Loading...
PC Minutes 1999-09-21ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 Page 1 of 16 CALL TO ORDER Vice -Chair Parker 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 Absent Chair Greene (Arrived at 8:00 p.m.) MINUTE APPROVAL None I. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 1. Correspondence to the Planning Commission dated September 20, 1999 from the Williams Family concerning Interchange Funding connected with the Arroyo Linda Specific Plan. 2. Correspondence from C.Z. Brown, dated September 20, 1999 concerning the Arroyo Linda Crossroads Project Draft EIR. 3. Minutes of the August 16, 1999 Traffic Commission meeting. 4. Memorandum from Crawford, Multari, Clark and Mohr, dated September 17, 1999 regarding and including the Fiscal Impact Analysis of the proposed Village Glen Annexation. 5. Letter dated September 21, 1999 from Ella Honeycutt concerning the Arroyo Linda Draft EIR II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A. ARROYO LINDA SPECIFIC PLAN - DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT; PROJECT LOCATION - SOUTH EAST PORTION OF ARROYO GRANDE WITH 107 ACRES INSIDE THE CITY LIMITS AND 185 ACRES IN UNINCORPORATED COUNTY AREA; APPLICANT - MICHAEL FREDERICK. Vice -Chair Parker explained to the audience the procedure for the Public Comment period. She explained that the Planning Commission would take comments in the following manner: 1. Public Comments on the Draft EIR 2. Public Comments on the Specific Plan 3. Public Comments on the Fiscal Impact Analysis 4. Comments by the Planning Commission ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 Page 2 of 16 Kerry McCants, Community Development Director, spoke to the Commission to explain what the consultants and staff members were hoping to accomplish with tonight's Public Hearing. He stated that he would like to request, both from the consultant's standpoint and staff's it would be very helpful, if in addition to verbal comments to please provide a written statement. It would help expedite the process of responding to the comments by the consultants who have prepared the documents and hopefully assist the applicant in any mitigation measures that he may chose to include in the project. Additionally, Mr. McCants pointed out that, since the purpose of this public hearing was to provide input to the those who prepared these documents, they may choose to answer questions, but there is no requirement that they do so. Finally, he wanted to mention that this document is a program DEIR and under CEQA there are several provisions that allow this type of a DEIR to be prepared for large complex projects. What this means is that any subsequent action as a result of this project would require additional environmental analysis. Vice -Chair Parker opened the Public Hearing. Eric Justesen, RRM Design Group, representative for the Frederick's, spoke to the Commission. He stated that creating a Master Plan for a property like this and in area like this is not an easy thing to do. There are many issues to be concerned with. In 1996 the applicant processed a sphere of influence change on the portion of the property that is in the County. The City's General Plan requires that a Specific Plan is prepared for this piece of property and planned in some cohesive Master Plan so that there is a Long Range Plan that can guide any future development that might occur on the property. He went on to say that this is a large piece of property that occupies a very significant landmark in town. The developer is very interested in making sure that the plans that are created are consistent with the City's long range goals, with the community's character and image and would result in positive impacts to the community. Mr. Justesen stated that the Frederick's bought the property in 1945. They have been local residents for a long time and have proven openness in working with the community and their neighbors. They have held several neighborhood meetings and workshops with the Planning Commission, which have resulted in changes in their (the Frederick's) thinking and changes in the Master Plan. The vision for this property, first and foremost, the applicant sees the property as offering a significant land resource to the City of Arroyo Grande in the long term. Currently, there is not a lot of land available that is zoned commercial or business types of uses. This property has a varied topography so that any development that occurs in this area will have to be very well done. Vice -Chair Parker stated that the Planning Commission would receive comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report First. 1 1 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 Page 3 of 16 C.Z. Brown, 350 Old Ranch Road, thanked the Community Development Department for making the DEIR available to him. Mr. Brown stated that his three (3) concerns with the project were Traffic, Water and Schools. With respect to traffic, in his opinion the El Campo interchange will not alleviate traffic in the City. It is his understanding that neither the State, County, nor the City is willing to fund the interchange. Therefore, he feels that the interchange would directly benefit the developers and they should be primarily responsible for the interchange. He stated that there is a problem with the Brisco Road interchange and that the DEIR spoke of this, but it did not comment on James Way or Highway 227. With regards to water, he stated that the DEIR on page 5.2 -18, paragraph 3, stated that "it is uncertain whether or not the City's existing water sources will be able to meet water demand at build out of the General Plan ". In his opinion, the DEIR is suggesting very unsound mitigation measures with respect to retrofit, reclaimed water, improved runoff collection and purchase of State water. Having reviewed