Loading...
PC Minutes 1999-04-201 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Greene presiding. Present were Commissioners Keen, Parker, Greene, London and Costello. Interim Community Development Director Henry Engen, and Associate Planner Kelly Heffernon were also in attendance. MINUTES APPROVAL Hearing no additions or corrections the minutes of February 2, 1999 and March 30, 1999 were approved as prepared on motion by Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Costello, and unanimously carried. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS The following letter was read and submitted by Mary Von Achen: Addressed to the Planning Commission Date: April 20,1999 Commissioners: ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 20, 1999 My name is Mary Von Achen. I reside on Brady Lane off El Campo Road in the County near Falcon Ridge. I am accompanied tonight by my brother, Pat William who also lives in the area of the original Williams family homestead. Pat and I are two of seven in the Williams family that jointly own property . comprised of 200 acres. It is located East of US101. The 200 acres directly adjoins and is contiguous to the Fredericks' property. Pat and I recently submitted a "letter of intent" to the City requesting that our property be considered for annexation. This letter followed Pat's letter of February 1998 where we expressed interest in being considered as a part of the City's revision of its General Plan. It is our understanding the City is about to make fundamental decisions and give formal direction for completion of the City's General Plan. We understand that on of those decisions concerns the question of annexation. Providing the City approves an annexation policy to accommodate a plan for the City's managed growth, we believe our property would have excellent "business oriented" land -use applications remote from the Village yet with outstanding accessibility to the City of Arroyo Grande. City of Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 We are aware a major factor bearing on property annexation south of the City is the building of an interchange for access to the area. We are also aware that there are concerns and questions expressed in the Project Study Report meetings bearing on the interchange's final design, location and how construction will be funded. We have seriously considered these questions and have reached a number of conclusions: - We conclude the most important question deals with how the interchange construction is funded. The funding question determines when the interchange will be built. - We also believe the interchange's funding plan should not be a burden but an opportunity for the citizens of Arroyo Grande. - Further, while participation in the funding plan by County, State and Federal Agencies is certainly welcomed, we should not wait ten to twelve years or more for a funded construction event. Time is of the essence. Realizing this, and considering the importance of the interchange question to the City's General Plan annexation decision, we have reached the most important conclusion: - We believe the major funding obligation to construct the interchange resides with those the interchange will directly benefit. - It would be the Williams family's intent to participate in an Assessment District for the cooperative funding of the interchange providing this is a viable strategy. We would be pleased to work with the Fredericks and any others who will benefit from the interchange with the objective to commit to a funding plan. - We believe such a funding strategy would allow the construction of an interchange as soon as the funding plan is established. - We wish to see the interchange built within the next three years. In other words, ASAP, (As Soon As Possible). Everyone benefits now if this happens. Now having made this statement we must deal with the realities of all the issues bearing on our consideration of this matter. These realities effect and determine 1 1 1 1 City of Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 our ability to proceed. These realities may be expressed in the form of the barriers we have on proceeding: - The first barrier is the City's 'determination whether it wishes to adopt an annexation policy. Does this make good economic sense for the City and its citizens? - The second barrier is if it makes sense for the City, will the County allow it? This, as you know, is not a trivial issue considering the recently publicized SOAR implications. -The third issue is does this make economic sense for the Williams family and any others who wish to participate in a funding strategy that allows the construction of the interchange. In our case, we must establish a business plan with a reliable financial pro forms to establish the total financial picture and the commensurate risks and opportunities in proceeding with a plan. Besides this presentation, where do we stand on this matter? We are now in the process of contracting with a local engineering firm to work with us in the preparation of a "Specific Plan." But we cannot proceed with this step unless the City establishes a first step endorsing an annexation strategy. The City's annexation decision and response to our letter of intent will allow us to proceed in completing this plan. Our ability to proceed, as a first step, is obviously dependent on the City's decision, respected Commissioners. I thank you for your patience in listening to my presentation and your consideration of our request. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 1. List of Task Force Members for the City of Arroyo Grande Economic Development Task Force and attached Press Release. 