PC Minutes 1998-10-28ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 28, 1998
The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in special session at 6:30 p.m. with
Chair Lubin presiding. Present are Commissioners Haney, Greene and Keen.
Commissioner Parker is absent. Also in attendance are Community Development
Director Jim Hamilton and Associate Planner Helen Elder.
MINUTE APPROVAL
The minutes of the regular meeting of September 1, 1998 were approved as corrected
on motion by Commissioner Haney, seconded by Commissioner Keen, and
unanimously carried.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None
COMMISSION ACTION - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96 -541, AMENDMENT NO. 1,
FIVE CITIES CENTER. REVIEW RESOLUTION 98 -1671 AS RECOMMENDED BY
PLANNING COMMISSION ON OCTOBER 20, 1998
Associate Planner Helen Elder advised that staff has no further comments at the this
time.
Commissioner Greene stated he has reviewed the staff report, dated October 28 and
found that all of the revisions that were proposed by the Planning Commission have
been incorporated into the resolution and Conditions of Approval designated as
Attachment "A ". It is his belief that this document is consistent with the
Commission's findings and, therefore, it is appropriate for referral to the City Council
for their action.
Commissioner Haney questioned staff regarding Item #6 in the Conditions of
Approval, wherein the site improvement plans are identified, and the reference there
appears it is limited to just parking and landscaping. He stated his understanding was
that the building elevations were also to be included as part of the review process.
It was determined at that time that all the Commission had to work with was the
footprint, and since Mr. Mann did not have the building elevations for either Buildings
L or M, those would be looked at in the future.
Associate Planner Elder noted that Condition No. 4 does specify that Building M, and
Building L could be added, shall be reviewed and approved by the Architectural
Advisory Committee, and that would be consistent with their review of the other
buildings in the project. She further noted that the architectural elevations have not
been coming back to the Planning Commission; the Architectural Advisory Committee
has been reviewing and approving those elevations.
Commissioner Haney stated his feeling that because of the Commission's discussions
at the last meeting regarding Building M, and the fact that the Commission has not
seen the elevations previously of the new Building M restaurant and because there
were some very specific questions such as the cooler location and patio locations, it
was his impression that the Commission would review that information. Ms. Elder
commented that the Conditions of Approval for the project required that changes to
the building elevations go back to the AAC and, therefore, for Condition #4, Buildings
L and M could be added to go back to the AAC, which would be consistent with the
original Conditions of Approval for the Conditional Use Permit, and is part of the
original entitlement. Commissioner Haney stated it his recollection from the
discussion with Mr. Mann last week, he was very open about bringing the elevations
and the plans back to the Planning Commission.
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission
October 28, 1998
There being no further discussion, the following action was taken:
RESOLUTION NO. 98 -1671
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT NO.
1 TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96 -541, APPLIED FOR BY AGRA, LLC,
LOCATED AT THE FIVE CITIES CENTER, WEST BRANCH STREET,
INCLUDING ATTACHMENT "A"
Page 2
Commissioner Keen stated he would like to see the elevations to make sure they are
consistent with the project. Commissioner Greene and Chair Lubin agreed with
Commissioner Keen to have the elevations of Buildings L and M come back to the
Commission, and requested that Condition No. 4 be revised to adjust for that
requirement.
Commissioner Greene read Condition #4 as revised by the Commission: "Revised
building elevations for Buildings L and M shall be reviewed and approved by the
Architectural Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission prior to issuance of
a building permit."
On motion by Commissioner Greene, seconded by Commissioner Haney, and by the
following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Keen, Haney, Greene and Lubin
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Parker
the foregoing resolution was adopted this 28 day of October 1998.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM 96 -118 (96 -124)
AMENDMENT AND VARIANCE 98 - 210; PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM FOR THE FIVE
CITIES CENTER; APPLICANT: AGRA, LLC /FIVE CITIES CENTER; LOCATION: WEST
BRANCH STREET AND RANCHO PARKWAY
Associate Planner Elder noted that, in addition to the staff report, supplemental
information was provided in the handout tonight which includes the revised resolution
that shows the incorporation of comments from Commissioner Greene from the last
meeting. In addition, Page 5 of the Planned Sign Program, includes a correction to
Super Majors for the maximum letter size, which should be 5 feet. With reference to
the Major stores, the maximum size should be 4 feet.
Commissioner Haney referred to the materials received from staff, stating they appear
to be in somewhat of a preliminary form with some areas that could be corrected in
order to have a package that represents the Planning Commission's recommendation
to the City Council.
Chair Lubin questioned if it is the plan to totally revise this package, or to present the
original package with the recommendations of the Planning Commission for the
changes? Ms. Elder advised that staff will take the draft and, by a cut and paste
process, add typewritten language as to what the Planning Commission's
recommendation is on each page. She noted that the Planning Commission's
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 3
October 28, 1998
recommendations will be forwarded to the City Council and the applicant will also
present his package with his recommendations to the Council. Based on the action
of the Council to approve the Planned Sign Program at that time, the applicant will
have to make all of the changes and complete the document before any building
permits could be issued because that would dictate what the construction drawings
will entail.
Commissioner Haney referred to a chart he had prepared based on the Planning
Commission's action toward a recommendation to the City Council on the Planned
Sign Program. He stated that, essentially, it is part of the goal to tie the Planned Sign
Program into the General Plan. The document identifies the General Plan sections that
apply to the sign program. In the future as revisions to this Planned Sign Program are
considered, we are also looking at the General Plan as a component of this Sign
Program.
