Loading...
PC Minutes 1976-03-02Arroyo Grande Planning Commission March 2, 1976 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chairman Calhoon presiding. Present were Commissioners Cole, Gerrish, Mathews, Moots, Ries,'and Sandoval, Also present was Planning Director Gallop. MINUTE APPROVAL After hearing no additions or corrections, the minutes of the regular meeting of February 17, 1976 were approved by the Chairman REQUEST FOR NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - LA BARRANCA SUBDIVISION AND ZONE CHANGE Director Gallop noted that the Planning Commission had approved the Tentative Sulidivision Map for Tract No 453, La Barranca, at their last meeting, and that although a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact was on file for the subdivision as previously applied for`with a higher density of units, he had requested a new Negative Declaration. He stated that Mrs : Simmons had presented a request to the City Council concerning the City's:Trocedures with regard to Negative Environmental Impact Statements,. and that he had attached a memo to her materials con- cerning his reactions "; He stated he had a letter from the County'' Environ- mental Coordinator which said the City's procedures were adequate. However, he added that the City would no longer allow a petitioner to useany'form other than the City's. In addition, any remarks from any department with regard to the request for Negative Declaration status would be attached and filed with the County Clerk. Other than these changes, the present procedures would continue, ' He stated that the request for Negative D was before the Commission had two reports attach Engineer, and one from himself, in answer to yes B Form. After a.brief discussion, the following eclaration status that ed: one from the City answers on the Appendix action was taken:. NOES: Commissioner Ries ABSENT: None RESOLUTION NO. 76 -432 EIR RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO 'GRANDE ACCEPTING NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION. On motion by Commissioner Mathews, seconded by Commissioner Cole, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: .Commissioners Cole, Gerrish, Mathews, Moots, Sandoval, and Chairman Calhoon the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 2nd day of March 1976. PUBLIC HEARING — REZONING CASE NOA 76 -94, BRANCH MILL ROAD, FROM "A" AGRICULTURAL ZONED" DISTRICT TO "R-A -B -2" RESIDENTIAL - AGRICULTURAL ZONED DISTRICT, WITH DENSITY TRANSFER, AND "A -P" AGRICULTURAL 'PRESERVE ZONED DISTRICT (GREENWOOD'` ". COMMISSIONERS'MATHEWS AND MOOTS WERE EXCUSED DUE TO POSSIBLE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. AND ARE NOW ABSENT. Director Gallop stated that when the. City Council considered the appeal on a zone-change for this property that had been denied by the Planning Commission' they received some,new information, which consisted of a soils report from the Central Coast Laboratories, a letter from Cal Trans concerning–the traffic conditions on Branch Mill Road, and a letter from Mr.;Betita, who is currently farming the property in question., The Council made a determination that this was new information and sent the matter.back to the Planning Commission. At that time, Greenwood asked for. a''re 'iston his, request, . and asked the Corot i®s an to accept a new application. At their last meeting, the Commission had 'voted to do so. 211 212 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 3 -2 -76 Page 2 The Planning Director noted that the property consists of a low - lying portion of prime agricultural land, producing approximately three crops a year, and a higher portion of Class II soil, with an underlying clay bed, which produces one to two crops a year, due to retention of water. The high land, plus a portion in the Creek bed, was being re- quested for "R-A -B -2" zoning, with a density transfer. Upon being assured by Director Gallop that public hearing for the proposed zone change had been duly published, posted, and property owners notified, Chairman Calhoon declared the public hearing open. Charles Greenwood, 17842 Irvine Boulevard, Tustin, the property owner, stated he wished to put the lower portion of the land into agricultural preserve, with the rest to be "R- A-B -2 ". Five acres, more or less, of the "B=2" property would be dedicated as park land, which would leave 18 acres to build homes on. He asked that a density transfer be granted from the "A-P" portion, to allow a maximum of 70 units, He stated that it appeared that there were two main objections to the subdivision: the road situation and the use of agricultural land for building. He stated that at the City Council meeting, several Counsellors had indicated that additional road improvements would be made when the situ- ation warranted. With regard to the soil being Class II, he stated there were other factors involved, such as the size of the parcel, the depth of good soil, and drainage. He further discussed various facets of the property and again asked for rezoning based upon the fact that: 1. The property is in the Sewer Assessment District, 2. There are dead -end roads abutting his property from the existing Greenwood Manor; 3 > All utilities are available and all costs of development would be borne by the developer, not the City. 4. The upper 18 acres is marginal agricultural land, not suitable for economic