2. Memorandum from Robert L. Hunt, City Manager regarding a report from Otis Page. 3. Revised Project Status Report. PUBLIC HEARING — MINOR EXCEPTION 99 -001; TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 98 -256; 1530 CHILTON STREET; APPLICANT BILL HALLMARK. Kelly Heffernon, Associate Planner, explained that the Applicant has submitted a Tentative Parcel Map to divide a 25,631 square foot lot into two parcels: Parcel 1 would be 7,238 square feet; Parcel 2 would be 18,393 square feet. The proposed subdivision request is to establish a property boundary between two existing zoning City of Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 designations that lie on the parcel. A Minor Exception is being requested to allow a deviation from the required 70' frontage on Chilton Street by accepting the existing lot frontage of 67.48'. The subject parcel is located between Chilton Street and El Camino Real. A single - family residence currently exists on the site on Parcel 1. Parcel 1 would have frontage on Chilton and Parcel 2 would front on El Camino Real. Parcel 2 is currently vacant and has several mature Oak trees on the site. There are two zoning designations that exist on the site; Single Family Residential and Office Professional. The proposed subdivision would establish a property boundary between the two zoning designations. This would be consistent with the surrounding area. The proposed property line for the two parcels was established largely because of the physical and environmental constraints of the property. The Applicant has placed the line where it is largely because of the flatter upper area located closer to the residence. The Minor Exception is being proposed because the existing lot frontage on Chilton would be 67.48, however, other than this both parcels would meet all Development Code req'uirements. The Applicant is not proposing any development at this time. The Conditions of Approval contain both off -site and on -site improvements on development and not prior to recordation. Some of the conditions that are listed are: 1. Widening of El Camino. 2. Slope stabilization. 3. Curb, gutter, and sidewalk along the frontage of El Camino. 4. Extension of water main along El Camino to establish adequate Fire service to the property. 5. Tree removal mitigation. Staff has reviewed this project and determined it to be Categorically Exempt from CEQA. Commissioner Keen asked if splitting this lot would create a small piece of land on the property that would be zoned single family? The Commission would basically be establishing a property line and a zoning boundary. Commissioner Parker stated that her understanding was that normally when a lot split is done the Commission does not do a zone change because it would go to City Council for the zoning approval. Therefore, because the zones are already established, it does not require an amendment and does not go to City Council. She asked if this was correct? 1 1 1 City of Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 Ms. Heffernon replied that Commissioner Parker was correct in her understanding of the situation. She was also concerned about the rear lot line of the current office building and why it jagged out. Is this because the top part of the parcel is the flat area and they would be able to use this for parking? Also, if this were true, would the action taken by the Commission on the Tentative Parcel Map allow the Applicant to go ahead and create parking in this area? Ms. Heffernon stated that the area closer to the residence was the only flat area on the parcel and therefore the natural place to put parking. However, if the Commission approved the Tentative Parcel Map this would not permit them to put in parking at this time. The Applicant would have to come back to the Planning Commission with plans for approval. Commissioner Costello asked what the current tree ordinance says in regards to replacement of the Oak Trees? Ms. Heffernon explained to Mr. Costello that the Applicant is required to do as . much preservation as possible and then mitigation. The replacement policy of the is three (3) Oak trees for every one (1) that is removed. There was some discussion among the Commissioners concerning the status of Heritage trees. Ms. Heffernon told the Commissioners that she would gather information concerning this and distribute it at the next meeting. Chair Greene asked who would make the decision whether it would be appropriate if any, or all of the trees would be removed? Ms. Heffernon explained that the Applicant would have to apply for a Conditional Use Permit to make any changes to this parcel. At that time Staff would review the plans and look at ways to prevent any tree removal. If this were unavoidable, then the Applicant would need to replace the Oak trees on site. PUBLIC HEARING Terry Payne, the representative for the Applicant spoke to the Commission concerning some of the improvements that would be needed to complete any project on this site. Ms. Payne stated that the Applicant would like to reserve the right to establish an assessment district to mitigate the expense of installing a waterline across El Camino to the property. She discussed this with the Commissioners. Chair Greene closed the Public Hearing. City of Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 Commissioner Keen stated that he had no problem with this Lot Split or Minor Exception since the two zonings already exist on one piece of property. He felt more comfortable knowing that the Applicant knew about the problems with water and the Oak trees from the start. Commissioner London had no problem with the Lot Split and felt it was very logical to do so. He would like the Applicant to keep in mind when designing the project for this property, that they try and remove as few Oak trees as possible. Commissioner Costello had no problem with the project. Commissioner Parker also had no problem with the Lot Split. She was still concerned with the rear lot line of the single- family residence. She did not feel this was fair to do to the residence and asked if this was the appropriate time to request a "buffer zone" between any project that was built and the home? She also had a question concerning the assessment district that Terry Payne had asked about and if it was necessary for the Planning Commission to do anything at this time? Mr. Engen replied that the appropriate time to approach the "buffer zone" was if and when, any plans came back to the Commission for the