previous DEIRs it seems that the same mitigation measures are suggested and he questions these as a reasonable solution. He suggested that, as the State water line runs through the corner of the annexation property, it might be advisable that the developer buys excess water from that pipeline. This would alleviate the City having to be involved in providing water. With respect to schools, he had noticed in the paper that over a thousand more students were expected at Arroyo Grande High School. He is concerned that as the City looks at the projects, if it does not designate school sites at this time, would it later have to condemn property to provide schools. Arroyo Grande High is at 145% of capacity, Paulding at 70% and Margaret Harloe at 103% capacity. This gives him great concern. It would seem reasonable that, on the portion that is within the City, a school could be constructed on the northeastern corner of the project. He had just a brief comment on the Fiscal Impact Report. He stated that he is concerned about the square footage that is on the site for various opportunities. He questioned if R and D is not able to come in there, what will replace that. Will it be another Costco, Wal Mart or what? He would suggest that if the developers cannot fund the interchange, the City should say no at this time to this project and handle some of the City's internal problems such as Brisco Road, water, and schools. Otis Page, 606 Myrtle, stated that it was very difficult to separate the issue of the symmetry and the total proposal of the plan itself from the issue of the DEIR. The reason for that, if traffic alone is considered, this issue is very dependant on the assumptions in the plan. The assumptions in the plan are very critical to the DEIR. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 Page 4 of 16 Mike Titus, 404 Lowerly, stated that assuming that under Phase I of the project the car dealers locate into the proposed locations, without an interchange which is the lynchpin of the whole development, financially and otherwise, how are the visitors to that auto center going to head south. Are they going to come north on Traffic Way, and impact the intersections that are already over their capacity? He stated that he felt that the impact of this circulation alone has not been taken into proper consideration. Alex Calanillas was concerned about the Native American archeological sites on the property and wondered if the Cultural Resources had been addressed in the DEIR. He did not have a copy and asked if this had been addressed? Ron DiCarli, 538 Le Point St., the Executive Director of SLOCOG, stated that his organization normally gets involved with funding interchanges, which applies directly to this project. He stated that SLOCOG has been actively following this project and have been working directly with City Staff. They have funded some initial Traffic Study Reports and they are participating in a project development team to evaluate the impacts from these studies. He stated that there were some questiones raised tonight regarding traffic related impacts. The prime concern of SLOCOG deals with traffic related funding. He stated that he had been quoted in the Telegram Tribune, as saying that Cal Trans would not fund this interchange. He wanted to clarify this to the Commission and the public. He explained the issues concerning Cal Trans and what they will fund. Cal Trans funds mainline related improvements like Cuesta Grade and Highway 46. They have delegated additional programming responsibility through SLOCOG so they would be the agency responsible for funding any freeway - related interchange if it is using State money. There are several issues with funding the interchange: • What is the regional value of the interchange vs. the local value of the interchange? Typically they use this to determine the percentage of the contribution towards funding. • The overall funding in terms of the timing of the funding. The next funding cycle is for 2002. SLOCOG will submit recommendations to the State in December of 2001. Typically, if there is State money going towards the interchange it has to be designed according to State law. Cal Trans lead -time for design, environmental review, and final construction will typically take 8 years according to their current schedule. • Finally, with the issue of the likelihood of funding. There have already been discussions that there are several other major projects proposed in the vicinity such as Brisco Road, and Highway 1/Halcyon Road grade improvements. The competition is going to be very "stiff" in 2002 for funding. The Planning Commission and Mr. DeCarli discussed different aspects of the project and the issues that might effect it. 1 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 Page 5 of 16 Howard Mankins spoke on behalf of the Church of the Latter Day Saints a neighbor to the project. They find that the DEIR is adequate for their concerns. However, there are some comments he would like to make. There is one road leading into their facility and, from what the DEIR shows for circulation, the traffic will improve for them. He also stated that contrary to what may have been stated, the Church is not a part of this project. Roger Jet, 221 Trinity Ave., stated that he had submitted comments in writing, but he wanted to speak to some specific issues in the DEIR. The traffic mitigation's that are in the study specify that all mitigation actions are to be taken into consideration. He felt that this meant, if one of the proposed mitigation's does not go through, that impacts the entire traffic study. There is also an impact on the noise quality that is listed that states that there are already above allowable limits for a residential area and this will increase the noise slightly. He wondered how much is