Loading...
PC Minutes 2005-09-20CALL TO ORDER - The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Brown presiding; also present were Commissioners Fellows, Parker and Tait. Staff members in attendance were City Attorney, Tim Carmel, Acting Community Development Director, Kelly Heffernon, Associate Planner, Teresa McClish, Assistant Planner, Ryan Foster and Public Works Engineer Victor Devens. AGENDA REVIEW: No Changes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None. A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 20, 2005 6:00 P.M. B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 1. Additional Consent Agenda item: Architectural Review 05 -012, located at 102 East Branch Street: New wood - framed glass doors approved at the ARC meeting of September 12, 2005. II. A. CONSENT AGENDA AND ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS SINCE SEPTEMBER 6, 2005: Case No. 1. 2. TUP 05 -018 ARC 05 -012 App. Five Cities Vineyard Church Owner Address 1052 E. Grand Ave 102 E. Branch )escnption Anniversary Celebration for Five Cities Vineyard Church New wood - framed glass doors — in place of display window. Action A A. Planner "' R. Foster J. Bergman The Commission had no concerns with consent items 1 & 2. Commissioner Tait made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Parker to approve consent items 1 & 2. The motion was unanimously passed by a 4/0 voice vote. III. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: Commissioner Tait asked to be excused from the next item due to the fact that he owned property within 300 feet of the site. A. CONTINUED FROM JUNE 7, 2005 MEETING: VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CASE NO. 01 -001, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 01 -001, LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT CASE NO. 01 -002 (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS TRACT 1998); APPLICANT — TAOS HOLDING CORPORATION /CASTLEROCK DEVELOPMENT; LOCATION — NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF JAMES WAY AND LA CANADA. PLANNING COMMISSION ANNOTATED AGENDA SEPTEMBER 20, 2005 PAGE 2 Ms. McClish presented the staff report for continued consideration of a residential subdivision for twenty -one (21) clustered lots and one (1) open space parcel on approximately 26.6 acres. Ms. McClish then highlighted the specific CEQA findings that related to issues of concern in accordance with the discussion from June 7, 2005 meeting and that were contained in Exhibit `A' of the June 7 staff report: • Impact B2 — for Biological Resources • Impact B3 — related to Oak Tree Removal • Impact B4 - Pismo Clarkia • Statement of Overriding Considerations Additionally, minor revisions were made to Exhibit 'D' the Conditions of Approval, recommended by staff and discussed with the applicant. Accordingly, there are proposed minor changes to Exhibit `E', the Mitigation, Monitoring & Reporting Program. The recommendation from the June 7, 2005 hearing is that the Commission consider the CEQA findings in both Exhibit `A" (draft findings for the Resolution) and the findings in the Resolution for the Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit Development and direct staff regarding any modifications for a recommendation to City Council on the project. Chair Brown announced that the City Attorney, Tim Carmel was present. Commission Parker asked staff for clarification on the following: • Exhibit D, (Conditions of Approval) Page 2, the affordable housing in -lieu fee requirement. Ms. McClish: This project will consist of single - family residential units and is only subject to pay an in -lieu fee (per the 1990 General Plan). • Exhibit D, Page 14, City inspection of required improvement. What construction would require this? Mr. Devens: Any and all construction activities; this is a standard agreement that grants us access to the site during construction. • Page 15, No. 121, all improvements shall be fully constructed and accepted by City? Mr. Devens: All improvements that the City will own, such as water, sewer etc. shall be inspected before the last 10% of the units is accepted. • Page 13, No. 96, shall submit a document regarding the effectiveness of the unauthorized drain line installed on the northeast boundary of the property. Ms. McClish: This was included to make sure there would be no impacts from this drain line with this project. • Page 19, Mitigations Measures, conditions of approval, on this addendum "a Native American shall monitor all activity ", but it has been crossed out. Ms. McClish: A change is being proposed to require a Phase 11 information testing program to give more information regarding potential areas of impact and additional recommendations of which the applicant is subject and which still may include having a Native American present at all earth moving activities. At a minimum there would be an archeologist present at all times. Chair Brown opened the hearing for public comment. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION ANNOTATED AGENDA SEPTEMBER 20, 2005 PAGE 3 Dennis Law, attorney for Castlerock Development, stated a concern that the collective impact of all the mitigation measures would result in no project and this would be a finding of infeasibility related to project objectives; explained his statement at June 7, 2005 meeting on the requirements of State law regarding housing units that cross all economic lines. Commissioner Fellows asked to see the map of the 25 -foot setbacks compared to the 50- foot setbacks. Ms. McClish said she would address this when she could locate the respective map. Karin Groteluschen, 649 Asilo, had concern that the conditions of approval mandated by City Council with approval of the revised EIR, were not being met with this project with regard to 50 -foot setbacks from Pismo Clarkia and riparian areas; she urged the Commission to recommend denial of the proposal. Joel Kauser, 707 Asilo, stated concern with the entrance to the proposal being too close to the monument sign for the Highlands; believed the entrance road for the project should line up with Rosemary Court; had concern that the house and property to the east of the entrance would be sitting on the well head. Richard Nutting, 444 La Canada, had concern that the conditions of approval were not addressing the HOA; there were no mitigation measures included for this. Mr. Law addressed Mr. Nutting's concern re the HOA; stated the CC &R's allow for the City to have direct enforcement over the HOA and is a project requirement. Chair Brown closed the hearing for public comment. Ms. McClish also addressed Mr. Nutting's concerns with the road alignment, explaining that it had been modified due to environmental constraints; discussed Commissioner Fellow's concern regarding the 25 -foot setbacks and the feasibility of the project; stated there would still be Class 1 impacts and the findings would still have to be made. Chair Brown closed the hearing for public comment. Commission discussion followed regarding the process for considering the findings. Mr. Carmel clarified for the Commission that if the required findings for CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 cannot be made then the project cannot be approved unless Overriding Considerations can be made (CEQA 15093). Commission comments followed: Commissioner Parker went into the issues in detail regarding biological resources and public services concerning the project which supported why she could not make the required findings (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091): Impact B2, Biological Resources: • Exhibit F (FSEIR) Addendum): As proposed the project improvements adjacent to the east fork of Meadow Creek do not allow for the adequate mitigation of biological PLANNING COMMISSION ANNOTATED AGENDA SEPTEMBER 20, 2005 PAGE 4 resources and the resulting impacts (significant and unavoidable) because once wetland has been removed it is irreplaceable. • Exhibit F, refers to Tots 10, 12, 15 & 16, as being partially impacted so should be listed. • Exhibit A, 5.2.1, page 20 under Findings, disagrees with argument that because there is less loss to the project it is a better project, therefore changes and alterations are less than significant is not true; it does not mean there is no significant damage or impact to the Federally protected biological resources. • Exhibit F, the addendum, states the level of impact would remain essentially the same as for the original proposed project and agree that it is potentially unmitigable without removal of relocation of specific lots particularly 9, 20 & 21. Mitigations: • Page 21 EIR addendum, No 1: the phrase "if feasible" needs to be eliminated in order to be a mitigation. • Page 21, Nos. 1 & 3, the mitigations discuss only the impacts of the building footprints and do not include impacts in the riparian and wetland areas lost due to grading due to building of roadways. • Exhibit A, page 21 No. 4, Weed Abatement Program, states this is the responsibility of the HOA, but is not included in the HOA as being a specific program; it should also be made clear that no herbicides are to be used within a riparian area. • Paragraph 2, regarding access to riparian setback area, the word "should" should be replaced with the word "must "; also minimizing road width should be part of this project. B3 — Impact to Oak Trees, Exhibit F: • 1,260 oak trees on site and performance bond is not adequate or effective. • Minimize road width to be sensitive to oak habitat and go around oak trees and canopies. B4 — Impact on Site Specific Pismo Clarkia, Class 1, is significant but unavoidable: • Avoidance of Pismo Clarkia is not shown and therefore remains a Class 1; relocation is not a mitigation, but an enhancement (it has never been proven that this will work); Exhibit F (CEQA) Page 19, No. 1 states "if feasible" — in order for this to be a mitigation it should be deleted; the setback should not only refer to the building footprint, but to everything, the roadway, retaining walls, grading, herbicide runoff, runoff of siltation and fire protection areas to be effective. Agency Permit Compliance: • Rincon response states: "The success of the mitigation and monitoring plan is speculative and it's goal potentially cannot be met; the implementation of the required mitigation measures would not reduce impacts to a less than significant level unless avoidance is assured by project alternatives ". • Believed that there are project alternatives that could avoid the Clarkia, provide buffers and mitigate the problem, but this project does not do that. B5 — loss of wildlife habitat (listed as Class 2 significant but mitigable) Exhibit F (Revised EIR addendum): • Page 22, states "the impact would reduce the population and available habitat of wildlife in general including special status species "; mitigation of roadways that is mentioned will lesson the impact, but the impact will remain and therefore will remain a Class 1. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION ANNOTATED AGENDA SEPTEMBER 20, 2005 PAGE 5 • Under Loss of Wildlife Habitat — herbicide flow into the creek; mitigation measures keeping flow into the creek are good measures, but need to be extended — should be listed in the HOA; homes would have to be kept at a good buffer zone to keep the herbicides and pesticides from running off into the protected areas; page 3 has an excellent pesticide control program on page 33 of the HOA, but there is nothing on weed abatement; when homeowners build they need to understand that they can only build according to their personal and environmental constraints. • Exhibit A, 5.2.3, page 27, regarding the impact to the wildlife corridor and the fact that the entire site acts as a wildlife corridor and facilitates wildlife movement from upland areas through the more urbanized downstream reaches of the meadow creek system; Ms. Parker stated that this corridor is extremely important to this area and needs to be maintained; "special status wildlife" states that if they are present they are also likely to be impacted by direct and indirect activities of the project; therefore I believe the loss of wildlife habitat is a Class 1; do not believe that this has been mitigated. G4 Slope Stability Hazard, Class 2: • The project is as proposed creates a hazard including it's emergency access road that has not been looked at yet; the fact that it has steep slopes in excess of 20% makes it a Class 1, regarding not only erosion and siltation but also pesticide and herbicide runoff into the creek; it also affects H1 (which is hydrology and water quality). PS2 A Fire and Vegetation Plan: • Exhibit A in effect states that the occupants are not to clear any of their boundaries in the native habitat area; the riparian buffer (in CEQA) is suggested to be 50 feet and should not be in the fire protection area and according to Exhibit A, page 28, states vegetation management would potentially involve removal of some if not all of the vegetation within thirty (30) feet of the structure; therefore these two statements go against one another; California Resource Code 4219 requires clearance of flammable vegetation for a distance of 30 -100 feet around a structure located in a fire hazard area (according to our Fire Department this is considered a fire hazard area); mitigation measure PS1 requires 30 feet clearance minimum requirement for fire safety; therefore, the combined 25 -foot setback for the project is not going to work. In addition, the mitigation measure itself can cause impact to the riparian habitat because fire protection is going to require homeowners to do weed abatement and remove the riparian habitat — so PS2A is an issue. • David Chipping, Conservation Director of the California Plant Society, page 87, of the 2004 CEQA review, states the 25 foot setbacks are insufficient for vegetation management for fire control and should not be taking place within protected ecosystems or areas in which mitigation planting has taken place — this conflict needs to be addressed. In regard to Ms. Parker's comments, Ms. McClish explained that the Fire Protection Plan and Pismo Clarkia Plan set up in the Mitigation & Monitoring Plan, CC &R's and Design Manuel, lays out measures both to protect plants and maintain fire protection. These requirements are flushed out in the final plan; these environmental precautions are also being done on other tracts in the area. PLANNING COMMISSION ANNOTATED AGENDA SEPTEMBER 20, 2005 7:50 p.m. The Commission took a 10- minute break. PAGE 6 Commissioner Parker concluded by stating that she had more comments to contribute to the findings for the Tentative Tract Map and the Planned Unit Development, but believes that the reasons stated were sufficient to explain her reasons for not approving the project. Ms. McClish referred to Exhibit A, page 56, it does discuss two of the impacts Commissioner Parker had mentioned; B2 & G4, in that there is a residual significant impact unless modifications are made. Commissioner Fellows agreed with Commissioner Parker's comments regarding the findings /mitigation measures as the project is proposed; agreed with Mr. Nutting's comments regarding the HOA; appreciated comments by Ella Honeycutt and statements by Mr. Foote at previous meetings. He stated Lindy Althouse did a great job with the mitigations; with proper mitigation and 25 foot setbacks there could be a potential for some lots; regarding the entrance and lot 2, there is a problem with balancing environmental constraints; as the project is designed he could not find overriding considerations or any social benefits for homes that would cost a million and a half dollars. Commissioner Brown stated the environmental impacts are too great and the mitigations inadequate; explained specific issues that he had with the project: 1) The "taking" of Pismo Clarkia seems to exceed the stated 4% and he does not support because it is an important resource and by the applicant's experts own admittance, the long -term success of Pismo Clarkia mitigation is in question. 