Loading...
PC Minutes 2000-05-161 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 16, 2000 PAGE 1 CALL TO ORDER Chair Greene called the regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL X Commissioner Costello X Commissioner Keen X Commissioner London X Vice -Chair Parker X Chair Greene APPROVAL OF MINUTES None ITEM I. I. A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Colleen Martin, 855 Olive Street, spoke regarding the trees that had been removed at St. Patrick's Church. She thanked Nanci Parker for looking into the matter. She stated that in the future she would like the City to require that the applicant state on the permit how many trees are on the lot and exactly how many would be removed. I. B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Memorandum from Kirk Scott to the Traffic Commission, Planning Commission, and City Council concerning the Arroyo Linda Crossroads. CHANGE IN THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS Chair Greene announced that the Planning Commission would hear the Non - Public Hearing Item first. ITEM III. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2000/01 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Don Spagnolo, Director of Public Works presented the Fiscal Year 2000/01 Capital Improvement Program to the Planning Commission. He explained that Government Code Section 65103 requires each planning agency to annually review a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for consistency with the City's General Plan. Capital improvement programming is the multi -year planning of public infrastructure improvements. Since a local government can rarely fund these facilities through an annual operating budget, numerous techniques have evolved to finance capital improvements over a longer period. Financing techniques may include the use of current operating budgets, various types of bonds, special districts, special assessments, state and federal grants, and tax increment financing (for redevelopment projects). The CIP must take a longer view than the annual budget process, and must anticipate when new public facilities will be needed or when existing facilities must be replaced. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 16, 2000 PAGE 2 The CIP is a valuable implementation tool for carrying out the General Plan. Because the General Plan establishes policies for the direction, intensity and rate of future growth, the CIP is instrumental in maintaining the local government's control of development. State law also requires planning agencies to review property acquisition or disposal for conformity with the General Plan. Property acquisition includes dedications for street, parks and other public purposes as well as construction of public buildings or structures. Disposal includes street vacations or abandonment as well as the sale of public lands. The CIP is also a useful planning tool for verification. The availability of public facilities to serve as a basis for approval or denial of development proposals. In many cases, the costs of public improvements are borne by the private developer and eventually passed through to the homebuyer or the commercial /industrial user. In some cases, local government will pay improvement costs for developments which will provide significant employment opportunities, increase sales tax revenues, or further adopted goals and policies. The prioritized list of capital improvements, therefore, must be flexible to respond to development opportunities, yet must be guided by the long -term benefits that will accrue to the local jurisdiction and its residents. The proposed FY 2000/01 CIP incorporates all expenditures for Public Works, Parks and Recreation, Water, Sewer, and Special Revenue Funds capital improvement construction projects throughout the City. Revenue sources for the CIP include contributions from the General Fund, Sewer Fund, Water Fund and other sources including the Drainage Fund and several grants. The Planning Commission discussed the CIP projects with Mr. Spagnolo. Commissioner Costello moved that the Planning Commission find that the Fiscal Year 2000/01 Capital Improvement Program is consistent with the General Plan. Vice -Chair Parker seconded the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. ITEM II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A. FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE ARROYO LINDA CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 97 -003, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 97 -008 & VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2323); LOCATION — SOUTH EASTERN PORTION OF ARROYO GRANDE WITH 107 ACRES INSIDE THE CITY LIMITS AND 185 ACRES IN UNINCORPORATED COUNTY AREA; APPLICANT — MICHAEL FREDERICK Chair Greene explained to the members of the audience that staff and the Planning Commission had discussed holding a second public hearing on this item. This would give the Community a full opportunity to be heard and make their comments. It would also give the applicant and his representatives an opportunity to rebut any issues that were raised at tonight's meeting. 1 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 16, 2000 PAGE 3 Chair Greene told the audience that there would be another meeting on May 30, 2000. The Planning Commissioners discussed this and agreed that it would be a good idea to hold an additional meeting. Vice -Chair Parker asked that the special meeting be published in the newspaper. Mr. McCants stated that staff would publish the special meeting and that it would also be on the Web site as well. Kelly Heffernon, Associate Planner, stated that the project site is located in the southeast portion of the City and encompasses a total of 292 acres. Approximately 107 acres of the property is within the City limits and zoned low density Residential. The remaining 185 acres is located in the unincorporated County and zoned Agriculture. The site consists mainly of rolling hills and grasslands with a couple of homesteads and has historically been used for cattle grazing. Ms. Heffernon explained that the Arroyo Linda Specific Plan laid out the proposed land uses and development of the project area in two distinct phases. Phase 1 included the 107 acres located within the City limits and Phase 2 included the 185 acres located in the County. The Specific Plan divides the property into 7 general land use categories, including Limited Commercial, Visitor Serving, Research & Development, Neighborhood Commercial, Single - Family Residential, Office, and Open Space with passive Parks. The Tract Map subdivides the area of Phase 1 into 59 parcels consistent with the land use districts proposed in the Specific Plan. Subdivision of Phase 2 will be considered after the property is annexed to the City. Ms. Heffernon stated that because of the size and scope of the project, a "Program" Environmental Impact Report has been prepared. The intent of a Program EIR is to analyze the impacts of a series of actions as one large project, allowing decision - makers to examine the overall effects and identify steps to avoid unnecessary environmental impacts. The Program EIR can also be used for future activities to determine what type of additional environmental review is necessary. CEQA requires that the City Council certify that the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and reflects the City's independent judgment before considering the approval of the project. The Planning Commission's role is to make a recommendation to the City Council on the adequacy of the environmental document in meeting the CEQA requirements. Ms. Heffernon explained to the Commission that they would ultimately make six separate recommendations to the City Council with regard to the Arroyo Linda project. These included recommendations on certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report, approving the proposed General Plan Amendment, Development Code Amendment, Vesting Tentative Tract Map, Specific Plan, and finally, Annexation of phase 2. Tonight, only certification of the EIR is before the Planning Commission for consideration. A recommendation on the project itself will be considered at a later date. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 16, 2000 PAGE 4 Ms. Heffernon stated that staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution recommending that the City Council certify that the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Arroyo Linda project is adequate and complete pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Erik Justesen, representative for the applicant, presented a brief overview of the Specific Plan. He stated that one of the reasons that Mike Fredericks' had decided to try and develop his property in this manner was his perception of where the future of Arroyo Grande is with regards to non - residential land uses. Land uses that could form a basis for a better balance in the local area for head of household jobs and uses that are not found here now. Mr. Justesen showed what the City currently has as far as land use. Mr. Justesen stated that the applicant was looking for a way to take the pressure off of the prime agriculture land. Mr. Justesen stated that currently, there is about 22 acres for building commercial /industrial uses. Mr. Justesen explained that the Specific Plan is merely a planning tool that communities use to set forth land uses, standards, design guidelines, that can help guide projects. This bridges the gap between the City's General Plan and a specific project. State law guides the Specific Plan and it becomes the City's master plan for a specific area. It is not a building project, but a medium range plan for a certain area. Any future projects would have to go through the same review process that is occurring now but on an individual, case by case basis. Mr. Justesen stated that the main planning goals that are embodied in the Specific Plan are: • This will be a high quality research and development business park in a campus like setting with open spaces interspersed throughout the planning area. • This development will provide for a long -term inventory of commercial and business park land in Arroyo Grande without converting the Valley floor agricultural land. • To promote clean industry that promotes "head -of- household" type jobs. • To insure that the new development is compatible with Arroyo Grande's character. • To insure that new works with the sites natural terrain and is friendly to the environment. ■ That the project would promote flexibility in selecting future businesses by allowing a mix of office space, research and development, and high tech buildings. • To insure that the area has a positive economic impact on the City and does not allow businesses that would compete with the retail oriented uses in the Village. • To provide the infrastructure necessary to support the plan area. Development will pay for itself and not be subsidized by the residents. ■ It is hoped that the project will provide a mixed use approach to expanding the City's economic well being by promoting and allowing research and development uses, visitor serving uses and commercial uses, and limited residential on the upper portions of the site for homes and a fair amount of open space and recreation. 