PC Minutes 1977-02-01322
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission
February 1, 1977
The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with
Chairman Pope presiding. Present were Commissioners Cole, Gerrish, Moots,
and Ries. Commissioners Hitchen and Mathews were absent. Also present were
City Administrator Butch, Mayor de Leon, Councilman Millis, and Planning
Director Gallop.
MINUTE APPI OV 1L
There being no additions or corrections, the Chairman approved the
minutes of the study session of January TO, 1977, as prepared.
With regard to the minutes of the regular meeting of January 18, 1977,
Ella Honeycutt, 560 Oak Hill Road, asked why she was quoted verbatim in
some minutes, but not in this set. She said she felt that the tinutes
misconstrued the information she presented and she challenged the minutes
on that. The Chairman stated that it is up to the Secretary to try to
summarize the meeting the best she can. The Chairman asked Mrs. Honeycutt
to submit the information she felt was pertinent and it will be put in the
record. Mrs. Honeycutt said she felt the last set of minutes should be
verbatim. Chairman Pope approved the mire tes of the regular meeting of
January 18, 1977, as amended.
REVIEW COMMITTEE ACTIONS:
Lot Split Case No. 77 -256 Ide Street (C. H. Properties).- Director Gallop
stated that the petitioners had come in with a. revised map after the last
Commission meeting, in view of the objections and the problems that arose
at that meeting. The map revisions were reviewed by the Lot Split Committee
at its meeting, where it was noted that if the Commission approved this map,
it would supercede the original map. Director Gallop reviewed the revisions
and the conditions of the map, noting that Parcels C and D would have access
to Cross Street and would both be restricted to single family homes. He added
that since the last meeting, the City has received a petition from a large
percentage of the people living in the "R -2 "_area in Which this property is
situated, petitioning for rezoning to' "R -1" . Even if the afea"i'S'ned,
all' the large lots are subject to division as. long . as_they meet the minimum
square footage requirements'. Chairman Pope asked if the ft. easement
would be dedicated. Director Gallop replied that it will not be accepted
by the City until it is upgraded to City 'standards.
Elizabeth Jackson, 208 Fairview, asked who C. H. Properties were.
Director Gallop stated that Mr. Cocks and Mr. Harris were the property
owners; Mr. Harris added that it was a limited partnership.
Mary Egan, 521 Allen, said she wished to say this was a much improved
plan for the parcel. She noted that there is no requirement for providing
curb, gutter, and sidewalk along the northeasterly line of the proposed street
at the time it will be dedicated and built; she felt that it will never be done
if it .isn't required now. Director Gallop said that the City will not accept
it as a public street until there is curb, gutter, paving, and- sidewa1ik
Mrs. Egan felt there wouldn't be any problems in the future if the developer
had to bond for these now. Director Gallop replied that as long as each of
the lots has access „to a public right of way, the City can not require
this unless it is a subdivision.
There being no additions or corrections, Chairman Pope ordered the
report filed.
filed.
Lot S lit Case No. 77 -257 N/ Corner of Ma and Paseo Bowlin m Director
Gallop stated that this property is located just off of the terminus of McKinley.
Both streets are paper streets. A short section of May is improved The
subdivision is an old one of record from the early 1900s, and the owner is now
proposing to develop. The developer is requesting that the two long narrow lots
be divided in the other direction_ The Review Committee Was not requiring
any conditions as all off -site improvements will have to be put in as the
lots are developed.
John Sprague, 212 Tally Ho, asked how they would get the sewer in.. •
Director Gallop replied this was an engineering problem which must be resolved
by the developer's engineer.
There being no additions or corrections, the Chairman ordered the report
1
" LotSpliit.-Base To 4 25'8. 1149 Fair Oaks (Bair) - Director Gallop stated
th .'tt e;se are th0eA4arcels of land two of of which are presently landlocked,
The : third- par tes a common easement. The lots are all . combined . in one
� rm
t ADV T WO;?ednmr is now requesting that the 25 ft. easement be split and
becci he, le°g4SA.for the two interior flag lots. The lot line adjustment was
priritr7y. tb give each individual lot legal access . to Fair Oaks, rather than
tqae i,a. „etasent to each Director Gallop then reviewed the conditions
of ,the 1'®l spLi;it Elizabeth Jackson, . 208 Fair View, asked for clarification
013; ew "alyabcation, which the Planning Director provided. There oeing
!dies 'or corrections, the Chairman ordered the report filed.
