PC Minutes 1976-01-20Arroyo Grande Planning Commission
January 20, 1976
The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in.regular session with
Chairman Calhoon presiding. Presnt were Commissioners Cole, Gerrish, Mathews,
Moots, Ries, and Sandoval. Also present: ware Planning Director Gallop, -City
Administrator B.t.ch, Public Works Director Anderson, and Mayor Talley,
MIN_U_TE_ _APP_ROVA'C
The minates of the regular tar rneeti,ng of January 6-were approved by the
Chairman as prepared.,
REVIEW COMMITTE ACTIONS
Lot_Split,_Comm;rtee_Actions: Thu Commission reviewed: the Committee actions
on Lot Split Case Nos 76 -234, 176 Myrtle Street; (Peters); 76 555 Traffic Way,
(Schmitt:); and J6- -236, 555 Traffic Way, (Schmitt), Director Gallop noted that he
had received a letter from Mr. Glenn Peters regarding his proposed lot split on
Myrtle (Case No,. 76.234) Mr, Peters stated that he wished to go on record that
he may' want to appeal certain conditions of the lot split at a later date, depending
on a . , :rvey of his property and the location of Myrtle Street in relationship to his
property line, The Director stated that nothing needed to be don at this time;
Mr. Peters has the right to appeal and record eighteen months from approval.
Architectural Review Com•e.it',°.e:. Actions: The Planning Director displayed
maps of the proposed developments for - Architectural Review Case Nos. 76 -112, .
132 South Rena, (VIP Future Corp.); 76-113, 508 & 512 Le Point, (Stickier);
76.114, 1158 Fair•Oaks Avenue, (VIP Future Corp), He noted that the original
address given on Fair Oaks was incorrect, and that 1158 was the true address
After a brief diocuss-ion on the Committ: Actions, the Chairman ordered
the reports filed.
PUBLIC HEARING - LAN.DUSEELEMENT _OF, THE__GENER L PLAN FOR THE CITY. OF ARROYO GRANDE
Director Gallop reviewed the history of the Land Use Element noting that
it was first adopted in 1967: It was reviewed and amended with minor changes in
1970 and in 1974_ All three times there were public hearings before both the
Planning Commission and the City Council before the Element was adopted or re-
adopted, The present: Plan has been in effect now for about: one year.. Due to a
recent (J,p. _.. of a requested zone chang:µ.,- and the subsequent court case, the
Court has advised the City to make a determination by March 15 that dither the
zoning be vecognized or the General Plan changed. The Court ruling indicates
that since the zoning was denied, and dons not now comply with the General Plan,
on of these two changes should take place.
The Planning Director recommended that the Commission not take any action
at this meeting, He suggested that th.Ey take any input that the public•might have,
have t.h..: material t.' p: d, with staff comments if they wished„ and consid r th .se
materials carefully before making a decision at a lacer meeting.. H:; also suggested
continuing the public hearing to the next meeting,, for further input,; He added
that, legislatively, the General Plan may be amended three times in any one year.,
By making any changes at this time.. the Commission would be using 1/3 of its
perogative, and therefore should consider any changs very carefully,. He added
that the Land Use Plan is a twenty year guideline for the City's use in rezoning
and development requests; any zone change request that is not in conformance with
the Plan must be denied or the Land Use•Plan changed
Upon being assured by Director G flop that public hearing for the•Land Use
Element of t'h €A General Plan had been d.r•ly published, Chairman Calhoon declared the
public hearing open..:
(1) Don McHaney, 1214 Brighton; Addison Wood., 1133 Maple Street; Jim Lawler,
South Traffic Way Extension; and Joe Sidel, Lot 11 of Walnut Creek Subdivision,
all stated that they were in favor of the Land Use Plan as it now stands,
(2) Peggy L,in.gworthy Printz Road, stated •i :hat she felt the General Plan was
quite good, However, she felt that the Land Use Plan should be changed in regards
to the corner of Noyes and Printz Roads, This area is shown as "C -N" Neighhorhood-
Comm rEial., Sla= €tllt•: that this was not ippr,opriate for the lifestyle of those
vople living in that area.. She also felt: that the topography was not appropriate
for thi® type of development, due to the area being in a flood plane of sorts, and
the visibility b::1ng poor. She asked if the strawberry fields south of Grand were
eligible for Agricultural Preserve. status Director Gallop explained that any
195
196
.Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 1-20 -76 Page 2
parcel of land that can qualify under present criteria can go into Agricultural
Preserve, irrespective of. zoning
Fred Wolfe, 540 Gaynfair, questioned the standards used in the Planre-
garding school sizes. Director Gallop stated that they wgre State standards
which had been adopted as ideals to work towards. Mr. Wolfe stated he felt that
the figures used should be representative of this area, ratter than State figures
He also stated he believed capital growth of the schools should be more fully
represented in the Plan, He noted that he believed there was a problem in the
school system as far as overcrowding, and that the Plan should reflect this
problem:, He stated that he was in favor of much of the Land Use Plan regarding
medium and high residential districts, Mr, Wolfe also asked if there was a
minimum acreage under Open Space Easements„ The Director explained that the City
did not have an Ordinance for this yet and had not set any requirements.