farm operations, 5. The City will be benefitted by the 5 acres to be dedicated for park land for Strother Park. 6. It is in conformity with the General Plan. Leonard Blaser, Route 2, Box 111A, San Luis Obispo, builder for the developer, stated that they intended to provide an access to the rear at the park area, and possibly a bike path to provide access to Huasna Road. Mr. Blaser stated he believed there was a demand for more houses in Arroyo Grande. He also stated that circulation of the water system would be looped, which would increase the fire flow pressure of the present Greenwood tract. He added that this area had been planned as an extension of Greenwood Acres when the first part was developed, and that the residents should have known this. Carol Roberts, representing the Telegram Tribune, asked for clari- fication of the number of lots. Mr. Greenwood explained the he was asking for a maximum of 70 lots on 18 acres. Peggy Langworthy, Printz Road, stated she had attended the City Council meeting when they heard the appeal on the original zone change request, and she remembered Mayor Talley stating the drainage on this land was spoiled when the first increment of Greenwood Acres went in; in other words, the land was all useable before. She asked how they planned to treat the irrigation system with the existing water arrange- ments. 'Mr. Greenwood replied that there is a pump down on the bottom of the Creek bed, and that the farmer had told him he would continue to farm with that pump. Fred Wolfe, 540 Gaynfair, said he felt the element of potential vandalism would hold for the upper property as well as the lower part. He also felt it was unclear as to how it could be uneconomical to farm the whole area, but it was feasible to farm only the smaller portion. He added he felt that the distinction between prime and marginal agricultural lands was relative; he believed it was important to find out if the upper portion would qualify for Agricultural Preserve under the Williamson Act. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 3 -2 -76 Page 3 Chairman Calhoon replied that one of the qualifications was the economic results achieved in the past. Director Gallop added that property which only produced one or two crops a year would have to be approved by the Agricultural Preserve Committee. Mr. Wolfe also questioned the legality of allowing density: transfer on an Ag Preserve. He added he felt the road.probleins were still an issue Henry Alexander, 1200 Huasna Road, stated there was some question regarding the property lines; he believed he owned a portion of the 5 acres planned for park Director Gallop stated there had always been a discrepancy of the survey regarding this property; however, this was a civil matter, and could not be determined by the Planning Commission. He added that Mr. Greenwood could not be required to give away any property that was not his own. David Murray, 478 Tanner, said he believed a good farmer could get an excellent crop from the property by the right crop and proper planting, He also felt it would be more economical to use the whole are for farming, rather than just the lower portion, He asked that if a subdivision were allowed on the property, that the park be put in first, He also felt there would. be some problems with animals if the lots were large enough: Bill Langworthy, Printz Road, questioned the number of lots that would be allowed- Director Gallop said that the petitioner'was requesting,a density transfer from the "A -P" portion of land. However, 'this transfer had not yet been decided upon by the Commission. Doris Olsen, representing the Santa Maria Times, asked about the future development of the property requested for "A -P "; she asked if when this property was no longer in the Agricultural Preserve, could it be developed with the amount of lots given in the density transfer. Director Gallop replied that if a density transfer were granted, he would recommend a " -D" override as to the number of lots allowed now, or at anytime in the future, for the total ownership as presently described, This would also apply to any future owner- ship. Madelyn Steele, 1598 Hillcrest, said she believed Mr. Alexander was concerned that if the Commission rezoned the property and it later turned out that a portion did belong to him, that it would be zoned for something detrimental for his interest. Director Gallop explained that if the property were determined to belong to Mr. Alexander, the new zoning would not hold be- cause the land would then be in the County, and the City. Limits would have to be adjusted accordingly, He added that when the City considered this property for a subdivision, the property line dispute would have to be settled. Mrs. Steele asked about drainage of the property. Mr. Greenwood said they'would handle this before the building started and it would go into the Creek. Director Gallop said the Department of Fish and Game would be notified when .a proposal is made for development. Fred Steele, 1598 Hillcrest, said he believed this was good Class II soil. Jay Johnson, 1198 Huasna Road, owner of the property adjacent to Mr. Alexander's, stated he believed there was an error in the property lines for about 75 feet across the Creek He added he felt Mr. Greenwood was trying to bribe the Commission by giving the City 5 acres of park land when normally 2 acres were required. Ella