PC Minutes 1977-03-15Arroyo Grande Planning Commission
March 15, 1977
The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with
Chairman Pope presiding. Present were Commissioners Cole, Gerrish, Hitchen,
Mathews, and Ries; Commissioner Moots was absent. Also present was Planning
Director Gallop.
MINUTE APPROVAL
After hearing no additions or corrections, Chairman Pope approved the .
minutes of the regular meeting of March 1, 1977, as prepared. •
REFERRAL FROM CITY COUNCIL RE: LETTER OF REQUEST FROM THE COUNTY PLANNING DIRECTOR
REGARDING INITIATING APPROPRIATE PROCEDURES
Director Gallop stated that the County had asked the City Council's
cooperation.in coordinating the South County Regional Center, which was planned
to be built on the front 40 acres of the Lovasz property between the parochial
school and the City property. The Council had approved this, and recommended
the matter to the Planning Commission to initiate a zone change oq , the'property from
!'A" Agricultural to ,!! 'D' - .TP -laAned The first step in.. doing this would be
. adopt a resolution expressing: intention initiate. such a zone ch ge. The zone
change would affect onl,yth owned portion of the property. Chairman Pope
asked for public input; there was none
After a brief discussion, the following.action was taken:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
RESOLUTION NO, 77 - 502 Z
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE EXPRESSING INTENTION TO INITIATE A
ZONE CHANGE.
On motion by Commissioner Cole, seconded by Commissioner Gerrish,
and by the following roll call vote, to wit:
Commissioners Cole, Gerrish, Hitchen, Mathews, Ries, and
Chairman Pope
None
Commissioner Moots
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 15th day of March 1977.
REFERRAL FROM CITY COUNCIL RE: APPEAL OF MRS. RAY SIMMONS ON NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR TRACT 625.
Chairman Pope read a letter from City Attorney Shipsey, dated March 15, 1977,
which stated that Commissioners Gerrish and Mathews did not have a conflict of
interest in voting on Tract 625.
337
Elizabeth Jackson,208 Fairview, asked where Pacific Plaza is (the partnership
in which Commissioners Gerrish and Mathews are. involved). Commissioner Mathews
replied that it is behind the Jiffy Food Store on Grand Avenue; the development
is only proposed at this time, it is not existing.
Chairman Pope stated that since the City Attorney had determined there was
no conflict of interest, it was now up to the Commission tb decide if it wished to
reaffirm the original Negative Declaration Status, or reopen the matter and reconsider
it. He noted that the Commission had received a packet of information on the
matter, including a copy of Mrs. Simmons' appeal on the original Negative.Declaration.
Director Gallop said that he had been specifically requested by the City
Council and City Attorney to explain to the Commission the procedures followed
before his recommendations are made on Requests for. Negative Declaration. He then
reviewed said procedure from the time the petitioner submits a Request for Negative
Declaration until the Commission receives the matter for consideration referring to
his memo on the matter, dated 2- 28 -77. This included considering all cumulative
effects, even though he might naf to them directly. In the case of James
Heights, he felt the cumulative effect of the water, drainage, etc. would be insig-
nificant as Rancho La Barranca, the neighboring proposed subdivision, was engineered
to take care of La Barranca, James Heights, and a number of acres up the valley.
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 3 -15 -77 Page 2
The City used the Highway Design Manual as the basis of determining road
capacity. He said that Mrs. Simmons had brought up the discussion of a proposed
plan line on Tally Ho in 1973. The plan line had been proposed at that time in
an attempt to resolve some of the prpblems. This would not increase traffic
capacity. The purpose of a.plan line is to prohibit intrusion into that area
by any new development'so that when the City is ready to develop, it has been
protected from encroachment and the City doesn't have to buy new bui'ldings ;.
He noted that Mrs. Simmons had asked what would happen if James Way and Tally
Ho Road were taken off the Circulation Element as collector streets. He said this
would only reduce the right of way width and improvement width by 4 ft; the
road would still be sufficient to handle the traffic generated by this
development. He stated that the cumulative and mitigating measures are
taken care of in the engineering design for the approval of any subdivision;
therefore, he did not speak to those specifically in the report. As far
as the schoolsi there was a note made of impact, but there is no way to
mitigate this other than denying the development, and he did not feel this
was a basis for denial of 12 lots when the total impact was considered on the
School District, The City's procedure had been discussed with Dr. Harrow,
the County Enviromental Coordinator, and he felt that it was acceptable and
legal. The Planning Director said he has felt it was not necessary to
attach all the background information when the Commission considered
Negative Declarations; however, he could do so in the future if the Commission
wished. He said that in this particular case, the City Attorney and the City
Administrator wanted the Commission to adopt a new resolution if they felt
the original Negative Declaration was valid, indicating that they had gone
through all the areas of concern.
