Loading...
PC Minutes 2003-05-071 1 1 MINUTES CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 7, 2003 CALL TO ORDER - The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Guthrie presiding. Also present were Commissioners Arnold, Brown and Keen. Commissioner Fowler was absent. Staff members in attendance were Community Development Director Rob Strong and Associate Planner Teresa McClish. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — The corrected minutes of April 15 were approved as written on a motion by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Arnold. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS — None. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS — Letter from Douglas W. Tait, 645 Asilo, Arroyo Grande, regarding Item II.A. AGENDA REVIEW — No change. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM II.A: CONTINUED DISCUSSION ABOUT THE FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRNOMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FSEIR) FOR TRACT 1998 VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CASE NO. 01 -001 OTHERWISE KNOWN AS (TRACT 1998) AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 01 -001 (TRACT 1998). The Commission reopened the public hearing and continued the discussion to prepare recommendations for the City Council regarding certification of the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) for VTTM 01 -001 and PUD 01 -001. Dean Coker, 202 H3 Tank Farm Road, SLO: • Asked the commission if the clerk would please let the Planning Commission know when the audio recording tape is running out and needs to be switched so the meeting can be paused until the tape is restarted, to avoid loss of recorded testimony. Teresa McClish presented the project to continue the discussion and allow Rincon Consultants to answer specific technical questions regarding the FSEIR that were raised on April 30, 2003 during the Public Hearing. A written explanation from Rincon was submitted to the Commissioners. Staff recommended the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution recommending the City Council certify that the FSEIR prepared for the project is adequate and complete pursuant to the requirements under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Teresa introduced John Rickenbach of Rincon Consultants. John Rickenbach, Rincon Consultants • Introduced Kevin Merck, Senior Plant Ecologist/Restoration Specialist and Biologist. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 7, 2003 PAGE 2 • Kevin has led Rincon's team of biologists in drafting some of the clarifications requested by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Brown • Cutting the canopies of Oak trees (Item 4); Class 1 versus Class 2 impact — It would seem like a Class 1 impact just by the very nature of having human inhabitants there. Noise, lighting, and everything that goes with them would be, to some degree, immitigable. • Mr. Rickenbach responded stating that any project can affect anything. The question is whether the impact is significant under CEQA? He further indicated the following: — Commonly in CEQA practice you acknowledge that there are adverse impacts. The question is whether you are impacting something that would otherwise be a significant resource from a cumulative perspective, a listed or rare species. — The judgment here is that you acknowledge an adverse impact, but there are mitigations. From a CEQA perspective the mitigations are intended to reduce impacts to less than significant. — Our judgment is that it is still a Class 2 impact. Commissioner Brown • Riparian setbacks (Item 5). Why does lessening a setback increase the amount of Pismo Clarkia that can be preserved? • Mr. Rickenbach said it is a very site - specific issue. Imagine the site as a valley with the creek on one side and Pismo Clarkia on the other side, and in the middle is essentially a constraint -free area. If the setback is larger along the riparian and you put something in that area, it could encroach on the Pismo Clarkia. • If you could achieve the same level of mitigation along the riparian side by going to a smaller setback, then you could potentially avoid impacting the Pismo Clarkia. Commissioner Brown • General impact to wildlife (Item 6). The cumulative impacts on the site versus regional impacts are just as important. On page ES -31 you clearly state that the regional impacts are Class 1 significant. Why would it not then follow from a site specific point that it would also be a Class 1 site specific, cumulative issue? • Mr. Richenbach replied that the nature of a CEQA cumulative discussion is by its nature not cumulative to a site, it's cumulative to the region. — In the region lots of things happen (i.e., other projects which have the effect of degrading the habitat) and the net effect is that by combining it with what is happening on the site you have a cumulative unavoidable impact, which is identified in the EIR. — The site is not properly called cumulative under CEQA. We look at it in total under CEQA. We conclude through the various biological components of the site, which we assess separately and together. Together you can potentially mitigate to a point that is less than significant. This is subjective. 1 1 1 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 7, 2003 PAGE 3 — You can't control what happens off site due to other projects in the region. The net effect is from all General Plans. If they build out the way they are intended to, you end up with an impact you cannot avoid. — On the site, our judgment is that you can individually mitigate for the impacts to the point where the overall impact to wildlife can be a Tess than significant level, based on the mitigation we have proposed. Both for that specific impact B5 and for the other impacts identified in that section. Commissioner Arnold • When reducing the setbacks, was some consideration given to the required fire hazard clearance? If you reduce the setbacks to 25 -ft, but a 30 -ft fire clearance is required around the homes, there's a risk of encroaching on the protected areas. • Mr. Rickenbach said he would review the information and respond to the question later. Chair Guthrie • What is unique about Pismo Clarkia? Doesn't it grow somewhere else? • Mr. Merck responded that the Pismo Clarkia is restrictive in its habitat requirements. It's found in a special soil series in an area of lower competition that doesn't occur everywhere (little patches of occurrences where the specific soil is located — loose, unconsolidated sandy soils — natural rarity and specific habitat type). Pismo Clarkia is specific to coastal sub - strands — small, narrow strips where a unique combination of factors allow this species to exist. • In layman's terms, it's going to thrive in weak soil and limited slopes where there are specific advantages — a microclimate of shade, slope aspect and proximity to Oak woodland provides the unique climate. Chair Guthrie • How will the presence of the road and the removal of trees affect the Pismo Clarkia? • Mr. Merck responded that an active management plan and buffer zone would allow Pismo Clarkia to survive, without being overrun by exotics. He doesn't recall proposed Oak removal that would impact Pismo Clarkia. • Mr. Merck indicated that a Homeowner's Association (HOA) could have a specific management plan for managing this situation. Or, Fish and Game could monitor the situation, which is being done in other situations. He is not aware if the HOA across James Way is responsible for monitoring Pismo Clarkia. • Mr. Merck said that an active re- vegetation program and active management plan would significantly reduce risk and damage. A qualified individual conducts weed abatement, ensuring that the re- vegetation program is proceeding successfully. The program is very detailed. Once the native plant communities are established they would be relatively maintenance free. HOA CC &Rs would restrict access to the protected area. • Chair Guthrie asked if the quality of the woodland habitat would be at risk due to lawns and heavy -duty insecticide run -off from neighboring residences? MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 7, 2003 PAGE 4 • Mr. Merck said the area has a large, contiguous area of Oak woodland habitat. Removal of some trees should not have a significant impact. Animals who currently reside at the site are adapted to the urban - woodland interface. • Mr. Rickenbach said that part of the Pismo Clarkia impact is unavoidable. Riparian is not going to be a significant impact. Restoration efforts can be done. Alternative C avoids riparian and woodland areas and Pismo Clarkia. There are still some impacts that cannot be avoided. Chair Guthrie • He does not agree with using State agencies as part of the mitigation measures. There is no guarantee that Federal or State agencies would mitigate by providing on- site riparian areas. They may require off -site or accept in lieu fees. • Mr. Merck indicated that their primary goal is to ensure that there is no net loss on- site. They will ensure that there is at least a 2:1 mitigation ratio. Increased mitigation ratios are happening regularly. Fish and Game currently requires a 5:1 mitigation ratio for permanent losses. They are becoming more stringent and are scrutinizing at a higher level of effort because these are sources of revenue for them. The in lieu fee program is used when there are sub - optimal mitigation areas on site. Commissioner Keen • Has Pismo Clarkia been grown in a controlled setting? • Mr. Merck indicated that this has been done. Chair Guthrie • What percentage of regeneration could be successful? How long would it take? • Mr. Merck stated that Oaks regenerate slowly. Horticulturists are doing this with 98- 100% success rate. Real regeneration of Oak woodland takes more than 10 years. To get older, stately trees would take 25 -50 years. Mr. Rickenbach • To clarify previous comments regarding setbacks for fires — brush clearance needs to be 30 -ft from structures. The setback is 25 -ft from identified riparian habitat to grading. Distance to the structure is likely to be farther than that. • In Alternative C we've tried to stay out of that 25 -ft area. The edge of the property line is at the edge of the 25 -ft setback. The distance to the structure would be 35 or 40 feet, or whatever the case may be. Chair Guthrie • A letter was written last Friday from Gordon Hensley. Did you have a chance to respond to that? • Mr. Rickenbach said they must review Mr. Hensley's letter again and prepare a response. The responses submitted at this meeting are to the specific requests from the Planning Commission. • Chair Guthrie indicated that Mr. Rickenbach should be prepared to respond to Mr. Hensley's letter. 1 1 1 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 7, 2003 Chair Guthrie opened the Public Hearing. PAGE 5 Bob Brownson, 653 Asilo, Arroyo Grande • Read May 7, 2003 letter from Pamela Heatherington, which was addressed to the Planning Commission. • Responded to Rincon's May 7, 2003 memo. • Asked who plants and cares for the native plants? • Proposed that the Planning Commission approve the FSEIR with the following conditions: — 50 -ft setbacks instead of 25 -ft setbacks. — Cumulative impacts to on -site wildlife breeding and foraging areas and wildlife corridors should be considered unacceptable despite mitigation measures. Ellen Honeycutt • Meadow Creek is the headwater for a 3,000 -acre watershed. • When Canyon Way was developed, trees were cut down and driveways cemented. Although planning was done, when a big rain came (before 1989) Tally Ho was flooded and many homes were affected. The cumulative effect