Community Development Director Hamilton called attention to the concern that it does
include specific policies and the General Plan is subject to amendment, policy numbers
could change in the future, and then these would no longer be valid and could create
an inconsistency or difficulty in administering the Sign Program several years into the
future. He recommended only referring to the general policies in the General Plan.
The Commissioners were in agreement that Mr. Hamilton's suggestion was
acceptable.
The changes to the Sign Program were made as follows:
Sign Program Guidelines - Page 2, 4 sentence: "AII signs must conform to the
approved color pallet (Scheme No. 1), approved location on building frontage or wall
plane."
Second Paragraph, 2 " sentence: "The tenant shall be responsible for their individual
signs and their installation and maintenance."
Approval Process - Page 2, First Paragraph, 3 sentence: "If the sign is within the
parameters of the approved sign program for the size, height, width, placement,
Quantity, color and materials, it may be deemed compliant and the Community
Development Director may make a determination of approval."
With regard to the Project Signage Summary, Commissioner Haney presented a chart
that he had put together in an effort to simplify the chart on Page 3 of the Sign
Program. He stated this chart summarizes the relevant detailed pieces for the sign
and, in the scheme of things, it would follow the chart that Mr. Hamilton put together
earlier, which is now "Sign Standards" listed as Page 5 and is a summary level and
calls out the general parameters of the sign program. This specific chart would
enumerate the project signage, by sign, as discussed and approved by the
Commission. In summary, he stated that in an effort to make this extremely complex
page into a useable format, he would offer this as something perhaps he and staff
could work together on getting a useful format to simplify the Commission's
recommendations and also as a comparison to the applicant's presentation.
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 4
October 28, 1998
Commissioner Greene commented regarding the entry signs and his concerns about
the findings that the Commission reached the last time. He stated that overall he
feels that Commissioner Haney's proposal would be a welcome addition and,
hopefully, will save staff from having to recalculate all of the project sign summary
to be consistent with the Commission's findings.
Community Development Director Hamilton agreed with Commissioners Haney and
Greene stating, however, whether the proposed table is added or not, he was not sure
it is necessary for the purposes of the Planned Sign Program, but it certainly is
necessary for purposes of the presentation that goes to the City Council. He
suggested that the appropriate place for this may be in the staff report so that it
clearly depicts what the modifications are.
Commissioner Greene stated he does agree with Mr. Hamilton in all respects, except
for the entry signs issue. In looking at the Sign Criteria on Page 5 for the Sign
Standards, you can see that the WaI *Mart and Sav -On Super Majors are limited to
140 square feet for their signs, however, the Sign Criteria doesn't address the entry
signs, the gateway tower and the fee monuments and, therefore he feels this does
have a utility that isn't represented in the Planned Sign Program.
Chair Lubin stated he would like to see this table included in the Commission's
recommendation to the City Council because it is important to show the allowed
signage and the recommendation of the Planning Commission so that when the
developer gives their proposal, the Council will have something to use for comparison
purposes.
Commissioner Haney referred to the Errata Sheet on Page 4 under Item 1 "Gateway
Towers ", commenting that it is a single tower now, so he recommended modifying
that to "Gateway Tower ".
Under Optional Monument Signs, Item No. 2, Commissioner Haney pointed out that
a size for those signs has not been designated as yet, and this is something that will
be discussed on another page and there will be an opportunity to do that.
Commissioner Greene stated that the Commission has not yet discussed whether the
Gateway Tower should be consistent with the diagram submitted by the applicant,
which is Page 14 of the Planned Sign Program. He suggested adding an additional
sentence under Gateway Tower, Item No. 1, something to the effect that: "In all other
respects the Gateway Tower shall employ the same dimensions, orientation, location
and architectural treatments as depicted on the elevations shown on Page 14 of the
Planned Sign Program. He stated, in that way, it will assure that the tower depicted
in the diagram which appears to meet the sign guidelines of the center, remains
consistent with the drawing on Page 14. He clarified it was previously understood
that the applicant could enlarge the center identification logo to encompass the full
70 square foot portion of the tower devoted to signage. He indicated he would fax
a copy of the revised language to staff tomorrow for their information. He further
stated he concurs with Commissioner Haney that the language should read "Gateway
Tower" because only one tower was approved.
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 5
October 28, 1998
Referring to the Optional Monument Signs, Commissioner Greene suggested adding
similar language to Item No. 2 to read as follows: "In all other respects the Optional
Monument Signs shall employ the same dimensions, orientation, location and
architectural treatments as depicted on the elevations shown on Page 14 of the
Planned Sign Program."
It was further noted by Commissioner Keen that they were limited to two driveway
entrances and the third one was deleted, and the language could be interpreted to
include all three. The two Optional Monument signs that would be allowed are at the
two southerly driveway entrances off of Rancho Parkway.
Commissioner Haney referred to Super Majors, under the last sentence talking about
the nature of the secondary signage usage which currently reads: "...and may only be
used for a separate company." He proposed using the language: "... and may only
be used by a non - affiliated company."
With regard to the footnote at the bottom of Page 5, Commissioner Haney read a
revision to the last sentence as follows: "For unique designs that do not allow the use
of the preceding discussion, the Community Development Director shall determine
building frontage."
Commissioner Haney referred to the Co- Located Service and Product Signs category,
stating it was his opinion that the Commission did not agree to make this routinely
available that there would be two per frontage, but that it was on an exception basis.
The Bank of America was specifically accepted as per Planning Commission review.