2) Long term enforcement of mitigation measures relating to biological resources, (including protection of creek habitat, oak trees, Pismo Clarkia) is in doubt since development is proposed to impact important resources e.g. bonds for oak trees inadequate and no good receiving site for planting new oak trees for mitigation. He further stated that the issues could be resolved if the project were reduced even further to lesson the impacts in line with the possible benefits of the project and referred to (CEQA 15091 & 15093); suggested options for possible reductions to impacts in the vicinity of Tots 3, 8, 9, 18 -21 and possibly lots 14 -16, depending on road configuration; in addition it would make sense to reduce the size of any remaining lots to lesson the development footprint on the project and lesson the environmental impacts and it may then be possible to get a statement of overriding consideration; long term enforcement of mitigations based on the proposed HOA or maintenance district has not been proven. Ms. McClish summarized the Commission's consensus regarding the CEQA findings based on the impacts that Commissioner Parker spoke of regarding findings under CEQA 15091 (A) 1, Commissioner Fellow's support of her comments and the comments from Commissioner Brown regarding the potential for reduction of impacts in the vicinity of specific lots. Commissioner Parker made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fellows, recommending that City Council deny the project based on the Commission's inability to make the required CEQA findings for reasons relating to the impacts to biological resources and public PLANNING COMMISSION ANNOTATED AGENDA SEPTEMBER 20, 2005 The motion was passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Parker, Fellows and Chair Brown. NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Commissioner Tait PAGE 7 services as discussed by the Commission and that staff return at the next meeting with the appropriate Resolution. B. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 05 -005; APPLICANT — CAMPBELL, LLC; LOCATION — 567 CROWN HILL. Mr. Foster presented the staff report for consideration of a proposal for a planned unit development (PUD) consisting of three (3) new single - family homes on three (3) existing Tots located at 567 Crown Hill. A PUD for the site was approved in May; however, that approval was based on retention of a portion of an existing home, which was completely demolished without City approval. Therefore, the approval of the PUD is invalid. He explained that Lot A & C remain unchanged; Lot B includes a new single - family home built to the same dimensions as the demolished home. The applicant has agreed to donate $8,500 to the City for historic preservation. Staff answered Commission questions. Chair Brown asked Mr. Carmel for his opinion as to whether the City considers the amount of $8,500 (for the demolition of a historical resource) to be equitable when compared to the enforcement action (conditions imposed) taken with the project at 212 Miller Way? Mr. Carmel stated that the project on Miller Way is a separate issue and should not be discussed with this item; each case is treated on a case -by case basis; each project could be dealt with in a different way and the Commission can determine what is appropriate. Chair Brown opened the hearing to public comment Floyd Campbell, applicant, answered Commission's questions and further clarified on how the demolition had occurred and stated he regretted that this had happened. Terry Payne, 212 Miller Way, stated that it was inappropriate to reference her property with this project, but since it had been referred to she would like to inform the public of her complaint in regard to Commissioner Brown's alterations to his property and that she believed that at the time the alterations had been made they were done without permits. Mr. Carmel stated that the comments made by Ms. Payne were irrelevant to this project. Chair Brown closed the hearing for public comment. The Commission had the following concerns and comments regarding the Planned Unit Development: PLANNING COMMISSION ANNOTATED AGENDA SEPTEMBER 20, 2005 PAGE 8 Tait: • The site seemed small for three homes. • Could the space in front of the garage for lot B be used for parking a car that would not impede the common driveway? • The structures seem to surround the oak trees, particularly lot C and the garage on lot A. • He was glad to see the large oak on Crown Hill still there. • The oak trees seem heavily limbed. • There was a lack of sidewalk in front of the property. • The irrigation may be too close to the oak trees and cause damage. • He thought it excellent to have one driveway that is less impervious surface. Fellows: • The ARC had not reviewed this as a new project and therefore did not look at every aspect; he believed it should be sent back to ARC as a new project. • The 'B' house is not a replication of the Bennett house, as it does not have same width. • The recommended materials (approved by ARC) (brick on chimney and redwood on the building) should be replaced with