(2) Mrs. Stilwell, 734 Myrtle, asked if there had been some zoning that does
not conform to the General Plan„ Chairman Calhoon replied that there had not
been any to his knowledge..
(3) Bill McCann, 428 Tanner Lane, asked about the listed land use of the
valley floor. Chairman Calhoon replied that it is low density, or a maximum
of 42 homes per acre. Mr, McCann suggested that all the prime agricultural land
on the valley floor be changed to indicate "A" zoning, or a holding zone.
(4) Bill Langworthy, Print:z Road, said that in reviewing the Plan regarding
categories of residential land, he found a fair amount of consistency in the
medium and high densities,. However, he felt there was a.large variation in
density in packing and subsequent iie.071e in the low density category. He
proposed that the Commission consider an .additional residential category, per-
haps residential agricultural, with a density from .,2 units per acre up to 1
unit per acre., He also stated that he had strong reservations regarding the
"P -D" zoning (low density) on the large tract of land at the northern boundary
of the City, as this would allow development of anything up to light industrial:.
(5) Marjorie Dean,, 611 South Traffic Way Extension, stated that she was
against the Land Use Plan as it now stands..
(6) Marie Cattoir, 195 Orchid Lane, stated she felt it was unfortunate that
at the time the General Plan was adopted the State law was not fully understood
that it would be binding; she felt that each development should be considered
on its own merit as it comes up, Therefore, she was against the General Plan
as it stands, She also was opposed to industrial zoning on South Traffic Way
Extension.
(7) Mrs. Simmons, 150 Tally Ho Road, referred to the Plan with reference to
flood areas, which stated that Tally Ho Creek has serious drainage problems.
She felt that the current rezoning action on Tally Ho Estates was not in com-
pliance with the Land Use Element, She stated she was against the Land Use
Element as it stands,. She also suggested reducing the Tally Ho area to a much
lower density due to the possibility of a fault in that area.
(8) Fred Steele, 1598 Hillcrest, said he would like to see the strawberry
fields south of Grand Avenue put back in the Plan as agricultural land. He
_r-o questioned the legality of a property owner paying sewer assessments on
property that is zoned "A" permanently,
(9) Karl Hogan, 1255 Poplar Street, asked if the Land Use Plan was binding.
Chairman Calhoon explained that it can be changed three times a year as neces-
sary. Mr. Hogan also asked if the March 15 deadline could be extended if a
decision is not reached in time,
(10) Elsie Laycock 110 Longview Avenue, Pismo Beach, a realtor, stated she
believed the City needed more industry; that is what brings in more tax money,
She also felt that an extension was not needed.
(11) Thomas Goff, Route 1, Box 24, representing the Church of Latter -Day
Saints, stated he was present to reaffirm that the church was opposed to
industrial zoning on South Traffic Way Extension.