He suggested amending the language to read: Up to two (2) per building frontage as
approved by the Planning Commission...."
Regarding Page 6, Commissioner Haney recommended eliminating the following two
phrases: Under Phase I Gateway Tower, eliminate "Not a part of this program."
Under Optional Entry Monument, eliminate "Not a part of this program." He stated
it is his understanding that Pages 7 through 12 will be modified by "cut and paste"
activities reflecting the location of the signage, and that includes Page 12 where there
are some changes to the individual pieces such as "Food, Deli, Bakery" on the Lucky
Sav -On sign, and some revision on the neon elements, etc.
Commissioner Greene referred to further changes that were made by the Commission.
He noted that on Page 9, the south elevation of Buildings H and F, the Hollywood
Video sign was deleted on that page. Also, on Page 10, the tenant sign on the south
elevation of Building I requires revision because the sign depicted on the drawing
exceeds the permitted signage. On Page 11, Building K east elevation, the word
"tenant" still remains and it should be absolutely clear that the east elevation of
Building K will not show any sign whatsoever. Page 12 representing the outlined
neon Hollywood Video sign in the lower right hand corner requires modification.
Commissioner Haney noted some revisions are also required on that page relative to
the Lucky Sav -On sign element.
Commissioner Haney commented that it is his understanding that Page 13 will be
discarded. He also commented on the Site Plan Summary on Page 6, stating it would
be helpful to somehow, in color, indicate the orientation of the signs on the individual
buildings. Commissioner Haney also recommended, in terms of making a
presentation, a sequence of transition of the documents so that there is a better flow
to it.
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 6
October 28, 1998
Commissioner Greene stated he has reviewed the Development Code regarding the
findings for variances, and it appears that in order to be consistent with the Code, six
specific findings have to be made in order to approve a variance of this nature. He
commented that some of the language he had concerns about is language that is
found in the Development Code, so in order to be consistent with the Development
Code, he has some concerns about the suggestions he previously made regarding the
findings. He stated it is his feeling that, in order to make the findings for variance
approval simple and consistent with the Development Code, is just to make the
findings read as if they came out of the Development Code. He specifically referred
to Chapter 9- 03.110 Subdivision D, which are the required findings for a variance.
He suggested simply drawing the language out of the Development Code and in that
way the findings would be completely consistent with the standards that needs to be
achieved.
Community Development Director Hamilton stated, in his opinion, for the Commission
to use those findings that are in the Development Code ver batim is totally appropriate
and consistent with standard practices. Commissioner Greene proposed that for the
purposes of findings for approval, which is part of the draft resolution revised today,
is to go back and draw the language from the Development Code. He commented this
might simplify virtually all of the confusion that has arisen out of the requests for
findings made by the applicant, which the Planning Commission is unwilling to make.
The Commission indicated their concurrence with Commissioner Greene's comments.
After further discussion, Chair Lubin requested that staff make the recommended
changes for the Commission's review and approval at the next meeting. On motion
by Commissioner Greene, seconded by Commissioner Haney, and unanimously
carried, the public hearing on this item was continued to Wednesday, November 4,
1998 at 7:30 P.M
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 97 -001,
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 97 -005, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
2236 AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 97 -549; APPLICANT: JOHN SCARDINO
ET AL (RODEO HEIGHTS); LOCATION: WEST OF RODEO DRIVE AND SOUTH OF
GRACE BIBLE CHURCH. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project involves construction
of 33 residences clustered on lots ranging from approximately 4,000 square feet to
18,000 square feet in size, and 5 (five) custom Tots ranging from 13,000 to 17,000
square feet in size, totaling 38 residential lots. Approximately 19 of the 29 acre site
would be designated as open space..
Due to a conflict of interest on this item, Commissioner Greene stepped down from
the Commission and is now absent.
Community Development Director Hamilton reviewed the staff report dated October
28, 1998. He advised that as part of the project review, a Focused Environmental
Impact Report has been prepared to assess the potential impacts of this project on the
environment. The City hired Impact Sciences, an environmental consulting firm, to
prepare the focused EIR for the project. He stated the purpose of this meeting is to
accept public comment on the draft EIR; no other Planning Commission action is
required at this time. All written comments and those made at the public hearing will
be responded to in the Final EIR prepared for the project.
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission
October 28, 1998
Page 7
Chair Lubin opened the public hearing for comment. He reminded the audience that
the hearing is for input only; the Commission will listen to all comments and those
comments will be included in the final EIR.
Dan Lloyd, EDA, 1320 Nipomo Street, San Luis Obispo, representing the applicant,
stated they are very anxious to hear the comments and concerns from the public
regarding this project, and have every interest in trying to address those concerns.
Jon Orr, 464 Rodeo Drive, referred to a letter dated October 7, 1998 containing 184
signatures of property owners outlining the environmental concerns regarding the
Environmental Impact Report as it relates to the project. He stated that, obviously,
by the number of signatures there are many citizens in the area surrounding this
development that have concerns and are opposed to this development as has been
proposed to the City.
Cindy Orr, 464 Rodeo Drive, briefly reviewed the issues and concerns the
neighborhood has regarding the project that will be addressed by different individuals.
She stated the first area to be addressed is the land use incompatibility issue.
Obviously, the proposed project is totally inconsistent with the surrounding
neighborhoods of Royal Oaks and Rancho Grande, and the only way to mitigate that
would be to require larger lot sizes and custom homes. The second area to address
is aesthetics and pollution and, obviously, the views from the surrounding
neighborhoods are going to be severely affected, and some of these views are not
addressed in the EIR. Also, with such a dense cluster of homes, the area can expect
to experience a greater than average amount of noise, light and air pollution and only
by requiring a much less density can these impacts be mitigated. A third issue is the
traffic concern. Traffic on Rodeo Drive is already excessive and the vehicles are
traveling much too fast, and now the residents are being asked to absorb an additional
400 to 500 traffic movements a day at either end. Also, the nearest school that was
looked at in the EIR in terms of safety was Ocean View; St. Patrick's School, which
is right over the hill from this development, was not addressed and that is something
that should be addressed in the EIR. Lastly, considering the cumulative impacts, Ms.
Orr referred to the 7.5 acre parcel which is going to add further to all of the
congestion and to all of the other impacts being looked at tonight. It is their
understanding that 17 homes are going to be developed there, so in reality, you are
looking at 55 new homes in this small area behind their existing homes. As a final
note, Ms. Orr stated that, as a Planning Commission, you are their direct link to
assuring that the current homeowners and surrounding open spaces are protected
from irresponsible and inappropriate building.
C. Z. Brown, 350 Old Ranch Road, stated he is speaking tonight on behalf of the
Royal Oaks and Rancho Grande areas, as well as others that are concerned about the
rural atmosphere here in Arroyo Grande. He referred back to the environmental review
of the ROPD that was conducted back in 1986 stating since that time there have been
many changes in the general area, The zoning designation allows a density of 1.3
residential homes per acre. Under the guidelines set forth in the ROPD, Lot 182 can
be developed with one single family residence, or can be rezoned to allow an
institutional use. The proposed project would involve development of the site with
38 single family residential lots and would require amendments to the ROPD, as well
as the City's General Plan and Development Code.
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 8
October 28, 1998
Mr. Brown stated in his earlier review of the EIR, and looking at 29 acres and
considering 33 or 38 homes, the impact did not appear to be that great. However,
considering 19 of the 29 acres are reserved for green space, that does become rather
significant. It is the feeling of the area that 33 cluster homes is entirely too dense.
The lot size as indicated previously would run from 4,000 square feet, which is about
half of the 33 homes, to 18,000 square feet, which it is believed is one home. The
five custom lots ranging from about 13,000 square feet to 17,000 square feet, totals
the 38 homes. So, in looking at the acreage that is going to be involved in 38 homes,
it appears we are talking about 8.5 acres, rather than 29 acres.
Mr. Brown pointed out that the lot sizes in the surrounding areas are generally at least
one half acre. He referred to the overhead and made the following suggestions.
Leave the dirt road as originally established remain as it currently is now. This would
divide the residences from the creek bed and the greenbelt. It would also reduce the
number of homes; having the 12 homes plus the 5 homes for a total of 17 homes on
8.5 acres. He referred to a chart showing another proposal with two cul -de -sacs with
six custom Tots each, which would be 12 plus the 5 custom lots. He stated it is
difficult to understand why the proposal is for 5 custom lots and 33 cluster homes.
He further stated that the square footage of the proposed homes is not compatible
with the surrounding homes. The proposed project is too dense, traffic is a problem
as well as other environmental problems.
Mr. Brown referred to the Land Use and Planning Section, Surrounding Residential
Uses, wherein it states that clustering of Lot 1 to 33 proposed homes on the project
would create an area of densely packed homes with little space between structures
next to a neighborhood of large lot homes to the west that has considerable open
space between structures. Due to its density, the proposed cluster of homes would
differ in character compared to neighborhoods adjacent and to the west, but because
it would have a different character, the proposed cluster of Lots 1 to 33 could be
considered inconsistent with the pattern of development directly adjacent to the
neighborhood.
In summary, Mr. Brown stated it is their feeling the project is too dense, it is
incompatible with the surrounding homes and has other hazards of concern, such as
greater water requirement, traffic, some oaks and natural grass will be destroyed, and
the cumulative effect of traffic from James Way, Rodeo and Grace Lane all will impact
on West Branch. He urged the Commission to maintain their rural vistas, strongly
review cumulative effects of changing one residential parcel to a 33 residential home
arrangement with 5 custom Tots, and reduce and hold the density of the proposed
development to the General Plan standards. This ensures compliance and
conformance to the existing size, style and character of the neighborhood.
Robin Crossano, 493 Avenida De Diamante, spoke regarding aesthetics and pollution.
She stated from an aesthetic standpoint, the view of this area from any and all
locations would be profoundly altered by this project. Mention is made in the report
of the necessary removal of over one quarter of an acre of Coast Live Oak Woodland
on and around Lot 34. Woodland provides a habitat for wildlife and is considered to
be of high biological value and, therefore, this Toss would be considered a substantial
impact on a sensitive resource. She stated that the EIR does address planting of trees
on the northwest slope of the project to provide screening from the views of
surrounding homes. This consideration was not applied to the homes on the
southwest side, however, particularly those at the lower end of Rodeo Drive.
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 9
October 28, 1998
Ms. Crossano further stated that, as to the planting of trees, Eucalyptus was one of
the types specified, and it was her impression that Eucalyptus was a non - native
species that was being discouraged in California. The density of houses proposed
would dramatically increase traffic and, therefore, increase air pollution. With plans
to develop an adjoining 7-1/2 acre parcel, as well as on -going development along
James Way, the traffic along this new route may well increase beyond expectations.
Also, Tight pollution is mentioned in the EIR but only as an indirect impact of biological
resources. She suggests that the light, air and noise pollution resulting from this
density of housing would have a most significant impact on local wildlife.
