PC Minutes 1977-07-19376
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission
July 19, 1977
The Arroyo.Grande Planning
Gerrish presiding. Present are
Commissioner Hitchen is absent.
Planner Sullivan.
Commission met in regular session with Vice Chairman
Commissioners Cole, Harris, Moots, Ries and Vandeveer.
Also in attendance are City Administrator Butch and
MINUTE APPROVAL
Upon hearing no additions or corrections, the minutes of the regular meeting
of June 21, 1977 were approved by the Vice Chairman as prepared.
WELCOME TO NEW PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
Vice Chairman Gerrish welcomed newly appointed Commissioners Ron Harris and
Lawrence Vandeveer to the Planning Commission.
APPOINTMENT OF NEW PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY
On motion by Commissioner Cole, seconded by Commissioner Ries, and unanimously
carried, Mrs. Pearl Phinney was appointed as Secretary of the Planning Commission.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Vice Chairman Gerrish opened nominations for Chairman of the Planning Com-
mission. Commissioner Cole nominated Commissioner Gerrish as,Chairman. Commissioner
Moots seconded the nomination. On motion by Commissioner Moots, seconded by Com-
missioner Ries, and unanimously carried, the nominations were closed, and Commissioner
Gerrish was elected as Chairman for 1977 -78.
Chairman Gerrish opened the nominations for Vice Chairman.. Commissioner Ries
nominated Commissioner Moots as Vice Chairman- Commissioner Moots declined the
nomination. On motion by Commissioner'Ries, seconded by Commissioner Moots, and
unanimously carried, Commissioner Cole was elected as Vice Chairman for 1977 -78.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONTINUATION OF REZONING CASE NO. 77 - 104. FROM "R - 7" STTj(;T.F, FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL TO "P -C" PROFESSIONAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, 303 SO. HALCYON ROAD (FILER/
GRIEB) .
Chairman Gerrish opened the public hearing, stating that the rezoning case is
being continued from the meeting of June 21st, 1977. Planner Sullivan recapped the
matter, stating the request is to rezone approximately four acres currently zoned
"R -1" to "P -C" District, and that,- apparently there is going to be a petition for
condominium use on one of the parcels, and there is no indication of the use pro-
posed for the other parcel. He pointed out_that at the last meeting, there were
two questions raised that he did not have the answers to; (1) could the " -D" Over-
ride be used'to limit the property to residential use. Mr. Sullivan- indicated the
answer to this question is "yes ", and listed the recommended conditions as stated
his letter of July 14, 1977; (2) Will Alpine or Woodland Drive ever go through
to meet at Fair Oaks Avenue, and the answer to this is also "Yes ". He stated that
there are approved plans on file that show So. Alpine Street continuing through to
Fair Oaks Avenue; this was a condition of approval of the Architectural Committee's
Action on Case #74 -88, Arroyo Grande Medical Suites,- American Medical International.
This. project has not yet been realized, and may not be, however, the staff will con-
tinue to recommend that with any development of the land between.So. Alpine and Fair
Oaks Avenue, the:: extension,_.. of 'will be'.required:- -:Mr. Sullivan further
pointed out that.if the zoning is allowed, the Commission would have 90 days in
which to consider a General Plan map amendment because the uses. are different.
COMMISSIONER RIES REQUESTED TO BE EXCUSED FROM THE DISCUSSION BECAUSE OF A POSSIBLE
CONFLICT OF INTEREST, AND IS NOW ABSENT.
Chairman Gerrish requested comments from the audience of those persons in
favor of the rezoning request. .Mr._ Rob Filer, '322.Noguera Place.,. advised the
purpose of this request is for the construction of 32 condominium units. He
pointed out that the property adjoining this particular piece directly to the
south is currently zoned "P -C ", and the property adjoining this property directly
to the west is zoned "P -C ", and half of the property adjoining this to the north
is currently zoned "R -3" and "R -2 ". He advised that prior to the last meeting,
it was anticipated there would be protests from the surrounding neighbors in
regard to traffic problem that this project could create, and they propose
to allow only 18.units of the 32 units to enter on Alpine Street, with the
balance of the units exiting on Halcyon. Road. He stated they are_not asking for
any additional units to exit on Alpine Street than is permitted under the current
zonin
g . -
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 7 -19 -77 Page 2
Chairman Gerrish called for comments from the audience of those persons in
opposition to the proposed zone change request.
