Loading...
PC Minutes 2005-06-071 MINUTES CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 7, 2005 6:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER - The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Brown presiding; also present were Commissioners Fellows, Keen, Parker and Tait. Staff members in attendance were Community Development Director, Rob Strong, Assistant Planner Jim Bergman, Planning Intern, Andy Bursan and Public Works Engineer, Victor Devens. AGENDA REVIEW: No changes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Parker made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fellows to approve the minutes of May 31, 2005 with a correction to clarify a sentence on page 6, third bullet, to state: • Modifications to the existing house in the front consist of changes to the handrails at the front steps and changes to the landscaping and walkways. The motion was approved with a 5/0 voice vote. A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None. II. A. CONSENT AGENDA AND ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS SINCE MAY 31, 2005: None to report. III. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. (Continued from May 3, 2005 meeting) VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP /PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NOS. 01 -001 AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT CASE NO. 01 -002; APPLICANT — CASTLEROCK DEVELOPMENT; LOCATION — JAMES WAY AND LA CANADA. Commissioner Tait recused himself from this item, as he owns property within 500 feet of the site. Ms. McClish presented a short oral review of the staff report from the May 3, 2005 meeting for continued consideration of the 21 -unit subdivision and clustered residential development on approximately 26.9 acres, including a 22 -acre open space parcel, and review an addendum to the project's certified Revised Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (RFSEIR). In conclusion, Ms. McClish described the proposed buffer areas for the Pismo Clarkia and the wildlife corridor; reminded the Commission that if they recommend approval a "statement of overriding considerations" is necessary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 7, 2005 PAGE 2 because the Class I impacts of the project include the Pismo Clarkia and the cumulative impact biological resources that were considered in the certified EIR. Staff replied to questions from Commissioner Parker: • Ms. McClish stated the ravine between lots 13 & 14 includes some oak trees proposed to be removed; the final grading plans will be worked out with the final map approval; re the amount of fill expected to be used, the applicant will answer this. • Ms. McClish stated the $1,500 per tree bond is included as part of the City's tree ordinance and the applicant must ensure that all the conditions of approval are adhered to; at present there is no specific fine for tree removal, but there is code enforcement. • Ms. McClish and Mr. Devens confirmed the grade of the emergency access road. Mr. Devens explained that the water runoff would eventually be conveyed through the City's storm water system and explained that the steeper portions of the site would be indented into the hill (there would be a slight trough just east of lot 13). • Ms. McClish stated that no records of the well and pump, behind 634 Aselmo, had been found. Mr. Strong stated that he thought this was a private well. • Ms. McClish stated that the HOA would be responsible for maintenance of the trail (unless a maintenance district was formed) and the conditions would include a reporting provision. Staff replied to questions from Commissioner Fellows: • Mr. Devens stated staff would like the applicant to do another test on the existing on -site well as the iron and magnesium levels seemed excessively high; they did not have information on the quantity. Commissioner Fellows stated they would need to know this information. • Mr. Strong re the emergency access road and the connection to Hidden Oaks school site: the trail beside the northeast edge of the site into the school was reviewed by the School District and the Fire Department and determined to be an appropriate conceptual alignment despite the fact that the school is not anticipated to be built for at least 5 to 10 years. • Ms. McClish confirmed that the author of Exhibit 'A' (CEQA Findings: "Statement of Overriding Considerations ") was Rincon and written in March or April 2005. Commissioner Fellows stated he would like to see author and date on Exhibits in future. • Ms. McClish re feasibility as it applies to acceptance or denial of a project and the "map of constraints ": The map demonstrates the considerable constraints that were determined to be applicable for this particular site; avoiding one of the constraints may be feasible, but completely avoiding everything essentially leaves no developable land; the applicant does feel that they have addressed many of the mitigation measures that were identified in the EIR, but whether there are additional modifications that could achieve mitigation to the extent feasible is what is taking place now; Ms. McClish referred to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(3) for findings related to infeasible mitigation measures; 1 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 7, 2005 when a project is proposed the environmental review is done, all the findings considered and everything in the record has to be looked at and weighed against the project. Staff replied to questions from Commissioner Brown. • Ms. McClish read from the project's addendum to clarify the performance bond for oak trees. Commissioner Brown stated that the performance bond language should be spelled out before the project starts; it should cover all possible affected trees and the bond not released until the end of construction. Ms. McClish explained that there are a total of 70 oak trees proposed to be removed and mitigated at the minimum ratio of 3:1 and an additional 100 oak trees proposed to be transplanted and replaced if they don't survive; the $1500 bond (or value of the tree) is a minimum cost and can be changed; all the mitigations required for the site are put into a monitoring and reporting plan (MMRP); at this time it is important to identify what is on the site and if the project goes forward all the conditions satisfied prior to construction. Commissioner Brown stated he was not comfortable leaving it until after Planning Commission and City Council's approval of the project. • Ms. McClish re environmental constraints stated that most of the constraints would still be there with a 25 -foot buffer. Chair Brown opened the hearing to public comment. PAGE 3 Dennis Law, Andre, Morris and Buttery on behalf of Castlerock, stated he would answer some of Commission questions at the end of public comment; Lindee Althouse would also be able to answer some of the questions regarding Pismo Clarkia. Re the issue of feasibility: Environmental impacts (through the CEQA process) should not be looked at in isolation; other valid policies in the law such as provision of housing, social and economic considerations that a housing project has to offer (concept embedded into CEQA) should be considered; the feasibility consideration involves balancing of interests. Commissioner Parker's questions to Mr. Law: • What do you know about the well just outside Castlerock's fence? Mr. Law stated he was aware that it was there, but did not know anything about its function, purpose or impact and that it was not Castlerock's. • Did he know about the "Caution" sign on the gate? Mr. Law stated he did not know about this sign. Commissioner Brown's questions to Mr. Law: • Re the economic considerations of a housing project, when the General Plan Update was being reviewed by the City we were told by experts that housing revenue was neutral. What are the economic considerations you are referring to with this project? Mr. Law: the economic considerations are project specific and related to the project developer; the public policy to provide housing is not PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 7, 2005 PAGE 4 founded on the economic wealth of the entities in which the housing is located but is incorporated into State statutes; local agencies need to consider this need in their planning decisions. • What type of housing are you intending to provide and does this fit within the legislation that the State requires we consider? Mr. Law stated that their housing is designed to fit all economical levels. In answer to Commissioner's questions regarding performance bonds, Mr. Law explained that a performance bond comes into being after a developer's agreement is entered into and after approval of the final map; a $300,000 bond should provide more than adequate security to make sure the developer does what he is supposed to do; the CEQA process really works when it is done early enough, but if you require overly specific details (such as in terms of each tree) it can work against the process; flexibility is needed for the protection of the trees; there will be another opportunity to check the trees with the final map. Robert Brownson, 653 Asilo, urged the Commission to recommend denial of the proposed development as submitted, based on the fact that it violates all of the certified mitigation measures stipulated and approved by City Council for this property; he then described the two measures that were stipulated in the SEIR re the Pismo Clarkia and the cumulative negative impacts to biological resources on the site; described the two conditions of approval (mandated mitigations) stipulated by a majority of the Council, 1) the setback of 50 feet from Pismo Clarkia, and 2) the minimum setback of 50 feet from all riparian areas (including wetlands and the riparian area bordering Meadow Creek); stated that the applicant's proposed mitigations try to get around the requirements