Loading...
PC Minutes 1999-01-051 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION January 5, 1999 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION January 5, 1999 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Lubin residing. Present are Commissioners Keen, Parker, Haney and Greene. Also in attendance are staff members, Community Development Director Jim Hamilton, Associate Planner Lezley Buford. MINUTE APPROVAL The minutes of November 17, 1998 were approved as written. The minutes of December 1, 1998 were approved as amended. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 1. Agenda Item II.A. - Letter from Mark Panther dated 12 -28 -98 2. Agenda Item II.A. - Letter from William E. Daniel dated 9 -19 -97 3. Agenda Item II.A. - Letter from William E. Daniel dated 1 -4 -99 Public Hearing - James Way Annexation (Village Glen Annexation), Tract 2265 Project (General Plan Amendment 97 -004, Development Code Amendment 97 -009, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 2236 & Planned Unit Development 97 -563) Jim Hamilton, Community Development Director, presented the staff report on the James Way Annexation Draft Environmental Impact Report. Mr. Hamilton stated that the California Environmental Quality Act provides an opportunity for the public to comment on Draft Environmental Reports during their circulation and comment period. This hearing is open to the public so that those comments that they have can be incorporated into the final EIR which will be presented to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation at the time the project comes forward for action. He reminded the Commission that there is no action required at this time and, although CEQA does not require that a hearing be held, the City of Arroyo Grande feels that this is a positive way to get feed back from the Community and provide the Planning Commission as sounding board for the issues that may be relevant to the project. Dan Lloyd, 1320 Nioomo St.: Mr. Lloyd from Engineering Development Associates the representative for the applicant spoke to the Commission and stated that the applicant, Gary Young has tried to create a project that is responsible to the entire Community. Both he and Mr. Young were there to address the issues raised and answer any questions. William Young, 741 Printz Rd.: Mr. Young stated that he was not opposed to the development but was opposed to the current plan that would require the developer to work with less than the required 1 acre minimum parcels. If the developer cannot work within the already established guidelines of a 1 -acre parcel then he would suggest that Mr. Young resubmit his proposal and comply with these requirements. By allowing less than the established 1 acre parcels, it degrades not only the quality of lifestyle of the adjoining neighbors but also adversely affects the property values of the adjoining properties. There are rules and regulations in place, please let the developer abide by them. There is no justification for the deviation from these rules. As regards the dedication of land for a future roadway leading to Printz Rd., it is certainly not in the best interests for the neighborhood. A feeder road of this nature would destroy the rural atmosphere that we call so richly cherish and enjoy in this area. In conclusion, he would hope that the Commission reject the plan that has been submitted and await a new plan from the developer. One in which he would comply with the regulations that are currently in place. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION January 5, 1999 Perry Judd, Lucia Mar Unified School District: Mr. Judd, Director of Facilities, stated that he was attending the meeting at the request of the Gary Young to address the projects impact on the school facilities within Lucia Mar School District. He said that approximately one year ago the district met with Mr. Young regarding the proposed project. Mr. Young agreed to pay the school district's full mitigation rate of $2.92 per square foot. The final agreement was signed by both parties in October of 1998 and approved by the District's Board of Trustees at the October 10, 1998 meeting. This agreement has been recorded with the County Recorder's Office and this agreement fully mitigates this project's impact on the school facilities in the district. Tim Brown, 125 Allen St: Mr. Brown had comments in the way of questions that he hoped would be addressed by the Commission or Staff at some point and he stated that he welcomed the chance, at this early stage to voice some concerns that he had. His first question was if Staff or the Commission could please describe what the proposed Development Code Amendment 97 -009 actually was in detail. His second question was that in the proposed Village Glen Annexation there is a 33.5 -acre lot with one residence. It would seem as though this was to preserve open space. If so, what provisions are being made to preserve this in the future. Will there be any restrictions so that the owner of this parcel will not be able to come back at some later date and ask for increased density. The last question that he had was, being a person who works from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., it is very difficult for him to review documents such as the EIR in the Community Development Department. He wanted to know if the EIR and Specific Plan for this project were available in the Library or another public place. C. Z. Brown, 350 Old Ranch Road. stated it is unfortunate that there is not a better way of notifying the residents that these projects are coming up before the Commission or Council. His specific concerns are the cumulative impacts of this project in relation to other projects and, specifically with traffic. He referred to Section IV -D4 wherein it states The cumulative development in the area could add about 51,281 trips per day including 4,897 trips during the P.M. peak hour to other roadways ". The EIR states that if Grace Lane is constructed, it would take approximately 50% of the traffic off of Rodeo Drive. Mr. Brown stated he would seriously question that statement. If you look at Rancho Grande Heights, the Highlands, this project and other developments that might be coming down the pike in the near future, he would certainly discount 50% of traffic coming off of Rodeo. Other concerns that need to be considered are the cumulative effect with respect to water, traffic and schools. With regard to Police and Fire, Mr. Brown noted that the EIR suggests that this be studied for a year, however, it is his suggestion that there be adequate documentation as to what Police and Fire services would be needed in advance before waiting a year for a community that is going to house 60 to another 100 residential homes. Mr. Brown commented that the EIR, in his opinion, is somewhat misleading where it suggests one acre parcels. It is his understanding that the total acreage broken down by the number of units is how they arrive at the number of units. However, the EIR goes on to state that there be a cluster homes arrangement Tess than one acre parcels to accommodate low cost housing. Mr. Brown questioned whether this would be advisable for that area in view of the surrounding neighborhoods. Mr. Brown cited other areas of concern as drainage, sewage, parks and the existing plant life and, in his opinion, some of these issues should be resolved before going forward with the EIR, or at least ask it to be revised. With respect to the proposed road to Printz Road, Mr. Brown asked if there has been any 1 1 1 1 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION January 5, 1999 consultation with the neighbors in that area, or if there is an easement for a road to go through their property? He inquired as to what arrangements have been made for that extension. He stated he understands the need for a road to relieve traffic off of James Way, however, he questioned whether or not that would be fair to that neighborhood. He again reiterated the need for a better way of notifying the neighborhoods that these projects are coming down the pike. Mr. Brown stated that the report also indicates that the developer will be responsible for all infrastructure costs. He commented he doesn't know what that means and feels that should be clarified. He stated it is his understanding that if this property is annexed into the City, there is a tax base, and that makes sense. However, we need to consider if we will need additional police, would we need more fire coverage, and if we retrofit Lopez Dam, where will that water come from? He stated, in his opinion, these issues should be resolved and maybe we