for 17 years, always planning to remodel for when they retired. They discussed the compatibility with development and building codes, consistency with the character of the neighborhood, equal property rights and equal protection of views (shared photos), and privacy issues. They have offered two concessions for the Tennants: no windows on that side and a privacy wall. Commissioner questions to Mr. and Mrs. Atkisson and their replies. Brown: • Have you talked to neighbors about the plans? We've known them 17 years, talked to them about the plans, and wish they would have discussed their concerns before writing an objection letter. • Letters from both sides show quite a bit of animosity — is anything else going on? No, we were stunned. Parker: • Would it help if the roof style were modified (less peaked)? It seems like it wouldn't make much difference — that the concern is the bulk of the addition. Tait • How would it block the lower bathroom window if the addition were moved toward the back? The end wall would be too close for a window, and there would have to be a vent fan, but we're concerned about moisture problems. Also, if it were moved back, it would block the view of 1231 Brighton and the Gastineaus. Fellows • Won't the balcony be even with the Tennants' balcony? About that and the wall would add privacy. Jeanne Barks, 1231 Brighton Ave., submitted comments in writing (read aloud by Chair Fellows and on file at Community Development Department). She noted that she would also be losing some of her view and that the home would be much larger (a different character) than the rest of the neighborhood. Rolanda Tennant, 1239 Brighton Ave., voiced opposition to the project based on two issues: obstruction of view (which will devalue their property value) and size (out of scale with the neighborhood). She requested more accurate information for review before deciding. In response to Commission questions, Mrs. Tennant responded that she's more concerned with the view than with privacy (in reference to the privacy wall offer); height is only part of the issue; and in regards to CEQA, her understanding is they can only increase the house to a certain size and the proposal more than doubles the square footage. David Tennant, 1239 Brighton Ave., discussed some of the main points from his letter dated July 10, 2006 (on file in Community Development Department). He never felt he owned the view, but didn't feel they need to give up as much as proposed. He wants his neighbors to enjoy their house. He discussed measurement challenges, average neighborhood square footage, location of second stories on neighboring homes, difference in building heights, and Toss of property value and use along with Toss of view. He believes there's room for common ground and equitable solutions. In PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES JULY 13, 2006 PAGE 4 response to Commission questions, Mr. Tennant responded that the photos ( #1 -4) show views from anywhere on the south side of the house; he pointed out view areas on the photos which would be blocked by the second story and back balcony; and his understanding is there's a 5' difference from his balcony to the new one. In conclusion, he agreed the Atkissons had told them about an addition, but he hadn't seen the plans or had much chance to talk to them much about it. Nancy Atkisson agreed with the need for accurate information and noted that her architect has correct calculation information for her house only. She noted that size isn't part of the viewshed issue, as the bulk of the addition is at ground level in the back. The Tennants will lose a portion, but not all of their view. Chair Fellows closed the hearing for public comment. Commission comments: Tait • Are the Tennants' measurements different from the staff report? Mr. Foster replied that the measurements on file are for the proposed project only, not for the neighbors' houses, which is typical. • How do the setbacks compare for the second stories of the Atkisson and Tennant houses? The only way to be precise is to hire a professional to do a survey. • Does square footage of the entire addition apply for this viewshed review in terms of "scale and scope of the neighborhood "? Normally, discussion for viewsheds focuses on views from public right of way only, such as the massing of the second story. Although a 3,000 sf house might not be in character with the existing neighborhood, the rear ground floor addition won't affect the viewshed. • He agreed that accurate information is important. Staff information is unbiased, so he relies on staff reports. • He appreciated the end of the Tennant's letter and really hopes there is room for common ground for a solution. He would prefer the neighbors get together over coffee or even with a mediator to try to work things out, and doesn't feel he can make a decision right now. Parker • She agreed with Commissioner Tait at the end. • It does fit the character of the neighborhood, since there are several 2- stories. • Since the size of the house meets development code standards and the bulk is on the ground floor, that's not an issue. • In regards to