Victoria Robertson, 728 - 13th Street, Paso Robles, stated she was representing
the Central Coast Indian Council, and the property to be rezoned is the remainder of
a village site which belongs to the Chumash Tribe. She stated there are a lot of
Chumash people still alive and still very much involved, and before any rezoning or
Negative Declaration comes before the Planning Commission, an Environmental Impact
Report should be done by a qualified Archaeologist,with an Indian person as an ad-
visor.
John Kling, Central Coast Indian Council, Paso Robles, stated it was his under-
standing that the houses built across the road also had a Negative Impact Declaration
filed, and stated there were people who live there that have found Indian burials in
their own yards, after the Negative Impact Declaration was approved by the Planning
Commission.-
Mike Johnson, 223 So.- Alpine St., stated he presented a petition at the last
meeting against this proposal. Mr.- Johnson referred to the zoning map stating that
all along Halcyon Road where the "P -C" zoning exists now, fronts on Halcyon Road,
and on either side you can't see where "P -C" zoning goes through on the next resi-
dential street, other than So. Rena which happens to be "R -3 ". The fact'that two
adjacent sides are "P -C" is true, however, the two adjacent sides happen to be
"R -1 ", so the logic doesn't make much sense there; they both weigh each other out.
He pointed out that with the " -D" Override that was suggested restricting the "P -C"
zoning to residential only, and with the suggestions that were made, this could also
be the same thing as "R -G" zoning and, if this were rezoned to "P -C ", in reality it
would actually be "R -G ", which in essence is spot zoning. Mr. Johnson stated that
the people in this area bought single family residences and, in his opinion,
have every right to expect that the area remain single family residences. He further
stated that the people against the zone change are not necessarily against develop
ment. Mr. Thompson proposed a compromise, in that they would like to keep the area
fronting on Alpine as single family residences. The developer could go back 100 to
150 feet making that single family residences, and from that point, rezone toy "P -C"
and use for condominiums. "R -1" is in conformance with your zoning map which'shows
"R -1" bordering from Grand Avenue all the way on So. Alpine, with "P -C" still 'front-
ing on Halcyon Road. With regard to the traffic, Mr. Johnson stated he believed
the " -D" Override would take care of the traffic by allowing 18 homes in there.
Mrs. Judy Winegard, 251 So.. Alpine, stated she lives directly across the
street from the area, and that she is opposed to the rezoning. She stated there
is no guarantee of what will be built across the street if it is rezoned "P-C"'
She further stated that she has found an Indian burial and artifacts in her yard,
and she felt it was a shame on Arroyo Grande's part to think that this'sort of
thing has been covered up, and it is quite obvious this is a burial site and,
in her opinion, the Planning Commission should consider the fact that an Environ-
mental Impact Report must be filed.
Mr. Paul McKenzie, 220 So. Alpine, stated he agreed with Mr. Johnson, in that
if it is going to be changed at all, they would like to keep the So. Alpine front-
age as "R -1 ". He further stated that when planting a garden in his yard, he found
bones also. Ms. Arlene Rowan, 226 So. Alpine, stated that the developer mentioned
they were planning on 18 condominiums, and at the last meeting she recalled they
were talking about 16 units.
Mr. Bob Gibson, Archaeologist, a Teacher at Cuesta College, P. O. Box 102,
Paso Robles, stated he was at the-site today and there is a large Indian Chumash
Village there anywhere :fxom 2500 years ago to the present modern times-and, if he
were asked to do an EIA'}_ =:ice would recommend that it not be touched.
Mr. Conrad Grieb, 30'3 Halcyon Road, inquired when these people mentioned
"bones" if they had anyone to verify whether they were animal bones, because
they had buried dozens of cows and livestock. He further stated they admit
there are graves in the area, and that the University came in there several years
ago and did some excavating. From the point where they excavated near the middle
of the barn to the west, they have never found any burials whatsoever, and that
he has lived there all of his life. Mr. Grieb pointed out that from the east
side of the barn they have found many; but from that point west they have never
found g bone or any kind of artifact to his knowledge.
377
378
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 7 -19 -77 Page 3
Mr. Bob Rowan, 226 So. Alpine, stated he agreed with his neighbors in
opposition to this rezoning. Rea Buss, 625 Cerro Vista Circle, requested that .
the Commission consider the idea of keeping the residential area on. Alpine Street.
Mr. John Kling, Central Coast Indian Council, stated the Commission knows
how they feel about an Environmental Impact Report, and it doesn't make any
difference what happens on that property on Alpine Street, the law has been
stretched to the point of no return. He further stated that someone approved
a Negative Impact Declaration that came before the Commission and it is their
responsibility to clean their own house.