Office zoning area. Also, no action was needed tonight on the request for an assessment district. Chair Greene stated that the subdivision of the parcel into two different lots makes sense to him and it is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood and properties. With respect to the Minor Exception, it will always be a minimum lot width no matter what is done there. Hearing no further comments on this issue, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 99 -1693 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 98 -256, LOCATED AT 1530 CHILTON STREET, APPLIED FOR BY WILLIAM R. HALLMARK. On motion by Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Parker, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: YES: Commissioners Keen, Parker, London, Costello, and Chair Greene NOES: None ABSENT: None 1 1 City of Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 the foregoing resolution was adopted this 20` day of April 1999. NON - PUBLIC HEARING — DRAFT NEED A_ ND PURPOSE STATEMENTS FOR THE BRISCO ROAD - HALCYON ROAD /ROUTE 101 AND EL CAMPO ROAD /ROUTE 101 PROJECT STUDY REPORTS (PSRs) Public Works Director, Don Spagnolo, presented his Staff report to the Planning Commission. Mr. Spagnolo stated that the City has hired a consultant to prepare two project study reports: one for the El Campo /101 interchange and one for the Brisco /Halcyon interchange. As part of the preparation of the project study report it is necessary to prepare a "Needs and Purpose Statement ". The Needs and Purpose Statement defines the reasons why the project is needed and what the project will provide. The document has been circulated to the Project Development Team members which are: Consultant; City, County of San Luis Obispo, SLOCOG, Cal -Trans Staff; Arroyo Grande Traffic and Planning Commissioners; Arroyo Linda Crossroads representatives; and several interested citizens. Mr. Spagnolo asked the Planning Commission to provide the comments to forward to the Project Development Team and the Consultant. Commissioner Parker had the following comments: In Paragraph 1 it states the purposes of constructing an interchange at El Campo are: 1. To improve capacity, safety, and traffic operations 2. To provide for regional circulation needs of the Nipomo Mesa. 1. To provide access to the proposed Arroyo Linda Crossroads development. Her comments on each were as follows: 1 Improve Safety No one who has chosen to dart across the freeway at El Campo would dispute that it would be safer to cross over the highway on a newly built bridge. Reference #32 from San Luis Obispo County Engineering Department States: "you have listed an accident rate that is just slightly higher than average rate. If Cal -Trans considers this slightly higher than average rate that would by no means consider it an accident concentration and warrant investments of millions of dollars." By making this statement, it does not appear that the San Luis Obispo County Engineering Department does not think it has a high enough risk to fix it. City of Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 Cal -Trans states in reference #19: "Remove all references to improving safety. The data shows a below- expected rate: The report shows "County accident data for El Campo Road indicates that the accident rate on this facility is above average and requires additional study." Mrs. Parker felt that additional study is not a justification. It goes on to say "Up-grading the intersection to an exchange is expected to improve safety by reducing accident rates. Mrs. Parker agrees with this statement, but she stated she did not find this to be an adequate justification for the interchange. Commissioner Parker went on to say if the City is looking at the safety issues, it seems a travesty that more accidents need to occur in order to justify a safe onramp. Perhaps other Tess expensive alternatives can be addressed at a later time. In the report it is stated that traffic projection on El Campo is 1300 adt and would go to 3800 adt in the twenty year projection. This should be more specific. How many of these cars currently traveling on El Campo actually are using the 101 Interchange? How many are traveling elsewhere? What is the adt of the 101 El Campo intersection? The next justification listed is to improve capacity. What does this mean? If this refers to the supposition that more people would use this access if it was available and therefore the intersection would see more traffic generated and this lesson traffic elsewhere. There needs to be a clearer distinction about this. 2. To Provide for Regional Circulation Unless there is a clear distinction for a regional circulation pattern that bypasses the City or would provide an east -west or across the highway flow as I understand it, a regional circulation may be desired in order to make getting across the highway safer and easier, but it too is not a justification. The SLO County Engineering Department states in reference #27: "You have noted that the primary purpose is to provide regional circulation for the Nipomo Mesa area. At this time, there is no basis from our regional circulation models that would establish this as a true need. In fact, we feel very little traffic utilizes this Zink and does not show improvement to this route as such. More over, the issue of a regional circulation Zink is a growth - inducing factor to the area of the Nipomo Mesa. Our Planning Department 1 1 1 1 City of Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 objects to any higher use of the area." That leaves us with only one justification left. 3. To Provide Access to Proposed ALC Development Cal - Trans states: "State interchanges are build for. operation improvements, additional capacity, etc. not for access to developments." San Luis Obispo County Engineering states in #27: "The true intent would be more for access to the southern Arroyo Grande and the Arroyo Linda Crossroads project may generate." Mrs. Parker stated she does not think the question of justification as regards to the need and purpose for an El Campo interchange has