should put some of the development on hold until these other surrounding issues are resolved. Fred Wendell, 737 Printz Road, stated he lives approximately 400 feet north of the northwestern most point of the proposed annexation. He stated his understanding of the CEQA process and the development of an EIR is to provide a document that will help the City determine whether or not this annexation proposal is in the public's best interest. He further stated he has had only a short time to review the EIR and has . found it to be inadequate in a number of places, and biased in several places. He submitted a number of written comments expanding on a number of concerns he found in his review. Mr. Wendell focused on some of the concerns he has about the adequacy of the EIR, such as water issues, General Plan consistency issues, and traffic analysis and wildlife issues. With regard to water issues, Mr. Wendell stated that the Draft EIR evaluates and classifies the water quality and quantity aspects of potential impacts as less than significant and, from his perspective, the evaluation appears to be inadequate and biased. He stated the Draft assumes no effects on the shallow aquifers that are used by a lot of the property owners in the area. However, that is an un- tested assumption and there was no basis for it other than a hydrologist's interpretation of data. He stated the reason he feels it is inadequate is because the best case scenario has been given in the EIR. They have indicated if the hydrologist is correct this is what you can expect, however, they haven't assessed what the impacts will be to the City or to the property owners if the hydrologist's assessment is incorrect. Also, the draft provides a mixed appraisal of well volume potential in the Deer Creek Well. It states that the excess production will be a positive benefit from the annexation, but positive production again is based on the hydrologist's assessment and it is at odds with the City's Oak Park well that is in the same vicinity that produces half of that volume. The document doesn't address the potential costs and impacts to the City if the production from that well isn't as the hydrologist assumes it to be. He stated, in his opinion, this study needs to be expanded considerably. He commented that the City might not be getting the benefit they think they are, and there may be costs that have not been anticipated in terms of having to supplement water and the cost of treatment. With regard to inconsistencies in the General Plan, Mr. Wendell commented with regard to the clustered subdivision, stating from a personal perspective, even though the EIR doesn't mention it, it is directly in his predominant view and he feels it is a visual degradation and it is not acknowledged in the EIR. This is particularly so because those relatively small lots back up to rural estate lots with no buffer between them, and no thought given to modifying the size of the lot as you move into the project development; smaller lots on James Way and larger lots as they abut against rural estates. Mr. Wendell stated that the concern regarding traffic analysis involves the proposed road from the northwestern edge of the property through to Printz Road. He commented he knows what the impact will ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION January 5, 1999 be to him as a property owner, but the document does not provide the Commission with an analysis of what those traffic impacts would be should they put the road through and, therefore, the document is inadequate from that perspective. He further stated he would like to know exactly where they plan on putting the road through and if they do what the impacts are going to be. Mr. Wendell also stated, as a biologist, it appears to him that aspect of the EIR is inadequate. The EIR only addresses one threatened species of plant. He stated he walked the property and the heavily wooded oak knoll just west of the property and he realized that the clustered development being proposed completely shuts off a wildlife travel corridor to that wooded knoll, unless the coyote, deer, bobcat, etc. want to move through fenced yards. In summary Mr. Wendell stated, in his opinion, the EIR is inadequate and he opposes the project and EIR as currently structured. He commented that is his personal perspective, and from the City's perspective he believes it places the City in jeopardy of having to supplement water if the hydrologist assessments are not accurate. Kathleen Wendell, 737 Printz Road, stated the EIR referred to their area as an unincorporated area immediately to the upper portion boundary of this tract ", however, there was no mention of the fact that people do live in this area and directly overlook this entire branch of the clustered housing that is being proposed. She stated it seems to her that the way the development is set up now it appears there may have been a significant outcry in the past from the Canyon Way people because in looking at the map, it appears that the County did have an actual Canyon Way access across that property. However, in looking at this map section, she questioned why none of this area, which could be accessed by an extension of Canyon Way, is not being developed? It appears it may have been created that way because of previous objections to this development and, therefore, it seemed to all have happened up in this northwest corner. She also referred to the lack of water, stating if this was developed in the county, she questioned the property's ability to be developed out to the densities they have, or even one acre parcels? She commented that since the water is not available, and if this property is not annexed to the City, in her opinion, they could not develop anywhere near the density they are proposing in this tract. Another issue Ms. Wendell referred to was the math issue. She questioned how 33 acres were immediately subtracted from the 64 acres, and the entire development is planned for the remaining 31 acres. Taking that 31 acres and subtracting some away for roads, you are really ending up with Tots that are between the 12,000 and 30,000 square feet and, in her opinion, that 15,000 in the guise of clustering is far from the one acre minimum. She further stated there is no transition between the RE Rural Estates and lots that are 12,000- 15,000 square feet. Other issues of concern included the reference in the EIR regarding the wells and the road dedication. With regard to the wells, she stated she would like a little better assurance that the drawing of the water down at the 620 feet is not going to influence other people that have regular shallow wells because of outcropping in other areas. Don Selvev, P. 0. Box 7A, Pismo Beach, stated he is a property owner in Arroyo Grande. He commented that the idea of one acre parcels being better overall is a misnomer in his opinion, because one acre per house uses up land and, in the long run, is going to use up agricultural land. For the first time since 1992 the state adopted funding to allocate fair share housing for each of the counties, and thereby down to each city. Since the state mandates fair share housing, Arroyo Grande will have a larger share now based upon the increased growth than what was in previous years. He stated his feeling that it is fortunate we do have 12,000 square foot lots. 30,000 square foot lots throws it over a half -acre and unless the terrain mandates the 30,000 square feet, those lots actually should be reduced so we are not using up so much land. Beatrice Sirt, 218 Rodeo Drive, stated when they purchased their home last year, there was no disclosure made to them about developments approved or proposed for the surrounding area. She spoke regarding 1 1 1 1 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION January 5, 1999 traffic concerns and the safety issue on Rodeo Drive. She stated she was really concerned when she learned about yet another development of homes going in, which would be grossly over built at 2 per acre or more. She noted that the bottom line for her personally as a homeowner is the noise factor, which is so great that she has installed double windows in the downstairs area of her home, and she is now having wooden shutters, installed to block out the noise. Ross Konaable, 255 Rodeo Drive, stated that the EIR needs a lot of attention by knowledgeable people. He referred to Page D -4; the last line stating that there would be no significant impact and no mitigation is required beyond the collection of standard traffic impact fees. He further stated, in his opinion, money is not where the problems are. The problems are in that local area; Wal