Chairman Pope asked for public input.
Fred Wolf, 540 Gaynfair, wondered how large or how many residences had to
be involved before they were considered to have an impact on the schools. Director
Gallop stated that what he had tried to do was work with Dr. Hoagland's statement
that there are schools in the area with some capacity, and some schools that
could be added onto. He said that when a subdivision of 23 lots is approved
without any particular concern being expressed over the impact on schools,
he did not see where 12 adjacent lots would have much impact. He said the
City is not ignoring the problem. There are some large subdivisions earning
in which would be required to furnish schools sites. However, then the
problem was getting the schools built. The City can require a site, but it
cannot force construction of a school. It could not require a school site
for 12 or 23 lots. He said that historically roads and schools have never
been built until the people demand them. Mr. Wolf urged to Commission not
to ignore the problem, even though acknowledging there is potential room for
school expansion and potential new school sites does nothing to generate
the money to build classrooms.
Madeleine Steele, 1598 Hillcrest, asked which subdivision of 23 lots
Mr. Gallop had referred to where there was no comment made on the impact on
schools. He replied that this was Rancho La Barranca. Mrs. Steele asked
him to recall that there was some objection of the impact on schools ' on -other
developments in that area. She added that there is quite a move on in the
Lucia Mar School District with regards to remedies for this situation. She
said Dr. Hoagland would be speaking on the matter on Friday. She felt that
requiring a deposit of money from developers for schools would be one remedy.
Director Gallop stated that the City of Arroyo Grande had initiated just such
an item a year ago. The staff has had several meetings with Dr. Hoagland
and Councilman Gallagher.
Mrs. Simmons, 150 Tally Ho Road, quoted from the minutes of the Planning
Commission meeting of May 1, 1973, in which it was noted that the road is getting
narrower and narrower and there is a drainage problem. She said that the road
hasn't improved. Mr. Anderson had said at that time that the road was inadequate,
and she asked why it was adequate now. She said they must have the roadway
first before they could start solving the drainage problems, and they should
have the roadway first before they put houses in. She said she felt they
were looking at the 12 units only instead of all the units in the area,
including La Barranca and Loomis Heights. Director Gallop replied that
Loomis Heights did not enter onto Tally Ho Road. He said that Tally Ho
Road will not have to be improved and will still have the capacity . for .much more
traffic than would be generated by the proposed'subdivisions;:: this . was pointed out
by former City Engineer Garcia, the Department of Transportation, and , _the present
City Engineer, Mr. Karp.
i
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 3- -15 -77 Page 3
Margaret Stone, 1012 Grand Avenue, an attorney with Haynes and Olpin,
representing Mrs. Simmons on her appeal, said she recognized the Commission's
difficulty in trying to apply the law in this situation; and the Public Resources
Code, the California Environmental Quality Act, gives guidance to the lay
person. Section 21083 requires a finding of significant effect where a cumulative
impact is found. She said when they found a significant impact, an environmental
impact report must be done. This would include mitigating circumstances
such as Mrs. Steele's suggestion of an assessment a percentage tax on a
subdivider for schools. Director Gallop advised Mrs. Stone to discuss the matter
with the City Attorney if she did not agree with the Commission's findings.
Mrs. Stone stated they also took exception with the City Attorney's statement
on the conflict of interest law as inapplicab]e to Mr. Gerrish and Mr. Mathews.
Commissioner Gerrish asked why the matter had been sent back from the
City,Council. Director Gallop replied that the City Council felt that since
the Commission did not have all the information attached to the appeal and which
they had before them now or because he had not discussed this, it did not
have sufficient information of all things the staff considered in making
a recommendation. The Council felt the Commission should consider all this
information and make a new determination.
After further discussion, the following action was taken:
RESOLUTION NO. 77 -503 EIR
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE VOIDING RESOLUTION NO. 77 -492 EIR AND
ACCEPTING NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION.
On motion by Commissioner Cole, seconded by Commissioner Gerrish, and
• by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Cole, Gerrish, Hitchen, Mathews, Ries, and
Chairman Pope
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Moots
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 15th day of March 1977.
PUBLIC- HEARING REZONING CASE NO. 77 -99, RANCHO GRANDE FROM "A" TO "P -D"
'(RANCHO GRANDE PROPERTIES)
Director Gallop stated that the public hearing tonight was primarily
an opening procedure. He recommended that the hearing be opened without
public input, that the Negative Declaration be considered and denied and
an Environmental Impact Report required. The City already had a contract
in force for an EIR, subject to the approval of the Commission. Once the
EIR had been required, he would then recommend that the public hearing be
continued until such time as a preliminary EIR was presented to staff
for consideration. This procedure was similar to that followed for Oak
Park Acres. He noted a correction to the public hearing map; there was one
area included in the map which is not part of the rezoning. However, this
was not included in the legal description of the property. Chairman Pope
also noted that the Commission had received a letter from Mr. Al Browne,
one of the petitioners, asking for a study session in order to better
acquaint the public and Commission with the proposed project. Director
Gallop recommended that this be held sometime in April.
After being assured by Planning Director Gallop that public hearing for the
proposed rezoning had been properly noticed, posted, and property owners notified
Chairman Pope opened the public hearing. Mr. Kirkpatrick, Printz Road, commented.
After a brief discussion, the following action was taken:
RESOLUTION NO. 77 -504 EIR
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE DENYING A NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL
DECLARATION AND REQUIRING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT.
339
340
Arroyo Grande Planning_ Commission,3-15-77 Page 4
On motion by Commissioner Gerrish, seconded by Commissioner Cols: and
by the following roll call vote, to wit:;
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Cole, Gerrish, Hitchen, Mathews, Ries, and
Chairman Pope
None
Commissioner Moots
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 15th day of March 1977,
On motion by Commissioner Cole, seconded by Commissioner Ries, and
unanimously carried, the public hearing was continued until an EIR is prepared.
Director Gallop stated that the study session would be open to the public, but
it would not be a public hearing,
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO, 77 -135 GRAND. AVENUE ATHLETIC CLUB
(MANNING - MARTIN COMPANYZ
Director Gallop noted that a use permit for an athl.etid club had
been granted at the last regular meeting, and these were the architectural
plans for that building, At that time, there had been a question by the
adjacent property owner if an existing easement could be used and the use
permit was granted subject to meeting certain requirements of the ordinance..
He now had a copy of a recorded 99 -year lease giving access from Grand Avenue
to the property. The building had been relocated on the property so that
the easement could not be used anyway.
Chairman Pope asked for public input, Elizabeth Jackson, 208 Fairview
noted there had been some concern expressed at the last meeting about noise
and that the materials used in constructing the court floor will affect the
noise created. Director Gallop stated th.st the courts will all be inside;
and the building will be insulated, There being no additions or corrections,
the Chairman ordered the report filed.
LOT SPLIT CASE NO. 77 -259, 1375 GRAND AVENUE (HAYES) - REVIEW COMMITTEE
ACTION AND REQUEST FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Director Gallop noted that this property is in a "P -M" District which
would prohibit construction of residential units., The dimensions of the
proposed lots meet the requirements of the district, He then reviewed the
recommended conditions. Chairman Pope asked for public input on the
proposed lot split; there was none. He asked for public input on the
Request for Negative Declaration, and there was none.
After a brief discussion, the following action was taken:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
RESOLUTION NO, 77 -505 EIR
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE ACCEPTING NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL
DECLARATION.
On motion by Commissioner Gerrish, seconded by Commissioner Cole, and
by the following roll call vote, to wit
Commissioner Cole, Gerrish, Hitchen, Mathews, Ries,
and Chairman Pope
None
Commissioner Moots
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 15th day of March 1977,
There being no additions or corrections to the proposed lot split approval
and conditions, the Chairman ordered the report filed.
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 3 -15 -77
LOT SPLIT CASE NO, 77 -260, 504 IDE STREET (CASTRO) - REVIEW COMMITTEE ACTIONS
AND REQUEST FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Director Gallop noted that this was a request to divide the property into
four parcels. One would have direct access to Pacific Coast Railway Place, one
would be a flag lot to Pacific.Coast Railway Place, one would have direct access
to Ide Street and one would be a flag lot to Ide Street. He then reviewed the
recommendations of the Review Committee. Chairman Pope asked for public input
On the lot split and the Request for Negative Declaration;, there was none.
