PC Minutes 1989-03-07Arroyo Grande Planning Comm ion
March 7, 1989
The Arroyo Grande Planning Conirnission met in regular session with Chairman Gerrish presiding.
Present are Commissioners Moore, Flores, Scott and Gallagher. Corrnussioners Soto and McCann
are absent. Planning Director Liberto - Blanek and Current Planner Spierling are also in
attendance.
CONTINUATION - ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 88 -417, RETAIL SHOPPING
CENTER, 100 BARNETT MEET. (GRANDE CENTRAL PARTNERSHIP)
Planning Director_ Liberto-Blanek advised that the applicants are requesting a two week
continuance to attempt to resolve some of the issues that have come up. Hearing no objections
from the Commission, Architectural Review Case No. 88 -417 was continued, as requested by the
applicant, to the next regular meeting of March 21, 1989.
PUBLIC HEARING - PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 88 -471, 182 SO. ALPINE STREET. (JEFFREY
L. WHITE)
Current Planner Spierling briefly reviewed the staff report dated March 7, 1989. He advised
that the applicants are proposing division of a 12,200 square foot parcel into two 6,100 square
foot lots. He commented that, while the proposal meets the minimum lot size stipulated in the
zoning ordinance, it does not appear to meet the general plan density requirements.
Mr. Spierling stated the proposal is to create, in essence, a flag lot with a 16' aces and
utility easement. He stated there are two major issues that should be addressed by the Planning
Commission.
The first is the use of an easement rather than fee ownership for access to the rear parcel.
The applicants needed to provide this easement in order to maintain a lot configuration which
meets the lot depth requirements of the zoning ordinance. Additionally, due to the location of
the garage for Parcel 2, joint usage of the access was necessary, therefore, an easement would
be required regardless of who owned the property on which the access was located.
The second issue is the failure of this subdivision to meet the general plan density requirements.
This area is designated as low density residential with 0.2 - 4.5 dwelling units per acre. The
subdivision, as proposed, will have a density of 6.3 dwelling units per acre. The applicants have
argued that the density should be calculated using an "average" neighborhood density. The
applicants have provided staff with a maximum density calculation for this neighborhood of 3.1
dwelling units per acre. This was based upon a 38 acre neighborhood and 6,000 square foot
minimum lot size allowed by the zoning ordinance. Mr. Spierling commented that in case of
Neighborhood Action Group y,.. County Qf. Calaveras, the court stated, "The general plan is
atop the hierarchy of local government law legislating land use ... Subordinate to the general
plan are zoning laws, which regulate the geographic allocation and allowed uses of land. Zoning
laws must conform to the adopted general plan."
He reviewed that in the past, staff has supplied the Planning Commission with legal opinions and
a variety of other information showing that the general plan density must not be interpreted on
an "average" neighborhood basis. An additional argument can be made based upon one of the
assumptions made by the applicant. The applicant has assumed a minimum lot size of 6,000
square feet. However, using the Optional Design Standards, a 4,000 square foot lot size is
conceivable. This could cause the neighborhood density to go beyond the maximum 4.5 dwelling
units per acre.
With regard to environmental issues, Mr. Spierling advised that the project has been reviewed in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the Planning Department cannot
recommend adoption of a negative declaration on the project because the project does not
appear consistent with the general plan density. If the Planning Commission finds that the
project will not have a significant effect on the environment, and if the Planning Commission
wishes to approve the project, they may wish to adopt a mitigated negative declaration
He further advised that an archaeological survey of the property was conducted and no cultural
or archaeological materials were noted on the site. However, condition #3 was suggested as a
mitigation measure in the archaeological report.
Mr. Spierling stated that the Staff Advisory Coirmittee, after review of the project, recommends
denial based upon the project not being consistent with the general plan.
Upon being assured by the Planning Commission Secretary that public hearing for Parcel Map
Case No. 88 -471 had been duly published and property owners notified, Chairman Gerrish
declared the hearing open.