of City Council. Don Dirkse 636 Asilo, stated he was not in favor of the development, as oaks would be chopped down and wetlands covered over, the natural springs that feed the wetlands would be affected; there should never be compromise on environmental treasures. Ella Honeycutt, 560 Oakhill Road; stated concern with the oak trees and asked if the protection for these trees had been spelled out; the Rancho Grande oak tree replacement should have been audited over the last 20 years and suggested video taping the existing trees so they would not be lost. The Commission took a 15- minute break. Lindee Althouse, consultant for Castlerock for Pismo Clarkia, in reply to a question from Commissioner Keen, stated Pismo Clarkia was last surveyed two years ago and that in drought years there was actually more Pismo Clarkia growing. In a discussion with Commissioner Parker, Ms. Althouse explained the conditions in which Pismo Clarkia best thrives; the boundaries of Clarkia habitat onsite, the effect of grading and development in the vicinity of Clarkia, and current techniques of Clarkia protection. 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 7, 2005 PAGE 5 Answers from consultants to Commissioner Fellow's questions: • Kevin Merke stated there were some discrepancies in the percentages, but the 4% taking of Pismo Clarkia is a correct figure. • Ms. Althouse explained the protection was being recommended so the taking of a few scattered Pismo Clarkia population would not have a negative long term impact on the persistence of Pismo Clarkia; there had been no Pismo Clarkia in the mitigation planting site; she would like to give some different treatment to encourage growth of seeds; explained the germination of the Pismo Clarkia. Answers to Commissioner Brown's questions: • Ms. Althouse explained her expertise and work history with Pismo Clarkia; stated she . is considered by the County to be one of their experts on Pismo Clarkia; then went on to describe the optimum conditions for the survival of Pismo Clarkia; explained how the funding for the study had evolved and that she was optimistic that the recovery of Pismo Clarkia could be successful at this site. • Ms. Althouse explained that they had been given a 25 -foot setback to work with. She stated she understood there may be some take in the area that the City asked for in the 50 -foot setback and that some of the language was written before the SEIR was certified with the 50 feet. • Ms. Althouse explained why modifications of the performance standards may be required, 1) due to unusual sequence of rainfalls, and 2) their experience from what they had learned. • Ms. Althouse agreed that their research is not directly a mitigation, but that they are working towards the recovery of this subspecies (enhancement of Pismo Clarkia); she agreed with Commissioner Brown that avoidance is a true mitigation, but if the site was left undisturbed she was not sure the Pismo Clarkia would stay with all the grass that would take over the site; oak woodland needs a lot of protection. In answer to a question from Commissioner Fellows, Mr. Merke stated that animals will migrate through a culvert depending on the size and whether there is light at the end of the culvert. In answer to a question from Commissioner Parker, Ms. Althouse explained that the "average of 25 feet" distance from the Pismo Clarkia is to keep the permanent change in the landscape away from the Pismo Clarkia; that a straight line is not as important as criteria. David Foote, Firma answered further questions from the Commission: • The height of a culvert is critical for getting an adequate opening for light; 7 feet should be more than adequate, which is half the length of the one downstream. • Re the well immediately upstream of site and the concern that it may be drawing off water: If the well is functioning it is at a considerable depth and would impact the site. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 7, 2005 Commission Parker stated the barbed wire near the culvert needs to be removed. PAGE 6 In reply to a question from Commissioner Parker re the Castlerock well, Mr. Foote stated the springs that are creating a wet surface (near lot 8) are moving along at a very shallow level along the plain of the rock. In reply to a question from Commission Fellows, Mr. Foote said they were not aware of any wildlife moving along the culvert near James Way and confirmed that it is big enough for predominant mammals in the area to move through. In reply to questions from Commissioner Brown, Mr. Foote explained their success rate on past projects they had been involved with; how they measured their success rate; stated that other agencies would be following up on their performance also. Commissioner Brown said he would like some sort of a performance guarantee. Mr. Foote suggested that a condition could be included to address this or the City could retain an environmental monitor that would be paid for by the developer. Commissioner Brown asked if Mr. Foote if he agreed that lot 9 and Tots 18 -21 have the most affect on the riparian resource? Mr. Foote agreed. Mr. Foote answered questions from Commissioner Parker: • Weed control after the initial five -year period would be taken care of by the HOA and included in the CC &R's for maintenance provisions thereafter. • Explained how the removal of eucalyptus trees in zone 1 and zone 2 would take place and that the HOA would manage the stumps in the future (to remain in zone 2). • A signed rail fence will be erected like in other areas of Rancho Grande, to keep people out of the areas to be protected. 