Loading...
PC Minutes 2003-04-30MINUTES - CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 30, 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 minutes of February 26, 2003 were approved unanimously as written on a 4/0 voice vote, Commissioner Fowler being absent. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS — None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - 1 . Letter from Robert & Donna Toth, dated April 27, 2003: Comments on the proposed Jasmine Place. 2. Public hearing agenda item II.A: Corrections to the FSEIR for VTTM & PUD 01- 001 regarding comments of Nanci Parker. 3. Public hearing agenda item II.A: Comments on the FSEIR for VTTM & PUD 01- 001 received from EPI Center, Gordon R. Hensley received by fax 4-30-03. AGENDA RrVIEW — No changes requested. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM ILA: FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CASE NO. 01-001 AND PLANNED UN',T DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 01-001 (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS TRACT 1998); APPLICANT — CASTLEROCK DEVELOPMENT; LOCATION — NORTHEAST INTERSECTION OF JAMES WAY AND LA CANADA. Staff report prepared and presented by, Teresa McClish, Associate Planner. The Commission reviewed the Final SEIR for a proposed clustered single-family residential development consisting of 36 units on a 26.6 -acre site, zoned PD 1.2. Ms. McClish stated that the project included an open space parcel of 16 '/2 acres on a 26.6 -acre site and was deemed complete June 14, 2001. She then gave an update on the project and SEIR, explaining the reasons for the SEIR and the process required for certification. In conclusion, Ms McClish stated that certifying the SEIR in compliance with CEQA does not predispose the certifying body to approve the project. John Rickenbach, Rincon Consultant, gave a power point presentation explaining the findings and alternatives contained in the Final SEIR. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 30, 2003 PAGE 2 Commission Brown had the following concerns: • Re: Pismo Clarkia avoidance: How can it be called a mitigation if language such as "feasible" is used? Mr. Rickenbach explained that the original site plan had a Pismo Clarkia survey done a couple of years ago and Rincon consultants confirmed similar findings. The SEIR concluded that even with mitigation measures for the proposed project there would still be a significant unavoidable impact. • Re: 25 -foot buffer zone for preserved areas (Pismo Clarkia): Would it not be better to require a buffer of "at least" 25 feet? Mr. Rickenbach explained that their biologist worked informally with the Department of Fish and Game to determine what would be appropriate if a permit were required and the language of "at least a 25 foot buffer" could be included as a condition and the mitigation modified as such. • How would "Agency Permit Compliance" be a mitigation? Mr. Rickenbach replied that if a State or Federal agency allows a permit for the project it will have a series of conditions attached to it that effect mitigation. • In the Executive Summary it states that if monitoring data determines the gross population of Pismo Clarkia declining, then additional measures will take place. Does this indicate that there is no evidence that the mitigations would be successful? Mr. Rickenbach explained that there is some success, but the Pismo Clarkia is site specific to the area and has certain characteristics it needs to grow. • Riparian and wetland habitat: The Executive Summary states that the applicant would "likely be required to provide compensatory habitat" as a mitigation. Mr. Rickenbach said wetland and riparian can more easily be replaced effectively (compared to Pismo Clarkia). The plan does have setback potential within the lots shown, some of the riparian area could be avoided and in working with the Army Corps of Engineer it could be mitigated. • What "further analysis" was done to change the mitigation from 50 to 25 feet? Mr. Rickenbach said that in response to comments and after a second review, it was decided that less than 50 feet could be done and with conditions, still achieve the same level of mitigation. A 50 -foot buffer affects the feasibility of lot configurations which would further impact Pismo Clarkia. • There is no comment under the "Cumulative Impacts" table about the effects of transplanting a large amount of oak trees on the foraging patterns of wildlife. Why is this not a class I impact? Mr. Rickenbach clarified there is no federal or state protection. T, but it is mitigable and through replacement you achieve a similar situation as you had before and through CEQA this is mitigation. Commissioner Arnold concerns: • When the study was done on the wetlands in 2000, it was a particularly dry year, was this taken into consideration? Mr. Rickenbach said if you don't have water the extent of wetlands are still fairly easily determined by soil and plant types, but 1 MINUTES PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 30, 2003 their studies were conducted in 2002, and they also had previous studies to review. For the purpose of CEQA Rincon used the Corps method, as this would be required for through the permitting process, although the Cowardin method was also considered in the analysis. Commissioner Guthrie: • What is recovery time for replacement oaks and for the wildlife habitat to return? Mr. Rickenbach