Mart, the Highlands, Rancho Grande Estates, Rodeo Heights in addition to the current traffic that already exists. He also referred to the assumption in the report that Grace Lane is open and absorbing 50% of Rodeo traffic and since that project is not even near approval yet, he questioned how they can use that for mitigation. He noted that unqualified traffic studies are being used that have been proven to be erroneous and therefore, in his opinion, the EIR needs a lot of review. Stephanie Painter, 541 Mesa View Drive, referred to the comment made previously regarding access for wildlife, stating there is not only the one area of 24 acres of open space, but there is also an 11 acre parcel created by the Jean James property that backs up to the open area of the Highlands. She noted there is also a nature trail down across the property. With regard to the traffic on Rodeo Drive, Ms. Painter stated that actually that road was always intended to take traffic to the Royal Oaks Development and was intended to carry traffic. Ken Taylor, 144 Deer Trail Circle, stated he is in favor of the project and believes it makes a lot of sense. He stated the project is bordered on three sides by the City of Arroyo Grande and does give a smooth transition from smaller parcels across the street and on both sides of the project James Way. He further stated he likes the idea of clustering the homes and leaving a lot of the property in open space. He also liked the proposal of the trails going through the property for riding and hiking. Ron Ritter. 570 Easv Street stated this project goes up against the back of his property and he is opposed to the plan as it is being proposed. Michael Wim, 233 E. Knotte St., Nipomo, spoke in favor of the project. He stated he had reviewed the EIR and, in his opinion, there seemed to be a genuine effort to mitigate each of the issues that were addressed. He commented regarding traffic problems on Rodeo Drive, noting that he recently started tutoring a student on Rodeo Drive and has been going there five days a week for a couple of months now. He stated there is hardly any time in the day when he couldn't cross the street in perfect safety without getting hit, and he observed very little traffic. He commented that there are probably certain times during the day when schools are starting and closing or when church is letting out, that there is more traffic, however, during 8 hours in the middle of the day there is relatively little traffic. Will Reichardt. 352 Rodeo Drive, spoke regarding traffic concerns. He stated that traffic numbers taken by the City substantiate that the traffic going through Rodeo Drive is up to three times more than what it was designed for. He questioned what a project of this magnitude would do to the traffic that presently exists and will continue to exist? This project is not going to help it, and we also have another project on Grace Lane. He stated it appears we are getting high - density development in areas that are not congruent to it and will lower the property values. Hearing no further comments from the audience, Chair Lubin closed the public hearing and reserved further comments to the Planning Commission. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION January 5, 1999 Commissioner Keen spoke regarding the water issue. He stated he is familiar with the water in that area and the wells that the City has on Oak Park and the ones that Pismo drilled across the street that are referred to as Los Robles wells. He noted that the wells were tested but never put in service and has been completely abandoned now and the project those wells were originally drilled for, the City of Pismo has purchased state water to offset that. The water quality in that area is not the best as indicated in the EIR, and it has to be treated. The mitigation measures of the wells as discussed in the EIR are all identical except they want to take all of these studies and observe them for years and that's it. If that well fails or doesn't meet the standards or draws down the aquifer, it doesn't make any provisions for where the water will come from after that. He stated, in his opinion, the mitigation measure should say what is going to happen or who is going to pay for it if that well does fail. His problem with the mitigation measures is they do not go far enough with respect to what is going to happen if the well fails. He stated he doesn't believe it should be up to the rest of the taxpayers of the City to provide water for that project. Commissioner Keen stated he is not opposed to annexing property into the City, however, he believes that property should not impact the taxpayers or the rest of the City, and should be able to hold it's own and pay for the costs of coming into the City. With regard to the comments about 1 acre lots vs. clustering, Commissioner Keen stated his opinion that a good policy to cluster housing and have a lot of open space is better than having a lot of large lots. With regard to the comment regarding a secondary road to Easy Street, Commissioner Keen stated it was his understanding that was a request or comment from the fire chief to have another way into the project. Commissioner Parker stated she was concerned about the end of the cul-de -sac possibly being an open easement and, in her opinion, they're needs to be in access in and out of that project. If Easy Street or Printz Road is not the access, then an access needs to be looked at. She commented that wherever the access is going to be, people living in that area need to know where that and if it is going to be used eventually. She questioned on Page 2 -2 of Impact A -2 "Summary of Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures" the reference to 904 potential new homes, stating the number of 904 new homes may be a typographical error because she did not see it anywhere else in the document. She stated she assumes the school impact fees have been taken care of by an agreement with the School District. She suggested that instead of just having an agreement, in her opinion, if the school is in the process of looking at sites for a new elementary school, now may be a good time to begin looking at this before we build up all of our areas, and it might be easier for people who move in and then find out after the fact that a school is moving in next door. She questioned the reference in the EIR to a possible third connection to Rodeo Drive. She stated that the reference to the traffic studies was confusing because she was not sure where the information came from and she would like to see that information included in the EIR. Also, the list showing all of the cumulative projects that have been approved do not match up either with any of the other traffic reports, and she requested information as to where these numbers came from. With regard to water, she agreed that the water problems were addressed in this report, but she no mitigation measures were brought out and, in her opinion, it needs to be clear what measures are to be taken if the water needs to be treated, if a new well needs to be purchased, or if the aquifer will be lowered if new wells are drilled. Commissioner Greene stated it is his intent to make his comments for the benefit of the author of the Draft EIR in order of the pages. Section 1, Page A, Project Background and Characteristics: Commissioner Greene stated it would be beneficial to the community to have a site plan that shows the division of ownership. He stated he feels it is important for the community to know that there are multiple owners involved and their property lines should be delineated, which may help them understand why it is that certain portions of the annexed area are being developed and the way they are being developed, and why certain areas are not being developed. 