Loading...
PC Minutes 2000-05-301 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 30, 2000 PAGE 1 CALL TO ORDER Chair Greene called the special 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 None 1.B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None ITEM II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS II.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 (CONTINUED FROM MAY 16, 2000) Kerry McCants, Community Development Director, stated that there was a correction in the Environmental Impact Report. With regards to a question from Commissioner Costello at the May 16, 2000 meeting, the Visual Resources Section (Page 5.9 -19) and the Executive Summary Section (Page 2.048) have been modified to indicate that the lots will be located on the hillside as opposed to the ridge tops. Vice -Chair Parker, referring to the CEQA Manual, discussed the requirements of the process of certification of an environmental document. She asked several questions about the one -year time frame within which the document must be certified. Mr. McCants stated that the Planning Commission would make a recommendation to the City Council on certification of the environmental document and that it is the contents of the environmental document that the Planning Commission is dealing with. Mr. McCants further stated that the environmental review process is established and that there is no discretion with regards to the process. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 30, 2000 PAGE 2 Commissioner London asked if the Planning Commission questions some of the mitigation measures, could they still decide on a recommendation to the City Council to certify the document? Mr. McCants stated that it is a judgement call on the part of the Commission. If the Commission believes that the information provided is adequate to be able to judge the environmental consequences of the project and determine that the mitigation measures are feasible, then it (the Commission) should recommend certification to the City Council. Commissioner Costello stated that in the letter from the Department of Transportation dated September 23, 1999, the phrase labeled "DOT 8 — on page 223" it states that "the document should address in a clear and understandable way the need for full interchange with Phase I..." In the response to this comment on page 3.12 states" the analysis related to Phase I development clearly states that the local and state highway system will remain within acceptable limits..." The EIR text is very clear in describing the fact that "until the full and complete interchange is constructed no development of Phase II can occur ". His question is why there is a difference between what the letter of Department of Transportation said and the analysis. Tony Locacciato, Impact Sciences stated that he had spoken to Mr. Newland from Caltrans and Mr. Newland's understanding was that this was more of an opinion or recommendation from Caltrans rather than a technical question. Mr. Costello stated that he had also spoken to Mr. Newland and had asked the same question. