Loading...
PC Minutes 1998-07-211 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21, 1998 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Lubin presiding. Present are Commissioners Greene, Haney and Parker. One vacancy exists on the Commission. Also in attendance are Acting Community Development Director Helen Elder, Associate Planner Bruce Buckingham and Deputy Public Works Director Craig Campbell. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - TIME EXTENSION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 95 -535; ONE YEAR TIME EXTENSION FOR APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCTION OF A 39,636 SQUARE FOOT YMCA AND APPURTENANT FACILITIES; APPLICANT: SOUTH COUNTY YMCA; REPRESENTATIVE: JOHN ROSSETTI; LOCATION: 400 WEST BRANCH STREET Chair Lubin stated he has a potential conflict of interest on this item and relinquished the Chair to Vice Chair Haney. Chair Lubin is now absent. Vice Chair Haney assumed the Chair and requested staff to give their presentation. Associate Planner Bruce Buckingham advised that this item was continued from the June 16 Planning Commission meeting. He noted that the reason for the continuance was to have the City Attorney respond to questions that were raised at that meeting. Consequently the City Attorney has provided a memorandum that was distributed as part of the staff report, addressing those questions. Another reason for the continuance was to re -notice the public hearing to insure that all property owners within 300 feet of the site were notified. Mr. Buckingham stated that a letter was received from Mr. C. Z. Brown on July 6,1998. Also two additional letters were received and distributed to the Commission; one from Heather Jensen and another letter from Mr. Brown. In response to Commissioner Parker's question regarding Mr. Brown's letter, Mr. Buckingham advised that the question raised by Mr. Brown was with reference to Condition No. 2 of the original Use Permit stipulating that the application shall expire in three years, June 30, 1998. This question was responded to by the City Attorney wherein he stated that although the specific Development Code section was not cited as part of that standard condition, it still applies. The Development Code section that is applicable states that all projects can be subject to a time extension upon expiration if filed in the proper manner, and this time extension request was filed in a proper and timely manner, and therefore, this project is eligible for a time extension. After staff's presentation, Vice Chair Haney opened the hearing for public comment. John Rossetti. Facilities Committee Chairman of the San Luis Obispo County YMCA, stated he has read the staff report and is in agreement with the staff's findings and conclusions. He noted they are not asking for any modification or extension of the MOU or the lease agreement; they are simply asking for extension of the approval received for the project under the Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Rossetti commented that the suggestion that the extension be approved for only 6 months would not allow them enough time to further analyze their ability to build a facility on this site, such as seeking grants, applying for grants, meeting with various governmental officials, doing real needs assessments for the area, etc. He further commented on the fear Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 2 July 21, 1998 expressed by some people about the roller hockey aspect of the project, pointing out that this is just a small portion of project. He stated that the YMCA did a joint use agreement with the City of San Luis Obispo for a roller hockey rink at Santa Rosa Park, and after two years of use, he is not aware of any complaints or problems with the use. Roller hockey is an organized team sport with coaches and parents involved and is no more disruptive than little league or youth football. He invited anyone in the audience and Commissioners to come out and look at the project in San Luis Obispo and observe the activities. In response to Commissioner's Greene's question as to estimated cost of the project, Mr. Rossetti stated it would be in excess of two million dollars and, in his opinion, they would probably come back to the Commission asking for a scaled down project from the one originally submitted. Commissioner Greene referred to the letter from Heather Jensen requesting that the time extension be denied because, in her opinion, tying up the property any longer would not be unwise. In response, Mr. Rossetti stated that even if the Commission denied an extension of this project, the YMCA still has the ability to maintain control of the property until the year 2001 or 2002, at which time if the YMCA hasn't built what is specified for in the lease, the City has the ability to take the property. He stated, however, that would not be their plan, and if in the future they realize that there is no way they could do anything on the site, then they would most likely offer the property back to the City. Vice Chair Haney stated it appears the concern is the lack of activity over the past year and if the City should be looking for some alternative