PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
CALLED TO ORDER at 6:30 p.m. by Chair Foerster
FLAG SALUTE led by Commissioner Calmenson
ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners, Calmenson, Barnett, Conroy, Leon, Morris-Versaw, Chair Foerster
Absent: Commissioner Mires
STAFF PRESENT: Bruce Ambo, AICP, Community Development Director
Susan Clark, AICP, Assistant Community Development Director
Pamela Gartin, Assistant Planner
Murry Wilson, Planning Intern
Jennifer Tremayne, Administrative Secretary
PUBLIC COMMENTS: Christopher Maccarone, 242 Beckett Place, referred to his letter of August 30, 2002 and requested that the Planning Commission consider revocation of a Home Occupation Permit that was issued to Galaxy Plumbing.
Commissioner Morris-Versaw asked Staff how the Planning Commission should approach this issue. Assistant Director Clark referenced section 9142.8 in the Zoning Ordinance, under "Termination of a Home Occupation Permit." She stated that Staff could bring the item back to the October meeting for the Planning Commission to make a determination if there was good cause to revoke the Home Occupation Permit.
Commissioner Morris-Versaw moved to bring this back to the October meeting, seconded by Chair Foerster and carried unanimously by voice-vote with Commissioner Mires absent.
Commissioner Calmenson asked Mr. Maccarone if he had gone to the Code Enforcement Officer. Mr. Maccarone stated that he had, and that the purview of decisions now rested with the Planning Commission.
Assistant Director Clark stated that Galaxy Plumbing had been given a Notice of Code Enforcement letter from the Code Enforcement Officer identifying the specific issues, and that he had not complied with the issues of that letter.
Commissioner Conroy asked for the correspondence to be included in the next agenda packet.
COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS:
2. Report from Council Representatives: Commissioner Morris-Versaw attended the City Council meeting on August 19, 2002 and reported that the City Council approved an Ordinance regarding changes to the Coastal Industrial Commercial District and Coastal Visitor Services Districts to make them consistent with the Coastal Commission requirements. The City Council overturned the Planning Commission's decision to deny Application 01-018, Horizon Seabright, 1003 Front Street project. She also stated her concern about a disparaging comment that one of the Councilmen had made, when the Commission had worked hard to come to a decision on this project.
Chair Foerster attended the City Council meeting on September 3, 2002, and reported that the Community Development Director, Bruce Ambo, was commended for his role in developing some template plans for a new facade that would be introduced to businesses along Grand Avenue. Assistant Director Clark stated that Staff would be putting together some design guidelines for a facade enhancement program, and the Commission would be considering those at a future time.
Chair Foerster stated that the City Council approved the Preliminary Redevelopment Project Area. He stated that a question was raised about joining the two areas together to have additional revenues available to address the sewer needs at the end of Grand Avenue. He also stated that the Live/Work Area was discussed and continued to address some text changes.
3. Other Commissioners' Comments: None.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Assistant Director Clark reported that the Community Development Department budget hearing took place last night and everything the department had requested was approved. She stated that adoption of the final budget was scheduled for Monday September 16, 2002. The City Council approved updating the Circulation Element; a digital topography map to prepare a master drainage plan, and the hiring of a contract Associate Planner to help ease some of the work load. She stated that a Housing symposium, hosted by the League of California Cities, was scheduled to take place on Thursday, September 12, at 5:30 p.m. at the Embassy Suites Hotel. Assistant Director Clark also stated that the Utility Study and Restaurant definitions were not included on the agenda tonight and would be continued to the next meeting.
Commissioner Morris-Versaw requested Staff to provide an updated version of the Planning Commission work load agenda.
Chair Foerster asked Staff what information they needed regarding Commissioners' absenteeism. Assistant Director Clark stated that it would be helpful if Commissioners could let Staff know at least 24 hours in advance if they would not be at the meeting to make sure there was going to be a quorum.
CORRESPONDENCE: Chair Foerster stated that he received some information from Elizabeth Doukas who was frustrated with code enforcement action on many issues.
CONSENT AGENDA:
On motion by Commissioner Calmenson, seconded by Commissioner Leon, and carried unanimously by voice-vote, with Commissioner Mires absent.