enough? Further, he said the DEIR stated that there is a significant impact on the air quality by this project. There are no mitigation's listed for this impact. So, if the R and D designed businesses are not in the spaces, what will move in and will this cause a further significant impact? There is also a problem in dealing with wastewater that will have to be taken care of and a pumping of groundwater for the uncertain water supply. This is a significant impact. Colleen Martin, 855 Olive Street, has many questions on the DEIR. Her first concern was with the transportation issue. The traffic coming off the Mesa was a particular concern to her. She feels that the people who live on the Mesa use Halcyon Road. She did not feel that the El Campo Road interchange would take any of that traffic away from Halcyon Road. She had a concern about: ■ DEIR Transportation Section 5.4 -16 and trucks using the Southbound interchange at Grand Avenue. ■ Have the Traffic Models been taken on a school day when the buses are running? • She questioned the total figures in Summary Table 2.0 -52 concerning the total figures for the schools. • She felt there were some errors and misconceptions about the where the fees would come from that would pay for portable classrooms. • She had a concern about Section 2.0 -55 and the wastewater collection. Finally, she felt this development would not fit with the "rural small town character" of Arroyo Grande. Vice -Chair Parker asked if there were any comments concerning the Specific Plan? ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 Page 6 of 16 Otis Page, 606 Myrtle, stated that the he was in favor of the project however, he is critical of the project. First, there is no funding program for the interchange. It is obvious that the interchange is the lynchpin of the project. He does not believe there should be a Phase I and Phase II, it should be just one project. Without the interchange the project should be denied. Further, he is critical of the location of the industrial R and D in the first phase. Those uses could go to the back of the Phase II area if it were just done in one phase. It would be appropriate to free up the land close to the water tank for residential use if there is an interchange. There is a beautiful view coming down Highway 101 and this view would be better left for residential use rather than industrial. Don Gullickson, 513 East Cherry, stated that he looks around and hears all the people complaining about traffic and growth. He does not see anyone, except for Commissioner Keen, that has citizenship in Arroyo Grande. There are a lot of newcomers trying to say how the City should be run. The City has been good enough for them to move into and new • housing tracts have accommodated them, but not they do want to see any more growth. He feels it is time that there is an opportunity for his children and grandchildren to find adequate employment in Arroyo Grande. This is the first opportunity in many years that there has been a planned development that maybe would bring in some decent paying jobs. Mike Titus stated that his concern with the Specific Plan centers on the amount of square footage that is planned in Phase I and Phase II in retail office and commercial space. If you look at where the City is now, there is almost 100,000 square feet of space approved or in the approval process for commercial space. There is space that has not been leased in the Five Cities Center. He heard at the recent Planning Commission when the Autozone was turned down that the property is capable of supporting an additional 60,000 to 75,000 additional square footage of commercial. How much can the Community absorb? Is Arroyo Grande that much of a regional center that this kind of commercial space be utilized? In talking to a knowledgeable and experienced staff member he felt that there was enough of a capacity for the next ten years already. He is not including what may be developed with the Redevelopment Agency along Grand Avenue. He does not want to see the City of Arroyo Grande have "bookend" developments. The Five Cities Center to the North and a major retail development to the south. Colleen Martin, wanted to speak to the comments made about Arroyo Grande being a regional center. She did not feel that people expected to live and work in Arroyo Grande. She felt that they expected to live here and work someplace else. Howard Mankins stated that he had lived here all his life and the Frederick family had been here as long. This is a local family that wants to do something with their property and he feels this is a decent plan. He felt everyone should work with the Fredericks to help them accomplish this project. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 Page 7 of 16 Heather Jensen, Chamber of Commerce stated that the Chamber has taken a unanimous stand to endorse this project for the following reasons: • Increasing the job base here in Arroyo Grande for the families that are here now. • Provide a positive cash flow to the City of Arroyo Grande to finance those things that are needed by the citizens such as parks, street repair, etc. • The stimulus for the entire business community by a project such as this would revitalize everything by bringing more attention to Arroyo Grande. She would like to commend the Fredericks for making a very well thought out, complete plan rather than coming in a piecemeal fashion. Sandy Lubin, stated that he wanted to clarify one thing regarding commercial development. He has spent the last two years trying to find a piece of property to build on and he had to settle in Grover Beach because he could not find anything in Arroyo Grande. He feels that everyone needs to keep in mind that there is a need to maintain businesses in the area. Lisa Gable - Ferguson, 605 Village Ct. wanted to thank the