PC R 93-14213 3�2
RESOLUTION NO. 93-1421
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GRANTING A
VARIANCE, CASE NO. 93-176, APPLIED FOR BY THE
VONS COMPA1vIES, INC., AT 1650 GRAND AVENUE,
VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF
DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 9-10.070; ADOPTION OF
A NEGATIV� DECLARATION AND INSTRUCTION THAT
THE SECRETARY FILE A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande has considered
Variance Case No. 93-176, filed by The Vons Companies, Inc., to allow for several retaining
and sound walls in excess of the heights for walls allowed by the Development Code Section
9-10.070; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing on this application in
accordance with the City Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has found that this project is consistent with the
General Plan and the environmental documents associated therewith; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed this project in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that a Negative Declaration
can be adopted, and instructs the Secretary to file a Notice of Determination; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds, after due study, deliberation and public
hearing, the following circumstances exist:
1. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result
in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship not otherwise shared by others in the
surrounding area. Limiting the use of a retaining wall to six feet in height does present
a practical difficulty for construction on this property. Because the proposed facility
requires a large gross square footage, the parking requirement is high. Construction of
this large parking area at slopes that are safe for shopping carts and patrons (2% to
2.5%), results in the development area being lower than adjacent grade. Courtland Street
rises from Grand Avenue at approximately 5%. This divergence of grade between
Courtland Street and the parking lot results in the need for a 20-foot high retaining wall
at the rear of the site, some 652 feet northerly of Grand Avenue. Since supermarkets
require single level floors for transporting products from rear storage areas to the display
racks, different floor levels cannot be used to reduce the cut at the rear of the site. Any
such stepping of tl�e buildings presents an unnecessary physical hardship to this facility
that other similar operations do not experience. There is no practical way to meet safety
requirements for the parking lot and provide efficient and safe movement of goods within
the facility without having the development area recessed below a portion of the existing
surrounding grade.
2. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to
other properties classified in the same zone. Construction of a facility of this type does
result in extraordinary circumstances for construction. Because the existing grade rises
at 5% to the north there is no practical way to mitigate this increase in grade through
development of the property. Because the use of the property requires generally flatter
slopes for safety and adl�erence to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the slope
of the adjacent property aggravates the ability to reduce wall height. Other types of uses
within the same zoning district can more easily accommodate changes in grade relative
to building floor elevations. Parcel depths in the vicinity are not as great as this
particular property and existing slopes are generally flatter. In essence, a facility of this
size, placed within surrounding grade that is rising more steeply than development
standards allow, cannot accommodate this extraordinary circumstance without the
construction of retaining walls in excess of the six foot height limitation.
Resolution No. 93-1421
Variance Case No. 93-176
The Vons Companies, Inc.
June 15, 1993
Page Two
3. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would
deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners of other properties classified in the
same zone. Strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of this retaining wall height
limitation denies this property owner the opportunity to develop the property in a manner
enjoyed by other property owners in the same zoning district. The applicant is, in effect,
penalized for owning property that is more steeply sloping than similarly-zoned properties
in the vicinity. To address the sloping condition of the property directly across from the
proposed site, the Lucky Center on Courtland Street, has a cast in-place concrete
retaining wall ranging in height from 10 feet to 18 feet along the entire rear drive aisle.
4. The granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent
with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zone. Other similar uses
in the same zone have been permitted to exceed wall height limitations due to similar
slope constraints.
5. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or
welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
Construction of a retaining wall greater than six feet in height would not be detrimental
to the public health, safety, or welfare because safety barriers will be placed at the top
of the walls to prevent access or intrusion. The walls will be landscaped to deter
climbing and graffiti and can be easily monitored by on-site personnel. The landscaped
criblock wall's open-face design functions both as an acoustical and landscape buffer
between adjoining properties.
6. The granting of a variance is consistent with the objectives and policies of the General
Plan and the intent of this title. The granting of the variance is consistent with the
General Plan and the intent of the Development Code, as the variance would provide a
safe alternative to a stepped retaining wall, which would be allowed without a variance.
Construction of a properly landscaped criblock wall is easier to maintain than three tiers
of six-foot retaining walls; is less likely to fall than three staggered six-foot retaining
walls and benches; and is more attractive because each of the six-foot retaining walls
would require the installation of a safety barrier due to heights in excess of 30 inches.
Since the retaining walls are minimally visible to the general public, and will receive
extensive landscape and/or design treatments, they will not be visually prominent or
attract adverse attention. Furthermore, Section 9-10.070(2) of the Development Code
indicates that in some instances a variance for wall height may be appropriate for walls
used for screening or sound attenuation.
Department of Fish and Game Required Findings of Exemption
1. The City of Arroyo Grande has prepared an initial study pursuant to Section 15063 of
the Guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), for Variance Case
No. 93-176.
2. Based on the initial study, a negative declaration drafted for review by the public and
review and approval by the Planning Commission.