Architectural Review Case No. 76- 128,204 Aspen, Apartment Complex (Pace) -
A...+II istetor Gallop noted that Architectural Approval and a Use Permit had been
' anted previously on this property. The developer had since had the plans
it'ftea.igned, providing for more open space and deleting one unit. The Use
. emit would still be valid. The. Director reviewed the changes for the
"Commission; and after a brief discussion, there being no additions or
corrections, the Chairman ordered the report filed.
'hIElmis s i'on '/ 1/`77 ' age 2
Architectural Review Case No. 77 -130 213 Whitele Tri lex Ellsworth -
Director Gallop stated that this is a parcel of "R -3” property, to oh
has one small single family home on it now This would be remodeled into a
triplex. The coverage, setbacks, parking, etc.. all meet the requirements
of the zoning.
Ella Honeycutt, 560 Oak Hill Road, asked for clarification of the property
location, which the Planning Director provided. Mrs. Bennigsdorf, 518 Allen,
asked if this was the old Norton property. Chairman Pope said he thought"it was.
filed.
There being :no additions or corrections, the Chairman ordered the report
Architectural Review Case No. 77 -131 141 South Elm Office Buildin
(Gering and Taylor) - Director Gallop said that this property is located in
an "H -S" zone. The developers propose to build a new structure on the corner
of Sunset and Elm. The proposal meets all the requirements of the zone.
Chairman Pope asked if curb, gutter, and sidewalk is existing; Director
Gallop replied that the sidewalk will have to be finished out on Sunset with
the building permit. Chairman Pope reviewed the conditions of the Architectural
Approval.
Jack Scarbrough, 166 S. Elm, asked if the road would be widened across
Elm Street, as it was a problem. City Administrator Butch said there were no
plans for widening the road in the immediate future.
There being no additions or corrections, Chairman Pope ordered the
report filed.
Architectural Review Case No. 77 -132 250 S.ruce Church Addition (Kin_dom
Hall) - Director Gallop stated that the Church was proposing the addition of
approximately 16 ft. to the front of the present building, which is located quite
far back on the property. The parking is almost double the requirements of the
current building, and the addition would not add any more parking requirement.
There being no additions or corrections, after a short discussion, the
Chairman ordered the report filed.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS
Director Gallop stated that there was a question.raised at the last
Commission meeting about the Commission's compliance to new State law, and for the
Commission's and the public information, the City has been abiding by the State
law requirements, even though the City's resolution had not yet`been amended,
The State has issued two sets of guidelines and there- is a third still to come
sometime in March or April. The City had been following the County's example of
adhering to the new State law, but not changing the resolution until the guidelines
are complete. He felt the only real area'of change is the requirement of a notice
of the Commission's consideration of Negative Statements prepared after Jan, 1, 1977,
Director Gallop noted that at the last Council meeting,the City Attorney
had been requested to prepare a memo concerning: the appeal procedure. Since
the memo was received too late for copies to be made, he then read the memo
323
• 324
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission 2 /1/77 Page 3
for the Cotmnission's and the public's information.
REFERRAL FROM CITY COUNCIL RE: REVERSION TO ACREAGE, LOTS 1 -14, BLOCK 28 -A
BECKETT'S CROWN HILL ADDITION (LENZI & MEAGHER) - DETERMINATION IF EIR OR
NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS REQUIRED.
Director Gallop said there was a question raised.' at the last Council meeting
as to whether the reversion to acreage on Crown Hill required an Environmental
Determination. He said that, in his opinion as the City's Environmental Co-
ordinator, he had determined a Determination was not required because, under
Class 5 (A) of the State Guidelines concerning exempt projects, this would
be exempt as it did not increase the number of properties. The Director
said he had checked with Dr. Harrow, the County's Coordinator, after the
City Attorney challenged this determination, and he had a letter from Dr.
Harrow stating that he agrees with the Planning Director's determination.
After discussion, on motion by Commissioner Cole, seconded by Commissioner
Gerrish, and unanimously carried, the Commission recommended to the City Council
that an Environmental Determination on the reversion to acreage on Crown Hill
is not required.