uses for that site. He noted there are a significant number of recreational demands in the community that are not now being met Mr. Rossetti stated that since the first of the year the YMCA Facilities Committee has been diligently working on this project. In response to Commissioner Greene's comments regarding access, Deputy Public Works Director Craig Campbell advised that Condition #12 is directed towards the driveway on Old Ranch Road and highlights the fact that it will be difficult to have proper sight distance in that location, and will require low landscaping and attention to how much berming is done in that location. A specific submittal will be required to address those issues. Norman Baker. Mercedes Lane. stated he has an unobstructed view of the subject property. He advised that a few weeks ago he observed the property being surveyed and City workers mowing the property. He questioned if the YMCA pays for this service and, if not, why not? Not having an answer to Mr. Baker's question, Vice Chair Haney directed staff to research this issue and respond to Mr. Baker's question. Jim Boswell. Mercedes Lane. referred to the roller hockey rink stating his concern is this will generate a draw for young people to come up there to use the facility with no consideration given as to how they will be getting there. He stated that with the increase in traffic due to the Wal -Mart project, there is a safety issue involved. He further commented that the YMCA has had three years already on this project and have only come up with $60,000. He suggested a facility like this could be built at the Soto Complex that is designed for groups of children. 1 1 1 1 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 3 July 21, 1998 C. Z. Brown. 350 Old Ranch Road. referred to his letter to Helen Elder dated July 6, 1998 which poses several questions regarding this project. He stated residents in Royal Oaks are not opposed to the YMCA and, in fact, are very supportive of the YMCA. However, they are opposed to a roller hockey rink in that area. He pointed out that a petition was attached to his letter with fifty five (55) signatures of people that do not object to the YMCA and would be very supportive, but do not believe this is an appropriate place for a roller hockey arena. He suggested alternative sites for the roller hockey facility such as improving the Paulding facility or installation at the Soto Sports Complex. Steve Dorsey. stated he is a volunteer for the YMCA roller hockey program and he believes that the YMCA and youth organizations need to develop roller hockey facilities. He responded to comments about roller bladers on the streets, pointing out that roller bladers and roller hockey players are two different things; they don't even use the same type of skates. Hockey players would not be skating to a facility to play hockey and would have to be transported because they have a large bag carrying their safety equipment and their sticks. Mr. Dorsey commented that this facility has been planned for a long time. Many of these people have moved here after the plan was in place; this is part of the planning process and the Use Permit should be extended so that roller hockey can be a part of other facilities developed in South County, whether it be a temporary facility, a practice facility or a place where games are played. Katherine Evans. 270 Larchmont, stated she is in favor of the YMCA. She further stated that Mr. Brown expressed some of her sentiments already in regards to the Soto Complex; they have lights, parking and restrooms. She further stated, in her opinion, using a facility like that would make more sense. Travis Evans. 270 Larchmont, stated his concerns that if the proposed facility is installed without the proper supervision, there will be some problems. He also stated he doesn't think this is a good location for what is proposed because of the busy street. He is concerned about that corner and the traffic coming down off of the hill, and with the busy traffic on West Branch and the young people coming to the facility. Hearing no further comments, Vice Chair Haney closed the public portion of the hearing and reserved further comments to the Commission. In response to Commissioner Greene's question regarding other uses for this site, Associate Planner Buckingham advised that public facilities such as schools, libraries, churches and public offices could be built on the site. Commissioner Greene reviewed some of the history of the project, pointing out that in 1995 this Conditional Use Permit was unanimously approved by the five Planning Commissioners after due consideration of all of these issues and concerns. In 1996 the City entered into a Lease Agreement with the YMCA; the term of the lease is specified as 99 years unless terminated earlier, subject to only two conditions in the Memorandum of Understanding. These conditions are 3C and 3D. He noted that Condition 3C stipulates that the YMCA has seven (7) years to build Phase 1 of the project, which was identified as between a 3,000 and 6,000 square foot multi - purpose facility. If they fail to complete that project within that seven (7) years from the date of agreement, which gives them to the year 2003, then the MOU has been violated and, therefore, the rights the YMCA has under the Lease Agreement and the MOU are terminated. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 4 July 21, 1998 He further stated he agrees with Mr. Rossetti that essentially the YMCA has first call on that property until the year 2003, whether or not they build on that site, and the YMCA's interest on that property will not terminate tonight if the CUP is not extended. Commissioner Greene stated he shares the sentiments of many of the citizens who believe that providing recreational facilities for our children is the number one priority that any government has. He pointed out that this is not a debate on roller hockey; the issue is whether or not to give the YMCA another year and, given Mr. Rossetti's representation that they are going to start working on this project diligently and they believe they have a good chance to raise the necessary funding to put a YMCA facility on that site, he is in favor of extending the Conditional Use Permit for another year. He further stated that, in his opinion, if we have a YMCA on this site, we would be a lot better off than any other type of public facility because we are all going to be the beneficiaries. Commissioner Parker stated she agrees with Commissioner Greene and is in favor of extending the CUP for another year. Vice Chair Haney stated he would be in favor of a time extension for only six (6) months as an urge for the YMCA to complete their work as diligently as possible. This is an issue in this community and if we could have that site available sooner, it would certainly be appreciated. With regard to the neighbors and the people living in the area, Vice Chair Haney stated that their concerns have been registered with each of the Planning Commission members, and it is clear that nothing is going to be constructed on that site in the shorter term. It also appears that any development there will probably need to come back before the Commission before the project moves ahead unless they are able to build exactly as they originally planned. Vice Chair Haney asked that the staff notify the Commission and the neighbors if development plans are submitted to the City. There being no further discussion on the matter, the following action was taken: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RESOLUTION NO. 98 -1659 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING A ONE YEAR TIME EXTENSION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 95 -535 AND ASSOCIATED ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR A 39,636 SQUARE FOOT YMCA LOCATED AT 400 WEST BRANCH STREET, APPLIED FOR BY SOUTH COUNTY YMCA On motion by Commissioner Greene, seconded by Commissioner Parker, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: Commissioners Parker and Greene Commissioner Haney None Commissioner Lubin 1 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 5 July 21, 1998 the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 21st day of July 1998. Chair Lubin is now present and has assumed the Chair. PUBLIC HEARING - REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 89 -459; APPLICANT: COASTAL CHRISTIAN SCHOOL; REPRESENTATIVE: LANCE TULLIS; LOCATION: 1220 FARROLL AVENUE Acting Community Development Director Helen Elder reviewed that this item was before the Planning Commission in February 1998. A request by adjacent residents was considered to review concerns they had for the modular buildings and improvements that the school was doing. She stated there are still concerns regarding the views to and from the school facilities by the adjacent neighbors. Staff is recommending that the Conditional Use Permit be amended to require that an eight (8) foot fence be installed at the rear of the residences at 451 and 455 Golden West Place. Commissioner Haney stated it was his understanding that the applicant is not the owner of the property where the fence is located, which is the church property, and the applicant has previously stated that they have no control over that element. Ms. Elder advised that the property owner is required to abide by the conditions of approval and are responsible for any improvements on the property, therefore, it will be up to the school to make whatever arrangements necessary with the church. She further advised that because the Conditional Use Permit is under annual review, if there are any other conditions the Commission would like to recommend, it would be appropriate at this time. After staff's presentation, Chair Lubin opened the hearing for public comment. Lance Tullis. representing the Coastal Christian School, stated he has read the staff report and has no objections to the recommendation of installing an eight (8) foot fence, however, his concern is that they are trying to reach an immediate solution without any long term repercussion. Mr. Tullis referred to his December 2, 1997 letter wherein it was suggested lattice be installed across the six (6) foot fence. Another option would be exterior bamboo blinds over the windows. With regard to the option of awnings, Mr. Tullis advised that there was a concern by