After a brief discussion, the following action was taken:,
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
RESOLUTION NO. 77 -506 EIR
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE ACCEPTING NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL
DECLARATION.
On motion by Commissioner Cole, seconded by Commissioner Gerrish, and
by the following roll call vote, to wit:
Commissioners Cole, Gerrish, Hitchen, Mathews, Ries, and
Chairman Pope
None
Commissioner Moots
341
Page 5
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 15th day of March 1977.
There being no additions or corrections to the lot split approval and
conditions, Chairman Pope ordered the report filed.
LOT SPLIT CASE NO. 77 -261 BRANCH MILL ROAD (GREENWOOD) - REVIEW COMMITTEE ACTIONS
AND REQUEST FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
Commissioner Mathews noted that in the past he has abstained from voting
on matters concerning this property. He has discussed this with the. City
Attorney who has determined there is no conflict of interest; therefore, he
would participate in the voting from now on. Director Gallop stated that
Commissioner Moots had excused himself from voting as a.Review Committee Member
as he lives within 300 ft. of the subject property.,_
Director Gallop reviewed the proposed split for the Commission, noting
that the petitioner is requesting to divide into 5± acre parcels in conformance
with the Land Use Plan. The property is Class III soil. as indicated by the
new Soil Conservation Map prepared by the Soils Office in San Luis Obispo.
Both the staff and the Review Committee recommended that a 20ft. right of way
be dedicated on Branch Mill Road for future road purposes. The Committee had
recommended that a proposed 50 ft, easement back to the agricultural parcel
be made into a flag lot with access off of Branch Mill Road. This would
reduce the size of the lot but would take the agricultural traffic off of the
residential area. They felt this was more desirable.
Charles Greenwood, 17842 Irvine Boulevard, Tustin, the petitione;
a letter dated March 15, 1977, accepting all conditions except Items 2 and 7; said
letter is on file in the Planning Department.
Robert Garing, of Garing, Taylor, & Associates, engineers for the development
said they didn't feel it was necessary to improve the access to Parcels A & B
with 100.' ft. of paving at this time. It is only one lot deep. Also, the reason
they did not make a flag lot out of the agricultural parcel was to make a 5 acre
minimum. Water has been stubbed out to the end of each road and if the City
plan is not to go beyond this particular property, they did not feel there was
a need for an additional main. The property could be served from the existing
main through an offer to dedicate or by granting it to the City.
Bill McCann .428 Tanner Lane, asked what the acreage was on the parcels.
Mr. Garing stated that the two on Branch Mill Road are 5 acres. If they
are not 5 acres on the final map, it will not be approved. However, after
dedications, the lots will be less that. 5 „acres. They could rearrange the lots
on the property, but they were trying to keep the lots on the upper bank.
342
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 3 -15 -77 Page 6
Chairman Pope stated it is common practice to credit the property for street
dedication. This would not be setting a precedent. Director Gallop added
that the reason Parcel D might be less than 5 acres is because the City
considered it a better plan to move the agricultural heavy equipment off of
the City streets. If an easement were allowed, there would be no depreciation
in the lot size. Mr. McCann said he did not in any way think there should
be an easement.
Mrs. Simmons, 150 Tally Ho Road, asked how many parcels there were.
Director Gallop replied there are five parcels and the City is also requiring
dedication. All parcels will have access to a public right of way. The portion
to be dedicated for park purposes abuts Strother Park.
Fred Wolf, 540 Gaynfair, felt this was a very good solution to a problem
that has been bothering the City for a long time. He asked if the question of
ownership on a portion of the property which had been in question earlier had
been resolved. Mr., Greenwood replied that it had; when a title search is made,
the portions he does not have clear title to will go to the adjacent property
owners.
Mrs. Steele, 1598 Hillcrest, asked for clarification �f the zoning on the
property; Chairman Pope replied that it is "A" and that the Land Use Plan shows
it as low density. She asked if it could ever by divided lower than this,
Director Gallop said that as long, as this is zoned "A" and is indicated as 5
acres on the Land Use Plan, Mr. Greenwood and the City are honoring that,
until the conflict is resolved. If the zoning or the Land Use Plan are
amended, it may have some effect. Mrs. Steele asked if this had always
been Class III soil; Director Gallop said that at one time it was indicated as
Class II. However, it has been reclassified this past year by the Soil
Conservation Service,
Mr. Wolf asked for clarification of the term "perpetual offer to
dedicate ". Director Gallop explained that thismeans one of two things.