REQUEST FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Lot Split Case No. 76 -254, 1065 Ash Street (Hays and Tucker) - Chairman
Pope asked for public input on the Request for Negative Declaration; there was
none. After a brief discussion, the following action was taken:
RESOLUTION NO. 77 -490 EIR
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE ACCEPTING NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL
DECLARATION.
On motion by Commissioner Gerrish, seconded by Commissioner Ries, and by
the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Cole, Gerrish, Moots, Ries, and Chairman Pope
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Hitchen and Mathews
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 1st day of February 1977.
Tentative Tract Map No. 555, Huasna Road, "Oakcrest ", (Kraatz) -
The Chairman asked for public input. Ella Honeycutt, 560 Oak Hill Road, asked
that the Commission note that the Request is marked "no" under agricultural
land. At the last meeting, it was stated that this was Class 3 and 4. She
said the Department of Agriculture shows this land as Class I and II.. She
said she was not objecting to this at this time, but she felt this should be
public record. She said that on the school situation, the Request was also
marked "no" and Dr. Hoagland has had a statement on file with the Commission
stating the schools are full. She felt this should have been a "yes" answer"
with an explanation. Lowell Kraatz, the developer, said he had not considered
the school impact significant. Director Gallop said they must look at the
cumulative effect on Environmental Determinations. He felt that this small
tract would have no more impact than a 10 -15 unit apartment structure.
After further discussion, the following action was taken:
RESOLUTION NO. 77 -491 EIR
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING Co la SION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE ACCEPTING NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION.
On motion by Commissioner Cole, seconded by Commissioner Gerrish, and by
the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Cole,Gerrish,.MOots, Ries, and Chairman Pope.
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Hitchen and Mathews
Arroyo .Grande Planning Commission 2 /1/77
Page 4
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this lst day of February 1977.
Tentative Tract Map No. 625, James Way, "James Heights" CLovett)-
Chairman Pope asked for public input on the Request for Negative Declaration
on the proposed 12 lot subdivision on James Way.
Mrs. Ray Simmons, 150 Tally Ho Road, read a prepared statement, a copy
of which.is on.file, regarding considering and assessing cumulative effects
of the project. She said that when considering "James Heights ",,the
Commission must.consider "Loomis Heights" and "La Barranca" Subdivision
as well. Th ,report gave figures on.the traffic in.the area and discussed
the overcrowded conditions at the local schools. The report said that
the Negative Declaration did not properlyaddress.itself to the problems
with drainage in the area. It asked whams will - happen .to the water
after it is carried to Tally Ho Road. The report referred to statements
made by R. Garing, Engineer, and the U.S. Department of Soil Conservation
Mrs. Simmons stated in thw report that the area can not support increased
traffic :and drainage. She said ". . .it is entirely up to you as to
the 'degree of risk' you wish to take in• regards to consideration of
cumulative effects. It will be your decision as to.the degree of
protection you wish to afford the environment of this community, as
the City will be totally responsible for the adequacy of your decisions."
Jim Garing, of Garing, Taylor & Associates, engineers for the
development,, said that Tally Ho Road now handles about 1,000 cars a day.
From an engineering standpoint that is low; - Tally Ho Road could handle
400 cars an hour. As far as drainage was__cbfacerned, when Traot'453 was
designed,.a drainage basin was provided for to retard drainage to Tally
Ho'Road. In.addition, they planned to take the water off of-James Way-at
the intersection of Colina Street. The net result will be to reduce the
total f.low.:of flood maters to Tally Ho.Creek during the hundred year's
storm. As far as schools were concerned; Mr. Garing said that all prop-
erties in the.area pay taxes whether they are developed or not,
John Sprague, 212 Tally Ho Road, asked.if James Way was a collector
road. Chairman Pope stated the City's Circulation Plan set it out as a
collector road. Mr. Sprague said he thought you could not bring a collector
road into another road unless that road was a plan line road, which Tally
Ho Road was not. He said the City said they would never do anything to that
road because it would cost too much to widen it. Chairman Pope said he was
on the Commission when this cane before the Commission, and at that time
many residences of the area objected to widening Tally Ho Road. He said
he didn't remember the City ever definitely stating it would not do
anything in the future. Director of Public Works Anderson said that Tally
Ho Road was originally planned as a collector road, but it would have to
be widened. It could be used this way now. Directol` Gallop added that
the Loomis Heights Subdivisions traffic does not empty onto Tally Road,
Madeleine Steele, 1598 Hillcrest, asked "if copies were available
of the Request for Negative Declaration. Chairman Pipe indicated they were
on the table. He added that they are always available the Friday before
the meeting.