Jeffrey White, 182 So. Alpine Street, applicant, spoke in favor of the proposed lot split. He
stated he purchased the house in 1985 and wants to build a larger home behind the existing
Arroyo Grande Planning Cormnission, 3 -7 -89 Ent 2.
house to support his growing family. He pointed out that there are a number of flag• type lots
in the area, and commented that the proposed lot split conforms with the zoning and the
existing character of the neighborhood. He further pointed out that the area is an island and
is a fixed area.
Alan Sweeny, 209 So. Rena Street, stated his property is directly behind the subject property
and he is not happy about splitting lots in the area. Alsi), if a two story home is built, it will
infringe on his privacy. Rob Fukahara, 217 So. Rena, stated he lives behind this lot and shares
the same concerns as Mr. Sweeny that if a two story house is built, they will be looking right
down in his backyard and take away his privacy.
Hearing no further comments for or against the proposed lot split, Chairman Gerrish declared
the hearing closed.
Chairman Gerrish stated he is concerned about this application being an easement as opposed to
a flag lot, and with 61 feet, we are going to end up with a lot with essentially 40 foot
frontage. Commissioner Flores stated he is concerned with what will happen in the future if
this lot split is approved because there is the potential for future subdivisions to come in. He
also agrees with the interpretation that the general plan is the dominant control and the
applicant's calculation does not meet the standards of the general plan in terns of density.
Conrnissioner Scott stated he agrees with the staff report, and he is also concerned about the
lot with an easen Ccrrrnissioner Moore pointed out that there is a potential for other lot
development just like this one, and he is concerned about additional traffic impacting the
neighborhood. Carmissioner Gallagher stated he has the same concerns about the impacts in the
neighborhood, and also the prcposed 16 foot driveway and the limited access for emergency
vehicles.
After further discussion, on motion by Commissioner Flores, seconded by Commissioner Moore,
and unanimously carried, Parcel Map Case No. 88 -471 was denied on the basis of the findings
that the site is not physically suitable for the proposed type of development, and is not
consistent with the general plan.
Planning Director Liberto - Blanck advised that the Commission's denial can be appealed to the
City Council within 10 days.
EJp TENTATIVE IEACT Mb.P NQ 1669, 350_ AND 358 QQEBETT QANYQN
EQAQ EEQ'EERTIES).
Current Planner Spierling reviewed that the area of this tentative tract map was subdivided into
two parcels by Parcel Map No. AG 75 -16 in 1975. The current proposal is to resubdivide these
two parcels, totaling 5.2 acres, into five lots ranging in size from 40,000 sq. ft. to 61,855 sq.
feet. He noted that the two existing parcels are two older single family residences along with
a number of out buildings. Each of the residences has a separate drive to Corbett Canyon
Road. The applicants are proposing a five lot subdivision. That will allow the existing
residences to remain, but will require demolition of some of the out buildings.
He stated that the access for this subdivision is through a single 24 foot private drive located
within a 30 foot access and utility easement. A hammerhead style turn-around will be provided
near the center of the subdivision at the point where lots 1, 2 and 3 intersect.
Commissioner Gerrish pointed out that there was an additional rnenio and letter regarding this
project handed out to the Conirassion tonight.
Mr. Spierling referred to a letter from Michael and Joyce Miller protesting this subdivision based
on several concerns regarding traffic, particularly sight distance problens that exist near
Gularte Road; drainage and runoff, and the way the project will be .sew red. With regard to
the sewer, Mr. Spierling advised that the project would be required to hook up to City sewer.