1 1 1 1 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION January 5, 1999 He commented that might help explain some of the applicant's intentions. With respect to the current zoning standards, Commissioner Greene suggested explaining more carefully how that works. Regarding water, he stated if the project needs off -site water, how does that impact upon the county's zoning? He commented that the extension of one of the un -named roads to Printz Road and the extension of one of the un -named roads to the cul-de -sac end of Rodeo needs to be explained a little more carefully as to exactly what is being proposed. Executive Summary, Page 2, II, Commissioner Greene referred to the language that reads: This project will have a less than significant impact upon the City's obligation to provide public safety services, such as fire and police." He stated the mitigation measures in the EIR mentions that the City and City Council will annually review and make the necessary changes to provide adequate police and fire services. He commented, however, he couldn't see what connection the applicant has with providing any financial resources to help the City provide the necessary public safety services. He questioned whether it is going to be the taxpayer's responsibility to pay for public safety services to this project and other projects and, if it is the applicant's responsibility, how will that be accomplished and what circumstances have to exist before that can be brought about. Commissioner Greene commented it was his understanding that an agreement has been reached to provide adequate funding that meets the School District's needs. He spoke regarding the over crowding of schools, and questioned exactly how the community will benefit from the use of this money by the School District to eliminate or ease the overcrowding. Regarding water, Commissioner Greene referred to Page 4, II, Executive Summary, stating it wasn't clear to him what the relationship is between the applicant's property and the Deer Trail well. He asked if it is public or private land and how the applicant will get that well water to the City? This needs some explanation. He also expressed concern about the amount of water the well is going to produce. Commissioner Greene stated that Page 1, III, the General Environmental Setting Section of the EIR the section devoted to the clean air plan states that the project is not consistent with the policy of promoting higher densities in the urban core and promoting compact urban forms. The project is not consistent with this policy which would encourage the City to seek in -fill vacant lands zoned for residential use before expanding City boundaries. Commissioner Greene stated he would like to see this elaborated on a little more and perhaps identify locations that could be developed as part of this vacant in -fill land. He stated the issue. was raised by one of the speakers that it doesn't make sense to increase density as you move away from the urban core and it seemed the appropriate thing to do was reduce density the farther away you are and that reduces auto emissions and traffic conditions. He suggested that may be something to address in this section of the report. Another issue that needs explanation is the fiscal positive impact of this annexation. He commented that if the property taxes that are going to be generated by this development do not offset some of the costs then, in his opinion, this is going to be an uphill battle. Commissioner Greene referred to the table at the top of Page IV -A4, regarding school enrollment capacity, noting that Judkins is included in the list of schools, and he was curious if this should be Paulding because that school is within walking distance of the site. Commissioner Greene directed attention to IV -D1 regarding traffic. He noted that the bottom paragraph on Page D1 indicates that Rodeo Drive is a two lane local road. He clarified that "local road" and "collector road" are not synonymous, and he believes that needs to be explained more clearly because there are some people who have the mistaken impression that Rodeo Drive is a collector road and not a residential street. On Page D2 it is stated that the Higgins study was conducted in December 1977. Commissioner Greene ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION January 5, 1999 stated that the value of that study was called into question by some of the residents because some of the study may not have overlapped the operation of St. Patrick's School. He further stated he believes there have been more recent studies done with respect to getting traffic totals in that area including speed studies as well as volume studies. He commented that the Higgins report may be a touch out of date and the consultant might check with City staff to see if there are more recent reports. He referred to the Table in the middle of Page D2, stating he also has some concerns about the validity of the LOS identifications. He commented that the study for the Village Center was reviewed not more than six months ago, and the information that was provided established that the LOS on some of these streets is inconsistent with the Levels of Service that are identified in this chart and, in his opinion, there needs to be some coordination on this. The Berry Gardens EIR and the Village Center traffic study might be a good place to start. Commissioner Greene referred to Page D3, stating he is concerned about the distribution assumptions. He commented it is indicated that the distribution assumptions for the project were determined based upon existing traffic patterns, the location of employment /shopping destinations, and the consultants knowledge of travel patterns in the City. He asked for more information from the consultant with more detail and data. With regard to Traffic Distributions in the middle of the page, Commissioner Greene stated it is not clear to him exactly what streets are being referred to, and he would like to see more definitive information in this area. He commented, in looking at Page D4 he doesn't believe that it is really useful to look at the modification of the Brisco Road /Halcyon /101 interchange as something that is going to be a short term change and, in his opinion, it is not relevant to point to the modifications as being a way to relieve the traffic congestion. He stated if 50% of the traffic that is produced by this project uses Rodeo Drive, that means that Rodeo Drive is going to see a 300 vehicle trip per day increase and for a street that already carries 2300 vehicle trips per day, this project is going to raise that to 2600 vehicle trips per day. He suggested looking at the Circulation Element of the General Plan, and noted that Rodeo Drive is not listed in there as a collector street. Adding 300 vehicle trips per day to Rodeo Drive constitutes a significant impact. He referred to the EIR at the bottom of Page D4 stating "This amount of daily traffic would not be expected to significantly change any roadway level of service on a City roadway ". Commissioner Greene stated this needs to be looked at more carefully as it pertains to a residential street that is already the most heavily impacted residential street in this community. Regarding the Cumulative Project List, Commissioner Greene suggested updating that list because many of the projects either have been modified or have been changed, such as Item #5, the Von's Shopping Center doesn't exist any more, and a Rite Aid is proposed for that corner. Also, Item #12, the Presbyterian Church is not planned for that property any more. Page D7, the Overview paragraph focuses on Rodeo Drive. The last sentence states the roadway has a capacity for approximately 7,500 vehicle trips per day. Commissioner Greene inquired how that data was determined and what source of information was relied upon. He was curious why a street designated as a local street in the Circulation Element, which is designed to carry as little traffic as possible, could also be one that could reasonably accommodate 7,500 vehicle trips per day. The discussion about the impact of the Grace Lane extension project is in the early planning stages and using that, as a way to mitigate the impacts of this project's traffic on Rodeo Drive is not appropriate. Commissioner Greene stated that Commissioner Keen has covered most of the concerns he had about the water, however, one of the concerns not clear to him was the question if this site has any water? He inquired if they are relying upon the site for water, can it contribute to the water needs of the City and, if so, to what extent? Also, does the water need extensive treatment? He stated he also is concerned about the costs associated with adding special equipment to the Deer Trail well for pumping purposes and for treatment; who is going to pay for that? Also, there is no explanation as to how that water is going 1 1 1 1 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION January 5, 1999 to get into the City; is it public property or private property; is there dedication? These issues all need to be explained. Commissioner Haney commented that the task here is to try to deal with the issues that, in the Commission's views, were not dealt with adequately in the EIR. He advised he would be addressing his comments to Mr. Foote in a general way, and he thanked him for the effort he has made in preparing the EIR to deal with the General Plan issues in the context of this kind of analysis. He stated he would like to see some