4. Approval of Minutes of August 6, 2002.
5. Approval of Minutes of August 13, 2002.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
6. Application #02-030, Gary & Susan Ross, 356 North 13th Street; APN 060-173-032
A request for a Use Permit to construct an addition to an existing nonconforming single family residence at 356 North 13th Street in the Single Family Residential District (R-1 Zone). Assistant Director Clark gave the Staff Report.
Commissioner Morris-Versaw asked Staff when the Use Permit was granted, if any Condition of Approval had been included to make sure the guest quarters would not be used as a rental. Assistant Planner Gartin stated that it was a standard Condition of Approval.
Chair Foerster opened the Public Hearing.
Gary & Susan Ross, 356 North 13th Street. Mr. Ross stated that the existing building had been there since 1950, and according to the Attorneys, any court action would probably not be successful. Mrs. Ross added that they wanted to keep the addition and have some additional space.
Cynthia Bayliss, 355 North 13th Street, encouraged the Planning Commission to approve this project.
Chair Foerster closed the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Leon stated that most of the concerns had been addressed.
Commissioner Calmenson asked Staff whether this legal document was commonplace to bypass this kind of problem. Assistant Director Clark stated that the City Attorney worked on this issue, and had stated that it was an appropriate tool and available to use.
On Motion by Commissioner Leon, seconded by Commissioner Conroy and on the following roll-call vote to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Leon, Conroy, Morris-Versaw, Barnett, Calmenson, Chair Foerster
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Mires
ABSTAIN: None
Resolution #02-053 was adopted this 10th day of September, 2002.
7. Application #01-018, Horizon Seabright, LLC., 1003 Front Street; APN 060-491-029
A request for a Specific Development Plan, based on a Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, Architectural Approval and a Coastal Development Permit, to subdivide a .98 acre parcel into two single family residential lots and construct one single family residence at 1003 Front Street in the Coastal Planned Single Family Residential District (C-P-R-1 Zone). Assistant Director Clark gave the Staff Report. She also stated that the Applicant had proposed the following four new Conditions of Approval to be added to the project in order to meet some of the concerns of the residents:
She referenced the Applicant's letter to the Commission dated September 6, 2002, and the request that the following Conditions of Approval be deleted:
She stated that the Applicant had done everything the City requested in processing this project, and was asking that the City pay their own expenses to defend the decision it had made in case of a lawsuit. Assistant Director Clark stated, however, that Staff did not recommend this Condition of Approval should be deleted.
She stated that the Applicant had made a statement that all the oak trees on the property were protected by the Coastal Commission covenant, and an open space easement should not be required to allow the City to accommodate the future needs of the families living in the homes.
Assistant Director Clark also stated that the Applicant had provided signatures of adjacent neighbors who were in favor of this project.
Chair Foerster asked how important the statement was "that no development shall occur within 50 feet of a solid canopy oak woodland." Assistant Director Clark stated that the project might conflict with the Local Coastal Program if it was within that area.
Chair Foerster stated that the oak woodland was defined by a strict document and was already delineated. Assistant Director Clark stated that if the Commission wanted to have the oak woodland redelineated that might require a change to the Local Coastal Plan.
Chair Foerster stated that there had been some evidence of erosion in the past from the cul-de-sac. Assistant Director Clark stated that during the wet season a year ago it looked like water was running off the end of the cul-de-sac.
Chair Foerster stated that Staff had recommended a monitoring program that could involve the Fish and Game Department. Assistant Director Clark stated that a monitoring program was a requirement of the C-P-R-1 Zoning District and Fish and Game would be made the third party in the CC&Rs. She stated that it would be their legal responsibility to monitor it.
Commissioner Morris-Versaw referred to Condition of Approval #1 in Resolution 02-052, and to the statement that the State Department of Fish and Game "may" be allowed to come onto the properties to inspect. She understood that Mr. Skiff had stated that the "retention basin shall be reviewed annually", and she would suggest strengthening the Condition of Approval to make sure it was "shall" to reflect Mr. Skiff's language.
Chair Foerster stated that the oak tree in question was a unique specimen and he asked if there were any records in the City of the oldest tree. Assistant Director Clark stated that there was not.
