PC Minutes 1993-09-21ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING AND TRAFFIC COMMISSIONS
SEPTEMBER 21, 1993
The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chairman Carr presiding.
Present are Commissioners Reilly, Hatchett and Keen. Absent are Commissioners Tappan, Soto
and Deviny. Planning Director Doreen Liberto - Blanck, Current Planner Scott Spierling and
Public Works Director Van Laurn are also in attendance.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None
PUBLIC HEARING - TIME EXTENSION ON TENTATIVE TRACT 983, AT 139 & 141
TALLY HO ROAD, L. C. LAVINE, APPLICANT
Current Planner Spierling gave a brief report on this item, indicating Staff's recommendation
for approval.
On a motion by Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Hatchett, and unanimously
carried, a one year time extension was granted.
NON - PUBLIC IIEARING - REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION - REQUIREMENT FOR
VIEWSIIED REVIEW AT 298 NORTH ELM STREET, APPLICANTS ARE MR. & MRS.
JOHN KEEN
This was continued until the regular meeting of the Planning Commission on October 5, 1993,
due to a lack of a quorum on this particular item.
There being no further business for the regular session, the Planning Commission adjourned to
a joint meeting with the Traffic Commission with Chairmen Carr and Franks presiding. Traffic
Commissioners present are McAustin, Pilkington, Borda, and LaPlante; absent are
Commissioners Silva and one vacancy.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None
PROPOSED CITYWIDE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES SCHEDULE
Commissioner Borda stepped down due to a conflict of interest.
Planning Director Liberto - Blanck made a presentation to the Commissioners, first bringing to
their attention the Amended memorandum of the Draft Traffic Impact Fees Program, dated
September 21, 1993, explaining the comments in bold italics and answering questions from the
Commissioners. She then discussed the chart of Traffic Fee Comparisons, reflecting existing
and proposed figures, as well as calculations based on ITE figures.
The next portion was the Major Issues category listed on page 2 of a memorandum dated
September 21, 1993. Each question was presented, discussion was held, and direction given
by the Commissioners to Planning Director Liberto - Blanck.
1
1
1
1
1
1
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 2
September 21, 1993
1. There are land uses, such as churches, recreation, and so forth which are not listed on
Table 6 (see the August 12, 1993 memorandum from Karl Mohr to Planning and Traffic
Commissions). How will land uses not listed on Table 6 be assessed for traffic impacts?
It was agreed that two or three additional categories be added to the present table, possibly
including a miscellaneous one, to identify as many exceptions as possible, thus avoiding
unnecessary appeals.
2. Do we need to define Commercial Retail and Commercial Service land uses?
The consensus was that in any gray areas, the Standard Industrial Classification Manual (SIC)
would be consulted. Planning Director Liberto - Blanck will also look into putting into the
ordinance that if there was a dispute, an interpretation would be made by the appropriate body
to determine the suitable category.
3. The existing program provides credit for previous uses and pass by traffic. Should we
continue to do this as part of the new program? If so, how far back should we give
credit for previous uses?
The Commissioners were in accord that credit should be given, but only a percentage. It was
also agreed that the credits should not go back over five years.
4. Table 1 (see the memorandum dated August 12 from Karl Mohr to Doreen Liberto-
Blanck) outlines the roadway improvements on which the funds will be used. Should we
consider listing other uses of the money, such as pedestrian bridges, which will
encourage alternative transportation methods to the automobile, or permit rehabilitation
or upgrading of existing facilities?
Staff will look at adding other improvements, such as bridges, to the existing list and prioritize
this list.
5. Should we identify timing of the proposed improvements? Should we identify alternative
funding sources?
The first question was answered under #4. In response to the second question, State, Federal,
and perhaps other funding sources are to be considered.
6. Should we calculate ADT based on net or gross area? For example, retain stores
typically have storage areas. If the storage area is deleted from the gross square footage,
the ADT will be reduced.
Consensus was to keep it based on the gross area.
7. Should a provision be included which allows someone who disagrees with the ADT count
to prepare a traffic study as a step prior to appealing to the City Council?
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 3
September 21, 1993
They agreed that a traffic study would not be mandatory, but that it would be suggested as part
of the appeal presentation.
8. Should projects approved prior to the 1989 traffic mitigation fee program be exempted
from this program?
The direction was to provide a time period whereby they may obtain a building permit and after
that time period, they would be included to pay fees under the new program.
9. Is the method of using average daily traffic appropriate? For example, calculating the
traffic fee for a commercial retain use generating little traffic would be based on the
same ADT as a commercial retain use generating a lot of traffic.
The use of average daily traffic is appropriate.
The Planning Commission and Traffic Commission agreed that there was no need for another
joint meeting. Staff was requested to send the draft ordinance to the Traffic Commission prior
to the Planning Commission hearing. The Traffic Commission agreed to submit their comments
to the Planning Director.
PLANNING COMMISSION /TRAFFIC COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS
None
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Commission, on a motion by Commissioner
LaPlante, seconded by Commissioner Pilkington, and unanimously carried, the Traffic
Commission adjourned at 9:20 P.M. to their next regular meeting on October 18, 1993. On a
motion by Commissioner Hatchett, seconded by Commissioner Reilly, and unanimously carried,
the Planning Commission adjourned to their next regular meeting on October 5, 1993 at 7:30
P.M.
ATTEST:
Nancy Bro
Commission Clerk
Robert W. Carr, Chairman
1
1
1