discussion in the material in a general way about the private open spaces because it is a prominent feature of the project and is being used to offset a series of other issues for the project. Other issues of concern deal with density in a general way and in the material before us this evening, there are some very general numbers about what amount of development could occur in the county, and there is a range of from 36 to 70, with 64 conveniently fitting in there. He suggested this be explained in a little more detail so that the public can understand it. Also, there is the question that if this project were already in Arroyo Grande, what would our development standards be for this project? He noted, for instance, the 25% slope requirement and the difficulty building on those slopes, so if he looked at this project within the City of Arroyo Grande, he would see much Tess density than is being proposed here, based upon the topography of the site. Commissioner Haney stated there are several places where it is argued that it is beneficial for the City of Arroyo Grande to allow development of this project in this particular density because we are at greater risk for the county developing it at 64 units or 70 units. He stated, in his opinion, that is not a valid argument and is speculative because we really don't know what the county would do here. He commented he had spoke with someone at the county yesterday, and their comment on it was they would be in the 30 range in terms of the allowed units that might be developed in the county. Commissioner Haney expressed his intent to focus on some of the arguments used in the land use analysis, and specifically the consistency analysis for 6.3E. He pointed out that Part G permits clustering of residential units when the following criterion is met. The result of clustering residential uses is a more desirable and environmentally sensitive development plan, which creates usable open space areas for the enjoyment of project residents, and which preserves significant environmental features." Commissioner Haney questioned if the open space that is being created here is really usable, because the topography on the slope is so steep and its primary feature is a visual aesthetic item and not really usable open space. Another item of concern which is also crucial is the statement as follows: The final project development pattern including the net density of the developed area and proposed lot sizes which result from clustering, are compatible with the surrounding areas." Commissioner Haney pointed out that in order to be permitted clustering under the General Plan, those two requirements need to be met and, in his opinion, this does not meet the requirement of being compatible with the surrounding areas because of the lot sizes. Referring to 7.1, it states that "...require that new developments be an appropriate density or intensity based upon compatibility with the majority of the surrounding uses." Commissioner Haney noted that under the argument of consistency analysis, livestock is introduced as another element which is not part of this consistency analysis at all, and is essentially saying if this property were developed at a density of one unit per 2.5 acres in the county, they could put livestock there, which would be a greater harm than a much more intense development. He stated he didn't believe this is relevant to the consistency of this particular section. Also, in terms of dealing with the clustering issue, 7.1C states "Where questions of compatibility exist, require the new use to conform to the lower intensity use." He stated again, he doesn't believe the consistency analysis deals with that. Commissioner Haney referred to Page 111.12 dealing with the Open Space and Conservation Element and the consistency analysis there. He stated that the relevant frame of reference here that we should be using is what Arroyo Grande's policies are with regard to the areas having slopes greater than 25%. 2.1A ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION January 5, 1999 requires that slopes greater than 25% are retained in parcels greater than 40 acres. Our Development Code 9.06.050.A, as a minimum, requires a parcel size of five acres for slopes greater than 20 %. What was done in this particular area was slip over using the county standards again, and the Arroyo Grande standards are appropriate here. In trying to see the full picture, Commissioner Haney noted that most frequently the county standards are used to rationalize the 64 units, and even though he doesn't believe it is intentional, he is uncomfortable with that because he doesn't see that argument being used to make the contrary point. Commissioner Haney stated he agrees with a number of Commissioner Greene's comments with regard to schools. Notwithstanding that the developer and the School District have arrived at some kind of understanding of what they believe to be an appropriate cost sharing arrangement, however, the plain facts are that we need more schools in our area, and it is evident also we need more elementary schools. Even today we are overcrowded by some 120 to 130% at our elementary schools, and that is even before we factor in the remaining developments of The Highlands, this development and many of the other things that are occurring here. He stated it disturbs him a bit because he is unaware of any planned school site except it is likely an elementary school may be located in this area. He noted, in his view, this is a primary under - served area and particularly given all of the new construction and development that is occurring here. He further stated his belief that the real need here is for an elementary school site somewhere in this general vicinity. He didn't feel the adequate solution here is to do a mitigation fee, and then for the School District to take the money and decide they are going to build a school ten years in the future or maybe use it for operating expenses. He would prefer that the significant impact be defined as something that says, The cumulative requirement for new facilities should be due to the cumulative new development in the area." He suggested modifying Page 4 -A7 to read: The determination of what constitutes a significant impact upon schools is based upon the fact that cumulative new projects in the area have generated a significant additional requirement for schools." He stated because there are so few sites within Arroyo Grande, and specifically within this under -served area for elementary schools, in his opinion, a portion of this site should be considered as a possible school site. With regards to Parks, Commissioner Haney referred to the General Plan 6.3E that states: "...We require the provision of open space and recreational elements as part of providing residential developments in Arroyo Grande." He commented in his judgement the EIR uses the wrong standard of measuring the impacts of the development on the Parks and Recreation requirement of the community. Page 4 states "A significant impact would occur if projects cumulatively impede the implementation of City Parks and Recreation goals and programs." Commissioner Haney stated he does not understand the meaning of that statement. It goes on to state that "...Payment of park fees is an adequate mitigation to whatever impact this development may have cumulatively or individually." He stated, in his judgement, if we are going to have 64 homes here with the lot sizes proposed by the developer, we are going to require some park space that can be immediately accessed, and not park fees that are going to be used to develop something at some other park. He further stated, in his opinion, the City has too liberally used this fee transfer issue to mitigate the requirement for providing parks for the community in which they should be serving. He referred to Page 4-88 stating there is the argument again that somehow the City is going to significantly benefit by virtue of paying these additional park fees, because the alternative is that project could be developed in the county, and if that is so, then there would be no park fees flowing to the City. He pointed out that the way the EIR is written, it doesn't focus on parks in proximity to the neighborhoods that use them. He recommended changing the standard for what constitutes a determination of impacts to parks along those lines on Page 4 -A -5. He suggested an appropriate mitigation as follows: "Provision of local parks and recreation to serve cumulative and individual developments within this development of approximately one to two acres ", and revise the language on 4 -A9, A5 and A6 as well. Regarding