Loading...
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