Fredericks for being very accommodating to their group by recognizing their concerns and meeting with them. Her concern is that Trinity Avenue is currently zoned residential. If they plan to change the zoning into light industry then their area would be between the commercial and industrial areas and be isolated. John Wysong, stated that he would like to see more sports fields and park /play areas at this new development. He feels it is necessary for the kids in the area to have more places to play. Tim Brown, 125 Allen Street stated that he wanted to share some of his observations and concerns regarding the Fiscal Impact Analysis and the EIR for the Arroyo Linda Specific Plan. The Fiscal Impact Analysis should be a document, which allows City officials to make well - reasoned decisions on the long -term financial impact of the Arroyo Linda Project on the city. This document is an absolute failure as a decision making tool for the following reasons: 1. Most if not all assumptions made are speculative in nature. This is a note on page 2 of the report which says, 'Assumptions made as part of the analysis... are considered speculative at this time, and again on page 16, "no marketing study was available for the project" and 'Many of the key inputs are speculative at this time" 2. There is a major Assumption regarding the relocation of the two major dealerships to the Arroyo Linda site, which with minimum research was found to be untrue. He stated that he had specifically called Bob Christianson who told him that he had no intention of moving from his current location even if an interchange was in place. While there would be a minimal sales increase, given overhead concerns it would not be worth while. Mr. Brown ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 Page 8 of 16 was unable to contact Mike Mullahey, but given that he recently purchased property it is highly unlikely that he would move. Given that he was able to glean this information with simple phone calls brings into question the value of the many assumptions contained in this analysis. 3. If you look at the table on page 4, it shows a positive net fiscal impact starting in year 2 from the collection of direct sales tax & unallocated sales tax. This is a patently false statement given that a majority of the revenue generation would come in phase 2 of the project and in reality is connected to the possible construction of an interchange. There is nothing proposed in phase 1 of the project, which would bring the city anything near the figures quoted in NEW sales taxes. In conclusion he stated that he could only conclude that this analysis fails as a tool in showing the true fiscal impact to the city of the Arroyo Linda Specific Plan. He was requesting that the Planning Commission not rely on the document as written and furthermore that the Planning Commission reject the document as currently written. Roger Jett, stated that he would not be attending tonight's meeting if Mr. Frederick was not trying to change the zoning and put in more than the 75 homes the General Plan allowed for. He asked if Phase I could stand on its own, because this is all that is allowed to be done under the jurisdiction of the City Council at this point? If the County does not go along with the annexation then Phase II will not occur. There is no guarantee that Phase II will ever be done. Again, the main point is whether Phase I will stand on its own. Vice -Chair Parker closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner London stated that he was having trouble separating the DEIR from the other issues concerning the project. The bottom -line as he sees it is the interchange issue and whether or not the project is feasible without the interchange. He feels that the applicant is acting as his own developer and is either unwilling, or unable, to fund the interchange by himself. The State is not going to supply the money and unless there is some agreement that can be worked out between this applicant and any future applicant on private funding for the interchange the overall project appears to be at a standstill. His second issue is the water issue. He is concerned that the EIR basically says that there is water there, but if there is any mitigation we'll let the individual developers that come into the property develop the water. He does not feel that this is an appropriate position to take. He feels the applicant should resolve the water issue. Mr. London found the Fiscal Report to be very imaginative in terms of the income to the City. At least for the first few years, he could not figure out where the numbers were coming from. 1 1 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 Page 9 of 16 Finally, Commissioner London felt that lacking in the process of this project is where in Arroyo Grande these employees were going to live? The homes that will be developed with this project will not adequately house 1500 new employees or more. How will this impact the City? Commissioner Keen stated that he would submit his comments in writing at a further date and that he only had a few comments at this time. First, he too was concerned about the water for this project and the traffic impacts. He was in favor of the project and felt the City would benefit from the jobs that would be associated with the project. Secondly, the interchange is imperative for this project to succeed. Lastly, Mr. Keen apologized for not being more prepared, however he did not think the Commission would be speaking at tonight's meeting. Commissioner Costello had the following comments: • Table 20.1 concerning the water. He wondered at what point is the maximum reached? It is one thing to offer this as a mitigation measure, but is it really effective? What are the other possibilities to be looked at? • He did not see any mention of the lawsuit