Ms. Marsha Fowler, 271 So. Alpine Street, stated that she is very much in
favor of this change, and that if the Indians are so concerned, where were they
before tonight?
jack Mallory, 230 So. Alpine St., stated it was his opinion that the
zoning change would make a fine addition to the community.
Mr. Rob Filer stated the main problem was traffic, and that,has_been re-
solved and,,with regard to the Indian•burial ground, there could be Indian burial
grounds across every square foot of Arroyo Grande. He further stated the point
of the "P- -C" zoning is that the development is still residential; it is a 32.
unit residential complex with 18 units exiting on So. Alpine, and the " -D" Over-
ride will restrict that.
No further discussion, for or against the proposed zone change, Chairman
Gerrish. declared the hearing closed.
In answer to Commissioner Harris' question as to what the General Plan is
for the area, Planner Sullivan stated it is low density and would require con -
sideration for a General Plan Land Use Map amendment within 90 days..
Commissioner Moots stated he sat on this Commission when the.houses were
built'on Cerro Vista, and if the condition existed at that time, the Commission
was not apprised of it. He inquired as to what Mr. Filer's feelings would be
on splitting the "R -1" and "P -C" division. Mr. Filer stated this would destroy
the design concept,- and he felt the Commission is going to be faced with the .
same problem if they allow "R -1" in there right now.
In answer to Commissioner Cole's question, Planner Sullivan stated that,.
in his opinion, the only way to get a clear answer on the extent of the Indian
burial ground or the community that may have been the ;re at one time is through
environmental procedures. Changing the zoning would have no effect on the
burial ground itself because that is not putting anything on the - land.. What
would have an effect would be the condominiums o"r ar "R -1" subdivision. He
further advised that the Commission seems to have two options as follows:
(1) Grant a Negative Declaration flagging that there are potential impacts in
areas of archaeological findings or, (2) order a Focus Environmental Impact
Report now to get a clear answer and continue the public hearing for the re-
quested zone change until that time-
After further discussion, the following action was taken:
RESOLUTION NO, 77 -529 Z
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE DENYING AN AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL
CODE OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE,. AS PROVIDED BY
CHAPTER 4, ARTICLE 32, OF SAID CODE:'
On motion by Commissioner Harris, seconded by Commissioner Moots, and on
the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Harris, Moots and Vandeveer
NOES: Commissioners Cole and Gerrish
ABSENT: Commissioners Hitchen and Ries
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 19th day of July, 1977.
COMMISSIONER RIES'IS NOW PRESENT.
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 7 -19 -77 Page 4
PUBLIC HEARING - USE PERMIT CASE NO. 77 -263, PRIVATE RACQUETBALL CLUB IN AN "H -S"
HIGHWAY SERVICE DISTRICT, CORNWALL AND OAK STREET (DE PUE).
Planner Sullivan pointed out the area on the map and advised it is in an "H -S"
District and that private athletic clubs are permissive uses in the district, subject
to Use Permit procedures.
Upon being assured by Planner Sullivan that public hearing for Use Permit Case
No. 77 -263 had been duly published, posted and property owners notified, Chairman
Gerrish declared the hearing open.
Jim De Pue, Oak Park Road, petitioner for the Use Permit, spoke in favor of
the Use Permit being granted, and advised it will be a two court facility and will
be opened to approximately 35 members per court. He pointed out that the courts
are totally enclosed and there is no exterior playing at all, and no noise will be
heard in the vicinity.
Mr. John Cowhite, 1131 Palm Court, stated he was representing Mr. and Mrs.
Fink, who live directly across the street from the subject property, and they are
very much in favor of this development. Mr. Terry Berryhill, 871 Todd Lane,
stated he was in favor of this development. Mr. Jack Mallory, 306 Noguera Place,
stated he is in favor of the project and, in his opinion, it would be a fine
additon.
Mr. Edward La Boe, 424 Alder St., stated he owns the property in the area
and was concerned about off street parking, and also the noise and the lights
at night in a residential area. Mr. De Pue advised that they are required to
have 9 parking spaces by law, which they have been able to do.. He further pointed
out that at any given time there can be a maximum of four players per court, which
would be a maximum -of 8-people involved in any given situation, and the only noise
that could possibly occur would be the driving to or driving away from the build-
ing site because the walls are made of thick cement blocks. He stated there will
be some lighting available because playing will take place until 10:00 at night.