Undoubtedly, the surrounding homeowners would find lighting to be a major irritant
as well. A formerly scenic canyon would be a glare of street lights, interior and
exterior house lights, not to mention car headlights; which will at several angles shine
into windows of existing homes, most notably those homes at the end of Rodeo
Drive. This impact was not addressed in the EIR.
Ms. Crossano stated that another obvious result from the completion of this project
would be a dramatic increase in noise pollution. The report mentions possible
problems from noise to those proposed homes nearest the parking lot of Grace Bible
Church, yet it decides that this impact would be insignificant due to the infrequency
of church activities. She pointed out that this church is a community center of sorts
with activities, meetings and gatherings held on virtually any day and at any time.
Ms. Crossano also addressed the acoustics of the canyon, stating sounds can be
heard from across the canyon a quarter of a mile away. She stated she mentioned
this to illustrate that one of the main features of the area is the quiet and serenity of
the neighborhood, and the cumulative effect of 38 additional households and how the
canyon acoustics might magnify and carry the inevitable noise of every day life.
Failure of the EIR to address the impact of noise pollution, given the topography of the
area, is a serious omission.
Ross Kongable, 255 Rodeo Drive, discussed the traffic impacts of the Rodeo Heights
project. His comments were as follows:
The existing traffic problems in and around Royal Oaks are well documented.
Individual citizens as well as citizen groups have been before the Traffic Commission,
the Planning Commission and the City Council many times attempting to resolve
traffic safety issues on Rodeo Drive and in Royal Oaks.
The citizens are here again to respond to an EIR that falls short of addressing the
impact on already existing traffic problems that will result from this project.
Issues that the EIR does acknowledge: A history of complaints regarding traffic
increases on Rodeo Drive; that the traffic increase is caused by residential
development along James Way and adjacent areas of development; that the condition
results from excessive use of Rodeo Drive to access Highway 101 from housing
developments north of Royal Oaks: that Rodeo Drive was not intended to
accommodate the number of cars that presently use it nor the speeds they typically
travel; the situation has exposed residents along Rodeo Drive to a safety hazard.
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 10
October 28, 1998
Issues that the EIR does not sufficiently address. The EIR downplays a very
significant roadway sector - Rodeo Drive from West Branch to Mercedes Lane. This
is the confluence of several problematic conditions, some of which were mentioned,
but not given sufficient attention. Those conditions are: Peak period traffic at the
stop sign at Rodeo Drive and Mercedes; peak period traffic at the entrance to St.
Patrick's school and Rodeo Drive (this facility was mentioned only in passing in the
EIR); peak period traffic at the intersection of Rodeo and West Branch; Two
influencing factors not even mentioned in the EIR, but brought out by the Traffic
Commission and mentioned in their minutes: (1) the proposed Cantrell housing project
which is located adjacent to the proposed Grace Lane and Rodeo Drive intersection,
and (2) the County yard entry and exit in the same vicinity.
The proposed intersection of Grace Lane and Rodeo Drive is just yards from a Stop
sign at Mercedes, and at the bottom of a steep downhill curving section of Rodeo
Drive. The hazards are more than obvious when visualizing trying to make a left turn
on to Grace Lane from Rodeo Drive. The proposed roadway in the project appears to
be designed to discourage other than resident traffic. It also has proposed driveway
access on both sides of a narrow roadway, which is more hazardous than the existing
problems on Rodeo.
Mr. Kongable noted that in the EIR, Penfield and Smith used figures from a previous
study conducted by Higgins and Associates to conclude that the Brisco/West Branch
intersection could be mitigated to a level of service C through signalization. Yet when
Higgins did their traffic counts, they positioned one of their counters south of Rodeo
Drive instead of between Rodeo Drive and Brisco. This effectively eliminated traffic
from the majority of Royal Oaks and St. Patrick's school from being factors in the
study. He commented that the Higgins data is also over a year old..
Mr. Kongable stated that the broad assumptions can't be made about this project
when the actual cumulative impacts of all the other projects currently in development,
as well as those in planning review are not known. There are already serious impacts
of inadequate planning when trying to get through the Brisco Interchange or the
intersection at Grand Avenue and West Branch Street. This project is premature at
best. There are too many potential problems and no solutions. The scope of this EIR
and the data used does not support its conclusions. The data is not current and the
manner in which it was collected is questionable. The density of this project is a key
factor. The last thing this already impacted circulation segment needs is an additional
500 trips per day.
In conclusion, Mr. Kongable requested that the Commission hold suspect the traffic
analysis portion of this EIR and not accept this project as presently proposed.
Will Reichardt, 352 Rodeo Drive, spoke about land use and the best use of the land.
He stated they are not opposed to development per se, but do seek to get responsible
development, and anyone familiar with the aesthetics of the neighborhood would
agree that the proposed project is totally inconsistent and is not in compliance with
the area. He commented about the concerns of safety and the traffic problem and the
fact that they are going to get worse if they are not addressed in a very responsible
manner. Mr. Reichardt spoke regarding aesthetics, stating they would not like to look
out on a cluster type development and they believe it is a poor choice. He noted that
the environmental concerns have previously been enumerated such as noise, pollution
and Tight. He urged that the number of homes be kept at a minimum.