Either the abutting property owner can improve the street and the City accepts
the improvements, or the City can require improvement. In other words, that
20 ft. becomes, in effect, a plan line.
Commissioner Mathews asked if the Commission approved the Review Committee
Action as prepared, the petitioner no longer receives any consideration for his
request of a waiver. Chairman Pope replied that this was correct. Director
Gallop added that if they do not grant the waiver, the petitioner could go to
the City Council.
After further discussion, the Review Committee Action was approved with
the amendment that Item 1 be changed from 21 ft. to 20 ft.
The Chairman asked for public input on the Request for Negative Declaration;
there was none. The following action was taken:
RESOLUTION NO. 77 -507 EIR
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE ACCEPTING NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL
DECLARATION.
On motion by Commissioner Hitchen, seconded by Commissioner Gerrish, and
by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Cole, Gerrish, Hitchen, Mathews, Ries, and
Chairman Pope„
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Moots
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 15th day of March 1977.
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission,3-15-77 Page 7
LOT SPLIT CASE NO. 77 -262, 1385 BRIGHTON AVENUE (BADEN) REVIEW COMMITTEE ACTION
AND REQUEST FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
Commissioner Gerrish noted that he had sat in on this Committee and has
since learned this property abuts property which he has an interest in. Therefore,
he asked that the matter either be returned to the Committee or the Commission
act as a whole on it.
COMMISSIONERS GERRISH AND MATHEWS EXCUSED THEMSELVES DUE TO POSSIBLE
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.
Director Gallop stated that this is a. request to split an existing parcel
into two pieces. The property is presently zoned "R -3" on the upper portion and
"C -N" on the lower portion. Several months ago, a request to rezone the
whole parcel to "R -3" was denied. He reviewed the orginal Review Committee
requirements. He then noted that he had received a petition signed by 54 people
objecting to the split based on four reasons: because it was such a large
building project, they were concerned about the impact on the Lucia Mar School
District; the area is not adequate nor are there proper roads to circulate
the traffic this project would being into the area; parking for apartments
is not a' "C -N" use; and at the present time all the surrounding land is designed
low- density residential on the Arroyo Grande Land Use Maps. He said that if
the "R -3" portion of the property 0M developed without a split, the potential
density would be twice as much. With regard to the roads, Brighton Avenue
will have to be improved with heifer street. This would be adequate to take the
people to either Courtland or Elm. He said that by using the "C-N" portion
for the parking, this would spread the parking out and make it more environmentally
desirable, without increasing the potential density of the development. This
would also reduce or remove the "C -N" property from possible commercial development.
He said that parking . in a "C -N" district is permissive. With regard to the
Land Use Plan, this is a spot zoning which has existed in the City for more
than 12 years and is spoken to in the Land Use Plan Addendum which was adopted
last year.
Chairman Pope asked for public input.
Elizabeth Jackson, 208 Fairview, asked why only one -half of the road would
be regiuired to be improved. She said, that when Ruth Ann Way was proposed and the
Sherlocks owned it, they wanted to = one -half a road up the hill to develop
their property only, and they were refused. She asked why the discrepancy.
Director Gallop replied that the property owners in that case owned a depth of
150 -200 ft. and they wanted to deed only a half of that road with no assurance
the City would ever get the other half. If that had been a through road; and
connecting two parts of roads, the City would have accepted it. Mrs. Jackson
said she would like to point out to the Commission that this was the second
time that the residents of that area had been before the Commission with a
petition. The last time was a little over a year ago, and at that at was a
unanimous decision that they did not want apartments in that area. 1 1-It has
been residential for some time. After the last time, the residents :of the
area assumed that the City - was going to rezone this to confortt :with the rest
of the area, to'conform with their wishes. She said there were problems that
this development would cruise. She said there would be traffic problems and
additional noise. She said most of the people in-this area believed this
would develop as "R -1" because all of the surrounding area is "R -1 ". She
said last year Mr. Baden had complained that he would need to put in a
pump for the Sewer; he would still need to do so. She said she had been told
that parking was not an. authorized "C -N" use. She said the residents had asked
her why they had to go through anothet petition when they hadjplaitt].y voiced ;
their opposition last year and said they did not want apartments. They would
welcome an "R -1" development, but they do not want their "R -1" area disrupted
by apartments. They did not want the noise and the class of people apartments
would being. The residents also asked her why the developer is given more
consideration than the voice of the people when they get up a petition and tell
the City what they want and don't want. Chairman Pope asked how long this
property had been zoned "R -3 ". Director Gallop said approximately 15 -20 years.