He advised that the applicants are proposing moving the lot over slightly ito alleviate the sight
distance concerns. Also, since the staff report was written, staff_. reviewed and revised
conditions of approval #4, 5 and 6 as noted in the merry dated March '7, 1989 from Dwayne
Chisam, Special Projects Engineer. He stated that the Planning Department and Public Works
Department are happy with these revised conditions. The major change is that in condition #4,
if the plan line were to be rejected by the City Council, the applicants would have to come
back to the Con nussion with a revised tentative map. With the revised condition #4, the
applicants will have a project regardless of whether the plan line is approved or not.
With regard to grading, the applicants' engineer has stated that there will b? no significant of f-
site grading should the plan line not be approved by the City Council. If there is significant
grading, the applicant will have to come back to the Planning Commission. The new condition
states that either option should not create additional off -site grading other,than what is on the
Arroyo Grande Planning Qzmission, 3 -7 -89 Page 3
tentative neap. If this proposed plan line is not accepted9by the City Council, the 2 foot width
will continue across the entire width of the property.' He commented that the applicant will be
required to construct improvements from property line to property line.
When this project was originally submitted, the applicants were informed that there was a sight
distance problem along Corbett Canyon Road in this area. The applicants were asked to
prepare a plan line and sight distance study for Corbett Canyon Road. This study was a
mitigation measure, per CEQA, to offset the impacts of construction of the private drive and
creation of the five lots. The applicants complied with the request and performed the study.
The offer of dedication on this map reflects the proposed plan line.
Mr. Spierling referred to the third revised condition ( #6) stating it is basically allowing a little
bit more leeway to excercise good engineering design practice in taking care of the drainage.
The Public Works Department will be working with the applicant to rnake sure that the drainage
is taken care of.
Mr. Spierling pointed out another concern that the Public Works Department has stated is that,
based on the existing water supply and useage, a' population of 16,400 can be supported. The
Existing Setting report states that the City's present water entitlements are not adequate to
support buildout of the existing general plan. He stated that this site currently uses 474
gallons of water per day. Based on a Citywide average daily per capita water consumption of
190 gallons, this project will • use 2,470 gallons of water per day, thus increasing water
consumption for this site by 1,996 gallons of water per day. The Public Works Departnx.nt has
stated that water consumption has increased over the last several years due to landscaping of
large lots, such as are being proposed.
He convnented that the Planning Conmission should take this Lss e into consideration when
reviewing future lot splits and zone changes. The City currently has no policy related to this
item because it is becoming an issue as the general plan program progresses.
Mr. Spierling stated that staff has found that, although the proposed project could have a
significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because
mitigation measures have been included in the conditions for approval of this project, and a
negative declaration has been prepared for adoption by the Planning Commission.
He stated that an archaeological survey of the property was conducted and no cultural or
archaeological materials were noted on the site. However, as a mitigation measure, Condition of
Approval No. 3 was included per the archaeological reports.
It is the recommendation of the Staff Advisory Committee that the Planning Commission adopt a
negative declaration and the attached resolution approving the proposed subdivision with the
findings, and subject to the listed conditions.
Upon being assured by the Planning Commission Secretary that public hearing for Tentative
Tract Map No. 1669, had been duly published and property owners notified, Chairman Gerrish
declared the hearing open.
Dan Lloyd, Engineering Development Associates, representing the applicants, spoke in favor of
the tentative tract map. He addressed the issues of the plan line, sight distance realignment
and drainage, and they have a plan for addressing the run -off. He urged that the Commission
approve the subdivision with the revised conditions and the negative declaration. With regard
to water consumption, Mr. Lloyd advised that the applicant is going to build on the upper lot
and he does not want a lot of landscaping.
Don DeChanee, 591 Gularte, stated his concerns regarding the access, the traffic situation, and
the drainage. Dixie DeChance, 591 Gularte, stated her concerns with run -off and traffic being
a major concern. She commented she is not really against the project and if it is done properly
and and all of the concerns taken care of, it will be an asset to the City. Jim Dorsey, 579
Gularte Road, stated he has the same concerns as Mr. and Mrs. DeChance. He referred to the
drainage problem, stating that some of the drainage systems do not work.