viewshed issues, she initially thought it would block the Tennants' partial view from the back balcony, but so long as the front was good, that would just be a compromise. After presentation, it seems the entire south view will be blocked, so she would like to see the upper floor minimized to the rear. Brown • Viewshed reviews are highly subjective, but he feels the Community Development Director made the right decision the first time. They're not PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES JULY 13, 2006 PAGE 5 protected from losing some view. If commissioners believe, as he does, that the neighbors could work out a better solution between themselves, he would be amenable to continuance for additional time for discussion between the neighbors. • Although additional information could be presented, commissioners must have a certain amount of faith and trust in the Community Development Director. He trusts his judgment and planning background to make good decisions. Ray • She agreed with Commissioner Brown, but there's still a lot of misunderstanding and she wished the architect here were present to add to available information. At the same time, she hasn't seen anything to convince her the Community Development Director made a bad decision. • She inclined to approve it, but if it's the will of the commission to continue it for further discussion between the neighbors she's okay with that as well Fellows • All three findings need to be made and he agrees with 1, but has problems with 2 and 3. In regards to 2 (character of the neighborhood), both second stories are over the garage, which isn't seen in new homes. Instead they're usually setback from the front, which is better design. If the second story addition was at the rear, it appears it would be less in the way of the neighboring views. In regards to 3 (opposing views), the Atkisson's second story does interfere with the Tennants' view. As proposed, the two front decks would be side by side, and the Tennants would have to look through pillars or at their neighbors for views of Point Sal and the dunes. It would be better to setback the addition. He agreed, as a real estate agent, that a view can be worth thousands of dollars. He would like the neighbors to work things out amongst themselves, however, if possible. Chair Fellows opened the public hearing for public comment. Ms. Barks reminded commissioners that the rear addition to the house would completely block her view of the ocean from the single story deck. Chair Fellows closed the hearing for public comment. Further comments: • Mr. Strong suggested reducing the roofline by pulling back the balcony overhang about 5', to allow for more view. If that would be considered by the Atkissons, it may be a middle ground for both parties to agree upon. o Chair Fellows suggested pulling it back as much as 7' and /or changing the location of the second story addition. o Mr. Strong responded that if the second story addition was completely relocated (instead of just pulled back), an additional notice would need to be sent to neighbors, as it could affect different ones' views. o Commissioners Ray and Parker were amenable to pulling the roofline back if it's acceptable to both the Atkissons and Tennants. PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES JULY 13, 2006 Chair Fellows opened the public hearing for public comment. Mr. Atkission said he had considered pulling back the roof overhang, but wasn't ready to make a decision at this time. Mrs. Atkisson requested the suggestion in writing (to be provided via a copy of these minutes). Mr. Tennant restated that he would like to see accurate, verifiable measurements and added that he's willing to compromise. • Commissioner Ray requested that a rendition of the south side silhouette of the two homes be prepared if further review is needed. Mrs. Tennant agreed that professional measurements of their house would be welcome. Consensus was the commissioners would like both parties to work together on an agreeable solution, instead of having to live with whatever is resolved by someone else. They would like to offer the quickest permit path through Planning Commission by leaving open options for Administrative Approval of a redesign, and /or appeals to Planning Commission and City Council as necessary. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ray, to continue the item in order to allow applicants and their neighbors time to discuss the design and to allow the Community Development Director to approve the project as an Administrative Decision for future report or bring it back to public hearing as he sees fit. Discussion on motion: Commissioner Parker asked about holding a place on the September 5 agenda. Mr. Strong noted it depends on the agendizing process - as an Administrative Decision or further Public Hearing. Either way, each party can appeal and delay approval an additional 2 -3 months as things are now. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brown, Ray, Parker, Tait and Chair Fellows NOES: None ABSENT: None 7:40 pm The Commission took a 10- minute break. PAGE 6 C. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT CASE NO. 06 -001 & DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 06 -001 & TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 06- 004; APPLICANT — CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION — APN 006 -095- 001 & 002 (adjoining Arroyo Grande High School/Valley Road /Fair Oaks Ave Community Development Director, Rob Strong, presented the staff report, describing affected parcels on a map. There are two levels of consideration to deal with in addition to the Tentative Parcel Map (TPM): 1) the General Plan Amendment (to reflect actual land use as Community Facilities [CF] and Single Family Residential Low Density PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES JULY 13, 2006 PAGE 7 [SFRLD]), and 2) the Development Code Amendment (to reflect zoning as Public Facility [PF] and Residential Hillside [RH]). There are several areas that haven't been updated on the land use or zoning map to reflect current high school use (CF /PF). LMUSD has requested that the hillside parcel be rezoned to SFRLD in preparation for possible sale, in the event that the District determines it is not needed for public facility. In regards to the proposed extension of Castillo del Mar through the Taylor ag parcel, there were several alignments reviewed with different road curvatures. The preferred alignment presented by engineering consultant, John Wallace and Associates affects the least amount of ag land. Also, it is the only viable access for the developing parcels. The first issue that should be dealt with is the environmental determination. If commissioners see any potential for adverse effects that haven't been mitigated, then they should take no further action and recommend an EIR or additional studies until those issues are resolved. If they accept the mitigated negative declaration (MND), then discussion should ensue regarding the GPA. The TPM simply implements the road alignment. This has all came about after years of discussion with JH Land, City Council, Lucia Mar Unified School District (LMUSD) and John Taylor. They all entered into a Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU) that this should be considered and coordinated. Each suggestion has importance to some of those parties, so if commissioners decide not to support one part, that could preclude the MOU from being implemented and prevent the road from being accomplished at this time. Commission questions of staff: Ray • Why isn't the Land Evaluation Site Assessment (LESA) model being used to determine necessity of an EIR for this project? The City has no such model established as a measure of significance. There are assumptions involved - one of which is size (for ag suitability), and the entire Taylor property wouldn't meet size regulations by the City or County standards (County is 20 acres, City is 10). There are ag easements on the Runels' property. Just putting it into a conservation contract can be significant. Road extension and separation of one acre of land from the rest of the cultivated area would be significant if not mitigated. Per the General Plan, mitigation is allowed at a minimum of 1:1 replacement with like land and a permanent conservation easement. There aren't any one -acre parcels on the market, but there may be some larger ones available in the future. The mitigation proposal offers $200,000, which is 2 -4 times the estimated cost of one acre of Agriculture Conservation Easement. There's no assurance that City Council will find that amount is acceptable, and commissioners can comment on sufficiency of in lieu fees. • Please set our minds at ease regarding the lack of the "threshold of significance" mentioned in the General Plan. There's no current standard that can be interpreted one way or the other. The Commissioners and Council need to use their best judgment as the lead agency. This could be challenged in court, but as there is no established threshold, it is open to interpretation. PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES JULY 13, 2006 PAGE 8 • So it is on a case -by -case and won't set a precedent? With any environmental determination, it is case -by -case. • Will there continue to be access at the acute angle intersection? It's a private driveway now, not owned or controlled by the City. The road proposed is intended to substitute for it. • Can we condition it and will the condition be followed? Commissioners can recommend abandonment, but LMUSD has the ability to make decisions similar to Council. The Haddox property uses that as the only established access to their 20- acre parcel and they have a private driveway easement. • In regards to traffic, anybody south of the intersection will choose this way to Orchard rather than Fair Oaks. What is the impact through the neighborhood? There hasn't been a discussion on that, as it was felt the new intersection would more likely feed the parking lot. Brown • What is the overall benefit to the City, besides benefiting the developer and getting some funds for the road? Will circulation be greatly improved? Yes, that has been the understanding between LMUSD and the City for some time. Maybe it was