the Fire Department because with windows that small, the emergency entrance would be obstructed. Also, it was his understanding, that a 20 foot easement for fire trucks is required to be able to go in and out, and there is a residence behind the school. Mr. Tullis recommended covering the windows with exterior blinds that roll straight down and install lattice across the fence, which would allow planting of some type of growth on the lattice. He stated they did plant vines under the lattice, however, the plants did not grow. Commissioner Greene commented it was his recollection when the Commission reviewed this matter in February, Mr. Nordin suggested that the windows could be covered with awnings and at that time it appeared that the school had worked out an agreement with the neighbors to do something to provide them with some privacy. He stated that the pictures provided to him, dated July of 1998, show that nothing has been done to conceal the top of the windows. Commissioner Parker stated she visited the site and did go inside one of the modular units. She further stated she measured the road with a tape measure and it was 23 - 1/2 feet wide, plus there is an additional six (6) foot width of dirt between the road and the fence. Mr. Tullis advised that the Fire Department was at the site before the road was widened and re- surfaced. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 6 July 21, 1998 Kathy Spencer. 455 Golden West Place, stated she lives right behind the modular unit. She read a letter from Jackie Walker, 451 Golden West Place, dated July 20, 1998. Ms. Spencer stated she has no objection to the school continuing where it is, however, the biggest issue is the modular unit and she feels the awnings should be installed with a time limit set and the requirement documented so there is no misunderstanding about what is to be done. Ms. Spencer also read excerpts from her letter dated July 21, 1998. In addition to the trellis and awning idea, Ms. Spencer requested a modification to Condition of Approval #3 that the modular units be removed within 60 days after the school has vacated the premises or July 2001, whichever comes first. She stated that at the last meeting on this item, staff had mentioned an amendment to Development Code Section 9- 03.060, Plot Plan Review, with the suggestion of modifying that section requiring that residents within 300 feet of a project site be notified and, in her opinion, this was a good idea and would avoid problems like this one in the future. Hearing no further discussion from the audience, Chair Lubin closed the public hearing and restricted further comments to the Commission. Commissioner Parker stated, in her opinion, she didn't see a problem with the awnings. Also, if the Fire Department had a problem with the narrow access, and since the road is now 23 -1/2 feet wide rather than below 20 feet, if this were re- addressed to the Fire Department, perhaps it wouldn't be a problem. She further stated perhaps some opaque window covering and installation of the two (2) foot awnings would alleviate the problem. Commissioner Greene stated he agrees with Commissioner Parker's comments and he feels that Ms. Spencer's concerns are justified and valid. Also, in his opinion, the school does have the ability to make the changes suggested by Commissioner Parker. He suggested delaying annual review approval of the Conditional Use Permit for a short period of time to give Mr. Tullis an opportunity to remedy the situation in a fashion consistent with Commissioner Parker's suggestion. With reference to Ms. Spencer's request that Condition of Approval #3 be modified, it appears that this modular will be owned by the school and it is in the school's best interest to either take it with them, or if that is not feasible, to sell it as soon as possible. Therefore, Commissioner Greene stated he didn't see the need to modify Condition #3 as requested. Commissioner Haney stated he feels this matter is way past due and should have already been handled, and he is disappointed that we don't have a better result at this time. He suggested up- sizing some of the plants to assist with breaking up the mass that appears to the neighbors. He stated that the alternatives that Commissioner Parker suggested are acceptable to him, and Commissioner Greene's suggestion to defer approval or continue the matter for 30 days is also acceptable. Chair Lubin expressed his disappointment that Mr. Nordin, representing the school, committed the school to resolve this issue, and it was not resolved. This is a situation where someone is concerned about their privacy and a lack of participation on the school's part to resolve that issue. With regard to the size of the road, Chair Lubin stated, to his knowledge, there are no 20 foot wide fire trucks and, therefore, the fire trucks could get down that road if necessary, and especially if there is a six (6) foot buffer of dirt between the asphalt and the fence. Also, to his knowledge, there are no 20 foot wide motor homes allowed on the streets; nor are there 20 foot wide tractors or bulldozers that need to go down that road. Chair Lubin stated he is almost at the point_ of requiring that the awnings be installed immediately, and he agrees with Commissioner Greene to postpone the approval of the CUP until that is done. He further stated he would like to have this work done in two weeks. 