PC Minutes 1990-06-19Arroyo Grande Planning Commission
June 19, 1990
The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chairman
Carr presiding. Present are Carmissioners Soto, Gallagher and Brandy.
Ceaimissioners Moore and Flores are absent. Also in attendance are Planning
Director Liberto - Blanck, City Attorney Judy Skousen, Public Works Director Paul
Karp, and Water Conservation Coordinator Karen Williams.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 983, 139, 141, 143 AND 145 TALLY
HO ROAD (L. C. LAVINE.) - _ - -
• Chairman Carr stated it his understanding that the Planning Commission's
action on this item is -to make recearmendations to the City Council on findings
and conditions of approval.
COMMISSIONER 1400RE ENTERED THE MEETING AT 7:38 P.M. - AND IS NOW PRESENT.
Planning Director'Liberto -Blanck referred to the staff report-dated June
19, 1990. She stated that, -at the Council's request, the Planning Commission
reviewed this project at their- meeting -of June-5, -1990. The Planning Commission
continued the - review of the project to this meeting to allow -time for staff to
develop conditions -of approval.. -- - - -
H. Liberto -Blanck briefly reviewed findings that the Coannission could make
in approving this project, and referred t� the recommended conditions of approval
if they feel they are - appropriate.- She described some modifications to the
conditions fisted in the staff report dated June 19, 1990. A condition requiring
that a- -building - envelope be- shown -on- Lot 4, subject to the Planning - Director's
approval was recommended as an additional condition of - approval.. Chairman Carr
re- opened the public hearing for public comment.
- Jim McGillis, — Surveyor -with San Luis Engineering,- representing the
applicant, - stated that - =the - map- is consistent with the - General Plan and the
zoning, and the - conditions- as they stand mitigate any -- concerns regarding the
project. He further stated an agreement 'was -made to -a condition on Lot 4 that
would -limit the building to the area where the greenhouse has -a pad already so
there would be -no additional - grading, and the- two -lots in the rear would - remain
the same. He briefly described the drainage considerations-stating it could
either -go- underground -or- continue to drain to-- La- Barranca:- He also explained
that there may be -need for retaining-walls in one - -area- - because -of- slope. -He
stated the actual walls would --be no more than 3 feet high and would -be made out
of railroad- ties. -•_ = -
• - With-regard to water consumption, Mr: McGi- llis- advised that there is a
greenhouse- there right now- that - -is using a lot -of water, and also a requirement
for water saving- devices has now - been incorporated- into building permit requests.
and,- in -al -1- probability,- -the total -water usage for -the- subdivision wil -1- be less
than what is presently being used.
-Hearing -no further comments for or against the proposed project; 'Chairman
Carr declared - the - hearing- closed. - -
1
Planning Director- Liberto- Blanck - listed - findings the Commission would have
to make in -the affirmative -if -they feel the - project is - appropriate:
- .
•
1. The proposed map, design and improvements of this subdivision are
consistent with the General Plan map -and text because the General
•P1 -an designation -is Low Density - Residential,- 0.2 -4.5 dwelling units
per -acre- and the applicant is proposing 1.5 units per -acre.
2. This site is physically suitable for the proposed type 'and density
of development because all yards, parking spaces, setbacks,
driveways, safe - access and other features can be -accommodated.
3. The- proposed subdivision-design' is -not likely to cause substantial
and considerable damage to the natural environment, including fish,
wildlife or their habitat because measures have been included in the
conditions of approval for the project, which, when implemented will
mitigate any potential impacts-.• • - -- -
4. The proposed design of the subdivision of proposed improvements are
not likely to cause public health problems.
5. The proposed subdivision design will not conflict with public
easements within or throughout the site, if the conditions of
approval are implemented.
185
186
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 6 -19 -90
Chairman Carr stated his feelings that the concerns have been addressed and
he feels confortable with the condition regarding tree removal and the testimony
that there are no plans to remove any trees, and if those plans change, they have
to be approved by City staff prior to removal. He felt the redesign of the
project.has pretty well addressed any earlier concerns.
After further discussion, on motion by Commissioner Gallagher, seconded by
Chairman Carr, motion carried with one "no" vote and one abstention, the original
denial by the Planning Commission was reconsidered because of additional
information submitted, recommending that the City Council adopt a Negative
Declaration with the findings as delineated by the Planning Director above, and
with the listed conditions, as modified.
Viewshed•Review Case No. 90 - 20, 1320 Hillcrest Drive (Ramsum). Planning
Director Liberto -Blanck referred to the staff report dated June 19th regarding
the above project. -She advised that a Staff Advisory Committee meeting was held
and a Notice of Intent to Construct an Additional Structure was sent to all
property owners within 150 feet of the project on May 25, 1990. Staff received
no adverse comments from adjacent neighbors on this proposal. She stated that,
based on the findings listed in the staff report, Viewshed Review Permit No. 90-
20 was approved on June 13, 1990 subject to a 10 day appeal period. She noted
that the issue may,come back to the Commission at a future date. This piece of
property was a of litigation about three or four years ago and, out of
the court case came a decree that indicated there had to be some off -site parking
on the property. The applicant has requested that the City look at that
requirement and possibly delete it. These are really two distinct issues and
staff wants to look at the Viewshed Review independently fran the court decree.
WATER POLICY WORKSHOP
Planning Director Liberto -Blanck briefly reviewed same of the items handed
out to the Commission tonight. First of all, a letter received from Gene Nooker
submitted during the General Plan update was handed out to the Commission in
response to a phone call from Mr. Nooker today. Other information submitted is
a letter from Public Works Director Paul Karp, dated May 21, 1990, and a memo
dated June 7, 1990 to the Planning Director. The other item is an executive
summary that was. taken out of the draft EIR on the State Water Project, and the
Public Information Program, included in your packet as Exhibit "A ". On May 22nd
the City Council requested that the Planning Commission formulate and recommend
to a City water policy. What staff has attempted to do with the document before
you is include some of the basic information regarding water; where are we right
now, how much water do we have, and where are we going? Staff wanted to give the
Commission as much background information as possible before attempting to put
together a City water policy. She pointed out that the staff report in the
packet was put together with information submitted by Karen Williams, City Water
Coordinator; Judy Skousen, City Attorney; Paul Karp, Director of Public Works,
and the Planning Director.
Considerable discussion followed relative to information.included in the
various documents presented to the Commission. There was general discussion
regarding water conservation methods, population buildout, water resources and
availability, allocation of building permits for growth control, development in
the County along City boundaries without adequate EIR's and the proposed State
Water Project and potential cost.
Chairman Carr stated that an ordinance that puts things in place for new
development is a good idea. It was also suggested that a recommendation be made
to the City Council requesting that the County give more consideration to our
resources when making decisions regarding development projects in the Arroyo
Grande fringe area.
After further discussion, Planning Director Liberto -Blanck commented that
the information received tonight would be reviewed by staff and incorporated into
a report for further review by the Commission towards formulating a City Water
Policy.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Commission, the_ meeting was
adjourned by the Chairman at 10:35 P.M.
Pearl Phinney, Secretary
2
Robert W. Carr, Chairman