that is pending in the Santa Maria area concerning water rights? What are the implications of that in terms of water? Is State water a realistic option? • Page 2.0 -15 talks about storm water drainage. In the event that the project results in a downstream drainage deficiency, what are the remedies, who pays or who fixes this? • The project will not be viable without the El Campo Rd. interchange being built. The traffic implications are grievous with some intersections already at a level of "D" or worse. He also questioned the validity of the data used in the traffic studies. • He had a question of the "less than significant" impact on the different "Oak Communities ". He would like to see this in more detail that was presented in the DEIR. • On 2.046 there is a statement about building on the ridgeline. He believes that in the Development Code there is a provision that there is no building on a ridgeline. • He finds conflicting statements on the Public Services issues in the DEIR concerning police, schools, solid waste. It does not mentioned solid waste reduction. Treatment plants were not mentioned and he would like the report to be more specific about affordable housing. • Page 53.7 points out that there are unavoidable significant impacts associated with the projects specific and cumulative land uses. Commissioner Costello stated that one of the issues raised is the need for a full time Fire Department. What are the implications of this for the City and what are the shared costs? He feels that that the traffic issue for this project has to be looked at regionally. In a letter from the Department of Agriculture it addressed an issue of precedent setting. The letter states that "the ultimate development of the site would extend residential and commercial southeast of the current urban uses ". "The size of the property and interface ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 Page 10 of 16 with the surrounding agriculture land warrantees an evaluation of the precedent setting. He did not see any consideration of this in the EIR. Chair Greene stated that he would reserve his comments until after he had a chance to listen to the first hour of the meeting on the tapes. With regards to the Fiscal Impact and Specific Plan, he will submit his comments in writing. Vice -Chair Parker spoke and then requested that the following comments be submitted for the record: • Water provision for build -out Water must be provided for the current residents as well as for the agricultural lands within the city ". Undeveloped city areas have been promised use of city water at time of their own development. Projected and approved build -out water need must be used when making a decision as to whether or not we have sufficient water in this city. • Final Long Range Planning Report adopted by City Council Apr. 9, 1996 and referred to by the Arroyo Linda Draft EIR, "The theoretical General Plan build -out is 17,500. The practical build -out is19, 500." The Draft EIR uses the build -out figure of 18.500. The Draft EIR states in 5.2 under Water Supply "It is uncertain whether or not the City's existing water sources will be able to meet water demand at time of build -out of the General Plan." • General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element includes a policy to ensure adequate water to support existing development and existing approved development before permitting new development in the city and adjacent areas that utilize the same ground water basin. • According to Water System Master Plan Final Version Adopted July 13, 1999 Under Water Demand: "In 1997, the City produced 3,087 AF of water, with a maximum day demand of 4.33 million gallons. Based on the demand study, it is anticipated that the City will need to produce 3,590 AFY at build- out, with an anticipated maximum daily demand of 5.45 million gallons. Since the estimated build -out demand is closely matched to the available supply, it appears that the City has adequate water supply for build -out. In addition, it appears that the supply system has adequate well capacity and overall redundancy to safely accommodate the maximum day demand. It is recommended that future annexations include a separate source of supply adequate for the increased demand." ■ LAFCO states: 'In any Sphere of Influence and /or service revision or annexation proposal, the agency should demonstrate that it has the capacity to serve the vacant or under - utilized parcels already within its boundaries, plus the sphere of influence ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 Page 11 of 16 and /or service revision or annexation. If the proposed project is in phases, the agency should demonstrate that adequate service capacity will be provided as needed for each phase." • Drought We must remember that we have serious drought years. Projected build -out needs must be calculated from a total water supply during those years when times are lean. It is inappropriate and unacceptable to use figures taken during years of normal or above normal rainfall. 