3. After holding a public hearing pursuant to State and City Codes, and considering the
record as a whole the Planning Commission adopted the negative declaration and found
that there is no substantial evidence of any significant adverse effect, either individually
or cumulatively on wildlife resources as defined by Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game
Code or on the habitat upon which the wildlife depends as a result of development of this
project.
3�3 �:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City
of Arroyo Grande hereby adopts a Negative Declaration, instructs the Secretary to file a Notice
of Determination; and approves said variance, subject to the standard conditions of the City and
those conditions listed below:
3 3� 4.
Resolution No. 93-1421
Variance Case No. 93-176
The Vons Companies, Inc.
June 15, 1993
Page Three
General Conditions
1. The applicant shall ascertain and comply with all State, County and City requirements
as are applicable to this project.
2. This variance shall automatically expire on June 15, 1995 unless a conditional use permit
is approved for construction of a new Williams Brothers/Vons store. If a conditional use
permit is approved for a new Williams Brothers/Vons store, this application will
automatically expire on the same date as the conditional use permit unless a building
permit is issued and substantial construction is commenced and diligently pursued toward
completion, or a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. Thirty (30) days prior to the
expiration of the approval, the applicant may apply to the Planning Commission for an
extension of one (1) year from the date of expiration.
3. This variance was reviewed specifically for, and applies specifically to a proposed
Williams Brothers/Vons store. No other use or applicant shall be entitled to use this
application as a basis for development. If the proposed store does not develop during the
time period specified in condition two, this application will become null and void.
4. Retaining walls exceeding six (6) feet in height are approved for the locations shown on
the plans presented to the Planning Commission at the meeting of June 15, 1993 and
marked "Exhibit A". In no way does this approval allow a decrease in the setbacks or
landscaping required by the Development Code.
5. Retaining or sound walls exceeding the three (3) foot height limit in a street setback area
are approved for the locations shown on the plans presented to the Planning Commission
at the meeting of June 15, 1993 and marked "Exhibit A" with the exception of the crib
wall directiv adiacent to Oak Park Bot�levard which is denied without prejudice. In no
way does this approval allow a decrease in the setbacks or landscaping required by the
Development Code.
6. The applicant shall agree to defend at his/her sole expense any action brought against the
City, its agents, officers, or employees because of the issuance of said approval, or in
the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its
agents, officers, or employers, for any court costs and attorney's fee's which the City,
its agents, officers or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such
action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense
of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his/her obligations
under this condition.
7. A negative declaration with mitigation measures has been adopted for this project. The
following mitigations shall be implemented as conditions of approval and shall be
monitored by the appropriate City department or other responsible agency. The
applicant shall be responsible for verification in writing by the monitoring
department or agency that the mitigation measures have been implemented.
Mitigation Measures
8. The proposed walls shall be extensively landscaped and/or shall receive design or
architectural treatments to allow them to blend in with the project and/or site and/or
vicinity. Specific wall design, colors, materials, architectural treatments, landscaping
irrigation, and so forth shall be subject to the review of the Architectural Advisory
Committee and the review and approval of the Planning Commission as part of the
conditional use permit review of the proposed store.
Ti�ne Frame: During the review and approval process for the proposed store.
Responsible Department: Planning Department
�
I
�
�
Resolution No. 93-1421
Variance Case No. 93-176
The Vons Companies, Inc.
June 15, 1993
Page Four
9. In the event that during grading, construction or development of the project, any
archaeological resources are uncovered, all work shall be halted until the city has
reviewed the resources for their significance. If human burials are encountered, the
County Coroner (781-4514) shall be contacted immediately. The applicant may be
required to provide archaeological studies and/or mitigation measures. All grading and
improvement plans shall be noted to reflect this mitigation.
Time Frame: During grading, construction or development of the project.
ResponsiUle Department/Agency: Building Department
Planning Department Conditions
10. Development shall conform with the GC zoning requirements unless otherwise approved.
11. This variance approves wall heights in excess of heigllts allowed by City Codes. It does
not approve specific design aspects of the proposed walls which shall be reviewed as
specified in mitigation measure number 8.
12. All gate, fence, wall, and/or guard rail designs shall be shown on the plans presented for
approval of the proposed store. All designs shall be subject to review of the
Architectural Advisory Committee and review and approval of the Planning Commission.
Building Department Conditions
13. Prior to the start of construction, the applicant shall apply for permits and pay
appropriate fees.
14.
15.
Protective guard rails are required anywhere that a retaining wall in excess of 30 inches
high abuts a public way.
The landscaped area between the cribwall and the sound wall, between the store and the
church shall be gated to prohibit public access.
On motion of Commissioner Tappan, seconded by Commissioner Reilly, and on the following
roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Tappan, Reilly, Deviny, Hatchett, Keen, and Chairman Soto
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Carr
the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 15th day of June, 1993.
ATTEST:
�
Nancy Brow , Commission Clerk o n S o, Chairman
335: