PC Minutes 1976-03-161
1
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission
March 16, 1976
The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with
Vice Chairman Moots presiding. Present were Commissioners Cole, Gerrish,
Mathews, and Ries. Commissioner Sandoval was absent, and there is one
vacancy existing on the Commission. Also present were Planning Director
Gallop, City Administrator Butch, Councilman Spierling, and County Environ-
mental Coordinator Dr. David Harrow.
MINUTE APPROVAL
The minutes of the regular meeting of March 2, 1976 were approved
by Vice Chairman Moots, after hearing no additions or corrections.
SMOKING BAN
On motion by Commissioner Cole, seconded by Commissioner Gerrish,
and unanimously carried, the Commission voted to ban smoking during all
Planning Commission meetings.
REVIEW COMMITTEE ACTIONS: LOT SPLIT CASE NOS. 76 -236, 555 TRAFFIC WAY
(SCHMITT); 76 -237; 1431 SIERRA (HERNDON); 76 -242, 266 ASPEN (BRUINGTON
AND PETERSON); AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NOS. 76 -115, 1248'GRAND
(PACE); 76 -116, 286 ASPEN (BRUINGTON AND PETERSON)
Director Gallop reviewed each of the Committee actions for
the Commission. He noted that Mr. Schmitt, 555 Traffic Way, (Lot Split
Case No. 76 -236), had appealed a condition of his lot split which required
him to underground the utilities to the new parcels, as well as the existing
house. He did not feel he should have to underground the utilities to the
existing house. The Committee had denied his appeal and he asked that the
Commission be made aware of his request. The problem was explained to the
Commission and on motion by Commissioner Ries, seconded by Commissioner
Cole, and by the following roll call vote, the Commission voted to uphold
the Committee's denial of Mr. Schmitt's appeal.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Cole, Gerrish, Mathews, Ries, and
Vice Chairman Moots
None
Commissioner Sandoval
The Planning Director noted that all the lot splits are in con -
formance with the existing zoning and the Land Use Plan. He stated that
the Committee had denied a request for a lot split at 1431 Sierra (Lot
Split Case No. 76 -237) because they felt that the division would not be
in keeping with other parcels in that area and that it would be depreciating
on other parcels as well. He added that there had been no appeal as yet on
the denial.
After further discussion of each of the Committee actions, the Vice
Chairman ordered the reports filed.
LOT SPLIT- ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
Director Gallop stated that the City Council had received a request
from the Santa Maria Times requesting notification of all meetings such as
the Lot Split- Architectural Committee meetings. In order to facilitate doing
so, he requested the Commission to choose a definite meeting time and place,
and that they choose two members and an alternate to attend He suggested
holding the meetings on the Wednesday before every regular Planning Commission
meeting, so that staff would have time to prepare the reports and forward them
to the Commission for its review. He added that if there was no agenda material
for a meeting, a'cancellation notice would be mailed. On motion by Commissioner
Gerrish, seconded by Commissioner Cole, and unanimously carried, the Commission
voted to establish the meeting time for the Lot Split- Architectural Review
Committee as the Wednesday before every regular Planning Commission meeting,
at 1:30 P.M, in the Planning Director's Office. Fred Wolf, 540 Gaynfair,
asked that the Commission consider another meeting time, as 1 :30 P.M. made
if difficult for many'peop.le to attend. Vice Chairman.Moots replied that
this was the time' the meetings. had.always been held, and that'he didn't want
to see any mare night meetings. liaadded that everything that' the Committee
decides upon comes before the Commission for final approval, and that anyone
who missed the Committee meeting could come to the Commission meeting instead.
217
218
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 3 -16 -76 Page 2
Vice Chairman Moots appointed Commissioners Mathews and Gerrish
to serve as the Committee, with Commissioner Cole as alternate.
PUBLIC HEARING - USE PERMIT CASE NO. 76- 242,286 and 266 ASPEN, TO ALLOW
FOR AN APARTMENT COMPLEX BRUINGTON AND PETERSON
Director Gallop stated that this was a request for a multi- structure
apartment complex in an "R -G" zone, consisting of 39 units, He stated the
proposal did meet all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance insofar as
density, open space, and offstreet parking,
After being assured by Director Gallop that public hearing for the
proposed use permit had been duly published, posted, and property owners
notified, Vice Chairman Moots declared the public hearing open.
Dennis Peterson, one of the developers of the project, spoke in
favor of the proposed use permit, He said he found a tremendous need for
housing in Arroyo Grande; most apartmgats arestudio or two bedroom, He
pointed out that most of the oak trees on the property were to be saved;
only the diseased ones would be removed, He added that the buildings
would be staggered for a more pleasing appearance.
There being no other persons for or against the proposed use permit,
Vice Chairman Moots declared the public hearing closed.