Honeycutt, Oak Hill Road, asked if Mr. Greenwood would be paying for the park. She also suggested that the Commission'require him to give money to the schools, as they are allowed under the Subdivision Act. Nadine Silva, 1155 Flora Road, said she had lived in the area for a long time and the property had always had a crop, John Lundgren, 1103 Flora Road, remarked about the proposed park land, stating it was very muddy in rainy weather. He also felt the original develop -: ment was a mistake and this would compound it Katheryn Greenelsh, 453 Tanner. Lane, said she believed this matter had been going on for a long time and either, the Commission didn't have all the facts or they didn't to listen. There being no further discussion for or against the proposed zone .change, Chairman - Calhoon declared the pubiicl hearing closed, 213 214 Arroyo Grande-Planning Commission, 3 -2 -76 Page 4 Director Gallop clarified, with relation to the park land, that in the Land Use Element in 1967, the City set out the recommendation that all streambed areas from City Limits to City Limits be acquired for park areas, and this was the reason for the requested park land, He added that con- struction of homes in the low area would not be allowed because it is in the flood plain. He said the Commission could require Mr, Greenwood to retain ownership of the property, however, and thus he would be paying the taxes on it, He also explained that "R- A -B-2" zoning does not allow large animals, no matter what the lot size, Commissioner Ries stated he believed this was a very controversial subject. He believed there should be an Environmental Impact Report prepared before any further decision is made, The following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO„ 76 -433 EIR RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE REQUIRING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. On motion by Commissioner Ries, seconded by Commissioner Sandoval, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Ries and Sandoval NOES: Commissioners Cole, Gerrish, and Chairman Calhoon ABSENT: Commissioners Mathews and Moots the foregoing Resolution was defeated this 2nd day of March 1976, Commissioner Cole moved to accept the proposed rezoning; the motion died for lack. of a second, Commissioner Gerrish asked for clarification of the density transfer request. Director Gallop explained that the petitioner was asking for a density transfer from the park land and the "A -P" portion. He added that the Commission could set a definite maximum number of lots for the property; if and when a Tentative Subdivision Map came in for approval, the Commission could decide if the park land was adequate, etc. Commissioner Sandoval stated he would like to see a further check on some of the items of concern. After further discussion, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 76 -434 Z RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AS PROVIDED BY CHAPTER 4 ZONING, ARTICLE 32, OF SAID CODE, On motion by Commissioner Cole, seconded by Commissioner Gerrish, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Cole, Gerrish, and Chairman Calhoon NOES: Commissioners Ries and Sandoval ABSENT: Commissioners Mathews and Moots the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 2nd day of March 1976, COMMISSIONERS MATHEWS AND MOOTS ARE NOW PRESENT. FINAL CONSIDERATION OF LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENTS Director Gallop stated that the Commission had before them tentative changes in the text.and map of the Land Use,Plan which they had discussed at the previous meeting for final consideration. He noted that he had received a letter from Saint Patridk's Church recognizing the proposed light-industrial area off of Highway 101 and adjacent to their'school property, which the Com mission had recommended for inclusion .h Land Use Plan, He added he had received a letter from Mrs. Steele, 1598 Hillcrest, regarding a statement made by him at the:'last Conirnission meeting concerning land density designations Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 3 -2 -76 Page 5 on the Land Use Map, She noted that he had made an error in stating that there is not an "A" Agricultural designation, and questioned the Commis- sion action on the matter of changing the land density designation on the southwest section of land at the intersection of Grand Avenue and Highway 101 had Mr. Gallop's statement been different. Mr. Gallop then reviewed each of the changes in detail for the Commission, The Planning Director first reviewed the rewrite of the section pertaining to "Planned Development" of the three large holdings northerly of Highway 101 and easterly of Oak. Park Boulevard. The Planning Director stated he had originally considered putting the school standards in the text, but had decided against it because they were subject to change and the School District had no alternative other than to accept those standards. He also stated that the approval or dis- approval of school bonds is not a consideration of the General Plan, How- ever, a statement concerning them could be put in if the Commission wished. Fred Wolfe, 540 Gaynfair; Ella Honeycutt, Oak Hill Road; Fred Steele, 1598 Hillcrest, all stated they felt the revisions did not reflect very much of the public's input. Commissioners Cole and Sandoval stated they felt the Land Use Plan was acknowledging the school