Commissioner Ries said he was in favor of Tract 625; however, he
agreed that there was a significant traffic contribution and also a con-
tribution to the school problem. He felt these two items should be marked
"yes" on the form.
After further discussion, the following action was taken:
RESOLUTION NO, 77 -492 EIR
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE ACCEPTING NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL
DECLARATION WITH AMENDMENTS,
On motion by Commissioner Ries, seconded by Commissioner Moots, and
by. the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners.Gerrish, Moots, Ries, and Chairman Pope
NOES: Commissioner Cole
ABSENT: Commissioners Hitchen and Mathews
325
326
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 2/1/77 Page 5
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 1st day of February 1977.
Tentative Tract Map No. 636, Farroll Road. Lots 13. 14. &.15 of
Beckett's.Oceano Addition (Phillips)- Director Gallop noted that this is the
only subdivision the School District has individually addressed in the
last few years.
Ella Honeycutt, 560 Oak Hill Road, said that Di. Hoagland made his
position clear in his earlier letter, and other cities use that letter in
all tracts. She said that if they did not address the school problem, they
were leaving themselves open for a suit. As a citizen, she urged the
Commission to "yes" on the school item and save the City a suit.
After discussion, the following action was taken:
RESOLUTION NO, 77 -493 EIR
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE ACCEPTING NEGATIVE tNVIRONMENTAL
DECLARATION, WITH AMENDMENTS.
On the motion by Commissioner Ries, seconded by Commissioner
Cole, and by : the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Cole, Gerrish, Moots, Ries, and
Chairman Pope
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Hitchen and MatHews
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 1st day of February 1977.
REQUEST FROM REUBEN KVIDT TO CHANGE CC&Rs FOR OAK PARK ACRES
Director Gallop stated that this Commission had approved a set
of CC&Rs for the Oak Park Acres development, and the developer is requesting
two amendments: before the document is recorded, which should be done in the
near future. One addition will prohibit the use of CB, ham, or television
antennas.in the development to help the development relatively clean. The
other change would be increasing . the minimum square footage of homes on
Parcels 10, 11, and 12. He said he felt both of these were beneficial
to the CC&Rs.
Elizabeth Jackson, 208 Fairvew, asked for clarification on the
elimination of antennas. She asked about television antennas. She
asked about television antennas; would this force the development be
forced to take cable. Chairman Pope replied that this was correct
Chairman Pope noted that are the developer's restrictions; it is his land,
and he will enforce them.
Madeleine Steele, 1598 Hilicrest, said that the developer is pre-
senting the CC&Rs for approval)for the Commission. She assumed that
implication is that the Commission might object to the restrictions,
otherwise he wouldn't present them to the Commission. Chairman Pope
said that the Commission must approve these with regards to the total
package, but it does not police the restrictions.
Allen Jackson, 208 Fairview, asked whose duty it was to
police the restrictions. Director Gallop replied that it is up to
the Home Owner's Association. Bill McCann, 428 Tanner Lane, asked
what authority:they had. Chairman Pope stated they had the authority
which is vested in the recorded instrument.
Doris Olsen, representing the Santa Maria Times, asked if one item
is not enforced, would that affect the rest of the convenants. Director
Gallop replied that the law says that if the people who buy property
with a recorded document and are self policing the convenants, if one
convenant is broken, this does not adversely affect the other convenants.
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 2/1/77 Page 6
After further discussion,on tibtion by Commissioner Cole, seconded
b•gr Gerrish, that the Commission approve the proposed revisions
to 'fie existing CC&Rs for Oak Park Acres; the motion carried,with Commissioner
Ries opposed.
WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE
Director Gallop noted that he had two items from the City Attorney,
He stated that at the last regular meeting, the Commission had approved the
reduction of an easement in Lot 1 of Ruth Ann Way and an exhange of easements
in Loomis Heights. City Attorney:Shipsey felt that since this is a question of
relinquishment of property b vthe City, there should be a.finding by the
Commission that neither one of these would be in violation of the General
Plan.. Director Gallop said that in his opinion, they would not be. After
discussion, on motion by Commissioner Gerrish, seconded by Commissioner
Cole, and unanimously carried, the .Commission found these items not to be
in conflict with the General Plan.