After a brief discussion, the following action was taken:
RESOLUTION NO. 76 -435 U
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GRANTING A USE PERMIT,
CASE NO. 76-242.
On motion by Commissioner Gerrish, seconded by Commissioner Mathews,
and by the following roll call vote to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Cole, Gerrish, Mathews, Ries, and
Vice Chairman Moots
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Sandoval
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 16th day of March 1976,
DISCUSSION OF NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS BY
DR, DAVID HARROW, COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR,:
Dr. Harrow stated that Planning Director Gallop had forwarded to
him a copy of the City's Environmental Impact procedures, and asked that
he review them with regard to compliance with statutory requirements and
to see about any possible legislative changes that the City was not aware
of. He stated that he had compared the City's procedures against the
statutory requirements of the Public Resources Code, the guidelines pre-
pared by the State Resources Secretary, and against changes made last
year, and found that the City was very definitely in compliance with
the statutory requirements.
Dr. Harrow then reviewed the County's procedures for Negative
Declarations and Environmental Impacts. He stated that the portion of
the Public Resources Code which involves environmental impact determin-
ations places the major responsibility for compliance with local juris-
dictions. Any discretionary action which can be denied or approved by
the City may be subject to an environmental determination, There are
basically three of these: the categorical exemption, the negative
declaration, and the environmental impact report. Categorical exemptions
are a sot of classes that the Stata iogio1ature asked the Secretary of
Resources to develop, and are items which won't have any effect on the
environment.
He noted that the District Attorney's Office advises that en-
vironmental impact determinations are not required to be legally noticed
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 3 -16 -76 Page 3
in the newspapers. They do indicate that these should appear on the
agendas and that in the case of an Environmental Impact Report, they
should be available to the public and should be sent to the newspapers.
The D. A. cautions the Chairman of the Commission to be sure that these
considerations are open to the floor to take public testimony before
the Commission makes a final decision.
Dr, Narrow referred to several new bills before the State legisla-
ture. Senate Bi11 502 would authorize local agencies to specify areas of
significant impact; in other words, the degree of specificity. This
would allow the report to deal only with areas of known problems, such
as slope failure, drainage, or the proposed project is in an endangered
species habitat. He also stated that statute does allow the Commission
to make the finding that the impacts of a given project are similar
enough (the projects do not have to be similar, just the impacts), that
the previously certified impact report may be used, or an addendum may
be prepared. Commissioner Ries asked if the City could have a developer
partially reimbursed for an E. I. R. if a future developer used the same
E. I. R. Dr. Harrow said there was no legal basis for this.
The Planning Director stated that the City has an appendix to
Resolution No. 1173, which must be filled out by a developer when he
requests Negative Declaration, and which covers all required areas of
consideration under legislation. This form, along with staff suggestions,
is then sent to the Commission for its consideration.
Ella Honeycutt, 560 Oak Hill Road, asked about the cumulative
effect of an environmental impact report prepared for a particular tract
upon other tracts built right next to that one, Dr. Harrow stated it
would be possible for the City to prepare an addendum to the original
impact report, describing each new tract, and add any new information
not previously covered, such as additional traffic, additional impact
on soil erosion. Mrs. Honeycutt suggested that the term Conditional
Negative Declaration might be a better term than a Negative Declaration
with conditions, Dr. Harrow said he felt there should probably be a
fourth degree between a project having no impact and one requiring a
full -blown Environmental Impact Report. This would state that there
were certain areas that have problems, and would set certain conditions
to handle these problems. Mrs. Honeycutt also asked if the City is
liable if it has ordinances relating to flooding and drainage damages
and doesn't include these in a Conditional Negative Declaration. Dr.
Harrow stated it could possibly be subject to litigation, at which time
the court would decide if the City was negligent.
Peggy Langworthy, Printz Road, asked if the County required perco-
lation tests on every lot in a subdivision. Dr. Harrow replied that they
like to have one on every soil type.. However, if the subdivision is small
or they know there are soil problems, they may require it on every lot.
Mrs. Langworthy also asked how a fourth category of environmental deter-
mination ‘could be set up. 'Dr. Harrow replied that he believed this was
the responsibility of the legislature,
Director Gallop asked what the legal status was of Negative State-
ments and Environmental Impact Reports. Dr. Harrow said that any deter-
mination, including categorical exemptions, are subject to court actions.
However, there are findings that administrative remedies must be exhausted
before the court will make a determination.
Vice Chairman Moots thanked Dr. Harrow for his informative presentation,
RECONSIDERATION OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT TRACT NO.