problem; however, Arroyo Grande was not the whole School District, and therefore could not make recommendations as to what the School District should do. Commissioner Gerrish felt there could be some kind of compromise. Director Gallop advised that any change would have to be carefully written as the situation could change rapidly as far as current enrollment is concerned. He added that if the Commission con- sidered requiring subdivisions to contribute monies to the schools, extreme caution should be taken; unless other cities and the County did the same thing simultaneously, Arroyo Grande could cause a grave problem in its building industry, Commissioner Gerrish moved that the Commission not accept the suggested change to the first paragraph of Page 20 of the Land Use Plan; the motion was seconded by Commissioner Ries and defeated by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Gerrish, Moots, and Ries NOES: Commissioners Cole, Mathews, Sandoval, and Chairman Calhoon ABSENT: None Director Gallop again referred to the letter from Mrs. Steele regarding the decision at the last meeting on the property adjacent to and west of High- way 101. He noted that if the Commission did wish to change the designation on the property, he would recommend that they just eliminate this reference in the text and change the area on the map. Chairman Calhoon asked if the owners could put the property into the Ag Preserve, no matter what the Land Use desig- nation; Director Gallop replied that they could. Commissioner Moots moved to re- move the light- industrial designation from the property and make it agricultural; the motion was seconded by Commissioner Ries, and was defeated by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Moots, Ries, and Sandoval NOES: Commissioners Cole, Gerrish, Mathews, and Chairman Calhoon ABSENT: None Commissioner Gerrish noted that the suggested reference to the small areas of spot zoning in the City had been omitted from the Addendum they were approving. Director Gallop suggested saying there are small areas of spot zoning which. are non- conforming.due to problems arising prior to the adoption .of the General Plan in 1967, and these areas still remain on the Zoning Map, but are not reflected in the -Land Use•Plan because of their small and effect on the abutting properties.;•0n: motion by,Cprnnissioner - Ries, seconded by Commissioner Moots, and unanimously Carried, the Commission recommended that the above noted change be made to the Land Use- -Plan, 215 216 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 3-2 Page 6 Director Gallop then referred to the changes the Commission had suggested to the Land Use Map, Commissioner Gerrish moved that the Commission approve all the changes to the Land Use•Plan and Map, as noted on the Addendum, and adding the statement on the spot zoning, with the exception. of the change to Page 20, first paragraph, referring to the'Schools; the motion was seconded by Commissioner Ries and defeated by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Gerrish, Moots, and Ries NOES: Commissioners Cole, Mathews, Sandoval, and Chairman Calhoon ABSENT: None Commissioner. Gerrish moved that the Commission approve the following changes: Planned Development, Page 13; Schools, Page 20, regarding Saint Patrick's Catholic School; Agricultural Preserves, Page 26; the list of changes to the Land Use Map; and the new paragraph about the existing spot zoning; the motion was seconded by Commissioner Ries, and passed by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Gerrish, Moots, Ries, and Chairman Calhoon NOES: Commissioners Cole, Mathews, and Sandoval ABSENT: None Commissioner Cole moved that the Commission approve the change to Page 20, first paragraph, concerning the schools, as noted on the Addendum; Commissioner Sandoval seconded the motion, and it was passed by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Cole, Mathews, Sandoval, and Chairman Calhoon NOES: Commissioners Gerrish, Ries, and Moots ABSENT: None WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE Director Gallop again referred to a letter received from Mrs. Simmons concerning the City's procedures on Environmental Impact Reports. He stated that Dr, Harrow, Environmental Coordinator, had indicated he would -be at the Planning Commission meeting on April 6 to discuss the City's procedures and some new State laws that are pending. Oak Park Acres Environmental Impact Report - The Planning Director stated the E. I. R. for Oak Park Acres should be delivered to his office on Friday afternoon and it would be available to the public. Public hearing on the Report will be at the Commission meeting on April 6. Chairman Calhoon's Resignation - Director Gallop also noted he had received a letter of resignation from Chairman Calhoon, who is moving out of the area, and this would be his last meeting: He thanked the Chairman for his work on the Commission, and presented him with his name plate, ORAL COMMUNICATIONS The Planning Director announced there would be a Lot Split-Architectural Committee meeting on Thursday, March 4, at 1:30 P.M. in his office; Commissioners Mathews and Moots stated they would. attend. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, on motion by Commissioner Sandoval, seconded by Commissioner Gerrish, and unanimously carried, the Commission adjourned at 9:59 PM, ATTEST : Secretary Chairman