Mrs. Jackson said that these people did not know they had to check things like
that when they bought. Director Gallop pointed out that they were discussing
a lot split, not a rezoning. He added that the property adjacent to this
is currently under multiple development now.
343
344
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission,.3 -15 -77 Page 8
Lou Caballero, of San Luis Engineering representing the petitioners,
said that Mr. Baden only owned to the center line of tha road, and there was
• no way the City could require him to,improve the other half. Secondly, they
were improving the circulation of Brighton by completing that portion of it.
Thirdly, the ultimate density of the "R -3" and "C -N" will be less because
they will be using the "C -N" area • €br parking.
Margaret Stone, of Haynes and Olpin, representing Mrs.. Jackson, said
that she differed with Mr. Gallop's reading of the Land Use Map;.. she says
:.tie map shows this as "R -1" land. It is statutory that zoning be made
consistent with the General Plan. Whethet.the zoning has been on the books
.for a long time or has been in error for a long time does not mean that
the error should be. c•.ompounded.Director Gallop said that the map does not
reflect this; the text of the amendment adopted last:fallt:does. Mrs. Stone
asked for a.copy of the addendumt, : and was furnished with one. She said
further that there is no time limit in challenging the legality of a zoning
law. "R -3" zoning may be challenged at any time,.irregardless if there
is "R -3 ". development on it or not. Further, under the Municipal Code of the
City, "C -N" zoning includes retail businesses. It also allows for permitting
by use permit procedure, other uses which are in character with other uses
provided for in the "C -N" District. They did not feel that a parking'dis:trict
is in character with the retail uses as described in the Code.
Tom Higdon, 183 Fairview Drive, said that the rezoning was denied
last year until Mr. Baden could prodabetter access for ingress and engress,
and this seemed to have been forgotten. Director Gallop"stated.theexpansion
bf the 'rezoning was denied because,of.the access to'.the• rear-. ortion which is "C -N".
There . is- adequate • access . to -the front portiOnn:ow.•' ,The rezoning was," denied -
primarily because ,of the Increase 1,11 density,. Mr,. Caballero said they
were talking. about a.lot split, not a rezoning,. Mr,, Higdon .asked where
the apartments would -go on the parcel; Mr, Caballero pointed the site out
on the map,. .Mr. Higdon said he would rather have:'the area developed
commercially than to have the apartments with the parking,,
Mark Paola, 1239 Brighton, asked why this property had not been rezoned
to conform with the area. Chairman Pope said that the citizens had not
initiated a zone change. Mr; Paola said that last year the citizens had.said
they wanted it changed. Chairman Pope said he assumed that when this was
zoned "R -3 ", the planners had used this as a buffer zone between the
"R -l" area and the commercial area. Mr. Paola said that Ruth Ann Way
had been brought down to a commercial area and thought this could be
done on this property.
Coleen Kubel,::1227Brighton, spoke
of the many children. She said what the
they•dd not want the split because they
Chairman. Pope noted that they would have
area that would be rezoned to agree to a
at all.
Cora Higdon, 183 Fairview, said she was not in favor, of the lot split
Fred Steele, 1598 Hillcrest, felt there should be an area of "R -2!" zoning
between the "R -1" area and the "R -3" area. He asked where they could get guidancd
in trying to rezone that area. Chairman Pope recommended they contact the
Planning Director's office.
Mr. Paola asked if the Commission would give them the time to try and
get a rezoning. Chairman Pope said he did not know if he could legally•do ghat.
Director Gallop noted that the zoning had nothing;:to do with a lot split, so long
as the lots met the square footage requirements. He added that if you try to
force an individual to change his property against his wishes, this§ could
possibly be classified as inverse condemnation.
Madeleine Steele, 1598
the residents of the area are
was because what they thought
up on. She thought they were
the lot split,.the Commission
of traffic problems in the area end
people were trying to say was that
wanted to try and get this rezoned.
to get the property owners within that
rezoning.