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission,, 1 -20 -76 Page 3
(1) Mrs:, Langworthy, speaking f.or R. C. Wiley & Associates, Noyes Road,
stated that basically Mr.. Wiley was concerned that any large scale "P -D"
proposal that would be implemented would fail financially as had happened
in other developments, such as that at Nacimiento Lake. He requested the
Commission to consider a financial report bond of some type to be written
into the Land Use Element to insure that a development had enough basic capi
tal to complete the project and to prevent it dying halfway and being an
eyesore.,
(2) Andy Johnson, 1279 Poplar, said he felt that the area surrounding
the South Traffic Way Extension area was strictly residential and that
industrial was not compatible„
(3) Jean Baird, 1141 Linda Drive, said she believed protection of the
remaining productive areas is especially important,
(4) E, Alberdeen, 1052 Grand Avenue, stated that all obligations should
be known before the town is cut up into expensive parcels, Children deserve
a place to live in their home town,
(5) Doctor Hoagland, Superintendent of the Lucia Mar School District, made
some comments relative to the school problems„ He stated that since the School
District is serving the entire South County, it is not limited to the geographic
limits of the various cities, He stated the the District has a consultant from
the State Division of Schoolhouse Planning who is doing a thorough analysis of
the schools, and that he believed the completed report would be of help to the
various Planning Commissions, He noted that the District is in very extreme
difficulty at the high school level at this time, with the pressure off at the
4th, 5th, and 6th grades, but the pressure rises again with the grades Kinder-
garten through 3rd„ He added that some of the classes are substandard now,
and that possibly some of the libraries would have to be abandoned to make
more classroom space.
(6) .Joe Sidell said he believed light manufacturing would help ease the prob-
lems, as it would bring in more tax money.
(7) Ella Honeycutt, 560 Oak Hill Road, referred to the Open Space Element
which stated that anything over 30% should be considered open space; however,
she felt that the City has not done this and that they should do so now.
(8) Shawn Davies, 258 Tally Ho Road, requested the Planning Commission to
review the flood control measures taken on Tally Ho Road and at the bridge
on Highway 227., She also expressed support for the view that there would be
little need for a shopping center at the corner of Noyes Road and Printz.
(9) Carol Allen., 1012 Grand, said she was concerned that the public would
not be allowed to give the Commission feedback before a final decision is made.
(10) Betty Lawler, South Traffic Way Extension, said she believed that the
Commission had put a lot of time and thought into the Land Use Plan and that
they had done a good job.
(11) Mr. Silva, 1155 Flora Road, commentr:d on the previous development in
the Greenwood area,
(12) Don McHaney, 1248 Grand, noted that most of the audience's comments
seemed to favor lower density than the Land Use Plan indicated, He stated
that this allowed for no growth, and wondered how much of the public this
viewpoint represented,
(13) Madeleine Steele, 1598 Hillcrest, asked how she. could express her
views, The Planning Director stated that he would have the unapproved minutes
of this meeting available on Tuesday, January 27, for the public's review. If
anyone wished to reply and /or make any comments for the Commission's review,
they could submit them in writing to the Planning Secretary by noon, Thursday,
January 29, and these would be distributed with the agenda materials to the
Commission., This would enable the Commission to fully consider any suggestions
prior to the next Commission meeting
1
198
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission., 1 -20 -76 Page 4
(1) Doris Olsen, representing the Santa Maria Times, questioned what an
inactive fault is„ The Planning Director explained that it is one where there
has been no actual activity for the last several thousand years, or there is
no evidence of activity.
(2) Elizabeth Jackson, 208 Fairview, said she believed that the public had
trouble understanding the Public Hearing Notices because of the manner in which
they have been worded.; She suggested that they be changed so that the public
knows what property is being discussed:
There being no further discussion for or against the Land Use Plan, on
motion by Commissioner Ries, seconded by Commissioner Sandoval, and unanimously
carried, the public hearing was continued to the regular meeting of Tuesday,
February 3, with the Commission to receive adequate staff comments and /or
answers to comments made at this meeting, and with the hearing to have no
restriction made on the public in giving input except for normal rules of
procedure.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SANDOVAL, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COLE, AND
UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED, THE COMMISSION RECESSED AT 9:13 P.M,
THE COMMISSION RECONVENED AT 9:18 P.M. WITH ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AS SHOWN
ON THE ROLL CALL.