Chair Foerster asked if there were any tools to give distinction to particular kinds of trees. Assistant Director Clark stated that the oak tree was probably the biggest tree in the City. The Arborist Report had indicated that it was in decline, but that could take between 50-100 years.
Chair Foerster opened the Public Hearing.
Chris Skiff, 475 Marsh Street, Applicant gave a brief presentation. He made reference to the additional Conditions of Approval that he proposed, and explained they were an attempt to be responsive and sensitive to the neighbors. He stated that when he went round the neighborhood it was obvious to him that the neighbors wanted to see a single story house that was a little bit lower than what was being proposed. He stated that no one else had a problem with the project and they had all been willing to sign the petition. With regard to the drainage off the driveway, Mr. Skiff stated that they would put in a low, one foot wall and have a couple of small drainage basins that would tie in with the other drainage on the property. Mr. Skiff gave a description of the house itself and explained that it was designed to make it environmentally sensitive to the site. He stated that the retention basin was designed with a planter in the back, and it would improve the appearance and provide protection. With regard to the oak tree issue, Mr. Skiff stated that the closest property to the oak woodland, as delineated in the LCP, was more than 100 feet away. Mr Skiff also stated that the retention basin should be reviewed regularly, and he proposed that the City would add it to their list of reviewing public improvements. He offered that the property owner would pay for this review on an annual basis. Mr. Skiff stated that most of the neighbors who were concerned about this project could not see the house and he suggested that the Planning Commission might consider what the impacts were to those people.
John Seitz, 350 Estuary Way, presented the Commission with some handouts to further define some of the issues that had been raised concerning the oak tree, siting of the retention basin, and the grading and erosion plan. He referred to the page 2 of the C-P-R-1 Zone, Section 9106.4, Elements of Specific Development Plans, items (A) Grading Plan, (D) the Erosion Control Plan, (G) Proposals relative to land use, and (H) Mitigation measures. Mr. Seitz stated that the project area bordered the Pismo Lake Ecological Area. He referred to the Initial Study in the Staff Report on page 5, Section IV, Biological Resource, (a), (b), (c) and (e), where it was recognized that the project would have a significant effect on the environment unless the impacts were mitigated. On page 6 of the Initial Study, Mr. Seitz referred to a statement that the project was on the border of a riparian community, and classified as Central Coast Arroyo Willow Riparian Forest habitat, and qualified as jurisdictional wetland under the Army Corps of Engineers. He commented that this definition was not the same as used by the Coastal Commission. He stated that the discussion went on to state that a biological assessment regarding urban run-off and erosion was prepared for a larger scope of project for this site that included 4 lots with two new homes and one existing home. Mr. Seitz referenced page 20, item 2., Mitigation Measures and Best Management Practices and to the excerpt: "Storm water management issues and requirements will likely be established by the appropriate regulatory agencies, including the City of Grover Beach and the Regional Water Quality Control Board." He stated that he had not seen anywhere that the RWQB had commented or established any regulations regarding storm water runoff. Mr. Seitz then referred to the Coastal Commission Staff Report and stated that the Coastal Commission itself was concerned about erosion by how it addressed runoff from the lots. Mr. Seitz stated that there were certain agencies that had the opportunity to comment on erosion control, grading and runoff from this particular piece of property. He referred to the section in his handout about CEQA review agencies. He identified agencies that should be commenting on the project as: (1) the State Water Resources Control Board, (2) the Fish and Game Department, and (3) the Coastal Commission. Mr. Seitz stated that those comments were required for a Mitigated Negative Declaration. With regard to the trees, Mr. Seitz referred to the Local Coastal Plan definition of Oak Woodland. Mr. Seitz referred to two reports: the actual report about the trees and the biological assessment, and stated that they could be added to the definition of a local woodland. Mr. Seitz referred to the LCP vegetation map and to a condition of development approval that lands below the 60 foot contour at a minimum in the Meadow Creek uplands areas shall be dedicated to the City or State Department of Fish and Game as public open space as an integral portion of the Pismo Lake Ecological Reserve. Mr. Seitz stated that the Commission should deny the application with 3 findings: (1) The Planning Commission cannot approve the grading and erosion control plans without first receiving comment from other affected agencies, the Coastal Commission, Fish and Game, and Regional Water Quality Control Board; (2) the retention basin is within 50 feet of a solid oak woodland canopy, and (3) that the Specific Plan was in violation of the Local Coastal Plan because everything down grade of the 60 foot elevation mark is supposed to be dedicated as open space or to the City.