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 16, 2000 PAGE 5 Chair Greene asked what portion of the 109 acres set aside for open space is space that is either, a. unbuildable space, or b. space that the City's General Plan Open Space Element would require to be open space given the slope or the presence of important biological diversity. Mr. Justesen stated that generally the steep slopes on the property are on the north facing side going down into the valley. The Oak woodlands are along this side. There is an area by the Morman Church that has some biological concerns and there is another small ravine. There are a number of terraces on the site that the developer is working with. Mr. Justesen stated that the objective was to create tiers so there would not be large paths of grading on the site. The buildings would be "stair- stepped ". Mr. Justesen explained that, from a biological stand point, it is a "fairly" vacant piece of land although there are some valuable areas. Tony Locacciato, the City's consultant for the EIR, spoke to the Planning Commission. He stated that staff had asked him to cover some topics given that the environmental review process for this project had been ongoing for three (3) years. Mr. Locacciato stated that he would review the applicable requirements of CEQA, the City's environmental review process for this project, and the major findings of the EIR. Mr. Locacciato made the following presentation: EIR Certification Consists of certifying that: (1) The Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA (2) The Final EIR reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and analysis. (3) The Final EIR was presented to the City Council and the information contained in the Final EIR was reviewed and considered by the City Council prior to considering the approval of the project. Purposes of CEQA • Inform the City and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of proposed activities. • Identify the ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced. • Prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in projects through the use of mitigation measures or alternatives when the those changes are feasible. • Disclose to the public the reasons why a governmental agency approved the project in the manner the agency chose if significant environmental effects are involved. Environmental Impact Report • An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is an informational document used by a public agency to analyze the significant environmental effects of a proposed project, to identify alternatives, and to disclose ways to reduce or avoid the possible environmental damage. • As an informational document, the EIR by itself does not control the way in which a project can be built or carried out. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 16, 2000 PAGE 6 • Under CEQA, an agency must solicit and respond to comments from the public and other agencies concerned with a project. City's Process for this project. • City's environmental review process for this project has been ongoing for almost 3 years. • August 1997 - Notice of Preparation of EIR circulated. • August 1999 - Draft EIR circulated for public review. • September & October 1999 - Planning Commission hearings on Draft EIR. • October 1999 - 60 day review period for Draft EIR ended. • April 2000 - Final EIR completed last month, April 2000, and responses to comments received sent out to public agencies commenting on Draft EIR as required by CEQA Type of EIR • Proposed project consists of a Specific Plan, which is a planning program • City determined that a Program EIR should be prepared for the project • A Program EIR is an EIR prepared for a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and are related. • In this case, the Specific Plan is the first a series of actions that would lead to development of individual building projects on the site. Advantages of Program EIR • Provide an occasion for a more exhaustive consideration of effects and alternatives than would be practical in an EIR on an individual action, • Ensure consideration of cumulative impacts that might be slighted in a case -by -case analysis, • Avoid duplicative reconsideration of basic policy considerations, • Allow the City to consider broad policy alternatives and programwide mitigation measures at an early time when the agency has greater flexibility to deal with basic problems or cumulative impacts. Level of Detail of EIR • The degree of specificity required in an EIR corresponds to the degree of specificity involved in the underlying activity which is described in the EIR. • As proposed, the Specific Plan consists of two phases • Phase 1 area in City • Phase 2 area located outside of City and proposed for annexation • Tentative Tract Map for Phase 1 also proposed at this time 1 1 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 16, 2000 PAGE 7 Contents of Draft EIR •The Draft EIR included