1 1 1 1 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 7 July 21, 1998 After a brief discussion, On motion by Commissioner Haney, seconded by Commissioner Greene and unanimously carried, this item was continued until the next Planning Commission meeting of August 4, 1998 with direction to the applicant that awnings be installed as stipulated, and at least two (2) additional five gallon plants be planted along the wall that will allow some of the vines to grow on to the trellis. REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS BY JOE DELUCIA FOR THE VILLAGE CENTRE PROJECT Acting Community Development Director Helen Elder stated that Mr. De Lucia is asking for a waiver of the Fiscal Impact Analysis requirement for the Village Centre project. She advised that this item went to the City Council last week, and the Council referred it to the Planning Commission for a recommendation. The staff report, dated July 21, 1998 outlines and summarizes the issues raised by Mr. DeLucia. In answer to Commissioner Parker's question as to the size of the project, Ms. Elder advised that the Fiscal Impact guidelines refer to projects greater than 25,000 square feet, and this project is greater than 25,000 square feet. Joe DeLucia. 1042 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo. advised that the plans the Commission will be reviewing on August 4th is exactly 27,649 square feet. He stated they do concur with staff on their report and believe they have exhausted the research into investigating the feasibility of the Fiscal Impact Report. He further stated he had talked to one of the consultants, Mr. Multari, and he indicated under no uncertain terms that he did not want to do this project because he felt that it had fiscal irrelevance, which was also referenced in the Urban Futures response. He stated also that he spoke to two of the members involved in the Fiscal Impact Analysis Committee and they indicated that the goal was to be flexible in the enforcement of this. Mr. DeLucia stated they do not mind paying fees, however, it is their feeling that any additional delays at this point could cause irreparable harm to the project. Mr. DeLucia referred to the letter from Alfred Gobar, dated July 14, 1998, which indicates that even if he could do the project, it would take at least six (6) weeks, and looking at the various steps that need to be taken to get this to the Commission, we are looking at least ten (10) weeks. He stated he feels this is an unreasonable imposition, based on the fact that a very thorough application was submitted to the City about two months ago, and a good faith effort was made to submit all required items. With regard to the relevance of the report, Mr. DeLucia stated, as outlined in the Gobar letter, it is very difficult to do the type of report that is delineated in the guidelines. One of the reasons is the inability to define exact uses; it could be 100% retail or 100% offices. He stated that through all of the committee meetings they have had with the Police and Fire Departments through the pre - application review process, it is their feeling that the impact will be minimal and negligible because of the quality of the project and the type of improvements. There is an issue of value received for value given and they would rather that money be directly allocated toward a public art program for this project. In answer to Commissioner Parker's question as to how many companies were contacted to do the study, Ms. Elder advised that five (5) firms were contacted. Their response was either they were too busy and it was too small of a project, or that the scope seemed to be out of proportion for what the project is. She advised that the range of estimates for the analysis was between $10,000 and $22,000. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 8 July 21, 1998 g Chair Lubin advised he was Vice Chair of the Fiscal Impact Analysis Committee that created the report. He stated that the Committee looked at various other Fiscal Impact Analysis studies and then wrote their report and presented it to the City Council. He further stated, after hearing the staffs comments last week and Mr. DeLucia's comments, it appears that perhaps they were overly aggressive in the size of the project. He commented he is not tied to the 25,000 square feet and would look at something that makes sense. He suggested that the Commission use a logical approach to this as opposed to what the guidelines stipulate, and he would be in favor of waiving the requirement. Commissioner Parker stated she was concerned about mixed uses. For instance, a retail store of 25,000 square feet could have a huge influence on the Village, however, if there are mixed office, retail and restaurant uses, resulting in perhaps 900 square feet of retail, that probably wouldn't have much of an influence on the Village. Commissioner Haney stated the issues he looks at is the impact on existing businesses in the neighborhood, and when