Commissioner Morris-Versaw asked Mr. Seitz to address the language circled on page 14 of the LCP: "A five-acre natural buffer zone bordering the southern edge of the marsh west of North Fourth Street was dedicated to Grover Beach as a condition of Coastal Commission approval of a four parcel subdivision." Mr. Seitz stated that the development map was the Bagwell Tract and the Local Coastal Program would have to be amended in order to allow this lot split.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:32 p.m. and reconvened at 8:38 p.m.
Roseanne Seitz, 350 Estuary Way, referred to a letter she had received from Tom Sullivan, who stated that the four lots could not be further divided. Mr. Sullivan also stated in his letter that the Coastal Commission had approved the subdivision prior to his employment with the City, and when the City prepared its Local Coastal Plan in the early 1980's, the 5-lot subdivision was used as the General and Specific plan for the area. Mrs. Seitz was concerned about siltation and environmental issues. In the Coastal Commission Review of the Grover Beach 1998 Local Coastal Plan, it was stated that the entire length of the creek north of Grand was to be protected with a 50 foot buffer established by habitat restoration plans approved by the Fish and Game Department, regardless of the land use designation and zoning, to preserve habitat and filtration capacities of the creek. The same document referenced the oak trees, and the arborist report that marked where the canopy was. With regard to scenic resource, Mrs. Seitz stated that it was an important area for the public. She did not agree with the statement in the report by Staff, that the visual impacts would not be significant.
Mr. Skiff stated that the arborist report clearly showed where the oak woodland canopy was. The retention basin was designed to handle a 100-year storm capacity on the roof top of this 1,800 square foot house. He referenced the section in the Coastal Commission report that stated: "The LCP contains policies prohibiting development on slopes of 25 percent or greater and requiring grading, runoff, and erosion control plans. The hillsides have been subdivided; no new lots will be created." Mr. Skiff stated that the grade of his site was between 8-10%. He stated that the 5-acre buffer was given to the Department of Fish and Game, and to the City to protect the ecological preserve. With regard to retention basins, Mr. Skiff stated that the map showed that his property was more than 100 feet away. The map was approved by the Coastal Commission and reviewed by Staff at the time. He stated that this project was not in the Meadow Creek Uplands, and the reference to the 40/60 foot contour did not apply to this property. He referenced page 14 of the LCP regarding the four lot subdivision, that stated: "A five-acre natural buffer bordering the southerly edge of the marsh west of North fourth Street was dedicated to Grover Beach as a condition of Coastal Commission approval of a four parcel subdivision." Mr. Skiff stated that this was a factual statement, and it did not refer to it not being subdivided further. He stated that the Zoning Codes that are in place now, are the codes that applied to this property, not at the time of the Bagwell Tract. Mr. Skiff reiterated the point that the project was more than 100 feet from the lagoon. With regard to removing the blanket easement, Mr. Skiff reiterated his request that the Condition of Approval be removed since the oak trees were protected.
Chair Foerster closed the Public Hearing.
Assistant Director Clark stated that the environmental documents were circulated to the appropriate agencies, and that she did not receive any responses. With regard to the biological resources assessment, she stated that the Regional Water Quality Control Board did not comment on the storm water management issues. Assistant Director Clark referred to the language about development on creating new lots. She stated that the way the language flowed related to lots on hillsides with slopes of 25%. She stated that the parcel base map that was created using the City's GIS program was accurate, and she was not sure how the data was obtained for the mapping of the oak woodland canopy. However, that area shown in the oak woodland canopy map was regulated by the LCP in terms of protecting it. She referred to the statement under Policy 9(d) : "As a condition of Development approval lands below the 60 foot contour at a minimum in the Meadow Creek uplands areas shall be dedicated to the City or State Department of Fish and Game as public open space as an integral portion of the Pismo Lake Ecological Reserve." She stated that Mr. Skiff was correct that this project was not in that area, and there was no nexus to require such a large dedication. With regard to the ecological assessment, she stated that the project archeologist did a record search and a preliminary surface evaluation, and did not find significant archeological findings or anything near this site that would preclude development related to this issue.