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 11
October 28, 1998
Van Rodick, 413 Mesquite Lane, questioned who 'pays for the EIR; the developer or
the City. Mr. Hamilton advised that the builder funds the costs for the EIR, the money
is given to the City, and the City administers a contract and selects a consultant to
do the work. He further advised that the EIR is done to satisfy the requirements of
the State law, noting that the Planning Commission and City Council determine
whether it is done appropriately or not. Mr. Rodick stated he feels this project is
questionable in isolation, however, when it is considered as being in the proximity of
Wal -Mart and all of the business that are going to be there, it is going to worsen the
problems that are there now, and the traffic situation is going to be terribly
compounded. He further stated, in his situation, his concern is reserving the view he
has now. Also, he stated he feels this development should be considered in
coordination with all of the other developments, rather than in isolation, so that the
total picture is looked at and you know exactly the effect of each individual
development.
Mr. Rodick stated his feeling that the major problem here is going to be traffic, and
another problem is going to be Grand Avenue negative redevelopment because when
Wal Mart opens there are going to be a lot of abandoned stores.
Karen Harmon, 390 Mercedes Lane, stated she is concerned with the density of the
project because of the traffic issue and the safety issues that are tied in along with
the traffic. She stated she also has concerns with the density of the proposed project
because the smaller the lot size, the more affordable the house and the more likely
children will live there. She commented the smaller Tots usually have smaller yards
and do not allow enough room for children to play, so they tend to play in the front
yard and there is more potential for a child to be hurt. She further stated she would
be really disappointed to see the oak groves demolished.
Tony Ferrara, representing CCRD stated one issue they would like discussed in the EIR
is the issue of density. He stated what he would like to do is deal with a rationale
that has occurred as a comparison for this project. The rationale occurred in a
discussion about a month ago. CCRD made a presentation to the Council on the Berry
Gardens project, and at that time, expressed concern regarding the density,
specifically the small lot sizes and the close proximity of the homes. The Berry
Gardens project was approved, but in the discussion there was some logic and some
rationale posed by members of Council. In support of the Berry Gardens project, the
issue was made that density in and of itself is not all bad in certain parts of the City.
Those parts of the City where there are similar kinds of zoning, similar kinds of
structures and similar lot sizes. Those kinds of surrounding influences would provide
some justification to co- locate or add to the already existing density. CCRD was
opposed to that logic and does not feel that kind of density should be imposed
anywhere in Arroyo Grande. The rationale given by Council is that if we do focus that
kind of density in certain parts of town where it is more compatible, then we do not
have to focus that density in areas where it is not compatible; where the surrounding
structures and land use have not set that kind of pattern.
Mr. Ferrara commented what the CCRD would ask in the Final EIR is that there be a
thorough discussion and examination of that logic. If it holds true for Berry Gardens,
then it should hold true for this project because, based on the location of this project,
it is on a hillside in a more rural environment, and the density is not compatible with
the surrounding uses as mentioned by the previous speakers.
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 12
October 28, 1998
Havthem Dawlett, stated he is one of the principles involved in this project. He
thanked the audience for their comments and stated he would like to schedule a
meeting with the neighborhood to get together and try to figure out what project
would work for the neighborhood. He commented that the project sits on 30 acres
and density is approximately one unit per 3/4 of an acre. Regarding the oak
preservation that is involved, he stated that basically, 7-1/2 acres of the project are
being developed, which is approximately 25%. The balance of the project is left in
open space in perpetuity. The topography and the nature of the oak woodlands
doesn't allow development beyond the 7-1/2 acres. Mr. Dawlett stated they would
like to make this project work for everybody and asked that everybody join in a
meeting he hopes to schedule and somehow come to a meeting of the minds.
Chair Lubin closed the public comment portion on this item and restricted further
comments to the Commission. He advised the audience that written comments will
be accepted by the Community Development Department until 5:00 p.m. Thursday,
October 29
Commissioner Haney commented that the Commission, at this point, will focus on the
EIR to determine if it adequately describes the issues appropriate to be reviewed in the
Final Environmental Impact Report. He inquired about the ordinance that was adopted
for the original Royal Oaks PD zone. He stated in discussing this particular lot, which
is Lot 182, the ordinance reads in part: "... that Lot C182 and 184 may be converted
to institutional use upon approval of the City Council after rezoning public hearings."
Relative to resubdivision, it specifically reads: "Conditions, covenants and restrictions
for the tract shall prohibit resubdivision of any lots." Under "Lot Uses ", Item 5, it
specifically states: "Lots 182 and 184, Lots D and C, are intended as individual single
family estate Tots, each restricted to one single family dwelling unit and residential
related accessory or agricultural use." In discussing Institutional Type uses it reads:
"The YMCA or alternative institutional use on Lot 182 may be considered pursuant
to a PD amendment, zone change and procedures, but in no event shall additional
residential resubdivision be considered." Commissioner Haney stated that the
language seems to be pretty strong for an ordinance and, in his opinion, that is what
was probably referred to in the EIR when they discussed the particular allowances that
are there.
Commissioner Haney inquired as to what mechanism is used to change this PD
Ordinance? Community Development Director Hamilton advised that the mechanism
is that which has been applied for; a General Plan Amendment. In fact, the applicant
has applied for an amendment to those things as identified in the PD Ordinance.
Commissioner Haney asked if the owners who are a part of Royal Oaks Planned
Development have a vested interest in the CC &R's for this project, and do they have
to give their approval for any changes that are made? Mr. Hamilton advised it is his
understanding that amendments to the CC &R's require approval of the State Board
of Realtors. The ability to modify the General Plan, etc. rests with the City Council;
they could choose to modify the General Plan of the City, make these changes to the
Planned Development designation as incorporated into the ordinance, then the issue
of the CC &R's is one that lies between the property owners, and the City is not a part
to that.