No further dis'CUssion for or against the proposed Use Permit, Chairman
Gerrish declared the hearing closed and, after discussion among the Commissioners,
the following action was taken:
RESOLUTION NO. 77 -530 U
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ARROYO GRANDE GRANTING A USE PERMIT, CASE NO.
77 -263.
.On motion by Commissioner Moots, seconded by Commissioner Cole, and by
the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Cole, Harris, Moots, Ries, Vandeveer and
Chairman Gerrish
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Hitchen
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 19th day of July, 1977.
PUBLIC HEARING - USE PERMIT.CASE NO. 77 -264, 10 UNIT CONo ®MINIUM IN AN "R -G"
GARDEN APARTMENT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, 1169 MAPLE ST. (CURTIS).,
Planner Sullivan pointed that under the City's ordinance, condominiums
are a permissive use in an "R -G" District subject to obtaining a Use Permit,
and that there is a lot split pending that has received tentative approval.
He advised there is a residence in the front and there is'150 ft.. deep flag
going back to the rear of the lot, and the proposal is for a 10 unit condo-
minium.
After being assured by Planner Sullivan that public hearing for Use Permit
Case No. 77 -264 had been duly published, posted and property owners notified,
Chairman Gerrish declared the hearing open.
Mr. Jim McGillis, Sunset Drive, stated he is the surveyor for the project
and it is in compliance with the General Plan. He stated it is in the middle
of an "R -G" Zone and the property around it is going to be developed the same
way. Commissioner Ries pointed out.various changes to the map as a result of
the Architectural Review Committee action.
379
380
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 7 -19 -77 Page 5
Ms. Marcie Romero, 1194 Maple St., inquired if the condominiums are not sold
if they would be rented. Chairman Gerrish advised that Mr. Curtis can rent them
out just the same as apartment buildings. It is quite possible that they will be
rentals, but they will be individually owned units.
Ms. Ella Honeycutt inquired as to the 40% of open space required. Mr. McGillis
stated there are large green strips at the bottom of each unit and along the back
and there is, in fact, more than 40% of open space.
No further discussion for or against the proposed Use Permit, Chairman Gerrish
declared the hearing closed. After a brief discussion, the following action was
taken:
RESOLUTION NO. 77 -531 U
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE GRANTING A USE PERMIT, CASE NO. 77 -264.
On motion by Commissioner Cole, seconded by Commissioner Moots, and by the
following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Cole, Harris, Moots, Ries, Vandeveer
and Chairman Gerrish
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Hitchen
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 19th day of July, 1977.
PUBLIC HEARING - USE PERMIT CASE NO. 77 -265, OUTDOOR FLOWER SALES STAND IN AN
"H -S" HIGHWAY SERVICE DISTRICT, 1200 GRAND AVENUE (HOLMAN).
Planner Sullivan stated the request is for a Flower Sales Stand to be lo-
cated at the Sunset Furniture store parking lot on Grand Avenue, and there is a
written statement on file from the property owner giving his permission for this
activity. He stated that outdoor sales are a permissive use in an "H -S" District
subject to obtaining a Use Permit.
Upon being assured by Planner Sullivan that public hearing for Use Permit
Case No. 77 -265 had been duly published, posted and property owners notified,
Chairman Gerrish declared the hearing open.
Ms. Dana Holman, 134 Palomar Ave., Shell Beach, petitioner for the Use Permit,
inquired as to the possibility of an awning being put up approximately 4 yards by
6 ft. high in accordance with the property owner's wishes.
Peggy Langworthy, Branch Road, stated she felt that having a flower stand
is an excellent image for the City of Arroyo Grande, and that she is highly in
favor of Ms. Holman's endeavor. Ms.. Joyce Beihler, 1304 Brighton, stated she
was in favor of the Use Permit, and she didn't feel this location would create
a traffic problem.
No further discussion for or against the proposed Use Permit, Chairman
Gerrish declared the hearing closed.
Commissioner Ries stated he noted some of the other cities had problems
on curb side sales with regard to traffic problems._ Ms. Holman stated she has
sold flowers through almost every holiday of the past year, and.there have not
been any problems there.
After a brief discussion, the following action was taken:
RESOLUTION NO. 77 -532
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ARROYO GRANDE GRANTING A USE PERMIT, CASE NO.
77 -265.
On motion by Commissioner Cole, seconded by Commissioner Moots, and by the
following roll call vote, to wit:
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 7 -19 -77 Page 6
AYES: Commissioners Cole, Harris, Moots, Ries, Vandeveer and
Chairman Gerrish
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Hitchen
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 19th day of July 1977.