9:00 pm. Mr. Strong, suggested that Item III.C. Historical Resource Committee, be deferred to the next regular meeting or subsequent date due to the time. The Commission unanimously agreed with a 5/0 voice consent. In answer to Commissioner Parker, Kevin Merke, Plant Biologist, consultant for Rincon, stated that he had seen success rate on specimen trees being transplanted and that it was best to plant onsite, contiguous to existing oaks. Commissioner Brown asked about the recovery of transplanted oaks where the canopies had been trimmed. Mr. Merke responded that the recovery of the canopy of transplanted oaks may take as much as 10-15 ,years. Commissioner Brown re staff report, page 10, asked if reducing lots 3 & 17 (almost entirely covered with oak woodland habitat) and in his opinion lots 14 -17 (almost entirely 1 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 7, 2005 PAGE 7 covered in oaks) would significantly reduce cumulative biological impacts and the oak tree impact. Mr. Merke agreed that it would. Mr. Law then answered questions from Commissioner Brown regarding environmental monitoring and how it could be organized, who would be financially responsible and how it could be enforced. The City would be put as a beneficiary in CC &R's, City held financially not responsible, HOA must pay and this is a strong economic hammer. Commissioner Fellows asked for staff to comment on how maintenance districts versus HOA's could work for the environmental monitoring. Mr. Strong explained how a combination of both could work for the City for the environmental monitoring and stated that performance guarantees could be worked into the HOA. Commissioner Brown and Parker then had further questions for Ms. Althouse regarding maintenance and protection of the Pismo Clarkia, clarification on the calculations for the funding and clarification on the calculations in the tables regarding the 4% "take" (of the Pismo Clarkia). Ms. Althouse agreed with Ms. Parker that Table 2 did show some inconsistencies because in 2002 the road went through the patches identified by Rincon, but when they did their research the road did not go through the patches. 9:45 p.m. Commissioner Brown stated that due to the late hour the Commission should consider continuing agenda item III.B, Plot Plan Review Case No. 05 -004, Pace Brothers. Mr. Strong stated that if they wished to adjourn at 10:00 p.m. then there would not be time to get to this item; he would have preferred this item to be heard tonight or continuance considered earlier in the agenda; this item is a single lot construction project, had not been heard yet but had been continued twice. A discussion then ensued with staff and the Commission on agenda management. Mr. Strong suggested that a separate workshop be scheduled so that staff and the Commission could discuss agenda management. The Commission unanimously agreed. Commissioner Keen made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fellows to continue item III.B. to the next regular meeting of June 21, 2005, that it be placed first on the agenda and that item III.A. be continued to the meeting of July 5, 2005 and be placed second on the agenda. The motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner's Keen, Fellows, Parker and Chair Brown NOES: None ABSTAIN: Commissioner Tait ABSENT: None PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 7, 2005 It was noted that Commissioner Tait and Commissioner Keen would not be present at the next regular meeting. IV. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: None. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: None. In response to a question from Commissioner Parker, Mr. Strong gave an update on the sign at Baja Fresh. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: None. VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP: Mr. Strong said he would like to have a workshop with the Commission, staff and the public regarding management of the agenda in the near future. VIII. TENTATIVE AGENDA ITEMS FOR THE JUNE 21, 2005 MEETING: No discussion. IX. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. ATTEST: LYN REARDON -SMITH SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION B STR o N , COMMUNITY DEVEL s ' MENT DIRECTOR (Minutes approved at the PC meeting of July 5, 2005) TIM BR's , CHAIR PAGE 8 1