different 10 years ago, but with the new homes it is greatly needed. • Was the in lieu fee just from negotiation and not from comps? Yes, but the City has appraised properties equivalent to prime soils and determined it's appropriate. There are other larger parcels available to serve ag uses, which cost less than $100,000 /acre. It can be assumed that there would be less compensation required for just a conservation easement. The $200,000 mitigation fee would probably result in 2 -4 acres of mitigation. • In regards to General Plan statements about loss of prime farmland soils, it seems they need to have a statement of overriding considerations. Is this appropriate mitigation and would there be different "thresholds" if another property came forward? The policy may be flawed. If it is intended to require an EIR, though there's no significant effect, then it's just red tape. If a project isn't mitigated to level less than significant levels, then an EIR would be required. Planning Commission recommended and City Council adopted the General Plan policy. If it's inconsistent with reasonable mitigation, then the policy can be amended. If the policy should be literally interpreted, then this proposal is over. • There needs to be a measure to use for consistency of approvals from one project to the next. There needs to be a statement of overriding consideration. Mr. Strong replied there can't be a statement of overriding consideration if there's not an EIR. If the effects are less than significant, there's no reason for an EIR, so it's a contradiction. An applicant could come in and try not to mitigate impacts at all, but the point is to make them try. Parker • Will it set off the Taylor property's "right to farm" by extending the road? No. • In regards to changing the land use to Single Family Residential Low Density (SFRLD), is an environmental review required? When they prepared the 2001 General Plan, they did a blanket CEQA review over all changes proposed, which was adopted. Each project later proposed upon which the City takes discretionary PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES JULY 13, 2006 PAGE 9 action would require a new CEQA determination. LMUSD has requested it be SFRLD. Tait • Is the SLO County Ag Commissioner okay with this per correspondence? Yes. • 12g on page 15 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is listed as "impact can and will be mitigated ". Why is that an impact? The Ag Commissioner verbally expressed concerns with the City's current policy of allowing pedestrian trails through ag properties. They're concerned the Circulation Element could allow trails through ag property. The "Lopez to Sea" concept implies trail systems following the creek, which would be of concern to ag interests. That will be brought back for clarification with Pedestrian /Bike Plan considerations. They were concerned it implied a trail along the drainage channel, and he assured them that wasn't the case and isn't depicted on plans. • The only agencies that responded to the MND were County Ag and the Northern Chumash. Weren't there responses from APCD, DFG or Corps of Engineers? No, and it's not unusual. • Do we know how much money will be needed for the road widening and in lieu fees? The road widening is estimated by the City Engineer at $400,000. The in lieu fees is $200,000. Land acquisition is a private transaction between those two parties as outlined in the MOU. These are conservative estimates, but Council can decide the sufficiency of funding proposed. More than likely, the 1:1 mitigation will be exceeded and they'll be able to purchase land at 2:1 or even 4:1, but the land transaction isn't part of public agency control. • Is the current acute angle intersection considered dangerous? It doesn't' meet any City or County standards. It's there, but that doesn't mean it's right. Fellows • Could the LESA model be fitted to our community and used? If the City can create a model that works, it would be a pioneer. Those he has reviewed are for larger areas. o That would help in making approvals more consistent. o Does City Council decide if that's the right thing is to do? Yes. Ray • What is the potential problem (page 7, 4 paragraph) regarding the school district's purchase not being "within the control of the City "? LMUSD could create a new project after purchase, make CEQA decisions as the lead agency on the new project, and if the City didn't like it, they'd have to go to court to dispute it. o What is the difference? Currently, the land isn't publicly owned by LMUSD, so they can't make environmental decisions on it (and Taylor can't as a private citizen). Chair Fellows opened the public hearing for public comment. Tom Runels, 586 Valley Road, spoke regarding the project. He felt the existing road works fine. The angle may be hard, but there's stacking capacity which would be lost if it's moved further down. In regards to Valley Road, he already has to go to Los Berros PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES JULY 13, 2006 PAGE 10 to access the freeway. He doesn't have a problem with the project, but the location will create a bigger problem. There's