adequately been answered. Although an interchange is certainly desirable, the statement needs to form a more convincing argument for justification. She went on to say that it is important that Arroyo Grande first make its intentions known regarding development along the southern corridor. According to the survey taken for the General Plan Update, it is inconclusive as to whether we want to grow in that direction or even if we grow outside out established boundaries at all. This is a very important issue that needs to be worked out. The City does not even know if there will be an Arroyo Linda Crossroads project or a development on the Williams property. If the City decides to develop along this corridor, then probably there would be a City justification. Commissioner Parker stated again that she did feel that the questions for justification for these interchanges were answered in this draft report. Commissioner Costello found the comments from SLOCOG on impacts to the traffic flow on the Nipomo Mesa confusing. Their studies show this is not merited with the continued development that the County is allowing in this area. He would like to see the models there are using for these findings. He knows people who live on El Campo and they noticed a marked increase in the amount of traffic using El Campo now. He felt this would only increase when the construction that is going on now is completed. He understood that science is used to do the analysis for the traffic rates but he would like to more numbers used. He feels there are discounting the fact they have above normal accident rates at the El Campo interchange. He wonders about the validity of the comments on this subject. Mr. Spagnolo explained that this was the initial part of the study and that once the "Needs and Purposes Statement" is completed then they will go into traffic analysis, data collection, and volumes of traffic. This data will direct the report on what the actual physical improvements are. He told the Commissioners that the finished report would come back to them for their comments. City of Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 Mr. Costello asked why the existing studies, which dispute the claim for the needed improvements are being used. Mr. Spagnolo stated that there have been studies done but those are all changed and there is the need for new data that actually applies to this new project. Commissioner Keen had the following comments: 1. He does not feel that the traffic counts on El Campo reflect the number of those that don't use the interchange because it isn't safe. 2. He does not feel that the study is an accurate reflection of the regional needs. There are several projects that have been approved but not completely built out at this point. One example of this is Cypress Ridge, which is on El Campo. The need for this project should not be based solely on the Arroyo Linda project. 3. It also bothers him that the feeling is an interchange can't be built for a private project. If the private project was built and created an increase in traffic, then the interchange would be built. 4. It bothers him when Cal-Trans says that an interchange is not meeting the expected amount of traffic accidents. Why do they have to expect a certain amount of traffic accidents? Shouldn't they expect zero and work to stay at that, or does someone has to die before they do something? 5. The Brisco Road under -pass will never be better than now. Economically there is no way to expand the overpass. It would be such an impact to close half of the freeway in one direction at a time in order to do the job, . that the South County could not afford the impact. The interchange has to be fixed, but not at Brisco. The need at Brisco is too great. Commissioner London had some question about how Cal can take the position that it does when the City makes a determination that there is a problem in this area and if the Cal-Trans says "No" to the City's request for an interchange, can the City do anything about it? Are there any alternatives? Mr. Spagnolo stated that because it is a Cal-Trans facility .they set the criteria and it has to go through them for the final decision. That is why the City is trying to meet their standards by doing the traffic analysis. Mr. London stated that there are three of this type of interchange between Arroyo Grande and Santa Maria. He asked if Arroyo Grande had to stay with the El Campo interchange or could it be moved further south to mitigate some of the concerns of Cal- Trans? 1 1 1 1 1 City of Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 Mr. Spagnolo explained that this is why the project study report is being developed. One of the things in the project study report besides the "Needs and Purpose Statement" is a requirement for the consultant to develop alternatives: Mr. London asked if the City does annex the Frederick's and William's property, is the El Campo off ramp the best place to put the interchange? Mr. Spagnolo stated that that is what the project study report is supposed to answer. Mr. London stated that he shares John Keen's views on that interchange. He doesn't know what can be done. He asked if changing that interchange could effect the business in that area? He was concerned because the businesses are an integral part of the community. He also asked where the funding comes from for doing this study? Mr. Spagnolo replied that it could eventually effect them and also the cemetery. The study will look at the issues associated with that possibility. Mr. Spagnolo said that the funding for the Brisco interchanges is strictly from the City. The funding for El Campo is partly the City, also a portion from SLOCOG, and some money from the developer. Mr. London wondered if the City was premature in doing these studies? If the Arroyo Linda project does not go through; would the interchange still be needed? Mr. Spagnolo said this is just a study that is going to take a while to complete. If at some point there were no development of the project, the process would stop. Chair Greene has no suggestions for changes in the "Needs