CONSIDER A REQUEST TO ABANDON A PORTION OF TRAFFIC WAY
Director Gallop stated that when Highway 101 was on Traffic Way, the De-
partment of Transportation acquired additional land for right of way purposes.
However, this land had never had anything done to it due to relocation of the
Highway 101 right of way. When Traffic Way reverted to the City, this acquisi
tion became a City street and it no longer belonged to the Department of Trans-
portation. Two parcels of this acquisition, one at the corner of Traffic Way
and Allen, the other at the corner of Traffic Way and Cherry, have reverted back
to the property owners. The present request is for the area between these two
parcels. He stated that City Engineer Garcia does not feel the property is
necessary for City use,.
Commissioner Sandoval asked if there were any plans to widen Traffic Way.
Director Gallop replied that there was adequate land for the needs of street
development.
After further discussion, the following action was taken:
On motion by Commissioner Cole, seconded by Commissioner Gerrish, and by
the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Cole, Gerrish, Mathews, Moots, Ries, Sandoval,
and Chairman Calhoon
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 20th day of January 1976.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO COMMISSION RE: PETITION FROM HONEYCUTT -MILLS ON
LOT SPLIT CASE NO, 75'227 END OF PEARWOOD . (LEMQ
Director Gallop displayed a map of the property, and stated that the
petition had been considered by the staff and also the Lot Split Committee.
The petition requested a fence at the top and bottom of a bluff, existing on
the property, to keep children from climbing the hill and to provide protec-
tion from rocks falling off the hill... The staff and Lot Split Committee felt
that they were more concerned with children trying to climb up the public access
on the hill and the dislodgement of debris. Therefore, they recommended a 6 ft.
chain link fence from the corner of an existing fence on Lot 11 of Tract 176,
RESOLUTION NO. 76 -428
AISOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING ABANDONMENT OF A PORTION OF
TRAFFIC WAY.
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 1 -20 -76 Page 5
extending along a graded area along the toe of the slope, westerly to the corner
' of Lot 4 of the Lemon parcel map and then southerly to the interior property
corner, They also recommended that the fence have two maintenance gates so that
the City can get in to clean. The fence would parallel Pearwood right -of -way.
The City would issue an encroachment permit to allow Mr, Lemon to put in the
fence. They felt that this fence would keep debris and children from the public
right -of -way,
Paul Sturges, engineer for the property owners, stated that Mr„ Lemon had
intended to fence along the top of the bluff; he felt this was more protection
as there would not be the amount of debris if no one could climb around the top
of the bluff.
Commissioner Cole asked what kind of legality would be involved if Mr.
Lemon was required to put the fence in the public right -of -way. Public Works
Director Anderson stated that the City would give him an encroachment permit,
Commissioner Mathews suggested a fence on top, put in by Mr, Lemon, and a fence
at the bottom, put in by the City: Commissioner Moots stated the concern was
for safety, and he believed a fence at the bottom provided the most..
After further discussion, on motion by Commissioner Ries, seconded by
Commissioner Gerrish, the Commission approved the proposed lot split and amendment
to the Minor Subdivision Committee Action Report, subject to the staff and
Lot Split Committee recommendations, by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Gerrish, Moots, Ries, and Sandoval
NOES: Commissioners Cole, Mathews, and Chairman Calhoon
ABSENT: None
WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE
Planning Director distributed a notice of a Planning Commission Institute
to be held on February 4, 5, and 6 in San Francisco, and noted that the budget
would allow one Commissioner to attend along with himself, He asked that any-
one interested in attending contact him by Friday, January 23. There was no
expression of interest,
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Commission, on motion by
Commissioner Moots, seconded by Commissioner Ries, and unanimously carried,
the Commission adjourned at 9:45 P.M.
ATTEST:
Secretary Chairman
199