another road they could open up that was used for construction for two years. Otherwise, there will be more traffic on Orchard than there is now. There's only a school traffic problem in the morning and the afternoon, but during mid -day there's no problem. If and when the road is changed, it will generate a drainage problem that LMUSD should address. It seems like the General Plan is being ignored in regards to saving ag land. The road should be lined up to go through a property and line up with the Mortuary and with El Campo Road. • In response to Chair Fellows, Mr. Runels responded that the current problem with the acute angle intersection is mainly speeders who should just slow down. There have been very few accidents — mostly at night. • Commissioner Ray asked if the reason for not connecting the road as Mr. Runels suggested is more loss of ag land? Mr. Strong replied that it was discussed during approval of the 2001 General Plan and it was felt not to have a purpose at that point. He outlined other possibilities, concluding this proposal was the alternative endorsed by LMUSD and the City. o Craig Campbell noted the road alignment is actually quite close to it (and he showed his diagram with engineered accuracy). o There was further discussion between Mr. Runels, Mr. Strong and Commissioner Ray regarding road alternatives. Mr. Runels concluded that if done, there would be many kids who circle ( "cruise ") the school, which may be an issue for the school district. Herman Olave, 222 W. Cherry, spoke regarding the project. He talked to neighbors and hasn't found anyone dissatisfied with traffic circulation there. There's a problem in the morning and the afternoon for about 20 -30 minutes each, but otherwise it's fine. He has no objection to extending it to Valley Road, but feels they have been lied to by the City and contractors. Any agreements need to be in writing and adhered to. The problem is enforcement of kids jaywalking and parking where they shouldn't — there needs to be more code enforcement. Parents dropping kids off are the ones who complain. He's concerned that $400,000 isn't sufficient for improvements. Chair Fellows closed the hearing for public comment. Commission comments: Fellows: • The engineer's map should be presented to Council for sake of accuracy. • Why couldn't there be different curvature to save more ag land? Some concerns include sight distance, headlights into the Runels house, and the engineers said the curves wouldn't work. Parker • Mr. Runels talked about cueing. What about taking part of the ag portion left over to use for a left -hand turn lane onto the new street? It's not only possible, but also proposed. There's still only room for two lanes to the south, but there's potential for three lanes or more to the north (toward the intersection). PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES JULY 13, 2006 Chair Fellows opened the public hearing for public comment. PAGE 11 Judith Haddox, asked if the existing road would stay there? If this proposal is accepted and the road is realigned, the existing driveway would be at the discretion of the school district. One concept is should Planning Commission recommend that it be eliminated. It depends on acceptance to alternative road alignment. He showed another way to place the driveway. If she doesn't agree to elimination, then it couldn't be done. It was an offer to the City to dedicate, but it was never accepted. I don't think we want it closed, because it would be easier to get out the same way and there are certain things we need access to. It could be gated further toward the end. Chair Fellows closed the hearing for public comment. Commission Comments (continued): Brown • What is the intent for the pie- shaped piece of land? There's no specific proposal. • Will it belong to LMUSD? Yes. Tait • Has the City researched drainage problems with Valley Road? Drainage is being relieved by bond improvements on the high school. Some water went across the campus, through the intersection and ended up across the street. Drainage across the ditch is handled if it's a low storm, but not a high storm. When the ditch runs full, the low is at the intersection. The ultimate solution is a pipeline up Valley Road toward the Saruwatari property and to the creek, which would be better than a single corrugated metal pipe and 2 -3 times the capacity. Under a worst -case storm, the Taylor field is flooded. Seasonal drainage and water under low flow goes along the ditch, across the Runels property, and continues as a flood plain to Tiger Tail and Sunset Terrace, then connects to Los Berros channel. It won't totally solve thing, but would be better than it is today. 9:30 pm The Commission took a 10- minute break. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ray, to continue past 10:00 p.m. on the proviso that commissioners only deal with the administrative approval for 314 Whiteley (after finishing this item). Motion approved on a 5/0 voice vote. Commission comments (continued): Tait • The main question is the loss of 1.2 acres of prime Ag land. In regards to AG1 -1.2, he thinks that circulation is a "public health, safety and welfare" issue. Although it's an adverse impact, it can be mitigated with at least a 2:1 ratio. The benefits are great and it should go forward. Parker • Access is vital for safety, not only to address problems with El Campo, but Fair Oaks and Valley Road. PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES JULY 13, 2006 PAGE 12 • It's important to rezone - it's a cleanup issue. • Regarding the LMUSD request for rezoning, she understands that water and infrastructure are in place now for PF zoning and that when a project comes forward, it would need the appropriate environmental review at that time. • She struggled with interpretation of the prime soils issue - whether it necessitates a statement of overriding consideration and CEQA review. She doesn't want to set a precedent, but it comes down to adequate mitigation and consideration on a case - by -case basis. While she can recommend approval to Council for this project due to issues of safety and community, she noted this does not indicate that loss of all prime soils can be mitigated to less than significant. Ray • She also had a problem with "overriding considerations" and EIR necessity. However, projects are reviewed on a case -by -case basis, and there's public benefit of special significance for public safety and welfare - not just private development. • The road itself is part of the mitigation. • It is a public welfare issue undoubtedly. If she lived in Vista del Mar, she would want fire engines to be able to access her home two ways. • She recommends closing the acute angle intersection for the safety of residents. • She's not sure about approving the 11 acres from ag to SFRLD. It's less of a change to PF. In saying that, there's no question LMUSD needs the money, which would ultimately benefit the students. Though not prime soils, she would recommend the project as proposed except for the 11 acres, which she would like addressed separately by Council. Brown • He has great misgivings about opening the door to perceived or actual changes to General Plan policies by doing this. If they use the "case -by -case basis" argument, that seems to say in this case we can ignore the prime soils loss and in others we can't. He understands Mr. Strong's logic about the threshold of significance and need for an EIR, but he's more concerned about precedent setting. Having said that, he recommends approval with the footnote that the City agendize the "threshold of significance issue ", so in the future there's a less arbitrary methodology. He wants to be fair and have perception of fairness. The LESA model wouldn't work, because it would wipe out the small ag parcels. Fellows • The good thing about the proposal is less traffic on Orchard, where there is a problem that would at least be helped every morning and afternoon. When rezoned, there would be more traffic, so the Castillo extension would help. • He's never been in favor of taking productive prime ag out of production and he isn't now. His solution is: o Leave the ag triangle in production, leave it zoned ag and make it a teaching plot for organic farming, and take out the existing road and return it to ag. o If that doesn't work, pull out and return the northeast corner to ag production. • The only way to mitigate ag land loss is to create ag land. 1:1 mitigation is good. In lieu fees sound good, but if they're not used immediately, that may never happen. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES JULY 13, 2006 RESOLUTION NO. 06-2004 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT CASE NO. 06 -001, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 06 -001, AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 06 -004, INCLUDING IMPROVEMENT AND EXTENSION OF CASTILLO DEL MAR DRIVE FROM ORCHARD STREET TO VALLEY ROAD; LAND USE ELEMENT RECLASSIFICATION OF 11.1 ACRES FROM COMMUNITY FACILITIES TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY AND CONSISTENT REZONING FROM AGRICULTURE TO RESIDENTIAL HILLSIDE (RH); AND LAND USE ELEMENT RECLASSIFICATION OF 1.2 ACRES FROM AGRICULTURE TO COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND CONSISTENT PAGE 13 The cost may increase and /or a new Council may decide to use it for something else. A 2:1 ratio would be preferred. • A lot of people worked a long time to put this together. Jim Dickens noted the only way to preserve ag land for the future is to put a conservation easement on it. The only way to go forward is to collect the mitigation money before the road goes in, find land and buy the development rights and it will be protected in perpetuity. No rezoning, grading, etc. should be done until 2 acres are conserved. It may be available fairly soon. He can't vote yes unless there's immediate conservation in 1:1 or 2:1 basis. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait, to approve the General Plan Amendment Case No. 06 -001, Development Code Amendment Case No. 06 -001, and Tentative Parcel Map Case No. 06 -004 with the following changes: 1. It is requested that City Council agendize discussion of General Plan Policy AG1- 4 in regards to the required "threshold of significance" to clarify whether Planning Commission should decide the necessity of El R's on a case by case basis. Discussion: Commissioner Ray emphasized the importance of Mitigation Measure 5.1 and the importance of monitoring by the Northern Chumash Tribal Council. Commissioner Parker felt that Mitigation Measure 1.2 should be moved to section 6 (Geology and Soils). She also questioned whether Initial Study Checklist question 9.a. was an "insignificant impact ". She felt that opening the road introduces the strong possibility for future growth. Mr. Strong responded that any future growth of adjoining parcels as residential developments would have to be reviewed by Commissioners as individual projects, and they could be appropriately mitigated /conditioned at the time of each project's review. After further Commission and staff discussion the following condition was added to the motion: 2. It is recommended that the asphalt be removed from the abandoned road and that area, along with the triangle separated from John Taylor's property, be kept in ag production, possibly as a teaching area for the high school. and adopt: PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES JULY 13, 2006 REZONING OF THIS 1.2 ACRES AND AN ADJOINING 8.9 ACRES OF ARROYO GRANDE HIGH SCHOOL CAMPUS FROM AGRICULTURE TO PUBLIC FACILITY (PF), AS INITIATED BY THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brown, Tait, Parker, Ray and Chair Fellows NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 13th day of July 2006. 10:10 pm Commissioner Parker left, as she wasn't feeling well. III. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: None. PAGE 14 IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. Overlay direction. — Per above, it was decided this item would not be discussed due to the late hour. 2. Request for discussion and reconsideration by Chair Fellows: Administration Approval of the demolition of a 1960's ranch -style home and construction of a new Spanish eclectic style single- family home, ARC 06 -004, located at 314 Whiteley Street. • Chair Fellows noted that Community Development Department staff has been short- handed and the report omission probably shouldn't have caused the delay. Now that the information has been presented, the project looks fine, so long as all ARC recommendations are followed, especially in handling drainage off the property with permeable pavers, so there's little water leaving the property down the street into the creek. It's also important to change the roof and that the garage door look like two doors. With the plans, he was impressed that the garage won't be as obvious as he imagined. • Commissioner Brown asked if the reason for pulling the item wasn't because it may not have matched the Design Guidelines. Chair Fellows replied that he had reviewed the Guidelines and though it may not be a "great fit ", the two architects felt it fit fairly well and the Village residential guidelines are flexible. • Commissioner Brown asked Chair Fellows again if he was okay with the project. Chair Fellows replied that his preference would_ be to remodel instead of demo and rebuild, but there's no code to support that so it's not an issue. • Commissioner Tait asked for clarification that with ARC's changes was Chair Fellows fine with the project. Chair Fellows replied, "Yes ". • Chair Fellows moved to not hold a public hearing to reconsider this project. • Discussion on motion: 1 PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES JULY 13, 2006 • Commissioner Brown asked about the process of continuing the item to a date certain in regards to public perception. There was no public comment or appeal, so it shouldn't be an issue. Public Hearings are not scheduled for Administrative Decisions, unless requested by Planning Commission. It hasn't been advertised yet, as when the applicants were notified of the scheduling (no room until September), they requested reconsideration, which Chair Fellows agreed to. • Commissioner Ray asked if when an Administrative Decision is pulled, would it normally go to Public Hearing? The process was on the agenda for further discussion, but this as the process stands, there can be 2 -3 months in delays for applicants to continue with their projects. • Commissioner Ray further clarified that it's in their discretion? Yes. • Tim Brown seconded the motion. Motion approved: 4/0. 3. Alternative process. — Per above, it was decided this item would not be discussed due to the late hour. V.A. NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS SINCE JUNE 20, 2006: None. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: None (due to late hour). VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP: None (due to late hour). V.III. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Brown moved and Commissioner Ray seconded adjournment of the meeting at 10:20 p.m. The motion was approved on a 4/0 voice vote. ATTEST: KATHY ME DOZA SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION R+ : • TRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOP ENT DIRECTOR (Minutes approved at the PC meeting of August 2, 2006) PAGE 15 CHUCK FELLOW CHAIR