45 "RANCHO LA BARRANCA" FORMERLY KNOWN AS TALLY HO ESTATES
Director Gallop stated that this had been an agenda item at the
last regular meeting, and because they had time, tha Commission had con-
sidered it out of order before a scheduled Public Hearing. Therefore,
some individuals felt that they had not been given an opportunity to
give input, The City Council requested that thu Commission again con-
sider the matter to give the public a chance for input, and City Attorney
Shipsey recommended that the Commission adopt a brand new resolution after
hearing the input.
219
220
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 3 -16 -76 Page 4
Robert Garing, of Garing, Taylor &Associates, part owner of the
property, said he felt the matter had been going on for a long time and
he didn't understand how there couldn't have been public input. He
reviewed various parts of the impact declaration for the Commission,
as well as how they planned to handle the water supply, drainage,
etc. He referred to various portions of the Land Use and Housing
Elements to support his claims.
Mrs.. Simmons, 150 Tally Ho Road, referred to the Seismic Element,
which says there is to be no construction across any fault area. She
asked what will happen at the intersection of Le Point and Mason, with
the traffic from the La Barranca and the Loomis Heights tracts; would
this require a signal at Mason and Grand Avenue. She also asked whose
responsibility it was to control the drainage water once it leaves the
tract. She questioned the level of the future road and if the developer
would be required to provide curbing along Tally Ho at this time to
partially control run -off.
Mr. Garing replied that the grade of Tally Ho at the present time
is abort the rode for construction and that curbs and gutters are required
for this project on Tally Ho. Director Gallop added that every standard
subdivision's road must be fully improved with curb, gutter, and sidewalk,
and paving to meet existing paving, all at the developer's expense., The
developer must also deed right of way where it is needed. He also referred
to the report prepared by the City Engineer, and made part of the Negative
Declaration, which set out requirements for drainage to Tally Ho Creek.
In other words, if the Tally Ho Creek can't handle the drainage, it must
be improved so that it can so that there will not be flooding or backing
up In answer to the question about the fault, the Director said there
is no way to deteririine the exact location of the fault, without extensive
core drilling. The Seismic Element states there is no reason to control
single family dwellings because of it
Chuck Fellows, 240 Tally Ho, asked for clarification of the report
prepared by the City Engineer. Director Gallop explained that drainage
from the development could not create a situation where the water weu1
back up upstream; it must be cleared so that it will flow to the Arroyo
Grande Creek. If the Creek must be improved to handle this, the developer
must do so. This would be determined by the engineering, which had not
yet been done. He added that engineering is never completed on.a tenta-
tive map until it has been approved because the engineer does not know all
the specs (size of lots, street location, etc.). Engineering has to be
appproved before the map goes to the City Council for final approval.
Ella Honeycutt, 560 Oak Hill Road, asked if Hud and the City
had classified Tally Ho as a flood plain area for flood insurance.
Director Gallop said he believed the lower portion was so classified.
She referred to an ordinance which says that all drainage facilities
shall be designed to carry surface water to the nearest practical street,
storm drain, or natural water course approved by the Building Official or
other appropriate government agency as a safe place to deposit such waters.
She also expressed concern about siltation and sedimentation. She asked
if the City was putting . a limit on when the developer could do his grading.
The Planning Director referred to Item 16 of the City Engineer's report
that states that if the construction occurs during the rain; season silta-
tion may occur, which would require a stilling basin, to still the debris
out of the water. He added this also would have to be a concern of the
engineering of the drainage.
Fred Wolf, 540 Gaynfair, also asked about the possible traffic
problems at Grand and Mason. Director Gallop replied that the City had
requested the Department of Transportation to conduct a survey last summer
to see if that intersection could qualify for a traffic light. The traffic
count on both streets did not meet the minim .m requirements to permit
traffic control lights. He added that he did not believe the proposed two
developments would generate the extra traffic needed to qualify for a light
The City could put in its own traffic lights, but they would still have to
get the Department of Transportation's approval. Commissioner Moots asked
if Le Point Street may be connected .westerly. The Director said it is
indicated on the- Circulation Element; an alternate route for tha people on
Le Point Street would be down Nevada.
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 3 -16 -76 Page 5
Mrs. Simmons asked if the lots on James Way that had been originally
included in the zone change request had been dropped. Director Gallop
replied that only the Lovett property was included in the total rezoning
request, but not in the subdivision. Mrs. Simmons asked about drainage
from these lots. 'The Planning Director said that one of the requirements
on the La Barranca Tentative Map was to anticipate and design for these
waters.
Mrs. Honeycutt questioned the " -D" override for density transfer
on the proposed development. The Director replied that this had been set
by the City Council when they considered the zone change. This set the
maximum number of lots allowed on the property, now or in the future, This
is a Council perogative on any requested zone change.
Mr. Wolf asked if the report wouldn't be better termed a Conditional
Negative Declaration, or a Negative Declaration with conditions. Director
Gallop replied that they had conditioned the proposed development, but they
had done so in the Subdivision Review Board report, rather than in the
Negative Declaration itself.
Madelyn Steele, 1598 Hillcrest, asked if it would be an extra
guarantee if the conditions set out in the Subdivision Review Board Report
were included in the Negative Declaration, Director Gallop replied that
the Negative Declaration is not a legislative requirement, whereas a
Subdivision Review Board Report is; therefore, the latter is the stronger
of the two. The developer has no alternatives from those requirements.
Dr. Harrow stated that in the County an environmental determination
is normally made before the Review Board meeting.
Commissioner Gerrish asked about the drainage facility., Director
Gallop said that the developer would have to improve the existing drainage
facility to take care of the additional drainage; after the City accepts it,
it becomes the City's responsibility to keep it clean, etc.
After further discussion, the following action was taken:
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE VOIDING RESOLUTION NO, 76 -432 EIR AND
ACCEPTING NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION.
On motion by Commissioner Cole, seconded by Commissioner Mathews,
and by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
RESOLUTION NO. 76 -436 EIR
Commissioners Cole, Gerrish, Mathews, and Vice
Chairman Moots
Commissioner Ries
Commissioner Sandoval
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 16th day of March 1976,
Doris Olsen, representing the Santa Maria Times, asked about
the total acreage involved in the rezoning and subdivision. The Planning
Director said there were about 19 acres in the subdivision and 30 acres
in the rezoning.
The Planning Director requested that the Commission void the original
resolution approving the Tentative Map and adopt anew one to reflect the
action just taken.
After further discussion, the following action was taken:
RESOLUTION NO. 76 - 437
RESOLUTION OF THE 'PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ARROYO GRANDE VOIDING RESOLUTION NO. 76 - 429 AND
APPROVING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR TRACT NO. 453,
"RANCHO LA BARRANCA ", AND REFERRAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL
FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY.
221
222
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 3-16-76 Page 6
On motion by Commissioner Mathews, seconded by Commissioner
Cole, and by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Cole, Gerrish, Mathews, Ries,
and Vice Chairman Moots
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Sandoval
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 16th day of March 1976.
REVISED LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN
The Planning Director noted that the Commission had before them
a recommended resolution for adoption of the total changes to the Land
Use Element which they had decided upon at the last Commission meeting.
In adopting each of the changes, they had failed to pass a resolution
adopting the total package.
After a brief discussion, the following action was taken:
RESOLUTION NO. 76 -438
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ARROYO GRANDE ADOPTING THE REVISED AND UPDATED
LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN.
On motion by Commissioner Cole, seconded by Commissioner Ries,
and -by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Cole, Gerrish, Mathews, Ries, and
Vice Chairman Moots
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Sandoval
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 16th day of March 1976.
LETTER FROM MR. BILL LANGWORTHY
Commissioner Mathews asked about a letter which the Commission had
received from Mr. Langworthy regarding suggestions for changes to the Land
Use Plan. The Planning Director stated that this letter had been received
too late for consideration by the Planning Commission and recommended that
they keep it on file for future consideration.
OAK PARK ACRES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Director Gallop announced that the Draft E. I. R. for Oak Park Acres
had been received and that anyone wishing to review them could do so in the
Planning Office. The public hearing will be held at the Commission meeting
on April 6, and written public input should be filed with the Planning Office
by April 1.
NEW CHAIRMAN
The Planning Director stated that normally when a Chairman resigns,
the Vice Chairman takes over; this is up to the Commission. The Vice Chair-
man could preside until the next regular election in June, if the Commission
so wished. The Commission unanimously recommended that Vice Chairman Moots
continue to preside over the meetings until the elections in June.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Mrs..Langworthy advised the Commission and the audience that inter-
ested persons were welcome to attend a review of the Oak Park Acres. E. I..R.
on Sunday night at the residence of. Dr. Mayer - Harnisch.
ZONING AME IME RE 0 i PA 0
Commissioner Mathews recommended that the Commission consider amend-
ing the Zoning Ordinance so that apartment complexes with multiple structures
I
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 3 -16 -76 Page 7
in "R -G" and "R-3" zones would not require a use permit. He did not feel
they would be losing any control as the structures required Architectural
Approval and any problems could be handled in that way. He added that he
felt multiple structure apartments were more aesthetically pleasing. On
motion by Commissioner Gerrish, seconded by Commissioner Ries, and unani-
mously carried, the Commission directed the Planning Director to place
this matter on the agenda for the next Commission meeting for their con-
sideration. The Director noted that if they decide to make this change,
they would have to adopt a resolution stating their intention to change
the Zoning Ordinance, and then a public hearing would have to be held.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Commission, on motion by
Commissioner Mathews, seconded by Commissioner Gerrish, and unanimously
carried, the Commission adjourned at 9:33 P.M.
ATTEST: �7
Secretary tVice Chairman
223