5.2 -4 "During drought years, inflow to Lopez is 4.500 AFY" The Draft EIR then uses figures from normal rainwater conditions. It states "During years of normal rainfall, inflow into the reservoir is 10.730 AFY. Does that mean that during drought years, we all suffer together? • An EIR must provide an assessment indicating whether its total projected water need for this project can be supplied, how they are to be supplied and what the cost of this supply would be, to the community and to the project. This EIR does not do that. • LAFCO Report states: "The impacts of annexation should be included as part of the project under consideration in the Draft EIR ". "In addition, there should be a complete analysis of the services to be provided to the area, including but not limited to water, sewer, police, fire, roads, etc. "In any proposal requiring water service, the Commission requires that the agency to which the annexation is proposed should demonstrate the availability of an adequate, reliable and sustainable supply of water. In cases where a phased development is proposed, the agency should demonstrate that adequate service capacity would be provided as needed for each phase. In cases where a proposed annexation will be served by an on -site water source, the proponent should demonstrate its adequacy." • LAFCO Page 92 under Impacts on Public Water Systems: "Special requirements apply for evaluating the impacts of large projects on public water systems. (pub. Res. Code 21151.9: Water Code Part 2.1 Division 6, 10910) "Whenever a Lead Agency prepares a Notice of Preparation of an EIR for certain projects, it must identify the public water system that will serve the project and must request that the water agency assess whether the projected water demand associated with the project is covered by the water agency's master water management plan. The projects subject to this provision are residential projects of more than 500 dwelling units; shopping centers and businesses that would employ more than 1,000 people or have more than 500,000 square feet of floor space; commercial office buildings where more than 1,000 persons would be employed or that would have more than 250,000 square feet of floor space; hotels or motels with more than 500 rooms; industrial, manufacturing, processing, or industrial park projects that would employ more than 1,000 persons, occupy more than 40 acres, or have more than 650,000 square feet of floor space, and mixed -use ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 Page 12 of 16 projects that would demand an amount of water equal to or greater than the amount required by a housing project of 500 dwelling units." This development more than fits this description. • LAFCO "A public water system that is notified by a lead agency must prepare an assessment indicating whether its total projected water supplies will meet the projected water demand of the proposed project, in addition to the other planned future uses of water. The governing body of the public water system must approve the assessment, at one of its official meetings." • "If as a result of the assessment, the public water system concludes that its supplies are insufficient, it must submit to the Lead Agency its plans for additional water supplies, including the following: 1. Estimated total costs, and methods of financing the costs, associated with acquiring the additional water supplies. 2. A list of all federal, state, and local permits, approvals, or other entitlements necessary to acquire or develop the additional water supplies. 3. Estimated time frames for acquiring the additional water supplies. ■ "The Lead Agency must include the water assessment in the EIR. Also, at the time it makes a decision on the project, the Lead Agency must determine whether the projected water supplies will be sufficient to satisfy the demands of the proposed project. In addition to existing and planned future uses. If the Lead Agency determines that water supplies will not be sufficient, it must include that determination in its findings ". • COST FACTORS: 1. Reclaimed Water: Based on current technology, reclaimed water is expensive (cost could be $1,200 per acre - foot). 2. State Water: due to city initiative on the ballot in 1989, this may need to go to the vote of the public. 3. Desalination: This is an expensive water source. The cost is high due to the power needed to run the plant. The cost could be $2,000 to $3,000 per acre -foot. DRAFT EIR does not go into the cost factors of these different alternatives, nor does it mitigate the problem of not enough water for the project. The EIR states "No mitigation measures necessary." Because it never shows water to be a problem. The EIR is responsible for making a list of problems and potential problems. In the next column, the EIR is to show possible mitigation efforts that can be made to either make the problem insignificant or something that needs to be dealt with. Water transfers, state water, banking of surplus Lopez water, groundwater, and reclaimed water. What the costs would be for each possible alternative, so we can then make an informed judgement on what might be appropriate and what wouldn't. This Draft EIR indicates that finding water is not a problem to be mitigated. It indicates that not having water is not a problem worth considering. Listing potential water resources does not automatically resolve the problem, nor does it mitigate it. These alternatives should be listed in the 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 Page 13 of 16 mitigation column after the problem of no water to supply the project, and as per CEQA, must have consequences to these alternatives so that when the public makes comment, and the City Council and LAFCO make their findings, decisions are based on fact not speculation. ■ COST: Once again, who is paying for this extra water if it decided it would be an alternative? Nowhere is cost factor a listed. Nowhere on this document does it say that Arroyo Linda would need to pay for it's own source of water once a source is found. I am sure neither the City Council nor LAFCO would purposely vote to increase the cost of water for the entire City by approving an alternative that costs potentially up to 4 times as much just so the city can supply water for a new project. ■ On site Water wells of new projects: The Draft EIR claims to have two wells. Private wells on the site are a potential source of municipal water. If the wells are accepted as a viable source of water, they would have the potential to off -set the water demand that would be created. Nowhere