you have a project with mixed uses such as this, it is very clear that it cannot have the type of impact that a 25,000 square foot retail unit would have. He further stated he feels it is possible to make those calculations, rather than assuming it is all 25,000 square foot retail. The impact on existing businesses are a key issue, and the other issue is what the net fiscal impacts will be on the City. He suggested that the Commission's motion to waive the report stipulate the reasons for waiving the requirement to provide some guidance for both the staff and other developers. Commissioner Haney stated he supports a motion to waive the requirement, but strongly believes the reasons should be articulated for guidance in the future. After further discussion, on motion by Commissioner Haney, seconded by Commissioner Parker, and unanimously carried, the requirement for a Fiscal Impact Analysis report for the Village Centre Project was waived, effective immediately. Staff was requested to provide findings for the waiver of the Fiscal Impact Report and report back to the Commission at the September 1" meeting. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS FOR INFILL PROJECTS Acting Community Development Director Helen Elder advised this item is being brought back to the Commission as requested to discuss how traffic impact analysis are done for infill projects. She stated the staff report, dated July 21, 1998 reviews how staff analyzes infill projects on a case -by -case basis determining where traffic studies are needed. The staff report also discusses AB1600, the requirements for the City to abide by that State law for imposition of additional fees, and how the City has implemented AB1600 with the establishment of the Traffic Facilities Impact fee and the Traffic Signalization fee, and how the fees are calculated. In answer to Commissioner Parker's question regarding the fourteen (14) designated intersections and when they are to be done, Deputy Public Works Director Craig Campbell advised there is no priority built into the fee resolution; it is just one fund for any signal on the map, and when the appropriate time comes, staff will make a recommendation on priority and recommend a capital improvement project to the City Council for authorization to utilize the funds for that purpose. He further stated that if a project has a dominating influence on an intersection, then the developer may be conditioned to put in the signal, regardless of whether or not it is listed as one of the 14 designated intersections. The fee was calculated by the Public Works Department estimating the total cost of all signal improvements divided by the City buildout traffic projections with the result being a per -trip dollar amount which is the traffic signalization fee. 1 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Conunission Page 9 July 21, 1998 Commissioner Haney presented a paper to the Commissioners, stating the reason he requested this item be placed on the agenda was not to do environmental reviews, traffic studies or fees, but to largely consider the Planning Commission requirements under the General Plan to deal with traffic, and there are some very specific provisions that the Planning Commission is required to apply. He briefly reviewed those provisions. Commissioner Haney pointed out two examples, the Village Creek and Village Centre, which have some similarities and some differences; the size is similar, their Village location, both are mixed uses, they are limited in terms of the known tenants, and both of them use two key intersections, Fair Oaks at Traffic Way and Traffic Way at East Branch. There are some important differences, i.e., specific location; a traffic study requirement has been imposed on the Village Centre Project, and not required on the Village Creek project. He outlined the consequences of the present policy being followed. As pointed out in the staff report, there are basically two levels of traffic studies being done today, i.e., a traffic study that is fairly expensive to the developer and time consuming, and the initial study which is mainly used as a questionnaire process to see if the impacts are significant enough to warrant a traffic study for purposes of the EIR. Neither of these deal with whether or not the project meets the requirements of the General Plan for traffic and circulation management. Commissioner Haney stated he is concerned that similar projects with dissimilar costs associated with them, poses a question of fairness, and also a question as to whether we are getting an adequate level of review, and do we always need to do a traffic study, or could we do something in between a full scale traffic study and just a questionnaire summary. He further stated, in his opinion, one of the ways of doing this is to utilize the Traffic Commission and perhaps Public Works to do some level of review that is in between those two for an appropriate kind of project. It is that premise he would like to bring before the Planning Commission for discussion, and, in his opinion, if the traffic issue could gradually be referred to the Traffic Commission and Public Works Department, it would provide