on the watershed was not examined. • Mother Nature dumps rain. Do the homeowners need flood insurance? • Make the setbacks adequate enough to protect the homes. • The Canyon Way situation was all documented and can be looked up. I have the newspaper clippings if anyone wants them. This erosion happened because the hills were just cleared and building was started. • The City must live up to the original agreements in the original EIR. There are interesting things there that the City must live up to. There are some things the developer must do. Commissioner Brown • Asked Mr. Rickenback to respond to the comments about the cumulative impacts on the watershed. • Mr. Rickenback said they did a pretty extensive analysis of both geologic slope stability and flooding impacts, and geotechnical people visited the site. The conclusion was that the suggested mitigation (flooding, not biology) to deal with the impact of human population — 25 -ft setback from the top of the bank — is not a problem and is less restrictive than a biological setback of 25 -ft from the riparian area. • Mr. Rickenbach also provided the following information: — With a series of revegetation improvements there should not be a significant difference in terms of how the watershed behaves, even though there will be flood events due to wet years. — The EIR is the first step of preparing conditions of approval. The City engineer or geotechnical expert will review the project design and provide details to ensure flood protection of the development. — There will be fluctuation within the watershed — we don't see a significant difference before and after development. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 7, 2003 Chair Guthrie closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Keen • A 50 -ft setback should be required. • Ready to recommend approval. PAGE 6 — The goal here is to determine whether there is enough information to certify an EIR. The Council uses the information to determine whether to approve the project and to identify the conditions of approval. — The movement corridor is not the width of the setback. It's the width of the riparian area much closer to the creek. The width of the riparian area is between 100 -200 feet. Commissioner Brown • Oak woodlands and trimming of the canopies — mitigation takes a long time and, therefore, is not Tess than significant impact. • Due to the proximity of population, interference with wildlife migration is a significant impact. • Pismo Clarkia without setback degrades habitat, which equals loss. Whether the setback is 25 -ft or 50 -ft there is still a Class 1 unavoidable impact. • HOA's are not trained or may not be motivated to do what they are being asked to do. There are no guarantees on the quality or effectiveness of an HOA (for this purpose). • Consultant's definition of cumulative is regional, but on -site combination of additive impacts creates additional Class 1 project related impact, in his opinion. • An HOA is not enough to change a 50 -ft setback to 25 -ft setback. • He recommends certification of the EIR with additional recommendation to Council that there is a Class 1 additive /on -site "cumulative" project impact. Commissioner Arnold • A 50 -ft setback is necessary for Pismo Clarkia and Riparian areas. • HOA is not adequate mitigation. Concerned about government agencies following up and ensuring that mitigation measures are effective. • Fire clearance overlapping buffers is partial justification for larger 50 -ft. setback. • Real problem with Oak tree removals. Success rate pretty high to relocate Oak trees. We should not allow Oak trees to be removed if they are viable specimens. • Not in favor of any in lieu fees or off -site mitigation. Mitigation should take place on the site. • We should recommend that this is cumulatively a Class 1 impact. Chair Guthrie • Report is complete. • Size and number of Oaks to be removed is an important issue. • Federal /State agency enforcement of mitigations is not assured in the long run. • Lack of successful HOA examples. 1 1 1 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 7, 2003 • Recommend certification to the Council with a 50 -ft setback and a general concern about collective impacts on wildlife. RESOLUTION NO. 03 -1893 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY THE COMPLETION OF AND MAKE FINDINGS AS TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR VTTM /PUD 01 -001 (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS TRACT 1998) Commissioner Arnold made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Brown, adopting Resolution No. 03 -1893 recommending the City Council certify the Final SEIR for VTTM 01- 001, PUD 01 -001 (Tract 1998), with the following conditions: — Minimum setback buffer of 50 -ft from Pismo Clarkia, Riparian and Wetland areas. — Homeowners Association (HOA) would not be effective for ensuring that the area is not disturbed. — No In Lieu fees or off -site mitigation should take place. — Cumulative effects are Class -1 impact on site. — Oak trees are to be moved, not cut down. The motion was approved on a 4/0 roll call vote, Commissioner Fowler was absent: AYES: Commissioners Arnold, Brown, Keen and Chair Guthrie NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Fowler The foregoing resolution was adopted this 7 day of May 2003. DISCUSSION ITEMS: None. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: None. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP: None. TENTATIVE ITEMS: None. PAGE 7 ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. on a motion by Commissioner Arnold seconded by Chair Guthrie and unanimously carried. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 7, 2003 ATTEST: LAVONNE BRADFOJR , /COMMISSION CLERK AS TO CO ENT: / ILA ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPM T DIRECTOR PAGE 8 1 1