Chair Foerster asked Staff for clarification on the Applicant's request to waive the open space easement Condition of Approval. Assistant Director Clark stated that it was an added measure to safeguard the oak trees on the property.
Chair Foerster referred to the arborist report that identified a canopy of oak trees that was distinct to solid oak woodlands canopy. Assistant Director Clark stated that one tree may have an oak tree canopy, and that oak woodlands would be different by definition, so it implies more than one tree.
Chair Foerster commented that arborists were in general agreement that no structures should be built within 50 feet, in order to protect oak trees. Assistant Director Clark stated that it depended on site-specific characteristics, and how development would occur near the trees.
Chair Foerster asked how close the retention basin was to the border of the ecological reserve. Assistant Director Clark used the overhead transparency to explain the location of the retention basin.
Commissioner Barnett was in favor of continuing the project to the next Planning Commission meeting to consider all the new material provided tonight.
Commissioner Conroy stated that the project did conform, and Mr. Skiff had done everything to mitigate the project. He stated that the mitigation measures in place would protect the estuary. Commissioner Conroy stated that the integrity of the neighborhood would be maintained and the neighboring homes would appreciate in value. He stated that when walked the parcel, he considered that the edge boundary of the retention basin was well beyond the lagoon. Commissioner Conroy was not in agreement about eliminating Conditions of Approval #4 or #7.
Commissioner Morris-Versaw did not think this project served the intent of what was planned for this property. She stated that there was a potential for ecological impacts. She recommended that the proposed additional three Conditions of Approval should be included in the Resolution. Commissioner Morris-Versaw stated that she would approve the project if Conditions of Approval #4 and #7 were not waived and the existing Condition of Approval that stated that the City and/or Department of Fish and Game "shall" come on to the properties to inspect annually.
Commissioner Leon stated that Staff was the most neutral presenter tonight, given the Applicant and Appellant's positions. He stated that the drainage was addressed by the inclusion of the Applicant's proposed additional conditions. Commissioner Leon stated that the privacy issued had been addressed by the landscape screening proposed by the Applicant. He stated that he would vote in favor of the project, with the inclusion of the proposed additional conditions and retaining Condition of Approval #4.
Commissioner Calmenson did not like the project but stated that he would support it.
Chair Foerster stated that the Applicant had done everything to try and make the project fit in with the surrounding neighborhood. He stated, however, that it was wrong for this site, and it was clear to him that this structure would represent development within 50 feet of oak woodland canopy. Chair Foerster stated that the 84" oak tree was one of the oldest trees in Grover Beach, and he strongly objected to this project.
On motion by Commissioner Morris-Versaw to the amend the Condition of Approval to read: "that the City or the Department of Fish and Game shall come on to the property to inspect annually," and incorporating the additional Conditions of Approval proposed by the Applicant, and maintaining Conditions of Approval #4 and #7, seconded by Commissioner Leon and on the following roll-call vote to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Morris-Versaw, Leon, Conroy, Calmenson
NOES: Commissioner Barnet and Chair Foerster
ABSENT: Commissioner Mires
ABSTAIN: None
Resolution #02-052 was adopted this 10th day of September, 2002.
8. Application #02-031, Steve Dayton, 1206 West Grand Avenue; APN 060-242-039
A request for a Use Permit to allow a vehicle rental business, including a repair and service department, and outdoor dealer display area at 1206 West Grand Avenue in the Shopping Center District (C-S Zone). Planning Intern Murry Wilson gave the Staff Report.
Commissioner Morris-Versaw was concerned about the drainage on the property. Planning Intern Wilson used the overhead transparency to explain the configuration of the drainage.
Assistant Director Clark stated that Staff was recommending that a Condition of Approval be added to the Resolution, to contain the drainage on-site within the new landscaped area.
Commissioner Leon asked Staff if the arrangements for the original application would apply to the new business. Planning Intern Wilson stated that the proposed use was the same as the existing business.