REVIEW COMMITTEE ACTION - LOT SPLIT CASE NO. 77 -269, 1031 HUASNA RD. (NELSON).
Planner Sullivan advised that the property is a large parcel and the proposal
is to create four lots, and the request is in keeping with Zoning and the Land Use
Plan. Mr. Sullivan read the conditions of approval by the Minor Subdivision
Committee Action dated July 5, 1977. After a brief discussion, the Committee
action was approved.
REVIEW COMMITTEE ACTION - LOT SPLIT CASE. NO. 77 -270. 162 WALNUT STREET (PANELLA)
Planner Sullivan read the conditions of approval by the Minor Subdivision
Committee Action dated July 5, 1977. After a brief discussion, the Committee
action was approved as submitted.
REVIEW COMMITTEE ACTION - ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 77 -143, 420 CORNWALL ST.
-(DE PUE - RACQUETBALL CLUB).
Planner Sullivan advised the Use Permit for the Racquetball Club was granted
earlier this evening, and he read the conditions of approval by the Architectural
Review Committee. After discussion, the Committee action was approved as sub-
mitted.
REVIEW COMMITTEE ACTION - ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 77- 144,CHILTON STREET
AND EL CAMINO REAL (PETERS - PETER PAYDAY CARE CENTER)..
Planner Sullivan advised that - several months ago this Commission granted a
Use Permit for a day care center on this parcel. Mr. Sullivan further advised
that when the building originally came before the Committee it was to be adjacent
to Chilton, however, Mr. Peters has run into problems, in that he want to
cut any more oak trees down, and he has shifted the same building to below and
adjacent to El Camino Real. This does not change any of the architectural features.
Commissioner Ries advised that the only thing that was mentioned at the Committee
review was that the Fire Department stated the entrance from Frontage Road was a
better entrance than from Chilton.
After - discussion, the Committee action was approved as submitted.
SUBDIVISION REVIEW BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 667, "AUTUMN
GARDENS ",1169 MAPLE ST., A CONDOMINIUM (CURTIS).
Mr. McGillis, San Luis Engineering, referred to the requirement for a 10 ft.
Public Utility Easement, and requested an opportunity to work with City staff to
see if the utility companies are willing to accept a 6 ft. easement back there so
they can keep the open space. City Engineer Karp was in the audience and advised he
would rather have the sewer and the water out in the parking area, and if the other
utilities can live with a 6 ft. easement, that is fine with Public Works. Planner
Sullivan commented they can probably go down to a 6 ft. easement, with a 10 ft.
water and sewer easement.
After discussion, the Subdivision Review Board Recommendations were approved
on a motion by Commissioner Moots, seconded by Commissioner Ries, and unanimously
carried. The Commission also approved the request for Mr. Curtis to work with
City staff regarding Public Utility Easements..
REQUEST FOR NEGATIVE- DECLARATION - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 667, "AUTUMN GARDENS ",
1169 MAPLE STREET, A CONDOMINIUM (CURTIS).
After a brief discussion by the Commission regarding Negative Statement for
Tentative Tract No. 667, the following action was taken:
RESOLUTION NO. 77 -533 EIR
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE ACCEPTING NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
DECLARATION.
On motion by Commissioner Cole, seconded. by Commissioner Ries, and by the
following roll call vote, to wit:
381
382
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 7 -19 -77 Page 7
AYES: Commissioners Cole, Harris, Moots, Ries, Vandeveer and
Chairman Gerrish
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Hitchen
the ' foregoing Resolution was adopted this 19th day of July, 1977.
SUBDIVISION REVIEW BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 602, "WALNUT
CREEK TERRACE #3" WOODLAND DRIVE (FOSTER & OSBORN).
Planner Sullivan-pointed out that this is the third unit of a previously
approved master plan, and because of a change in State law, a new tentative map
was required to gain Subdivision Review Board approval again. Planner Sullivan
reviewed the requirements as set out in the Subdivision Review Board recommendations
of July 13, 1977.
After discussion, the Chairman approved the action as submitted.
REQUEST FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION - LOT SPLIT CASE NO. 77 -269, 1031 HUASNA ROAD
IN AN "RA -B3" RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT (NELSON).
After a brief discussion regarding Negative Statement for Lot Split Case No.
77 -269, the following action was taken:
RESOLUTION NO. 77 -534 EIR
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE ACCEPTING NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
DECLARATION.
On motion by Commissioner Cole, seconded by Commissioner Vandeveer, and by
the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Cole, Harris, Moots, Ries, Vandeveer and
Chairman Gerrish
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Hitchen
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 19th day of July, 1977.
REQUEST FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION - LOT SPLIT CASE NO. 77 -270, 162 WALNUT ST., IN
AN "R -1" SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (PANELLA).
After a brief discussion regarding Negative Statement for Lot Split Case No.
77 -270, the following action was taken:
RESOLUTION N®. 77 -535 EIR
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE ACCEPTING NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
DECLARATION.
On motion by Commissioner Cole, seconded by Commissioner Moots, and by the
following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Cole, Harris, Moots, Ries, Vandeveer and
Chairman Gerrish
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Hitchen
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 19th day of July, 1977.
USE OF DENIAL STRIP AND BARRICADES ON LOCAL STREETS; GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY.
CHAIRMAN GERRISH EXCUSED HIMSELF DUE TO A POSSIBLE CONFLICT. OF INTEREST AND IS
NOW ABSENT. VICE CHAIRPERSON COLE ASSUMED THE CHAIR.
Planner Sullivan read a communication from the Director of Public Works,
the City Engineer and himself, dated July 15, 1977. He advised that the street
design guidelines are set out in the Subdivision Ordinance.
Vice Chairperson Cole requested comments from the audience.
Margaret Stone. from Haynes & Olpin, 1012 Grand Avenue, addressing Mr.
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 7 -19 -77 Page 8
Sullivan's last point in his position paper, stated that the City Council dis-
cussed in their last meeting what sets this street apart from other local streets;
first, that it is a long established residential community and, second, that it is
being faced with a concentration of apartment development, and we understand that
there is in the works, a shopping center development as well. In view of that kind
of traffic, and the fact that this has been a street with a natural barricade for a
considerable length of time, this was the reason that this street be considered for
a denial strip or a barricade, and it was inserted into the Negative Declaration by
the City Council at its last meeting, so that isn't really an issue. What is
possibly an issue is whether or not the Planning Commission finds that the denial
strip is consistent with the Circulation Element.
Al Gorsline, 1300 Brighton Avenue, stated he has lived there for three years
and he has noticed that there has been a great increase in traffic since Brighton
has been opened up through to Elm Street. He stated there is another problem in
that on those two blocks there are no sidewalks and there are at least 10 children
in there, and if that street is openedlup for the traffic to go right straight '
through, you are going to have those children coming down from all of those apart-
ments and you are going to have a real traffic hazard. He further stated the road
has been closed and, in his opinion, it should stay that way because by dumping
all that traffic down there, there are going to be serious traffic problems.
Billie Silva, 309 Ledo Place, stated that when that barricade was put there
several - years ago, they were assured that at the time the property was developed,
the street would go through. Now, it is beginning to be developed and that street
should be put through, and also Courtland, and she would like to know what is
going to happen to all of the traffic if the barricade is left there when this
other section across the street is developed.
Planner Sullivan stated that the area on Brighton that is currently being
considered for development is a 16 unit apartment complex on half of the Baden
property; there is preliminary discussion of an "R -1" Subdivision on the Prather
property.
Janet Strain, 366 Ledo Place, stated there is virtually no access to Ledo
Place right now, and that to get to Ledo Place down to, say the shopping center,
they have to go down Ledo Place, over Brighton, go up Courtland, go across
Newport and down Oak Park; it makes absolutely no sense and they are trapped in
there. She stated Brighton should be opened up and /or Courtland Street paved
all the way down and with all of those apartments going in, it wouldn't even be
sufficient just to have Courtland paved.
Joyce Beihler, 1304 Brighton, stated she believed that Mr. Baden offered
the City the street area for improvement to keep it open before he asked for
the barricade, and the City refused. Now the barricade has been up there ap-
proximately 5 years and there seems to have been no problem with the Fire Depart-
ment and people coming and going on the other side of the barricade at that time.
With regard to Ms. Beihler's question as to the improvement of Courtland, Planner
Sullivan reviewed that each unit in three separate developments is being assessed
$100.00 and possibly there would be enough to pay for maybe one half of the
improvement on Courtland.
Elizabeth Jackson, 208 Fair View Drive, advised that the City did state
that due to the assessment that they were going to go ahead and pave that them-
selves and then collect the money, and it would be paved immediately.
Ms. Silva stated she thought it would be wonderful if they do pave Courtland,
but that it is going to be inadequate because of those apartments and the other
developments going in there. She further stated she didn't know why the people
on Fair View should be exempt from having the cars pass by their doors: -
Mr. George Silva, 309 Ledo Place, stated he could not see why the barricades
went up, and that we need Brighton opened up on both sides between Oak Park and
Elm Street because that is part of the street, and every road on that hillside
is opened except Brighton.