said younger trees are more. appropriate for replacement in terms of survival rate - it could be ten years before they look like oaks. • Re the 25 -foot setback: Would a HOA have success in monitoring this? Mr. Rickenbach said it has been effectively done and is a reasonable mitigation under CEQA, but the need for monitoring becomes less if the area is left alone. • Is it likely that the riparian habitat could be re-established onsite? Mr. Rickenbach said there is very low to medium quality riparian habitat on site so re - vegetation within these areas is likely to be an enhancement. • Re the span bride versus a culvert in the Alternatives: Mr. Rickenbach referenced a meeting with the Federal & State agencies which resulted in the recommendation. Chair Guthrie opened the Public Hearing. Bob Brownson, 653 Asilo, explained the impacts that he believed were critical to be considered as Class 1 unmitigable impacts. He further stated that noise and lighting had not been addressed adequately in.the: FEIR„the wetlands study initiated by the City completed by EIP in 1998 are not referenced in the FEIR to the degree of wetlands it showed; and in 1998 Chumash archeological evidence was seen on-site that should be found and identified. He did not believe that a HOA would take care of the buffer. He listed numerous reasons why he believed the area would be destroyed by development. He concluded by stating he did not support any of the alternatives (stepped away from the tape - could not hear details after this point). Paul Farroll, Riparian Architect, 765 Asilo, stated that they had been promised by the developer that this site would remain open space and he found the proceedings (FEIR) disturbing, geared to federal requirements, a fit for CEQA, but not representing the interests of the City of Arroyo Grande. He did not believe oak trees do well when transplanted as he listened to discussions at City Council and that transplanting of oak trees is not successful and the cost for the developer to transplant all these trees would be prohibitive. In conclusion he found the report to be inadequate and believed it should be redone. Ella Honeycutt, Coastal SLO Resource Conservation District, resident of Arroyo Grande, stated they she had sat on a committee for months and months of hearings when the City was adopting the Planned Development area and it was to be left as open space because it included wetlands. She handed the Commission a picture of what the area looked like at that time. She gave the history of the site and what had MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 30, 2003 PAGE 4 happened since Planned Development was adopted and that this was a beautiful wetland. Additionally, a survey should be done to see how many trees have survived since the changes took place. This is a unique area, mitigation sounds good, but does it really do what we want it to do. Pam Heatherington, Environment in Public Interest (EPI) of San Luis Obispo, gave a report on the letter written to the Commission by Gorden Hensley, Executive Director/Senior Ecologist for EPI regarding the project. Ms. Heatherington had some additional comments: • When a buffer zone is changed from 50 to 25 feet in a couple of weeks does not give enough time for the public to have meaningful discussion. • Changing the buffer zone from 50 to 25 feet does not reduce the mitigation. The significance of the impact increases potential for flooding. • The biological impact has not been addressed in the FEIR for the creek vein. • Keeping people out of these areas does not change the impact and I would ask for further comment from Rincon and Planning Commission about the change in the biological habitat with the change in the buffer zone. • Replanting of Pismo Clarkia in conjunction with removal of trees changes the habitat and would not be successful. • There has not been enough reference to the additional direct and cumulative runoff that would come with alternatives. When trees are removed impact for siltation and erosion increases. • Insurance does not cover houses built in a significant wetland. • The creek setback would still attract children and would not protect water quality. • The archeological remains need to be addressed. • Meadow Creek flows into Pismo Lake - the cumulative effects do need to be addressed. Nanci Parker, resident of Arroyo Grande, stated the Commission had already received her comments on the FEIR and she had some additional statements to make: • Rincon misunderstood her comments re noise and lighting impacts. It is not the same issue as was addressed ten years ago and if this project is built it will impact the area and noise and lighting will increase and cannot be mitigated away. • She commended Rincon for putting the Pismo Clarkia under the area of significant and unavoidable, but other impacts should also be included under this heading. Ms. Parker then gave an explanation of her concerns as listed in the conclusion of her comments as being Class 1 Significant but unavoidable. • Alternatives to the project: She could not see how lots 1-6 could be built because they are in the middle of the riparian buffer, lot 7-15 are directly between the riparian and Clarkia area, lots 17-36 are directly over the Pismo Clarkia area. Lot 16 is the only one not in the buffer area. So if an alternative needs to be made it needs to go back to the drawing board. MINUTES PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 30, 2003 Paul Farroll spoke again, stating an example of the ineffectiveness of a HOA. Commission questions to Rincon consultant: • In the environmental review done in 1998, more wetlands were indicated — asked for comment on this. Mr. Rickenbach said their information for the biological assessment was based on information provided and the work that was done was verified in the field and the suggested mitigation measures were based on that. He would prefer to defer technical questions for a biologist to answer at upcoming meetings. • What does general activity such as fumes from autos etc. have on Pismo Clarkia? Mr. Rickenbach said human activity does affect plants, but to what extent he was not sure. However, there is healthy Pismo Clarkia existing among homes and traffic. • Is the level of mitigation established at the local level? Mr. Rickenbach explained that it was. • Is there information from a qualified biologist in written form commenting on the mitigations that have been discussed in the report? Mr. Rickenbach said a qualified biologist prepared them and he went on to explain the CEQA process and stated that verification of information required could be provided and added as part of the final certification of the EIR. Chair Guthrie asked for a 10 -minute break. (At this point there was a small amount of the recording missing from the tape recording due to the manual stopping and starting of the recording machine.) I i.` . Mr. Strong said a lot of the public concern deals with the distinction of Class 1 and Class 2 and went on to explain how the classifications and findings relate to the project. Comments continued from the Planning Commissioners: • What if the EIR only makes a discussion that mitigations "might" be accurate? Mr. Strong replied that the conclusions and findings rest with the decision making body and the EIR offers evidence as to what they feel would be feasible and appropriate mitigations. • If the 25 foot buffer remains in the document does this assume that we believe this is appropriate? Mr. Strong advised that the Commission should recommend what they believe is an adequate buffer. Planning Commission comments: • The FEIR could be recommended -with some modifications. • Need to see justification from a biologist in written form on: 1. The history for successful transplant of Pismo Clarkia; Transplantation of Pismo Clarkia: In one part of the document it says that only the seeds can be transplanted, but in another section it says that the plant can be transplanted; like to have an expert give information on this at a meeting. 2. Pismo Clarkia: More explanation of why it is so rare — what criteria. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 30, 2003 PAGE 6 3. Oak tree replacement: There is no incentive to make sure the 15 -gallon trees are maintained. 4. Like to see a discussion on how habitat would be effected when the canopies of trees are trimmed and a time frame of when the area would be expected to get back to it's previous state; it is important that oak trees be transplanted in natural settings as recommended in the document for mitigation. 5. Justification on why the riparian habitat goes from 50 feet to 25 feet; the document is very thorough, but the 25 -foot buffer is a problem; if the 25 -foot buffer does not work with the HOA then Alternative 'C' does not work (the preferred alternative); concerns with the wetlands being much larger than contained in the report. 6. Would like comment from a biologist why the cumulative effect at this site is not a Class 1 impact; noise and lighting not adequately covered; will the recommended mitigations be successful and will the loss of riparian habitat and the oak wildlife habitat be mitigable? 7. Concern with relying on the Federal government and Corps of Engineers recommendations for acceptable mitigations. • All the comments are based on a 36 -lot subdivision, but it could all be changed with a smaller project. Commissioner Brown said the issue of Class 1 impacts from cumulative effects and the 50/25 -foot buffer needs to be substantiated and he would like the consultant to come back in a week to address the concerns discussed before recommending approval to Council. Mr. Strong asked the applicant if an additional time extension was achievable? Dean Coker, Senior Planner, Castlerock Development, said they would not be interested in an extension, they had already had extensions. He believed that dislike of the project was being confused with approving the EIR and the consultants had done an adequate job on the EIR. Mr. Strong, after consulting with Rincon, suggested a special meeting on May 7, 2003. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Keen to adjourn the meeting and reopen the public hearing Wednesday, May 7, at 6:00pm. The motion was approved on a 4/0 voice vote. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: None. DISCUSSION ITEMS: None. 1 1 MINUTES PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 30, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: None COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW-UP: None ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m. on a motion by Commissioner Guthrie, seconded by Commissioner Brown, and unanimously carried. ATTEST: h L N REARDON-SMITH, COMMISSION CLERK AS TO CONTENT: ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPM _NT DIRECTOR GUTHRIE, CHAIR 1 LI