Commissioner Leon was concerned about the aesthetics of the repair side of the business. Planning Intern Wilson stated that the Applicant could respond to that issue.
Commissioner Leon asked for clarification on the statement in the Staff Report that the proposed outdoor dealer display area "would likely clutter the area and not fully meet the intent of the landscape requirements." Planning Intern Wilson stated that in Staff's opinion, placing the outdoor display area on the landscaped area would circumvent the purpose of the landscaping requirement.
Commissioner Conroy asked if there were any mitigation measures regarding noise. Planning Intern Wilson stated that all work was proposed to be conducted indoors within the service department area, and during the stated hours of operation.
Commissioner Conroy asked whether any consideration had been given to placing a maximum number of units in the display area. He stated that one or two units on their own stand with landscape around them would be a good display. Planning Intern Wilson stated that the Applicant had mentioned using stands.
Commissioner Calmenson was concerned that the outside storage area would and how it would be screened off from the public. He was concerned that there was nothing in the Conditions of Approval to prohibit the use of razor or barbed wire. Planning Intern Wilson used the overhead transparency to explain the location and layout of the outside storage area.
Chair Foerster opened the Pubic Hearing.
Steve Dayton, 519 Ramona Avenue, stated that he was trying to expand his business because the business had outgrown the present location. He stated that he had envisioned a front display area on the grass, and suggested that four bikes on individual pedestals would be a good display. With regard to the concern about the storage area, Mr. Dayton stated that he was considering constructing what was called a total privacy fence at the back.
Commissioner Calmenson was concerned about where the haulers would be stored, and where the vehicles would be tested, once they had been repaired. Mr. Dayton stated that the haulers could be stacked, and were not on display. He stated that street legal vehicles could be tested on the road, but ATV's had to be driven on the beach.
Commissioner Morris-Versaw referred to the landscape plan, and suggested that there should be more landscaping in the front of the building so that it was visible to the public.
Chair Foerster asked Mr. Dayton if there would be a problem with the adjacent Chevron Station and the shared boundary line. He was concerned that there would be an increase in traffic on that corner. Mr. Dayton stated that the people at the gas station did not see a problem.
Commissioner Morris-Versaw was concerned about the drainage problem and contaminated water going into the street. She suggested that Condition of Approval #16 regarding the landscaping plan should include the words: "landscaping along the eastern side of the building and on -site drainage shall be retained on site."
Chair Foerster closed the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Conroy wanted to see more landscaping, and suggested that the number of vehicles on display should be reduced to 4 on the long the side and 3 on the short side.
Mr. Dayton referred to the language in Condition of Approval #19 that the application would be reviewed and subject to revocation, if any complaints were received. He was concerned that his competitors could call and make a complaint. Commissioner Morris-Versaw stated that the Planning Commission "can" revoke the permit, not necessarily "would" if the project was to come back before them.
Assistant Director Clark stated that Staff could add a Condition of Approval to prohibit the use of razor and barbed wire.
Commissioner Conroy made a motion to approve the project with the following amendments and additions to the Conditions of Approval:
Condition of Approval #5: "The outdoor dealer display area shall be limited to no more than seven display vehicles at any time, and shall be located only on the grass area, as shown on the approved tentative site plan."
Condition of Approval #16: "All on-site drainage shall be contained on-site within the landscaped area to the north of the building."
Condition of Approval #20: "The use of razor wire and barbed wire is prohibited, and shall not be installed on the fence shown on the tentative plans."
On motion by Commissioner Conroy, seconded by Commissioner Morris-Versaw, and on the following roll-call vote to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Conroy, Morris-Versaw, Barnett, Calmenson, Leon, Chair Foerster
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Mires
ABSTAIN: None
Resolution #02-054 was adopted this 10th day of September, 2002.
REGULAR BUSINESS: None
WORKSHOP:
9. Utility Undergrounding Requirements: This item was continued to the next Planning Commission meeting on October 8, 2002.
ADJOURNMENT was at 10:30 p.m. to the next Regular meeting on Tuesday, October 8, 2002 at 6:30 p.m.
CHAIR
ATTEST: SECRETARY TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
[Sepember10min]