Ms. Cora Higdon, 183 Fair View, stated she has lived on Fair View for 20
years and she is against opening up that street because it is a residential district
and she doesn't want all that traffic from the apartments.
383
384
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 7 -19 -77 Page 9
Planner Sullivan stated he wanted to clear up the matter of why the property
owners on Fair View were not notified of the zone change that took place over by
Ledo, and on that end of Brighton and down to Grand Avenue. In 1960 that was all
zoned "R -1" and it was requested to be rezoned; and it was rezoned. In 1962 Fair
View was annexed into the City in an election held in April or May, so the area
was not even in the City when the zone change took place. Mr. Sullivan further
stated that any commercial development would not have access on Brighton Avenue;
it would have access on to Grand Avenue and Courtland Street.
Commissioner Moots stated he was a little bit confused, in that on one side
of town we are trying to get Alpine Street and Woodland Drive opened up for cir-
culation, and on the other side of town we are trying to keep Brighton closed so
we won't have circulation. The City Commissions and every member of the staff was
opposed to keeping Brighton Avenue closed, from the Fire Chief, Police Chief, Public
Works Director Anderson, and City Engineer Karp, and to do this we have to change
the General Plan to say that this Brighton Street is not necessary to the Circu-
lation Element and, his opinion, Brighton should be a completed street, and
Courtland should be improved. Commissioner Vandeveer stated he was in agreement
with Commissioner Moots, and if it is in the General Plan as a through street from
Elm to Courtland, then it should remain there and should be improved instead of
deterred.
Planner Sullivan pointed out that the General Plan Circulation Element does
not necessarily address individual local streets. It does address it to the ex-
tent of the number one objective of the Circulation Element'is to provide safe,
easy access to and from areas of residential use, employment, business and
recreation ", and also in the wording that is used under a section called "Local
Streets ". In your feelings and your desires for the community, you are here to
make a determination that the denial strip and barricade is either consistent
with the General Plan, or it is not consistent, and follow through with the other
findings on which the staff needs direction.
After discussion, the following action was taken:
RESOLUTION NO. 77 -536
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ARROYO GRANDE DETERMINING THAT DENIAL STRIPS OR
BARRICADES ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN.
..On motion by Commissioner Moots, seconded by Commissioner Vandeveer, and
by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Cole, Harris, Moots, Ries and Vandeveer
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Hitchen and Chairman Gerrish
the foregoing resolution was adopted this 19th day of July 1977.
Commissioner Moots stated he wanted it understood that it is the intent of
his motion that Brighton be opened up, and stated he doesn't really feel -the
use of denial strips and barricades are unnecessary in some instances, but they
are not necessary on this Brighton instance.
After further discussion, it was concurred that there had been a misunder-
standing on the passing of: Resolution No. 77 -536, in that the Commission felt
they were voting on the use of denial strips and barricades with regard to
Brighton Avenue. On motion by Commissioner Moots, seconded by Commissioner
Harris, and unanimously carried, that Resolution No. 77 -536 be rescinded.
For clarification purposes, Planner Sullivan again read the memo from
Public Works Director Anderson, City Engineer Karp and himself, dated July 15,
1977 regarding "Denial Strips and /or Barricades Blocking Local Streets ".
Vice Chairperson Cole stated that the matter before the Commission now is
to either agree or disagree with the statement that in certain conditions,
denial strips and /or barricade blocking on certain streets could be consistent
with the General Plan.
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission; 7 -19 -77
.Page 10
In answer to Commissioner Harris' question as to why the City Council found
Brighton to be a unique' area that they should' have a barricade in that area,
Administrator Butch explained that it was an effort by both the developers and
the residents in that area that they had come to some mutual agreement. Both
parties involved agreed to the height limitation problem and then they came for -
ward to the City Council, and they both agreed that if the denial strip was per -
mitted, the developers Would be happy to live with it and most of the residents
on the street would be happy with the situation and they would withdraw their
appeal. So,. the City Council felt that thiswould be a resolution to the problem.
Then there was concern that this might be in:confiict with the Circulation Element
of the General Plan and, therefore, it was'referred ,to the P lanning . C4? �mmission.
Commissioner Moots pointed out that also on file is Development Plan No. 1
which shows Brighton as a through street from Elm Street to Courtland and, in his
opinion, barricades on local streets is not consistent with the. General Plan.