the following sections as required by CEQA: - Executive Summary - Project Description - Environmental Impact Analysis - Analysis of Alternatives - Analysis of Growth Inducing Impacts - Identification of Unavoidable Impacts; Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes; and Effects Found Not to be Significant Topics Addressed in EIR •Earth Resources •Land Use Planning • Air Quality •Biological Resources *Visual Resources *Public Utilities •Water Resources * Transportation •Noise *Cultural Resources * Public Services •Population & Housing Contents of EIR Sections •Description of existing environmental setting • Identification of thresholds used to determine the significance of potential impacts of the project •Potential impacts for Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the Project •Potential cumulative impacts •Mitigation Measures •Unavoidable Significant Impacts Contents of Final EIR •Draft EIR incorporated by reference •List of parties commenting on Draft EIR *All comments received •Responses to significant environmental points raised in comments ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 16, 2000 PAGE 8 •Section containing revisions to Draft EIR Comments on Draft EIR • 3 state agencies - Caltrans - Dept. of Fish & Game -Dept. of Conservation • 4 local agencies -Lucia Mar School District -SLO Council of Governments - SLO County Planning Dept. - SLO County APCD •2 other organizations & 19 individuals * Oral comments made at Planning Commission hearings Comments *Approximately 225 comments in letters *Approximately 75 comments on Traffic Issues *Approximately 20 comments on Water Supply & Land Use Issues Handful of comments on other issues Earth Resources Geology & Soils Potential Impacts - Erosion - Groundshaking -Soils (Liquefaction, Settlement) - Slope Stability - Faults No Unavoidable Impacts Mitigation - Erosion control plan - Compliance with building codes - Grading Procedures -Fault Study & Mitigation - Slope Stability Measures Water Resources, Water Supply, Drainage, Groundwater Resources & Water Quality Potential Impacts - Water Supply • Demand for 133 AFY - Drainage Facilities •Capacity of downstream facilities 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 16, 2000 PAGE 9 • No Unavoidable Impacts Mitigation - Provide water from onsite wells - Retain/ detain storm water onsite Land Use Planning Compatibility & Consistency with Plans Impacts •Potential impacts not signficant • No Unavoidable Impacts Mitigation • No mitigation recommended Transportation Phase 1 Impacts •Phase 1 impacts not significant •No Unavoidable Impacts Mitigation •Contribute to signal improvements planned at 2 intersections - Fair Oaks Ave. /Orchard Ave. /U.S. 101 southbound off -ramp - Traffic Way /traffic Way Extension /U.S. 101 ramps •Submit Funding & Financing Plan for El Campo Interchange Improvements prior to issuance of building permits Transportation Phase 2 Impacts •Valley Oaks /Fair Oaks Avenue •EI Campo Road Interchange •No Unavoidable Impacts Mitigation • Signalize Valley Oaks /Fair Oaks Avenue Intersection •Construction of El Campo Interchange Transportation Cumulative Impacts •Halcyon Road /Grand Ave intersection .U.S 101 • Unavoidable Cumulative Impact on U.S. 101 Mitigation • Contribute pro -rata share of signal costs for Halcyon Road /Grand Avenue intersection Air Quality Impacts •Construction Emissions • Operational Emissions •Unavoidable Significant Impact Mitigation ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 16, 2000 PAGE 10 •Construction Management Measures •Implement recommended design features for residential projects •Implement recommended design features for commercial & industrial projects Noise Impacts •Construction Noise - Roadway Noise for some proposed residential uses •Electrical & Mechanical Equipment •Loading Docks •No Unavoidable Impacts Mitigation •Construction Management Measures •Use noise reducing paving materials •Speed limitations if needed •Noise wall along Traffic Way between Cherry street & El Campo Road Interchange •Design guidelines for sighting equipment and loading docks Biological Resources Impacts • Coast Live Oak Savanna (2.3 acres) •Central Coast Riparian Forest (1.2 acres •Central Coast Scrub (2.3 acres) •Impacts to mature trees • Potential impacts to some sensitive wildlife species •Indirect Impacts • No Unavoidable Impacts Mitigation •Construction Management Measures, including pre- construction surveys •Revegetation at 2:1 ratio •Relocate trees or replace at 3:1 ratio •Design guidelines for indirect impacts Cultural Resources Impacts •Potential Impacts to 2 existing sites No Unavoidable Impacts Mitigation •Conduct Phase II Studies & follow recommendations Visual Resources Impacts -Charms in visual character not significant due to design guidelines in specific plan No Unavoidable Impacts Mitigation •No mitigation measures recommended ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 16, 2000 PAGE 11 Public Services Police, Fire, Parks, Schools, Solid Waste Impacts •Police - impacts to staffing levels & communications • Fire - staffing and fire hazards • Schools No Unavoidable Impacts Mitigation •Construct radio repeater •Fund additional staffing •Fundinq •Mitigation Agreement •Public UtilitiesWastewater, Energy, Communication Services Impacts •Downstream sewer capacity •No Unavoidable Impacts Mitigation •Prepare sewer capacity study and build necessary improvements Population & Housing Impacts •Affordable Housing •No Unavoidable Impacts Mitigation •Pay In -lieu fee Adequacy of an EIR •An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision - makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. •An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably feasible. .Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts. •The courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure. (Section 15051 CEQA Guidelines) Certification •The Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA • The Final EIR reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and analysis •The Final EIR was presented to the City Council and the information contained in the Final EIR was reviewed and considered by the City Council prior to considering the approval of the project Project Approval Requirements • Make Findings of Fact for Significant Impacts: -(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 16, 2000 PAGE 11 Public Services Police, Fire, Parks, Schools, Solid Waste Impacts •Police - impacts to staffing levels & communications •Fire - staffing and fire hazards •Schools No Unavoidable Impacts Mitigation •Construct radio repeater •Fund additional staffing -Funding • Mitigation Agreement •Public UtilitiesWastewater, Energy, Communication Services Impacts •Downstream sewer capacity •No Unavoidable Impacts Mitigation •Prepare sewer capacity study and build necessary improvements Population & Housing Impacts •Affordable Housing •No Unavoidable Impacts Mitigation - Pay In -lieu fee Adequacy of an EIR •An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision - makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the Tight of what is reasonably feasible. •Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts. •The courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure. (Section 15051 CEQA Guidelines) Certification •The Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA •The Final EIR reflects the lead agency's independent iudgment and analysis •The Final EIR was presented to the City Council and the information contained in the Final EIR was reviewed and considered by the City Council prior to considering the approval of the project Project Approval Requirements •Make Findings of Fact for Significant Impacts: - (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 16, 2000 PAGE 12 - (2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. - (3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. Project Approval Requirements Prepare Statement of Overriding Consideration identifying the benefits of the project that make unavoidable significant impacts of the project acceptable Adopt Mitigation Monitoring Program Commissioner Costello asked if in terms of identifying mitigation, if the proposed mitigation is impractical, to expensive and therefore unrealistic, is it still considered to be a mitigation? Is it more realistic at that point to identify that there is no mitigation possible and therefore there is a significant unavoidable impact? Mr. Locacciato reviewed some of the points that he had made in this presentation and stated that this was part of the decision making process that is subsequent to the decision to certify an EIR as adequately providing information on potential impacts and ways to mitigate them. Mr. Costello then asked if the Planning Commission found that a mitigation was impractical, then does the Planning Commission certify the EIR as being complete and then recommend to the City Council that they look at that particular issue? Mr. Locacciato stated that Mr. Costello's idea was one option and the other option was to determine if there was any additional information that could be provided to answer the concern for a particular issue. Mr. Costello discussed an issue that he had raised previously at the Draft EIR hearings concerning the law suit that is pending in the Santa Maria area regarding the water table and the implications that it may have for this area. Mr. Costello stated that the answer to his question in the Final EIR was that while Arroyo Grande may be in the same ground water basin as Santa Maria, Santa Maria does not effect the water in our part of the basin. What he is asking is if staff could get a legal ruling from the City Attorney on this subject? Mr. McCants stated that the consultant that worked on the Water Study may better be able to answer this question, but staff will also consult with the City Attorney. Commissioner Costello referred to another question he had raised at the Draft EIR hearing which was concerning the less than significant impacts on the Oak communities. Has there been a threshold established on what constitutes a significant loss of these types of communities? Mr. Locacciato replied that Arroyo Grande does not have adopted environmental significant thresholds. The significant thresholds used in the biology section are identified pages 5.7- ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 16, 2000 PAGE 13 15 in the Draft EIR. The thresholds for most sections were pulled from the CEQA Guidelines if there were not any local applicable guidelines. The conclusions related to those Oak communities are basically laid out in the impact analysis paragraph and based on the size of the community on site and the magnitude of the impact. Mr. Costello referred to another comment concerning construction on a ridgeline, on page 21 -34. The