With further reference to the Ordinance, Commissioner Haney referred to the Tree
Preservation Ordinance, Page 10, Item 26, and read a code section part as follows:
"Developer shall grant to the City a recordable permanent open space easement and
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 13
October 28, 1998
tree preservation easement encumbering and :restricting the use of the rear portion
(designating Lot 182 as one of the Tots) and more specifically designated on the
tentative tract map." Commissioner Haney commented it appears that the open space
easement is already in place in accordance with this ordinance, as well as the tree
preservation easement. He inquired if the City, in essence, is being offered back an
open space easement that was already granted in order to obtain the approvals of the
original Royal Oaks Planned Development.
Mr. Hamilton stated that the requirement to maintain the open space as identified in
the EIR exists, and may be one of the reasons the applicant did not apply to develop
any Tots on that portion of the property. He further stated that the easement and the
associated properties are all a single parcel and the request is to subdivide that parcel.
If you look at it as a single parcel and the request for a subdivision, you could, from
one perspective, allocate it across the entire parcel, or you could just as correctly
allocate it to just that portion that is developable on the current parcel.
Commissioner Haney addressed some comments to the EIR consultants. He stated
that on Page 9 a number of conclusions are drawn about land use compatibility, and
there are a number of incompatibilities that are identified there. These are issues of
incompatibility such as adjacent lot sizes, density, etc. and you conclude on the whole
it is compatible. Based on the text of the material, that doesn't appear to be
supported in the rationale. He stated the same thing is done on Page 10 with views
and aesthetics of individual homes. He specifically referred to Page 89 of the EIR and
identified sections of the General Plan that are concerned with maintaining the existing
residential views and residential elements. All of the contexts of the General Plan
documents, and even some additional Development Code sections seem to suggest
that the community has a very strong interest in protecting the existing views from
the current development, and the conclusions that were drawn about that, where it
says those things are not significant, it appears that there is a threshold question
where a conclusion has been reached that certain things are significant and other
things are not. He commented, in his opinion, these things are all fairly significant
because they are reflected in our General Plan.
Commissioner Haney noted that there are some errors on Page 54 in identifying
roadways. For instance Brisco and West Branch, and some others, are identified as
four lane roadways or sections. They are only two lanes. He commented with regard
to assessment of the traffic conditions for the project. Individual counts were taken
in December of 1997 and January of 1998, and then we immediately take those
individual counts on Rodeo and some sections of Rodeo and Mercedes. Then to
assess the cumulative things, we all of a sudden move to the overall City -wide
cumulative traffic conditions and pull in the traffic conditions from all over the City
from projects as far away as Arroyo Linda. What is not specifically addressed here
is the cumulative impact in this immediate area, specifically the increase in traffic
counts on Rodeo that could be expected as a result of the cumulative development
off of James Way as a result of the James Way Annexation, or the Wal Mart effect.
Rather than a cumulative City -wide traffic condition assessment that is focused on the
intersections of West Branch and Brisco, in his opinion, it is most relevant to look at
the roadway segments that include James Way, Rodeo, West Branch in the immediate
vicinity of the project, and look at the cumulative impacts from the developments that
are going to be built out there. He stated that is currently not reflected in the traffic
study report. He further stated he feels it is important to identify capacities for those
streets.
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 14
October 28, 1998
Commissioner Haney stated there was quite a bit of discussion about transferring
traffic from Rodeo over to the extension of Grace Lane. He indicated he would like
to see more comments on this issue in the materials.
Commissioner Haney referred to the grading that has been done on the project, stating
he observed that prior grading of the site has allowed a lot of non - native plants to be
introduced into the area, so in looking at mitigation measures for dealing with that
problem, in his opinion, we need to look at mitigation measures that deal with some
level of reforestation in those areas. This issue is not addressed as part of the
mitigation plan. He also suggested that an aggressive program of removing those
species be proposed because if they are not removed they work toward destroying
the native plant culture. With reference to the proposal for Eucalyptus, Commissioner
Haney stated it is a non - native species and has its own set of issues and he is hopeful
that some alternatives will be proposed there. Also, he noted that the previously
graded soil has been flowing to the creek, and he feels that particular element of the
mitigation measures could be strengthened.
Commissioner Haney stated he does concur with the results arrived at regarding the
alternative usage for the site in terms of the environmentally superior alternative,
identified as being a single residence on the site, causing less congestion and Tess
traffic. As part of the discussion, it was stated that would not meet the other stated
objective of the project, which is to provide significant open space as a part of this
project proposal. In looking at sections of the ordinance, those open spaces and the
tree preservation elements are already there, so in looking for some substantial benefit
to warrant increasing the density from what was originally approved for the project,
there doesn't appear to be support for that. He commented that there is a trail in that
open space easement that is currently used by the neighbors and he would like to see
that element maintained if possible.
Commissioner Keen stated he had hoped this project would have another thoroughfare
to take traffic off of Rodeo. That would be one of the primary reasons he would
approve a project there is if it would, in fact, help Rodeo and relieve some of the
traffic there. He further stated, in his opinion, clustering of the homes to add more
space is the way that the City has always wanted to develop land so that all of the
neighbors can enjoy the open space. He commented he is not in favor of the small
lots in this area and he doesn't feel it is appropriate. He noted that the difference
between this project and the Berry Gardens project is that the Berry Gardens property
was already zoned residential, and there was not the problem of density that this
project has because this was zoned for one unit. Commissioner Keen referred to
Mitigation Measure #24 prohibiting refueling of construction equipment stating, in his
opinion, this is unreasonable and needs to be revised. It is not practical to restrict a
developer from refueling his equipment on the site.