exact materials as the original building had; he suggested the applicant could purchase the redwood in Eureka (northern California). • The width of the house should be as narrow in back of chimney as it was in front so the bedroom could be made smaller to accommodate this. • In addition to the $8,500 restitution, a contribution should also be made to the South County Historical Society two or three times this amount, to help them with restoration of a house they were working on. • Re preserving the Coast Live Oak trees, these should be bonded for $10,000 per tree, have before and after construction photos taken. • Guest parking is important for a PUD; there are two spots onsite that could be used: 1) at the southern extension and 2) on the side of the garage of the B house; reducing the size of the houses would help provide this, particularly the A house. • Wood windows should be used as requested by ARC, but he would like to see smaller windows on the front of the house (showed a photograph taken many years ago) as they were originally. Parker: • She had concern with building A being 2 -story and that it might overpower building B and suggested that the front of building A could be made a one -story. • Parking is an issue on Crown Hill because of the school; cars need to be able to pull in; she suggested driveways or garage be reconfigured and this may require the homes to be scaled down. • If building B is to be historic, then building A should be also to be compatible. • The $8,500 would be a good jumpstart to the HRC. • She believed Mr. Campbell intent was to preserve this house and stated that he would have had to remove the wall because it was so heavily infested with termites; she did not agree with Commissioner Fellows that more punitive measures should be assessed. Commissioner Brown stated that generally speaking, there were some improvements that could be made on this project and given the Commission comments he did not feel PLANNING COMMISSION ANNOTATED AGENDA SEPTEMBER 20, 2005 PAGE 9 comfortable in approving the project as it is. He asked Mr. Campbell if he would prefer to make the modifications and come back to the Commission or go forward to the City Council for further review. Mr. Campbell said he would like to come back to the Commission and address the changes suggested, but would like to make the following comments: • The original dimensions of the Bennett house were 26 x 12'6" as stated. • He would like the information from Commissioner Fellows on how to obtain the original redwood. • He has photographs of the front portion of the Bennett house as it was, but he would like a copy of the photograph that Commissioner Fellows showed earlier of the front portion of the Bennett house taken even earlier. • There would be two parking spots on the street (Crown Hill) in front of lot B once the driveway goes in. • The curb will be built out and around the oak tree to preserve it. • He could put one additional parking space behind lot B, but he would like to preserve the home on lot A; he would review the design again. In reply to a question from Commission Tait, Mr. Campbell stated that he would be willing to bond three oak trees (the one on lot C, the one below that and the one on lot A). Commissioner Parker stated that the Planning Commission does not look at street parking, but with the Paulding school on this street she would like to have sidewalk installed for safety; she would look into information on rubberized sidewalks (ADA compliance) and pass this information along to Mr. Campbell. Commissioner Tait made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Brown to continue Planned Unit Development 05 -005 to a date uncertain to enable the applicant to address the changes suggested by the Commission. The motion was passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Tait, Brown, Fellows and Parker NOES: None ABSENT: None IV. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: None. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: None. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: Commissioner Parker stated Grover Beach is being progressive with their mixed -use designations and asked if the City is intending to have more 'mix' in their mixed use and should this be addressed with City Council. Ms. Heffernon, Acting Director said no projects have come forward with vertical mixed use to date, but suggested the City could have some study sessions regarding this issue. In reply to a request from Commissioner Parker, Ms. Heffernon gave an update on the Cherry Creek project. PLANNING COMMISSION ANNOTATED AGENDA SEPTEMBER 20, 2005 In reply to a question from Commissioner Fellows, Ms. Heffernon explained that public input on the environmental issues for the Cherry Creek project would take place when the project comes back to the Commission for consideration. VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP: Ms. Heffernon gave an update on the upcoming items for the next agenda. X. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. ATTEST: LYN REARDON -SMITH SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION AS TO CONTENT: RO: T'ONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPME T DIRECTOR (Minutes approved at the PC meeting of October 4, 2005) TIM BROWN, CHAIR PAGE 10