PC Minutes 1998-06-021
1
1
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 2, 1998
The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Lubin presiding.
Present are Commissioners Rondeau, Parker and Haney. Commissioner Greene is absent. Also
in attendance are Acting Community Development Director Helen Elder, Associate Planner
Bruce Buckingham and Contract Planner Lezley Buford.
INTRODUCTION OF NEW PLANNING COMMISSIONER
Chair Lubin introduced new Commissioner Nanci Parker and welcomed her to the Planning
Commission.
MINUTE APPROVAL
Hearing no corrections or additions, on motion by Commissioner Haney, seconded by
Commissioner Rondeau, and carried, the minutes of the regular meeting of April 21, 1998 were
approved as prepared.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 92-502, REQUEST FOR
A ONE YEAR EXTENSION; AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 94-527,
REQUEST TO OPERATE THE LOPEZ CONTINUATION HIGH SCHOOL AND THE
TEENAGE ACADEMIC AND PARENTING PROGRAM, AND AMEND THE HOURS OF
OPERATION FOR CHILD CARE FROM 8:00 A.M. TO 3:30 P.M. TO 7:30 A.M. TO
11:30 P.M.; APPLICANT: LUCIA MAR UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT;
REPRESENTATIVE: SANDY DAVIS; LOCATION: 227 BRIDGE STREET
Associate Planner Bruce Buckingham reviewed the staff report dated June 2, 1998. He stated
that in August 1992 the Commission approved Conditional Use Permit 92 -502 to allow Lopez
Continuation High School to operate at 227 Bridge Street for a four year period. Subsequently,
in November 1994 the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit 94 -527 to allow
the high school to operate a Teenage Academic Parenting program at the same location. In July
1996 the Planning Commission approved a two year time extension for both CUP's because of
the failure of school bonds to secure the necessary funding for a permanent school facility.
Since that time, the School District has received the funding and has started construction of the
new Lopez Continuation High School in Nipomo, however, the new facility will not be ready
this Fall and, as a result, the School District is requesting a final one year time extension for
both Conditional Use , Permits to allow additional time to complete the facility. In addition the
District is requesting that Condition No. 10 of CUP 94 -527 be amended changing the hours of
operation for child care services from 8:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. to 7:30 a.m. to 11:30 p.m. This
is the result of a recently approved State funding the School District received.
Mr. Buckingham advised that the Staff Advisory Committee has reviewed the applicant's
requests and finds the projects to be acceptable, and staff recommends the Planning Commission
approve the one year time extension for both Conditional Use Permits and the amendment to the
hours of operation for the child care services. He noted there is one correction on the CUP
Amendment Resolution, Attachment A, hours for the child care center, should be correctly stated
as 7:30 a.m. to 11:30 p.m.
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 2
June 2, 1998
Upon completion of staff's presentation, Chair Lubin opened the hearing for public comment
and invited the applicant to make his presentation.
Perry Judd, Lucia Mar Unified School District, stated he is representing Sandy Davis, who
could not be present tonight. He further stated he concurs with staff's recommendation for a
one year extension of the Conditional Use Permits and amendment to the hours of operation for
the child care services. He advised the new facility is being built and is slated for use around
Easter of the 1999 school year.
After a brief discussion between the Commission and applicants, the Commission indicated their
support for the programs, and the following action was taken:
RESOLUTION NO. 98 -1653
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING A ONE YEAR TIME EXTENSION FOR
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92 -502 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
94 -527, FOR THE OPERATION OF LOPEZ CONTINUATION HIGH
SCHOOL AND THE TEENAGE ACADEMIC AND PARENTING
PROGRAM (TAP) AT 227 BRIDGE STREET, APPLIED FOR BY LUCIA
MAR UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
On motion by Commissioner Haney, seconded by Commissioner Parker, and by the following
roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Haney, Rondeau, Parker and Chair Lubin
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Greene
the foregoing resolution was adopted this 2' day of June 1998.
RESOLUTION NO. 98 -1654
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT CASE NO. 94 -527, APPLIED FOR BY LUCIA MAR LUCIA
MAR UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, LOCATED AT 227 BRIDGE
STREET
On motion by Commissioner Haney, seconded by Commissioner Parker, and by the following
roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Haney, Rondeau, Parker and Chair Lubin
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Greene
the foregoing resolution was adopted this 2 day of June 1998.
1
1
1
1
1
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 3
June 2, 1998
PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 98 -548 AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 98 -565, CONSTRUCTION OF A 27,250
SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL/RETAIL BUILDING AND LOT SPLIT; APPLICANT:
ROBERT ANDERSON; LOCATION: 200 STATION WAY
Contract Planner Lezley Buford reviewed the staff report dated June 2, 1998. She stated the
project was reviewed by the Planning Commission sometime ago as a pre - application discussion
item. At that time the Commission provided many comments with regard to the design and
other issues, particularly with regard to the master plan that was approved in 1985, and also with
regard to the existing parking, and the Development Code parking requirements. Since the last
discussion, all of the materials relating to the history of the project have been forwarded to the
City Attorney for his review, and it is staff's opinion that the issues and questions regarding the
requirements and any property entitlements have been resolved. Ms. Buford briefly reviewed
the history of the Village Creek Plaza development. She also noted that in February of 1990
the Planning Commission approved development of a 21,816 square foot commercial building
on Lot 3. The development included provisions for 118 parking spaces. At that time, the City's
parking requirement for a commercial development was 1 per 200 square feet of building area.
The building was not constructed and the entitlements have since expired.
Ms. Buford advised that a lot line adjustment and lot merger was approved in 1995, which was
mainly to reconfigure 10 parcels into five the parcels that exist today. At that time, there was
a discussion with regard to the parking situation, and as a condition to the lot line adjustment
and lot merger, the property owner was required to file reciprocal parking easements across the
entire site. The CC &Rs were recorded in May 1995. Section 6.1(c) of the CC &Rs states "An
easement for parking purposes over and across the parking areas within the Shopping Center
as reflected on the Map." She stated that the map was the parcel map and lot line adjustment
at that time, showing all parking that existed on the site. At that time there were 40 developed
parking spaces on the subject parcel. Before the Commission tonight is the proposed
development of Parcel 3, where the previous development was proposed. She noted there have
been two changes since that time: (1) the parking requirements per the City's Development Code
have been changed to 1 space per 250 square feet of building space, and (2) the development
has changed, in that the proposal is 4 buildings totaling approximately 27,000 square feet,
instead of one building as previously proposed. Also shown on the site plan are a total of 115
spaces; some of which are compact spaces, which the City does not allow. Therefore, the total
number of parking spaces could be reduced to 109 spaces.
Ms. Buford reiterated that the City Attorney has reviewed the history of the project, the project
site and the development of Village Creek Plaza, and has concluded that while there is a
reciprocal easement for parking purposes and access across the entire site, there is no specific
agreement regarding a specific number of spaces for any of the parcels, and also there has never
been any condition or any requirement that any future development provide spaces other than
what is required by the Development Code, which would be the minimum requirement.
With regard to the plans that have been submitted, Ms. Buford stated it is staff's opinion that
the plans are close to meeting the Development Code. However, there are several design issues
including landscaping, parking and loading areas, that need to be revised, and may affect the
overall development and design of the project. Therefore, staff . recommends the Commission
continue this item so that the applicant can move forward with redesigning the project to meet
the City's requirements for parking, loading areas and landscaping.
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 4
June 2, 1998
After further discussion between the Commission and staff, Chair Lubin opened the hearing for
public comment.
Robert Anderson. applicant, thanked staff for their hard work and dedication. He stated he has
agreed to revise the plans based on staff's comments. He commented, that it is clear he is not
obligated to provide additional parking to the adjoining properties. He stated he is willing to
abide by the reciprocal parking agreement to help ensure the parking accessibility. He referred
to the study that was commissioned on his behalf, stated the report clearly supports the claim
that the parking is adequate and, and he does not agree with Mr. Miner's claims of entitlement
to parking on the project site, nevertheless the proposal is still providing 10 to 12 surplus spaces.