traffic, Commissioner Haney stated he is disappointed in the analysis work that was done by 1 1 1 1 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION January 5, 1999 the consultant. He commented his feeling that the analyses moves around substantive traffic issues by using standard measures of intersection analysis at remote locations, and are not dealing with substantive traffic issues in the area. For instance, the issue on Rodeo Drive, in his opinion, is a substantive traffic issue here. He doesn't believe the issue is that the street can carry or is designed in theory to carry a capacity of 7,500 vehicles. Everyone knows that the practical limits for that street is far lower than that theoretical capacity for a two -lane street. The analysis of that needs to be pulled back to reality saying the current level is 2300 and there are some significant impacts on that street. He commented that the Brisco Road interchange is an unmitigated impact and is going to drop the Level of Service to D, and the decision makers will have to deal with that issue. He stated another concern he has is that the neighbors who travel these roads every day use James Way, and we are now creating multiple openings onto James Way that were not there before. He stated there are some curves in the road, some sight line distance problems, etc., and we are going to be adding significant volume by virtue of this project and, in his opinion, this segment of James Way will be seriously impacted by all of the additional traffic that is going to be flowing onto the roadway as all of the proposed projects get built out. Nowhere in the traffic analysis are we looking at what the appropriate capacity carrying levels are for a collector road that has a number of major entrances that is going to pull traffic onto it. Something needs to be done in terms of looking at James Way cumulatively. Referring to the Open Space and Visual Resources portion of the EIR, Commissioner Haney stated the consultant did a very nice job of incorporating the Open Space Element, particularly the sections on 4.1, but completely left out any analysis for the visual and open space, or the requirements in the General Plan for 6.1, 6.2F and E, 6.3, 6.A and 6.E, all of which have been incorporated in the document, but were not analyzed in the visual element as to whether or not we are also consistent with those provisions of the General Plan. He stated his belief is that by ignoring that, the consequences are a very dense "pack em in" style along James Way in terms of the lots that are not compatible with the adjacent homes further down James Way, and also is not compatible with Royal Oaks and Rancho Grande. Also, even though it is a higher lot size than immediately across the way, we are looking at one component out of about six in the area that need to be evaluated for comparability. He suggested some significant setbacks along James Way, and recommended that the land form grading be dealt with differently because it is not consistent with the General Plan. He stated the General Plan very clearly calls for visual corridors throughout the City and all throughout residential elements, and to him that means as you are driving along James Way it is reasonable to expect to see a visual corridor that moves northerly from James Way up through the project and actually carries you up to blue sky on the other side. He commented that with the number of lots on both sides there, in his opinion, that visual corridor is severely impacted along James Way, and reducing the density is a way to create those additional view corridors. Another way to do that would be to increase the lot size and establish setbacks that create visual corridors there. Commissioner Haney concurred with the comment on V -3 that the environmentally superior project here is a project that would support about 50 units. He stated he believes that 64 units is far too dense and, in his opinion, that amount would not be allowed to be developed neither in the county nor under the City's current standards. With regard to the fiscal benefit analysis, Commissioner Haney stated he has reviewed the analysis in some detail and, in his opinion, categorically it is not adequate to support the conclusions that have been made. He commented that the standards for the Fiscal Benefit Analysis that was adopted by the Council last year, as a minimum, what we looked for in determining whether there was a permanent benefit to the City was whether or not the ongoing revenue sources and the ongoing flows of funds offset the associated costs. Commissioner Haney commented that the City recently hired some very expensive consultants to come and talk to us as part of our visioning program. They submitted information to the effect that residential development does not pay its own way. He stated he also wanted to comment on Exhibit E which is part of the text and is the major document used to support the LAFCO analysis. He ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION January 5, 1999 noted that many of the conclusions that are drawn there that support the LAFCO analysis are not substantiated in the text. Chair Lubin stated that in hearing what Commissioner Haney had to say, his first conclusion was that the Draft EIR was skimpy, and he was surprised by the lack of complete documentation in the draft, stating he would prefer to see a much more significant document that would address the areas that have been mentioned tonight. He stated he would also like to remind everyone that this document is prepared for the City of Arroyo Grande and not on behalf of the developer. He noted he did find the document leaning toward the developer and not the City, and he would like to see the document reversed so that the conclusions are for the benefit of the City. Chair Lubin stated he does believe that Rodeo Drive is going to be a significant issue. Also, the Rodeo Heights project has not been approved yet and, therefore, those conclusions cannot be considered unless the alternatives are also considered. He stated he is concerned with traffic on James Way, mostly in the direction towards the Village. That traffic is going to end up on Tally Ho Road going in the direction of the Village and end up on Mason Street, which will be a mess. Also, one of the things that concerned him was the road dedication, and we need to know where that is going, what is going to happen with it, and why it is there. In his opinion, lot sizes are extremely important in this project and he doesn't believe Rural Residential calls for lots under one acre. Also, he stated he has a problem with the open space versus the lot locations, and by clustering along James Way, open space is lost to the general public and is there for the benefit of only a small number of residential units. His concern is the lack of open space along James Way and he would like to see how that could be addressed in terms of mitigation. With reference to solid waste, Chair Lubin questioned the comment that the project would have a beneficial effect on solid waste because there is no project their now. Therefore, any project, even one home, would have a significant impact on waste; not a beneficial impact on waste. He stated he also has concerns with the water, and he would be in favor of less density on this project. He also believes there should be a buffer so that there are larger lots in the back or along side of those estate lots on Easy Street. Chair Lubin stated he is in favor of the annexation for one basic reason, and that is he believes that the City has to control its own destiny and if this is allowed to be developed in the county, the City has no say over what is going to happen, therefore, he feels we have to annex this into the City to have control of the project. Also, he is in favor of a project of some kind that fits the character of the area and blends well with the community. Community Development Director Hamilton advised the public that comments on the Draft EIR could be submitted in writing to the Community Development Department until January 18` at 5:00 P.M. NON - PUBLIC HEARING - PRE - APPLICATION REVIEW TO DEMOLISH THE EXISTING 2,630 SQUARE FOOT SERVICE STATION AND CONSTRUCT A NEW 2,929 SQUARE FOOT CONVENIENCE MARKET; APPLICANT: CHEVRON PRODUCTS COMPANY; LOCATION: 251 GRAND AVENUE Community Development Director Hamilton briefly reviewed the staff report dated January 5, 1998. He noted that both the Architectural Advisory Committee and Staff Advisory Committee have reviewed the project and their comments are attached to the staff report. Commissioner Greene referred to the Development Code, "Minimum Development Standards ", page 249 regarding walls, pointing out that Chevron's proposal is for a chain link fence. He noted that Subsection 5 requires that a service station shall be separated from adjacent property by a decorative masonry wall of not less than six feet in height" Mr. Hamilton stated the masonry wall is not part of this pre - application review. He advised this issue was discussed at the AAC meeting and one of the associated issues was 1 1 1 1 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION January 5, 1999 the adjacent property is undeveloped at this time. One of the concerns that was raised was whether or not a wall actually was a positive thing because of the potential for graffiti, etc., and what would it accomplish there. He commented, in his opinion, there are some issues associated with putting a wall there that should be looked at in more detail at the time an application is actually submitted. Commissioner Greene referred to Subsection 7 wherein it states '...landscaping shall include a planting strip of at least five feet in width along all interior parcel lines." He noted that the landscaping plan proposed by the applicant doesn't do that. Mr. Hamilton stated what is shown in this preliminary plan represents, in essence, the existing situation. He advised that is a condition that can be added if the project actually does come forward. Commissioner Greene advised that the pole sign is not in conformance with the existing sign ordinance. He noted that the Development Code requires that an applicant, who is asking for additional signage in excess of the current signage, must be brought into conformance with the Sign Ordinance. He further stated it was noted during discussion of the Village Center that Cal -Trans would like to signalize that particular area where Branch Street and Grand meet. He noted that installing signal devices on the Chevron property would enable people exiting the Chevron station to benefit from a traffic signal. Mr. Hamilton commented that a traffic signal is part of the approvals that went along with the Village Center, and the location of the signal is under design right now, and until those things are resolved we don't know how that will affect this particular property. Commissioner Parker stated it was her understanding that Cal-Trans indicated they wanted to do a study of that intersection, and then they wanted to do a further study when Wal -Mart came in because they wanted to make sure that the numbers are there on West Branch Street. Senior Consultant Engineer Craig Campbell advised that the Village Center project was conditioned to implement a signal at this intersection and there is a timing issue there. He noted that normally signals are not installed until you have traffic signal warrants that depends on the expected traffic to come in the near future. It is everybody's belief that the design is going to be accomplished, the traffic is going to come, the warrants are going to be met, and the signal will be installed. He commented that one of the recommended conditions of approval by the Public Works Department was that the Chevron project be conditioned to provide the easements and the control restrictions to be compatible with that signal. He noted that one leg of that signal would be one of their driveways. Chair Lubin noted that this is a non - public hearing item and invited questions and comments from the audience. Jim Foraev, RHL Desion Group, stated his firm is representing Chevron on this project. He advised that the Chevron Products Company intend to remodel the existing service station and construct a new convenience store for this location. The existing canopy, fuel dispensers and underground tanks are to remain in the present locations, as well as the driveway approaches. Special consideration has been taken for the existing elements to blend in with what is designed for the site. He noted that the new convenience store is placed to better facilitate the traffic flow through the site, and the correct number of parking spaces are also being provided in front of the convenience store. Mr. Forgey referred to the drawings provided for the project, noting that Chevron has totally redesigned their structures and have now gone to a tower -type structure, with the tower being the focal point of the structure, and different colors are being used to try and blend in with the environment. He briefly described the architectural features of the structure. With reference to the special equipment associated with Opticom Signalization System, Mr. Forgey stated that Chevron would like a cap put on that as far as their costs are concerned because they have a budget associated with this project and if the costs are going to go over their budget amount, they want to be ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION January 5, 1999 made aware of it in the early stages. He mentioned that previous traffic studies based on this type of a project and the criteria for this type of site points out that Tess trips are used when a "C: store is provided rather than an auto service store. Also, with regard to signage, he advised Chevron is actually reducing the signage on the site, and it is their intent to re- evaluate the signage area. In conclusion, Mr. Forgey stated that this site has been designed to provide maximum safety for vehicle and pedestrian traffic. The infrastructure already exists to support this site, and the remodeling will not increase the demand on City services. Improvement and appearance of the site will enhance the vicinity and the project as well. Commissioner Haney commented that this particular location is within the historic village district and, in looking at the store, he did not see a lot of adaptation for the village area. Mr. Forgey commented he feels what they are providing is something that fits in with the area now. He noted, in his opinion, going to a historical type setup would detract and basically not blend in with what is there now, and what they are trying to do is make it compatible with the existing structures in that area. Commissioner Keen referred to the new Chevron Food Mart in Paso Robles, stating that one does not look like a service station, however, this one does. He pointed out that if Chevron can design a building that complies with that center in Paso Robles, then we should be able to get one here that complies with our Village standards and, in his opinion, the proposal is a stuccoed filling station and is not very attractive. Commissioner Parker clarified the fact that the Chevron Products Company are requesting this convenience market and it is completely separate from the service station operation. She also questioned the type of lighting, and what plans were being proposed for the backside of the building such as a walkway or landscaping. Commissioner Greene inquired about the pole sign on Grand Avenue with the prices on it, and asked how the Chevron people would react if one of the conditions of approval for the CUP would be to bring that sign into conformance with the Code. Mr. Forgey stated they would like to keep the sign, however, he would bring it to their attention. Commissioner Greene also mentioned that the proposed landscaping plan does not conform to the Development Code. Chair Lubin asked if the convenience store is going to go ahead regardless of the negotiations with the dealer? Mr. Forgey stated that Chevron would go ahead with the convenience store. Mr. Martin, 125 Allen Street. stated that this project falls under the Village Design Guidelines, and suggested that the construction blend in more with the Village area to add to and maintain more of the historic Village appeal. With regard to signage, he stated he would hope that the Commission would take a consistent view on what the signage should look like and that it should conform to the current ordinance. Hearing no further comments, Chair Lubin closed the public comment period and reserved further comments to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Greene stated he agrees with Mr. Martin with respect to the signs and it is his belief that the Conditional Use Permit should be conditioned upon the applicant accepting the requirement that the pricing sign be modified to provide consistency and uniformity. He is also in 'favor of assuring that the proper mechanisms are installed to enable the City to signalize that intersection. He further stated he agrees with Commissioner Keen that there are changes that can be made to the project to make it look a little more like the rural small town Village character we are trying to create for the downtown area. He stated, in his