ORAL COMMUNICATION
Bill McCann, 428 Tanner Lane, said he just wanted to make sure
exactly what action was taken on the property on Crown Hill; was the
decision made that the property was categorically exempt and did not
require an EIR or Environmental Determination. Chairman Pope replied that
this was correct, Bill McCann asked what the time limit was for appealing
this decision. Chairman Pope said it would be ten (10) days.
Ella Honeycutt asked where she could appeal the determination,on
Tract 555, as the two points she had made on the soils classification and
schools were correct.. Chairman Pope replied that she should appeal
to the City Council. City Administrator Butch added that this would
involve a $50 filing fee. Mrs. Honeycutt said that they were fox warding
erroneous material. She said this is in the St. Ag. book. She asked if
this would have to go to a lawsuit. Director Gallop said that most of the
Class I soil in the area has already been developed, but there may be
some left. the Commission could amend its resolution, recognizing this
land and the school problem, . if it Wished.
Fred Steele, 1598 Hillcrest, said they were considering these
Negative Declarations and they apparently didn't know what the soil
classifications were. Chairman Pope said that the answers are very nebulous;
the experts disagree. Mr. 1e felt the problems should be resolved
before the Negative Declarations are made.
Bill McCann, 428 Tanner Lane, said that if they are involved with
prime agricultural land, they will be somewhat in conflict with the Land
Use Element, which says a density of one dwelling unit per five acres of
prime agricultural land. He said they would also be in conflict with
the Subdivision Map Act, which says that a subdivision must be rejected if
it does not .agree with any element of the General Plan. He felt these
should be taken into consideration on all subdivisions, Chairman Pope
stated that the Request for Negative Declaration was prepared by Lowell
Kraatz, a registered civil engineer. The Commission approved it based
on his best information. If anyone felt they did not make the right deter -
mination,the matter could be appealed to the Council. Mr. McCann felt that
the citizens should not have to pay $50 every time the Commission made
a bad decision. Director Gallop said that this property has always
been shown on the Land Use Plan as light residential and has been zoned
"R -1" for many, many years. In his opinion, it did meet the requirements
of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, and the General Plan.
Commissioner Ries asked for clarification on the soil classification
matter. Director Gallop stated that the Soil Classification Map prepared
for the Soil Conservation Service by soils specialists specifically states
that the lines are not precise. A line indicates a relative area,
and there is an area of Class I and II soils down the front of this
property. He believed that most of that area had already been developed.
If there was any Class I and II soils left, and he would assume at this
point there was,: it was very small and already to development
by a.former development of this property. If the Commission wished to make
note of potential Class I and II soils, he would not recommend that they
327
328
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 2/1/77 Page 7
draw a line from the Spil Map because it can vary several hundred
feet. He felt this could be noted, as well as the school issue.
After further discussion, the following action was taken:
RESOLUTION NO. 77-494 EIR
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE VOIDING RESOLUTION NO. 77 -491 EIR, AND
ACCEPTING NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENT DECLARATION, WITH AMENDMENTS
On motion by Commissioner Ries, seconded by Commissioner Gerrish,
and by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Cole, Ries
NOES: Chairman Pope
ABSENT: Commissioners Hitchen and Mathews
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 1st day of February 1977.
Director Gallop noted that the mitigating measures if necessary will
be incorporated in the revised statement.
Commissioner Moots asked if there wasn't a strong possiblity that any
development which would come before the Commission would have a cumulative
effect on the school system. Director Gallop, using Tract 555 as an
example, explained how: the staff interpreted "cumulative ". As this
property is developed up the hill, this is a cumulative effect on the
original subdivision. If second and third units of the tract were approved,
these would have a cumulative effect on that particular property
and on the original parcel approved.
The Director added that a tentative map is approved without
engineering; that is the reaOn.for all the conditions.. If the conditions
are not met, the final map is not approved
ADJOURNMENT
There being :..no further business, the Chairman adjourned the meeting at
9:G1 P.M. to a study session, in which the Commission discussed proposed
amendments to the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances, not including the
Agricultural Lands Committee recommendations.
ATTEST c_-
Secretary
1
1