With regard to site coverage, Mr. Anderson stated the proposal of 22% is minimal and a project
with less than 20 %. coverage is not economically feasible. Regarding staff's recommendation
for continuance, Mr. Anderson stated he would like to get this project going and requested that
the Commission make a ruling tonight if possible.
Mark Vasquez, Norman, Vasquez & Associates, representing Mr. Miner, stated they agree with
the staff report, plus they and Mr. Miner encourage Mr. Anderson to pursue his development,
however, they still feel there is an issue regarding the parking. They believe the key to this
issue is the fact that the original approval and the documents associated with that approval in
1985 specifically stated that Phase 1 involving Buildings A and B shall include construction of
146 spaces specifically for those two buildings. The developers completed the construction in
1986. Building E was subsequently built under the original approval in 1987. With regard to
Buildings C and D, that part of the overall approval was not exercised; building permits were
not issued and, therefore, the approvals expired and new approvals are required. In 1994 it was
decided by the developers to do a lot merger and lot line adjustment to allow 5 individual
parcels for each structures. At that time a finding was made that parking had to be adequately
provided. In order to do that the, CC &Rs were recorded requiring a reciprocal parking
easement. Mr. Vasquez commented that in order for the original approval to be valid, when
Buildings A, B and E were constructed, there had to be 146 spaces allotted to those buildings,
and their concern is that the proposed project be in compliance with the original approval. He
requested that the parking be required consistent with the original conditions approved in the
Master Plan.
Jay Johnson. P. 0. Box 3, Grover Beach, stated he represents Miner's Hardware and also the
current owners of the property. He stated his feeling that the public should be able to rely on
Conditions of Approval adopted by the City, and requested that the City enforce the original
conditions.
Don Selby noted that most cities allow for at least 20% of the parking spaces to be compact.
The City Code requires that all spaces shall be 9 x 18, and questioned why spaces above and
beyond what is required by the Code be allowed to be compact? He stated this would benefit
the applicant and the existing tenants.
William Bogden stated he was looking for a building to lease and was directed to Mr.
Anderson's project over a year ago. In talking to Mr. Anderson last week he was informed that
the parking had become a problem for the project. Mr. Bogden referred to the parking survey
presented to the Commission submitted by Ganador Associates, Inc. He stated, that, they went
out and counted parking spaces every 15 minutes, and the last sheet of their report shows the
totals for a 3 day period, indicating there is more than enough parking. He requested that the
Commission take action on the project tonight with appropriate conditions of approval to resolve
the minor issues.
1
1
1
Page 5
Arroyo Grande Planning Conunission
June 2, 1998
Nancy Wise stated she uses the Village Creek Plaza Center quite frequently and has never had
a problem parking there even during peak hours. She further stated she would like to encourage
the Planning Commission to make a decision tonight in favor of the project because she would
to see more small retail and office businesses in this area.
Mr. Anderson stated there seems to be a misunderstanding because he never requested a waiver
of the Conditions of Approval of the CC &R's. It shows clearly in the CC &R's that those 40
spaces are to remain open for all owners of the center; it is a reciprocal parking easement and
he is not disputing that. He noted that Miner's Hardware has painted parking stalls in front of
their store indicating parking for Miner's Hardware customers only, which is a violation of the
CC &R's. He further stated, in his opinion, it is Mr. Miner's attitude that all owners abide by
the original plan of the center, and yet he has made additions to Building 1 with his nursery
operation, expanding well beyond the original plans of the center. He commented he is
assuming his responsibility by abiding by the CC &R's, and that is all that is required by him.
Mr. Vasquez stated, for clarification, their concern is not that Mr. Anderson would be violating
the CC &R's; their concern is regarding the original approval requiring 146 spaces.
Chair Lubin noted that in the 1985 approval, there was a total required spaces of 278 and a total
of 279 spaces provided, including the 40 spaces; there are 249 spaces required now for the entire
project and 273 spaces provided, which would be 24 excess spaces. His question to Mr.