Commissioner Harris stated he felt that denial strips and barricades are
consistent because circulation is a secondary function of local streets and they
should be designed to discourage ..through ` traffic.
Commissioner Harris moved that denial strips and barricades be considered
consistent with-the General Plan.'. Motion lost for lack of a second.
Mr. Severn, San Luis Obispo, stated that at the meeting held with'Mrs. Stone
and Mrs. Jackson, it was his, interpretation that at some future date this could .
be opened ..,up, and that is-why,;they were building'. it up to where.: it could be a
through street or it could b'e 'changed ' o v erto'a through:' street.
Planner Sullivan again referred to the memo dated July 15th and stated that
in Step 1 of the recommendations , what staff was wanting to know is if the City
Council action in requiring denial" strip on Brighton and the barricade is con
sistent with the General Plan, or not consistent.
The following action was taken:
RESOLUTION; OF
ARROYO GRANDE
AVENUE,:IS NOT
PLAN.. '
RESOLUTION NO. 77 -537
1
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY" OF
DETERMINING THAT DENIAL STRIP ON BRIGHTON
CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE GENERAL
On motion by Cominissi�ner Moots, seconded by Commissioner Ries, and by the
following roll call vote,- to wit:
Conmu.ssioners Moots and Ries
Commissioners Harris, Vandeveer and Vice - Chairperson Cole
Commissioner and- Chairman-Gerrish
the foregoing Resolution was defeated, this 19th day, of July 1977:
City Engineer Karp stated that he is;going to have to sign this map, and
even though ,the Commission has voted . that it was not inconsistent, he would like
them to say that it is consistent. Vice Chairperson Cole stated when the Commission
discussed that the Brighton Street denial could be consistent' with the General Plan,
that doesn't mean that they are approving-or-disapproving of- of -that denial strip. She
further stated that she wants it understood that by saying the denial strip on
Brighton is consistent, she is not,voting for the approval of it because that is
another issue.'
After discussion, the following action was taken:
RESOLUTION NO. 77 -538
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF. THE CITY
0 ARROYO .GRANDE DETERMINING THAT THE ACTION TAKEN
BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON JULY 12TH IN .REGARDS TO THE
DENitI, ' STRIP ON BRIGHTON IS' CONSISTENT WITH THE
INTENT OF THE GEN PLAN,
4
385
386
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 7 -19 -77 •page 11
On motion by Commissioner Moots, seconded by Commissioner Vandeveer, and by
the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners. Harris, Vandeveer and Vice Chairperson Cole
NOES: Commissioners Moots and Ries
ABSENT: Commissioner Hitchen and Chairman Gerrish
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 19th day of July 1977.
Planner Sullivan stated that the Planning Commission has agreed to the
action that the use o that denial strip and barricade on Brighton is consistent
to the General Plan; now, is it consistent on all local streets?
The Commission felt it would be redundant to take further action with regard
to the use of denial strips and barricades on all local streets, in that if the
City Council action was legal on Brighton, it would be legal anywhere, within the
general guidelines of the General Plan.
LOT SPLIT CASE NO. 77 -267, 1385 BRIGHTON AVE. (BADEN).
Vice Chairperson Cole advised the request is for a Negative Declaration
amendment; addition of mitigating measures to resolution accepting the Negative
Environmental Declaration.
After considerable discussion, Vice Chairperson Cole advised it is the
Commission Members wishes that this matter be continued over to the next meeting,
with the staff supplying all of the necessary information needed for a decision.
CHAIRMAN GERRISH IS NOW PRESENT AND HAS ASSUMED THE CHAIR.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Doris Olson, Santa Maria Times, stated that she understood that Mr. Vandeveer's
Conflict of Interest Statement was not filed with the City Clerk until July 13th,
so technically he could not sit on this Commission until the 2nd of August. Planner
Sullivan_advised that Mr. Vandeveer had filled the form out on the 5th of July,
followed the directions of the letter on the Conflict of Interest form requesting
him to take the packet to the department with which he is affiliated, which in this
case was the Planning Department. He did that, and it was officially received on
the 5th of July by Mr. Gallop in Mr. Sullivan's presence.
Chairman Gerrish requested Mr. Sullivan to contact the City Attorney with
regards to Mrs. Olson's question.
ADJOURNMENT
On'motion by Commissioner Moots, seconded by Commissioner Ries, and unanimously
carried, the meeting was adjourned at 11:40 P.M.
ATTEST:
Secretary
1