some technical capability on these technical subjects that have been brought to the Panning Commission. Commissioner Haney further commented he feels that in some cases, projects could actually go before the Traffic Commission, without having to go through a traffic study, the intention being to save developers the cost. Some analysis work would need to be done, however, not at the level of a full scale traffic study. He pointed out there would be some merit in having traffic studies reviewed at the Traffic Commission level as a general policy. The General Plan has a specific set of standards that the Planning Commission has the responsibility to enforce and, to some degree, that is being carried out in the environmental review and traffic review process. However, with reference to the two examples previously cited tonight, and with the Wal -Mart and other project studies, it is clear that the General Plan Elements are not getting the same level of attention. Commissioner Haney stated that because traffic is going to become a major issue, there is good logic for saying that traffic management issues for the community could appropriately be centralized in the Traffic Commission, so that the Planning Commission has the advantage of some technical capability instead of approaching traffic issues as lay- people. He noted that this direction would have to come from the City Council level. In all cases, even if it is an initial study for a project coming in, Commissioner Haney stated he believes those cases routinely should go to the Traffic Commission, including full scale traffic studies. In answer to Chair Lubin's question as to the charges of the Traffic Commission, Deputy Public Works Director Craig Campbell advised they typically review requests by citizens to make modifications to City streets to change intersection control, striping and signage, etc. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 10 July 21, 1998 Mayor Pete Dougall addressed the Commission. He stated he previously approached the Traffic Commission and asked what their charge was. He was advised they paint curbs and install signs. At that time he proposed that the Traffic Commission review anything that has to do with traffic and he thought it had been changed, however, if this is not being done, then the change should be put into effect. Commissioner Greene stated his feeling that the Traffic Commission's jurisdiction is established in some Municipal Code statute or in some documentary form. If they cannot do what Commissioner Haney is proposing then, in his opinion, the Commission has the authority to make that recommendation to the City Council. Chair Lubin asked staff to research the matter and report back to the Commission. Mayor Dougall commented that the City is getting a better degree of talent on all of the Commissions and to say a Commission can or can't do something, in his opinion, with the high degree of people Council is appointing, there isn't anything they can't do, however, the changes to be made are going to have to work their way through the democratic process. A joint meeting with, the Traffic Commission was recommended by Chair Lubin. Commissioner Haney recommended updating some of the major things in the area of traffic, such as the Signalization document dated 1986, and also Table 3- 2502A, the Street Improvement Designation that was done in 1994. PLANNING COMMISSION /COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ITEMS AND COMMENTS Election of Officers. Chair Lubin opened nominations for Planning Commission Chair for the fiscal year 1998 -99. On motion by Commissioner Haney, seconded by Commissioner Greene, and unanimously carried, Sandy Lubin was re- elected as Chair of the Planning Commission. Chair Lubin opened nominations for Planning Commission Vice Chair for the fiscal year 1998- 99. On motion by Commissioner Greene, seconded by Commissioner Parker, and unanimously carried, Del Haney was re- elected as Vice Chair of the Planning Commission. Appointment of Planning Commission Member to Long Range Planning Committee Chair Lubin appointed Commissioner Parker to the Long Range Planning Committee. Update of Projects Acting Community Development Director Helen Elder advised that the new Community Development Director will be on board on August 17 The new Director's name is James Hamilton and he comes from the City of Turlock. There was a brief discussion regarding future projects scheduled to come before the Commission and Council. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 1. Memo to Robert Hunt from Urban Futures, Inc., dated July 16, 1998 - Re: Village Centre. 2. Letter dated July 20, 1998 from C. Z. Brown - Re: YMCA Site. 3. Letter dated July 21, 1998 from Heather Jensen - Re: YMCA. 1 1 1 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission July 21, 1998 4. Signalization Map 5. Amended Notice of Approval of Minor Exception Case No. 98 -033 for Coker Ellsworth and Vick Pace Construction, Inc. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by the Chair at 11:15 p.m. ATTEST: AS TO CONTENT: Pears L. Phinney, Commis Clerk Helen Elder, AICP Acting Community Development Director Page 11 4h4/k P ate