does it cover the cost to do so, who would pay for this cost. According to the figures, this is undrinkable, non - potable water. What would be the cost of making this water usable, and where are the studies to indicate that this can be done at whatever cost? • The Long Range Planning Report states: "Unpredictable sources and not new water unless found geologically to be in another ground water basin that is currently exceeding its safe yield." I see no geographical reports to indicate the Arroyo Linda wells have struck a new vein of water. Are these wells pulling water from our current water basin? Long Range Plan Report: Page 2 -3 Annexation: "Several projects are currently under consideration for annexation to the City. Current City policy dictates that applicants proposing to annex into the City water system provide a source of water supply independent from existing City sources. This policy is based on Section 10.1 of the Land Use Element and Section 2.1 of the Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan." Retrofitting: Draft EIR "as a mitigation effort to off -set the unavailability of water for this project, the plan proposes the water off -sets could be accomplished either through retrofits of existing water fixtures and /or the acquisition of supplemental water sources." Retrofitting was an acceptable way to mitigate smaller projects in the City. According to a report recently given to the Planning Commission by the Community Development Department, we have retrofitted just about everything there is to retrofit. We need to move onto something else. This is no longer a viable mitigation measure especially to a project as large as this one. • Draft EIR states that: Prior to approval of each future project within the Specific Plan boundaries the Applicant shall be required to demonstrate to the City their ability to off -set the water demand that would be created by their project. This mitigation is plain unacceptable it does not even require a discussion. I can just visualize a row of empty lots in Arroyo Linda, the 4th and the 7th lots having buildings because they were somehow able to secure water, the other lots remaining empty. This is poor planning in the extreme. This is not even an acceptable mitigation measure to LAFCO, nor is an acceptable measure to the CEQA agency this document represents. And this is certainly not acceptable to this city. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 Page 14 of 16 TRANSPORTATION: • General Plan Land Use Element Objective 8.1 b states: 1. Ensure that the approval of development proposals will not increase the traffic on a city street or roads in unincorporated areas above the roadway's existing capacity or Level of Service C at the peak hour." 2. 8.2 b "Ensure that existing residents and businesses are not burdened with the cost of fin financing infrastructure aimed at supporting new development." 3. 8.2 d "Place the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that all necessary infrastructure improvements (Including statewide improvements) needed to support project development are available at the time that they are needed with the sponsor of that development." 4. 8.2 f "Review development projects for their impacts on public services and facilities, but not limited to roadways, water, sewer, Fire, police, parks, schools facilities and libraries If a development project will cause the level of public service or facility provision to fall below the standards maintained by the Arroyo Grande and /or the standards of applicable service agencies, require through conditions of approval, development fees or establishment of assessment districts. If such improvements cannot be provided, decline approval of the project." • No project may be approved that adds to an unacceptable LOS unless approved mitigations are in place which will bring the LOS back up to an acceptable level. Draft Environmental Impact Review(DEIR) 5.4 "The project would contribute traffic to the El Campo Rd US Highway intersection which is experiencing a LOS F under existing and baseline conditions." DEIR: "With the construction of the future El Campo interchange, this impact would be eliminated due to the removal of this intersection due to the development of this interchange." This should be listed as a problem, not a solution. There are no plans in place to construct or provide funding for this interchange at this time. Unless the Arroyo Linda Project intends to fund this project alone, documentation must be provided in the EIR to confirm the approved funding for this interchange. If the PC and CC as well as LAFCO are to make a decision based on fact, this documentation should include the following: 1. SLOCOG determination of funding. It is my understanding that at this time, no funding is available from this agency until justification for this interchange has been provided 2. CALTRANS determination of funding. Caltrans has already stated it sees no regional justification for this interchange. 3. The only justification listed in this DRAFT EIR that 1 can find is the LOS at El Campo, and the Arroyo Linda Project, once it's built out. 4. Because of these factors, it therefore becomes necessary for the EIR to provide evidence of the financial approval of the citizen's of Arroyo Grande. As I understand it, this could either be through a ballot measure or a vote by the City Council. Are the people living in the city of Arroyo Grande willing to pay a large share of the cost of an interchange built in the county mainly to support this project? We would need to know this. 5. Funding of this interchange is paramount to knowing if the interchange can be built. 