and Purpose Statement". He just had an observation concerning the Brisco interchange. He felt that any change that is made at that intersection would only be cosmetic because the underpass itself can't be widened, there is always going to be that bottleneck. There may:: be some way to modify the way traffic flows through that interchange, but it will always be a problem. It doesn't seem that the State and the City will be able to marshal the resources necessary to make the major improvements needed by condemning property or purchasing property along the right -of -way that would enable the State a proper interchange at that location. Mr. Spagnolo explained that the project study report also sets up future funding through the State and through our regional planning agency which is SLOCOG. This study will identify what the costs are and eventually that cost will be added to the State Transportation Improvement Program for future funding. The next cycle City of Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 for this is 2002, so that when the report is developed and the funding requirements have been identified, the City can then apply for grants. Commissioner Parker asked, because many people avoid the El Campo interchange, if there were an intersection there, would it pull traffic away from other intersections that are too busy now and improve those intersections? Mr. Spagnolo stated that traffic follows the path of least resistance. If there is an interchange there then people will use it. Traffic engineers can, through their artistic feel, determine how that will happen. The County's model does not include the El Campo interchange so it does not reflect what traffic would do if there were an intersection there. Mr. London asked if El Campo Road was ever going to go anywhere on the East side of the freeway? Mr. Spagnolo replied that he was not sure what was going to happen with the road on that side. Chair Greene opened the Public Hearing: Otis Pape, 606 Meadow St. originally a 227 bypass would have been the justification for the El Campo Rd. interchange but not 227 is not going to be built. The interchange effects the Frederick's development and the possible annexation of other land south of the City. The problem is the funding for the interchange. David Sachson, 391 Chaparral, had the following questions: 1. Who authorizes the traffic studies? 1. What is the cost of such a study? 2. Is the traffic study contract done in phases? 3. Were there traffic studies done at Brisco for the Wal -Mart? His final comment was that he felt it shouldn't be said that the Brisco Rd. interchange couldn't be widened. Anything can be done. It is only a matter of how to do it and how much it will cost. Mr. Spagnolo answered Mr. Sachson's questions as follows: 1. The traffic study was authorized by the City Council. They selected the consultant and the City is the lead agency on both project study reports. 1 1 1 City of Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Minutes Page 13 2. The cost of the study on Brisco /Halcyon study will be approximately $ 140,000 and the El Campo study is about $117,000. Of the $117,000 the City is funding approximately $62,000; SLOCOG is funding approximately $20,000; the developer is funding approximately $35,000. 3. There are two actual phases to the traffic study, a project study report and a project report. The contract is not in phases however; it is for the complete report. 4. Yes, there was a traffic study done for WaI -Mart and, yes there were improvements made. Chair Greene thanked Mr. Spagnolo for his report. COMMISSION DISCUSSION A. Consideration of Amendments to the Planning Commission's Bylaws: 1. Establishing 7:00 p.m. as the meeting start time. 2. Requiring a motion to continue agenda items after 11:00 p.m. The Commissioners discussed making the above changes to the Planning Commission's Bylaws. The Commission was in agreement that this was a good change. Hearing no further comments on this issue, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 99 -1687 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AMENDING THE RULES AND • On motion by Commissioner Parker, seconded by Commissioner Costello, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: YES: Commissioners Keen, Parker, London, Costello, and Chair Greene NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing resolution was adopted this 20` day of April 1999. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS Mr. Engen gave the Commission a brief up -date on the City Council's action on the General Plan Update. The Council directed Staff to get in touch with Envicom and City of Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Minutes Page 14 bring them back into the picture again. They wanted to hear where the project is as far as its budget. They wanted the Long Range Planning Committee and Core Outreach Team to meet again. This meeting will be scheduled for April 29, 1999 at 4:30 p.m. Commissioner Keen stated that the Council had discussed the Economic Development Committee be added to the General Plan process. They felt this should be done as a separate thing. Mr. Keen reported on the meeting of the Ad Hoc Traffic Committee. The Committee discussed how the Traffic Committee could help the Planning Commission by looking at traffic counts, etc. before a project comes to the Commission. The Commission discussed the landscaping . at the Five Cities Center. Parks and Recreation has two people working to make sure the Landscape Plan is followed correctly. The Commission wanted to compliment Dan Hernandez and the Parks and Recreation Department for actively pursuing this. The Commission discussed several ongoing projects. Chair Greene called for adjournment. Mr. Sachson asked to be heard about an issue he was concerned with. Chair Greene allowed Mr. Sachson to be heard. There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by the•Chairman at 9:45 p.m. ATTEST: Kathleen Fryer, Commi - on Clerk AS TO CONTENT: Henry Engen, MCP Interim Community Development Director /cwjA4cQJ C,2QMj Laurence Greene, Chair 1 1 1