response to this states that the text has been revised in the final EIR to reflect hillside area rather than ridgeline, refer to 4.0 of the document. Mr. Costello stated that there was no Section 4.0 of the Final EIR. However, there is in Section 5.9, page 2.0 -48 it states again about the homes being on top of the ridgeline. With regards to the Public Services, the response on page 3.90 talks about the wastewater treatment plant having more than adequate capacity to handle the projected increase wastewater. This is true, but is it true cumulatively? Mr. Costello stated that the EIR also refers to comment 33 from the Draft and the response says that the City has determined that three (3) paid fire - fighting personnel would be needed and then refers to some sort of a fiscal study for specifics. Mr. Costello does not see any fiscal study and he does not see any source of revenue to pay for this kind of an increase. He had also raised point PC -32 that states that unavoidable significant impacts associated with project specific and cumulative land uses are identified in sections 5.1, Earth Resources, 5.2 Water Resources, 5.4 Transportation, 5.5 Air Quality, 5.6 Noise, 5.7 Biological Resources, 5.8 Cultural Resources, 5.9 Visual Resources, 5.10 Public Services, and 5.11 Public Utilities. He does not see specific indications that talk about significant unavoidable resources. Mr. Locacciato stated that the language is vague and he will make sure that it is rewritten. Mr. Costello asked if it was true that (p. 5.4 -25) " until a regional strategy to reduce traffic volumes on Highway 101 is developed and implemented, operating conditions along Highway segments, on ramps and off ramps, of Highway 101 under cumulative Phase I and Phase II would be considered a significant cumulative impact. Is this after all the mitigation measures that have been put into place? He believes, if this is true, this would be an unavoidable significant impact with respect to transportation issues. Mr. Locacciato stated that this assumption was correct. Vice -Chair Parker and Mr. Locacciato discussed different aspects of the EIR and the mitigations. Chair Greene asked Mr. Locacciato to define what specific findings are required under the law? Mr. Locacciato reviewed his earlier presentation and explained to Mr. Greene what specific findings had to be made in order to certify the EIR? ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 16, 2000 PAGE 14 Mr. Greene asked Mr. Locacciato how the Planning Commission could determine that the "lead agency's" independent judgement and analysis is reflected in the EIR? Mr. Locacciato stated that if a city has adopted significant thresholds these could be the standard to decide if the EIR met those standards. Mr. Greene asked if one of the things the Planning Commission had to do was to determine if City staff engaged in independent analysis and rendered a judgement that the document is compliant? Mr. Locacciato stated that this is correct. Chair Greene asked if the City's recently established LOS standards were used in the EIR? Mr. McCants replied that he thought this was done, however, it would be best for Mr. Greene to direct the question to the traffic consultant. Mr. Locacciato, Mr. McCants and the Planning Commissioners discussed the requirements and the process of determining that the Final EIR is adequate to move forward. Steve Orosz, Traffic Engineer, spoke to the Planning Commission. He had the following points: • The City Council findings on the guidelines for traffic impacts were not in existence when the traffic study was done. The only guideline that existed was the Level of Service C threshold. Therefore, the report addressed any impacts that resulted in a LOS of D,E, or F. The traffic study used a zero tolerance approach and therefore, in essence, the traffic study is more conservative and restrictive that the current City guidelines. • He discussed the issue of the impact on Highway 101 and possible, future mitigation measures. Commissioner London asked what long term projection is there if Phase 1 of the project is built, but not Phase 11 and the City is left with a commercial project with traffic "dumping" out onto Traffic Way? His question was, if the traffic study projections consider this as a final outcome? Mr. Orosz stated that the analysis that was prepared for Phase 1 of the project assumed that the traffic generated by the development within Phase I existed on the road system, what traffic impacts this would result in and any mitigation measures that were required to mitigate this to an acceptable level of service. Regardless of the completion of Phase II, Phase 1 is a "stand- alone" analysis that addresses the impacts associated with that development. Mr. London asked if there had been a second analysis of this report? 