Hillcrest, said that it seemed to her that all of
definitely against the lot split. She thought that
they gave the City as a. suggestion was not followed
ready to follow up on thin . now. She said by denying
would be giving them the opportunity to do so.
Arroyo Grande.Planning Commission, 3 -15 -77 Page 9
Commissioner Hitchen asked what limitation the property owner would have
if the split were not granted. Director Gallop replied that he could still
develop the upper portion as "R -3" utilizing the square footage for the
maximum number of units. He could still not build on the "C -N" portion except
for off - street parking, open space, etc. This would require architectural approval
and building permits only This would allow approximately 33 -36 units. If he
came in for a building permit without a lot split, he would still be required
to dedicate and improve that street. Commissioner Hitchen asked .ichat period
of time would be involved if the residents of that area tried to get the property
rezoned. Director Gallop replied that it would take a minimum of three months
to the effective date from the first public hearing. Commissioner Hitchen
asked if a property owner's neighbor coud force him to rezone his property;
Director Gallop said that they could not. Chairman Pope said they could
petition for the rezoning. Director Gallop added that out of all the whole
area this property, this was the only piece of undeveloped "R -3"
property. The other "R -3" property is developed, the commercial property
is undeveloped, and everything else is "R -1 ". Commissioner Cole ratted that
the way she was going to vote on this matter was because she didn't think
that the people realized that with a lot split there would be less units.
After further discussion, on motion by Commissioner Ries, seconded by
Commissioner Hitchen, and by the following roll call vote, that the requested
lot split be denied because in splitting the property, they would not end
up with a development that is condusive to the rest of the neighborhood:
AYES: Commissioners Hitchen and Ries
NOES: Commissioner Cole and Chairman Pope
ABSENT: Commissioner Moats
ABSTAINING: Commissioners Gerrish and. Mathews.
the foregoing motion died for lack of a Tiajority. This meant that the requested
lot split was unapproved. The petitioners were told that they would have 10 days
in which to appeal this action to the City Council.
LOT SPLIT CASE :.NO. 77 -26.3, EAST BRANCH STREET (ROLFE) - REVIEW COMMITTEE ACTION
AND REQUEST FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Director Gallop stated that this was a request to split a parcel into four
pieces, one of which will be dedicated to the City. The property is located just
east of the Loomis warehouses on Branch Street. He reviewed all the recommended
conditions for the Commission,. Chairman Pope asked for public input; there was none.
CHAIRMAN POPE EXCUSED HIMSELF FROM THE DISCUSSION 013 THE REQUEST FOR
NEGATIVE DECLARATION DUE TO A POSSIBLE .CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND VICE CHAIRMAN
GERRISH PRESIDED.
Vice Chairman Gerrish asked for any public input on the Request for Negative
Declaration; there was none. After 'a brief discussion, the following action was
taken:
RESOLUTION NO. 77 -508 EIR
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
ARROYO GRANDE .ACCEPTING NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL
DECLARATION.
On motion by Commissioner Cole, seconded by Commissioner Ries, and by the
following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Cole, Hitchen, Mathews, Ries, and
Vice Chairman Gerrish
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Moots
ABSTAINING: Chairman Pope
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 15th day of March 1977.
345
346
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 3 -1577 Page 10
DETERMINATION OF ACTION ON AGRICULTURAL LAND MATTER TO AMEND ZONING ORDINANCE
AND LAND USE PLAN
Fred Wolf, 540 Gaynfair, recommended that the Commission set discussion
of the recommendations of the Ag Lands Committee to a time certain to be put
on the agenda of the first Commission meeting after the pecial election, unless
that would be within two days after the election, in which case he recommended
the second meeting, After'discussion,on motion by Commissioner Mathews, seconded
by Commissioner Cole, and unanimously carried, the matter was scheduled for the
meeting of May 17, 1977; said motion was amended to the first meeting held
after the election.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Elizabeth Jackson, 208 Fairview, stated that she had circulated the
petition on the proposed Baden lot split on Brighton Avenue, and that she had
hired an attorney so that it would not be in error. She felt that it reflected
on her credibility when Commissioner Cole said she felt those signing the
petition weren't aware of what it meant. Commissioner Cole stated she still
felt there were people who don't understand that the lot split could result in
a lesser density.
Chairman Pope suggested that the Commission go around and check the parking
at the various churches in the City, as this matter would be coming up at the next
meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the Commission was adjourned at
10:30 P.M.
ATTEST:
Secretary