6.The LOS at El Campo and US Highway 101 is used as justification for the need of the interchange. Using the LOS of F at this intersection has already been brought up as a debate, and not as an accepted known factor. After all, if 3 people come to that intersection in an hour, and have to wait 5 minutes to cross the intersection, does this justify a LOS F? This needs to be 1 1 1 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 Page 15 of 16 resolved before this figure is used as the only current justification of the need for a $20 to $30 million interchange. 8. Facts and figures from the El Campo Interchange traffic study need to be separated into current traffic, build -out traffic or what the traffic will be when Arroyo Grande builds all of the projects that have already been approved, and then compared to what the traffic would be if Arroyo Linda was added. Only with this information can the determination be made as to what the fair share of Arroyo Linda actually would be. This information HAS TO be provided. LAFCO. "There should be a complete analysis of the services to be provided to the area, including but not limited to water, sewer, police, fire, roads, etc. • Impact on traffic on East /West Branch intersection is currently a LOS F with no current solution to upgrade. The DEIR states on page 5.4 -6 and 5.4 -9 that the East /West Branch corridor is a LOS A, with LOS B at Phase I build -out. The intersection is not listed on any on the charts. This intersection is not a LOS A, but rather an 'F' at current build -out. The impact of additional traffic on this corridor from Arroyo Linda Crossroads project is not studied in this draft EIR. Certainly the traffic raveling from the south along the 101 corridor getting off at Arroyo Linda crossroads would have to go through the East/ West Branch corridor. In order to go North from the project, one must travel through this Village area to get back on the freeway. Also, people traveling from this project to the village area must travel this corridor. This traffic corridor is already impacted with a LOS F with approved build -out. With no plan yet in place, a close look needs to be taken on the impact Arroyo Linda has on this traffic corridor. Some time ago, Arroyo Grande looked into placing a traffic light at the intersection of East Branch. Caltrans has declared it unacceptable to place a traffic light at this intersection due to short queue's and too many lights so close together Councilman Tolley has recommended a study to see if Arroyo Grande can take over the ownership of this section of the highway. Does this mean the City could place a light at this intersection despite Caltran's interpretations? Would a light improve the intersection LOS enough to add additional potential traffic from Arroyo Linda? These are questions that need to be addressed. A project must not be approved which would worsen the LOS at an intersection or portion of roadway that is already at an unacceptable LOS for the City unless a plan is in place and approved to bring the section to an acceptable LOS. Draft EIR: 1. 5.4 -5 "Prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy within Phase 1... the applicant shall make a fair share contribution towards the construction of a full interchange at El Campo Road. "I believe SLOCOG's rough estimate of how long it would take the intersection to be built is 6 to 8 years. That's with funding. This only reinforces how important it is to decide on funding before a project is approved. 2. 2. 5.4 -6 and 4 -7: "Prior to the issuance of building permits, within phase 2 of the Specific Plan, the project applicant shall make a fair share contribution towards the circulation improvements identified as part of the proposed Specific plan. This also refers to any contribution that would be made to the El Campo Interchange. This indicates that it is expected the interchange be built before Phase One, and that only Phase One will pay the fair share it generates when the interchange is built This indicates that Phase Two would not be involved in the initial funding of the interchange until phase two gets on board. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 Page 16 of 16 What happens if Phase Two never gets off the ground, or as the Financial analysis seems to indicate, it will take ten years or so before Phase Two is justified. How do we as a community come up with $20 million from the 'fair share' of Phase One. The project must be addressed as a whole unit. They cannot be brought in piecemeal. LAFCO states, "The impacts of annexation should be included as part of the project under consideration in the Draft EIR ". The Commissioners discussed extending the date for public comments on the Draft EIR. Vice -Chair Parker suggested that the comment period for the DEIR be extended by 15 days, thereby accepting comments until the 16 of October. Furthermore, the Planning Commission will hear comments on the DEIR at their October 5th meeting. Chair Greene moved to continue the public hearing on the Arroyo Linda Draft EIR to the October 5, 1999 Planning Commission meeting. The continuance should be noticed again. Comments on Arroyo Linda Draft EIR should be the first item on the agenda. Commissioner London seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously carried by a voice vote. DISCUSSION ITEMS Vice -Chair Parker brought the Planning Commission up to date on the Long Range Planning Commission stated that there would be a meeting on September 22, 1999. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS None COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP REPORTS None ADJOURNMENT On motion of Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Costello and by a unanimous vote, the Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 11:10 p.m. to its next scheduled meeting on October 5,1999. ATTEST: CA 0 11 1 4/ Kathleen ryer, Commissio `lerk Laurence Greene, Chair AS TO CONTENT: f / Kerry Mb.ants Community Development Director 1 1 1