1 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 16, 2000 PAGE 15 Mr. Orosz stated that the methodology and the results of the analysis were reviewed by a second traffic engineer. Myer, Mohhades Associates, Inc. who was the City's traffic consultant on the General Plan Update, did this review. Commissioner Keen was concerned about having a second access on the project to Phase I because he believes that Phase I will be completely built out before Phase II's interchange is funded. Mr. Keen also had some questions about the Traffic Way extension and asked for clarification from the Traffic Consultant. The Planning Commission and Mr. Orosz discussed the Trinity Exit and Hubner Lane as the emergency access to Phase I and II. Vice -Chair Parker stated that she did not see what the mitigation was for the traffic coming out at Trinity? She also asked if a light would be installed at Trinity and Traffic Way Extension to mitigate the traffic in that area? Mr. Orosz stated that the Phase I improvements consist of widening and improving the existing South Traffic Way extension and the traffic signal at Traffic Way and Trinity. Ms. Parker asked if this had been presented to Cal Trans regarding the queuing factor on the off ramp? Mr. Orosz stated that Cal Trans had commented on the EIR and they did not have any comments on this intersection, only on the Fair Oaks off ramp. Ms. Parker asked what mitigation was being planned the traffic flow through Trinity and Traffic? Mr. Orosz explained that the mitigation measure of a traffic signal is a way to organize traffic flow through an intersection. The least at an intersection of two roads with no stop signs. This has the lowest capacity of an intersection. As controls are added, whether it is stop signs, yield signs, traffic signals etc.; these organize traffic flows. As these measures are added the ability to handle more traffic at the same level of service goes up. This is why a traffic signal was suggested for this intersection; to accommodate a higher - level traffic flow. As the traffic flow is organized through the intersection with the use of a signal, this allows more traffic to go through the intersection and still maintain the same level of service. Ms. Parker stated that there was only one access into the project. When will another access be added? Mr. Orosz stated that this would be when Phase II was added. Mr. Orosz and Ms. Parker discussed the East /West Branch Corridor, the traffic signal at the West Branch /Wesley Street intersection, and Cal Trans involvement with the traffic signal at that intersection. They discussed that there was a difference of opinion about what Cal Trans has said they would /would not allow. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 16, 2000 PAGE 16 Vice -Chair Parker has questions regarding the noise wall along Traffic Way between East Cherry and El Campo. Commissioner Costello had a question concerning the comment letter from Cal Trans and the response in the EIR. It appears to him that on one hand the Department of Transportation is saying that the need for a full interchange with Phase I is here and the EIR says that it is not. (Page 312 and 223). Chair Greene had questions concerning: • Traffic Way extension — whether or not it stops at the City limits or goes all the way to El Campo Road? • The current status of the regional discussions concerning the El Campo Interchange? Are there multiple locations being considered for the Interchange? • What is the timetable for resolution of the issue of selecting the alternative that will meet with the approval of the decision - makers? • What happens if the decision - makers decide to place the interchange in a place that is inconsistent with the proposal of the Specific Plan and would this be a significant impact? Mr. McCants stated that the latest version of the El Campo Road PSR had not yet been released. There are three locations being considered, one of which is consistent with the location proposed by the applicant. Mr. McCants is not sure of the timeframe with regards to the decision on the location of the interchange. Mr. Locacciato explained that if the interchange were located in a different spot it would require changes to the circulation system inside the project. If those changes result in new significant impacts, a supplemental EIR may be required under CEQA. On the other hand, if the changes did not result in new impacts, no additional review would be required. Mr. Orosz, Mr. Locacciato, and Chair Greene discussed the alignment and number of lanes for Traffic Way Extension and the trip distribution patterns of the proposed project Chair Greene asked about Item 8 and Item 9 on Table 5.4 -9 in the Final EIR. They both say "Traffic Way, Fair Oaks at Cherry ". Mr. Orosz stated that Item No. 9 has a "typo" and it should read "Fair Oaks west of Highway 101". Chair Greene opened the Public Hearing and invited anyone in the audience to come forward to speak. The following members of the public spoke to the Planning Commission concerning the environmental document: Otis Page — 606 Myrtle Colleen Martin — 855 Olive 1 1 1 1 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 16, 2000 PAGE 17 Ella Honeycutt Karen Cross - Harmon - 390 Mercedes Commissioner Costello moved to continue the public hearing and the Planning Commission discussion of the certification of the EIR to a special meeting to be held on Tuesday, May 30, 2000. Vice -Chair Parker seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously carried on a voice vote.. IV. DISCUSSION V. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENT NONE VI. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP REPORTS NONE VII. ADJOURNMENT On motion of Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner London the meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m. to the next scheduled meeting on May 16, 2000. ATTEST: Kathleen Fryer, Commiss AST • CONT T: Clerk Kerry is Commu Development Director /flJ J)LL41�) 6iWML Laurence Greene, Chair