Chair Lubin stated having been involved with Environmental Impact Reports for several
years, he has a problem with any impact that states "less than significant." There are
so many issues that are significant concerns, and to come up with impacts with
mitigation that says "less than significant" is not really addressing the concerns of the
community. In talking about land use and the impacts of land use compatibility, there
are significant issues that have to be dealt with and to indicate that this impact of the
project would be less than significant and, therefore, no mitigation measures are
recommended, this is not looking at the total process and those concerns have to be
addressed.
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 15
October 28, 1998
Chair Lubin stated he does feel the project is too dense. 38 homes on 7.5 acres is
too intense for this neighborhood and the Tots are too small. He encouraged the
developer to look at the drawings presented by the neighbors with cul -de -sacs and
other layouts as a sample of what can be done. He stated his feeling that clustering
homes in that section is a problem and he is not sure that is adequately addressed in
the EIR. He further stated that viewshed is extremely important on any project that
has been approved with any view corridor. The Commission has constantly discussed
viewshed and has done whatever is necessary to protect views. The mitigation
measure in the EIR is not adequate. With regard to the biological resources and the
wetlands, even though this is not a wetlands area, we still need to be aware of the
fact that this is an environmentally safe and sensitive area. He commented there are
some very tough issues concerning that corridor, and he wants to make sure that it
is protected.
Chair Lubin spoke about the water issue and asked how this problem is going to be
mitigated. He stated he doesn't understand the logic on Page 24, under "Ground
Water Depletion" where it states: As such, the project would not result in a net
increase in City -wide water demands." He commented if 38 homes are added, there
is going to be increased water demands. He stated this issue needs to be looked at.
With regard to traffic, Chair Lubin stated, in his opinion, Rodeo Drive was designed
incorrectly to begin with and that created the problem. What we are trying to do now
is find a solution. He agreed with Commissioner Haney's comments that if 50% of
the traffic is going to come off of Rodeo, then if an alternate route is going to be
created, perhaps it needs to be straight through so that it doesn't affect the new
residential project and can be opened up a little wider to encourage people to come
through the new street as opposed to Rodeo. Chair Lubin stated that, in general, we
have a cumulative impact on schools, rioting that giving the school district more
money does not help in the short run. We need to make sure that we are coordinating
with Lucia Mar to provide some mitigation in addition to money.
Chair Lubin spoke regarding the alternatives on Page 32, Table 1. He stated that
Alternative 2 indicates the site with six fewer lots and, in his opinion, that is a move
in the right direction. He further recommended clarifying the actual acreage for the
38 homes. He stated that also the EIR talks about the lots ranging from
approximately 4,000 to 8,000 square feet, commenting that is not really a fair
statement when 11 of the 13 Tots are less than 4,600 square feet. He suggested an
alternative that the majority of the lots are under 4,600 square feet, with a couple of
lots being up to 8,000 square feet. The same holds true with Lots 14 through 33
ranging in size from 4,400 to 18,000 square feet. 15 of the 20 iots proposed are to
be between 6,000 and 9,500 square feet, so there are not many lots up to the
18,000 square foot level.
He stated that the drawings are showing street trees, noting that he is not sure those
trees will be planted as shown. He would like to be sure that the trees are planted in
the project instead of giving credit to the developers and the trees being planted
elsewhere. This is also something that should be addressed.
With regard to the archeological issue, Chair Lubin referred to a letter from Justin
Jennings stating: "If this no site assessment was a product of an intensive survey by
a qualified archeologist, then I have no comment on the draft." Chair Lubin stated,
to his knowledge, this was not addressed in the EIR. He requested that the EIR
discuss the fact that a survey of the site was done by a qualified archeologist.
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 16
October 28, 1998 .. .
Chair Lubin stated the oak trees have already been discussed, and he is confident we
will be careful that any oak trees are not cut down unless approved and is in the
process. He further stated he has the same comment as Commissioners Haney and
Keen concerning the fact that 50% of the individuals would be using the Grace Lane
extension, and if that 50% increase were to happen, then how would traffic get from
Grace Lane on to Rodeo comfortably. .
Commissioner Keen commented that the buildout water was calculated with this
property as one residence. These additional residences over the one was not included
in the buildout calculations and, therefore, he is concerned about making up that
water.
Chair Lubin stated he agrees very strongly with the comments that were made to look
at the character of the neighborhood and design something that fits within the
neighborhood so that it carries on the concept.
PLANNING COMMISSION /COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ITEMS AND
COMMENTS - None
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
1. Agenda Item III.A - Memorandum from Helen Elder - Supplemental Information,
Five Cities Center Planned Sign Program 96 -118 (Amended) and Variance 98-
210.
2. Letter from Otis S. Page Jr., dated October 28, 1998 - Re: City Council
Meeting, October 27, 1998; El Campo Interchange Project Study Report (PSR)
decision.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned
at 9:15 p.m. on motion by Commissioner Haney, seconded by Commissioner Keen,
and unanimously carried, to a special meeting on Wednesday, November 4, 1998 at
7:30 p.m. at the Arroyo Grande Woman's Club.
ATTEST:
Pearl L. Phinney, Commission CI
AS TO CONTENT:
Hamilton, AICP `f
ommunity Development Director