Vasquez is whether or not the discussion is about 3 parking spaces?
Mr. Vasquez advised that the original approval was for the entire project. The key is not with
regard to this particular issue, but the fact that as it was originally approved, there were so many
square feet in Buildings A and B, and that square footage required 146 spaces. Buildings A and
B and Building E were the only ones included in the original approval. Any change now for
parking requirements for any of those three buildings would violate the original approvals. He
commented that Mr. Anderson can make an application for whatever he would like on his
property, however, the original approval encumbered part of that property, which was not a
separate parcel at that time and the spaces were based on square footage of the buildings...
Hearing no further comments from the audience, Chair Lubin closed the public hearing portion
and restricted further discussion to the Commission.
Commissioner Rondeau stated when this matter was last reviewed, it was the Commission's
recommendation that Mr. Anderson and Mr. Miner attempt to solve this parking issue, however,
it appears tonight that this has not been accomplished. He further stated that the map provided
by Mr. Anderson is not adequate and would have to be re -drawn to scale, and include all of the
recommendations and conditions that are required.
Commissioner Parker stated that in her opinion, this is a good project. She agreed with
Commissioner Rondeau's comments that the map presented by the applicant is not adequate for
the Commission to make a decision. She stated one of her concerns is providing. tenants and
customers adequate parking and, in her opinion, Building 4 parking doesn't look like it is going
to work very well. Also, the tenants at the eastern end of the building are going to have a long
way to walk, so there may be a problem renting out those buildings. She commented she
doesn't feel Mr. Anderson is obligated or responsible to provide parking for adjacent parcels,
however, she does believe he is responsible for offering his tenants adequate parking. With
regard to the Negative Declaration relative to light and noise, in her opinion, this is a perfect
location for this type of development. She suggested that the lighting for Building 4 along Fair
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 6
June 2, 1998
Oaks Avenue be taken into consideration and cut back if possible because of the lighting and
noise from the auto dealership, the Log Cabin Market and the school. With regard to the
loading docks, she questioned if one loading dock would be adequate for the 4 buildings. With
regard to the landscaping, she stated the proposed 10% should be a minimum, and she would
like to see how that would work with the parking.
Commissioner Haney stated, in his opinion, it is a fundamental requirement that adequate site
plans have to be provided to staff, to the Commission and to the public for their information,
both for review to assure compliance with the Development Code, for the public's information,
and for a permanent and complete record of what has been approved. He further stated what
has been presented to the Commission for review is inadequate for those purposes. He
suggested adopting Items 1 and 2 of the staff's recommendation requesting that Mr. Anderson
submit an adequate set of site plans for review. He further stated he is not convinced that, with
all of the modifications being proposed, everything is going to fit on the site and still give the
square footage proposed. There are still a number of issues to be dealt with, and putting them
on paper in the form of a site plan, gives both the staff and Commission an opportunity to
adequately review the project.
Regarding the initial study that has been prepared by staff, Commissioner Haney referred to two
issues regarding traffic relating to the intersections at Fair Oaks and Traffic Way, Traffic Way,
Grand Avenue and West Branch Street. He advised that those intersections currently operate
at a Level of Service (LOS) C, D and E, depending on which report is referenced. He stated
his concern is, that with the addition of project - generated traffic the LOS for these intersections
will fall below a LOS "D ".The General Plan makes it clear that the Planning Commission cannot
approve a project without a solution that will bring us back to a LOS C. A solution may be
traffic signalization, and this may be worth considering in the Initial Study. He further stated
he feels the view corridors along the back of the freeway are more than just the freeway views
and he would like to see an attractive presentation of those buildings for the benefit of those
traveling on the freeway who form an impression of Arroyo Grande. He stated he would like
to see more architectural details on the rear elevations of the buildings.
Chair Lubin addressed the comment by Mr. Jay Johnson regarding reliance on approvals given
by the City in terms of a lease or the purchase of a project. He stated his feeling, as a Planning
Commissioner, he would certainly want any decision made by the Commission to be relied upon
and would not subsequently change such a decision on a whim. However, the issue here is
trying to understand what the process was and what was trying to be accomplished at that time.