Dan Lloyd spoke regarding the traffic problem, stating they do acknowledge that there is a
problem However, in his opinion, the applicants are somewhat limited in their resposibility and
scope. With respect to the drainage, he stated that they are very concerned about these
issues also. They do not want to adversely impact the neighbors, and will try to make
everything work appropriately. In answer to Commissioner Gallagher's question regarding
containment of the runoff, Mr. Lloyd advised that the channel would be oversized to anticipate
a very serious storm, and also the overflow would be contained.
Ron Abeloe stated he is one of the partners in the development. With regard to the drainage
concern, he stated they have a storm drain design that will take care of the drainage and the
runoff.
S
z 6
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 3 -7 -89
Hearing no further camwnts from the audience for or against the proposed `tentative tract map,
Chairman Gerrish declared the hearing closed.
Camussioner Moore commented about the increased usage of water. He stated that he has
known for sane time that we were running out of water in Arroyo Grande and he has been
urging the city to do something about it. He stated the water problem is real serious, and
there should be a plan to guide people as to what they should plant on,,their property. With
regard to soil, Commissioner Moore stated that there are problems with 30% slopes and you have
to study what kind of soil you have. He noted that he has not yet seen a soils report.
Chairman Gerrish stated he has a problem because of the water issue and he is beginning to
struggle with approving additional lots in the city when we have been told that we don't have
enough water for the lots we have now. Planning Director Liberto- Blanek stated that the city
does not have a policy establishing that we are not going to allow any more subdivi until
the water issue is resolved. She pointed out that the Existing Setting report indicates that we
do not have enough water to accommodate our general plan. The only apparent alternatives are
to decrease densities or find additional water. We could conserve but it probably would be
insignificant.
After further discussion, the following action was taken:
RESOLUTION NO. 89-1229
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE A1-PROVING TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP NO. 1669 FOR A FIVE LOT RESIDENTIAL
SUBDIVISION AT 350 AND 358 CORBETT CANYON ROAD,
APPLIED FOR BY NEWPORT PROPERTi1~S.
On motion by Commissioner Scott, seconded oy Ccnirrissioner Flores, and by the following roll
call vote, to wit:
AYFS: Can nissioners Gallagher, Scott and Flores
NOES: Commissioner Moore and Ckiairman Gerrish
ABSENT: Commissioners McCann and Soto
the foregoing resolution was adopted this 7th day of March 1989.
PLANNING DIRBCTOR'S REPORT/DLSCUSSION
Exdstirg Settir g Report - Planning Director Liberto- Blanck stated this is the first step of the
general plan process. We tnt to get comments from the Planning Ca i mission, City Council and
public. We have tentatively scheduled two dates for the town meetings around the end of
April. With regard to the workshop, staff would like to blow if the Commission would like to
have the workshop before or after the town greetings. Chairman Cerrish suggested having the
workshop after the town meetings. Ms. Liberto- Blanek stated this will be a general workshop
with the consultant, and we are probably looking at sometime the beginning of May; possibly May
2nd.
Ms. Liberto - Blanck referred to the "Community Issues" Report which was distributed to the
Commission. She advised it is a draft and not a scientific survey.
Cancellation of April 4th Meeting. Planning Director noted that most of the Conutissioners will
be attending the Planning Commissioners Institute in April. She recommended that the April 4th
meeting be cancelled. The Planning Commission concurred with this decision.
Planning (won Attendance. Chairman Gerrish requested Commissioners to call and inform
the Planning Department when they are going to be absent from a Ccrrrnission meeting.
Paridrg Ordinance. Planning Director Liberto- Blanck advised that last Tuesday night the City
Council expressed concern about the parking ordinance. The consultant is updating the parking
ordinance, and hopefully it will be more comprehensive.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by Chairman
Gerrish at 9:30 P.M.
Page 4
Pearl L. Phinney, Secretary