opinion, landscaping needs to be worked on and more landscaping needs to be added to comply with the Development Code so it runs as far down the property line as possible towards Grand Avenue. Commissioner Greene stated that, on a whole, he believes that moving the station back, adding 1 1 1 1 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION: January 5, 1999 additional lighting and improving the access and parking has some significant merit and can be of benefit to the community. Commissioner Haney stated he would like to echo Commissioner Greene's comments and there are a few additional comments he would like to make. He pointed out he is not a fan of metal roofs which seem to be multiplying in the Village. Also, he feels it would be useful to get traffic count data on a convenience store versus a service station. He stated that this particular area between the freeway and Traffic Way is probably one of the most difficult areas in the City traffic -wise, and with the approvals that have been given in the area, we are operating right at the cusp of the D Level of Service and, therefore, the traffic issues remain an ongoing concern for him. _He stated he strongly concurs with the comments about fitting the project into the historic Village area. Commissioner Parker spoke regarding the comments about the historic village construction, and she suggested perhaps having three feet of stone along the bottom of the structure and maybe along the sides of the building. She stated she had a serious concern about the back section of the building which is kind of a "U" shape and, in her opinion, is a fire trap for an employee working back there with no exit. She suggested an emergency exit be added to the back of the building in case something happens and an employee needs to escape that way. Commissioner Parker expressed concern against halogen lights, citing the fact that they are too bright and are blinding. Commissioner Keen stated other than his comments about the looks of the building, he suggested that the canopy be changed color -wise to match the building and make it more compatible. With regard to the number of signs and the signage, he stated he was on the Planning Commission when the canopy was redone, and he couldn't see the Commission at that time approving that pole sign in the front of the station. He further stated he doesn't see where all of those business signs are necessary and they seem to clutter up the building. He commented his feeling that it would be a good benefit for the business to get help in there with a traffic signal. Chair Lubin commented it is his feeling that the Village Design Guidelines must be complied with and the Planning Commission needs to be consistent with those guidelines, and have recently been very strict with other building requests in the Village district. The Commission has also been very strict in terms of sign variances, and specifically with gas stations. He stated another concern he has is that Chevron is going to force the dealer out and this bothers him, because the operator is a small business man and he either has to take their plan or leave. PRE- APPLICATION REVIEW - PROPOSAL FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,312 SQUARE FOOT, TWO STORY OFFICE BUILDING IN THE VILLAGE; APPLICANT: MILTON HAYES; LOCATION: 121 E. BRANCH STREET. Associate Planner Tom Buford reviewed the staff report dated January 5, 1999. He spoke regarding some of the more significant issues of the project. With regard to parking he noted that the project is in the Parking Corral area and the owner is entitled to credits for 9.2 spaces and, given the square footage of the proposed building, 8 parking spaces would normally be required. Also, as noted in the staff report, the proposed square footage would exceed the maximum lot coverage restrictions in this zone, which would require a variance. Another major difficulty has to do with fire safety and the Uniform Building Code. He briefly reviewed setbacks. and Uniform Building Code Requirements. Chair Lubin questioned since the setback is less than 5 feet from the property line, the site design presented for review is not acceptable and, therefore, it appears the Commission has nothing to look at in this pre - application as far as the design of the building. Commissioner Greene referred to the staff report indicating that the applicant has indicated that contact ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION January 5, 1999 would be made with the neighboring property owner to obtain an agreement that no building will be constructed in the future on the 4 -foot strip of land. He inquired if that were to occur, what impact it would have on the applicant's design and ability to go forward. Mr. Buford stated that the engineering department has been advised by the neighboring property owner that the consent is not going to be given and there is no prospect of that property owner giving up any rights whatsoever. Commissioner Haney commented it appears that for a building of this nature to even fit on the site, we are looking at something approximately 24.5 ft. wide. Commissioner Haney stated interesting design element is the tower element and questioned if there are any other elements in the Village that penetrates the 30 -foot barrier. Commissioner Parker referred to the old trellis archway located on the property and inquired if the applicant has made any indication of how they could preserve that. Mr. Buford advised to his knowledge they have not come forward with any type of treatment to the trellis or water fountain at all as part of this project. Chair Lubin commented it appears they are going to have to redesign the building and come from a front entrance if they want to continue the project. After further discussion, Mr. Buford stated he and Mr. Hamilton were working on this afternoon and they certainly appreciated the applicant's effort to come with a design that attempted to meet what the City seemed to be looking for, however, at the same time, there may be some opportunities to do something with the Uniform Building Code and fire requirements, at least until they come back in with a redesign. Chair Lubin noted that the Commission will move forward and see what redesign comes back from the applicant. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 95 -526, REQUEST FOR TIME EXTENSION FOR A TWO LOT TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP; APPLICANT: NORMA WILSON; LOCATION: 1075 FARROLL AVENUE. Community Development Director Jim Hamilton advised that this parcel map was originally approved by the Planning Commission on November 7, 1995 and involved a subdivision of approximately 27,000 square foot property into two single family residential lots. He stated the property is a flag lot and is served by a private drive. The applicants submitted a request for a one -year extension on November 4, 1998. The Development Code permits extensions if the Commission finds that there have been no significant changes in the General Plan, Municipal Code or character of the area in which the project is located that would cause the approved project to be injurious to the public health, safety or welfare. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission grant the one -year time extension. After a brief discussion the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 99 -1680 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING A ONE -YEAR TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 95 -526, LOCATED AT 1075 FARROLL AVENUE APPLIED FOR BY NORMA WILSON. On motion by Commissioner Greene, seconded by Commissioner Haney, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Greene, Haney, Keen, Parker and Chair Lubin NOES: None ABSENT: None The foregoing resolution was adopted this 5 day of January 1999. 1 1 1 1 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION January 5, 1999 DISCUSSION ITEMS Commissioner Greene stated that he had taken a tour of the Five Cities Center and he noticed that the retention basin landscaping was not in. He asked if the developer would be required to have 80% of the on site improvements had to be done before the opening of the Wal -Mart store. Mr. Hamilton replied that the City was still requiring the 80% completion before Wal -Mart was opened. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS - None Community Development Director Comments and Follow -Up Reports A. Update of Projects B. Follow -up Reports ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by the Chair at 12:05A.M. ATTEST: Kathleen Fryer, Acting Comma . ion Clerk Sandy ubi AS TO CONTENT: " James Hamilton, AICP Community Development Director