He further stated his concern is that with all of the input received up to this point, it still comes
down to a shared reciprocal parking agreement that was provided by the CC &Rs and required
by the Planning Commission in the early `90's. In looking at the shared reciprocal agreement
and in looking at total parking required and total parking built, it still comes down to very few
additional spaces. He stated his belief that the Planning Commission, under the first approval
required the additional spaces in anticipation of the total project being built out with the
reciprocal parking agreement so that anyone would have a right to park anywhere. He read
from the parking study dated June 1, 1998 as follows:... "Without reaching specific conclusions
about how this data is interpreted or applied to a particular situation, it is notable that for the
entire period studied, 67.33 % (approx. 106) of the spaces were available, and at no time were
more than 48% (76 stalls) occupied..." Chair Lubin stated this indicates to him there is not a
total parking problem; what we have is a potential parking problem in front of one or two
tenants, and that would be up to the owners to resolve.
1
Arroyo Grande Planning Conunission Page 7
June 2, 1998
Chair Lubin further indicated that he is in total agreement with the other Commissioners and he
would like to see a complete site plan with all of the changes made. He wants to be sure that
all of the parking and landscaping fits, and that the information submitted to staff can be relied
upon.
After further discussion, on motion by Commissioner Haney, seconded by Commissioner
Rondeau, and unanimously carried, staff recommendations 1 and 2 were approved as follows:
1. That the Planning Commission continue this item to a date uncertain and direct the
applicant to submit a revised site plan that contains the items listed on the incompleteness
letter, dated December 29, 1997, and a revised parking plan which complies with the
Development Code.
2. The applicant is required to provide parking and loading areas consistent with the
Development Code, based on the proposed square footage of - buildings proposed for
Parcel 3.
PLANNING COMIVIISSION /COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ITEMS AND
COMMENTS.
A. Pending Project in San Luis Obispo County. Acting Community Development
Director Helen Elder stated that in keeping with the Planning Commission's request to be
notified of pending projects in San Luis Obispo County, a Project Referral for the Nipomo
Valley Mutual Water Company is being referred to the Commission. Also, the Planning
Commission received a handout tonight of a Notice of Preparation for an EIR for Hampton, etal
General Plan Amendment, which is also from San Luis Obispo County.
Ms. Elder also listed items that will heard at the June 16 Planning Commission meeting as
follows:
1. YMCA Time Extension.
2. 5 Cities Center Planned Sign Program.
3. K -Mart Planned Sign Program.
4. Beacon Planned Sign Program.
Ms. Elder also reminded the Commission that there is a joint City Council /Planning Commission
study session scheduled for June 18 at 6:30 p.m. Items to be discussed at that meeting include
the Redevelopment Agency implementation and General Plan Update.
With regard to the General Plan Update, Ms. Elder advised that Workshop No. 2 on Land Use
Alternatives is scheduled for Saturday, June 20 from 9:00 a.m. to noon at the Arroyo Grande
High School Gym. Also, Thursday, June 4t at 6:30 a meeting is being held for the Core
Outreach Team members to obtain information on the Workshop. She further advised that a
notice for the Workshop will be published in the newspaper in two weeks, and next week notices
for the Workshop will be delivered to 8,000 addresses in the City.
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 8
June 2, 1998
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
1. Notice Of Preparation of an EIR for Hampton, et al. General Plan Amendment from San
Luis Obispo County.
2. Agenda Item II.A. - Letter dated June 2, 1998 from Ruth Weece.
3. Agenda Item No. II.B. - Resolution No. 94 -1458.
4. Agenda Item No. II.B. - Resolution No. 94 -1459
5. Parking Study from Ganador Associates, Inc., dated June 1, 1998.
6. Revised explanations for the Initial Study Checklist prepared for the Anderson project.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by the
Chairman at 9:30 p.m.
ATTEST:
i . ,
AS TO CONTENT:
Pearl L. Phinney, Commission" lerk
Helen M. Elder, AICP
Acting Community Development Director
1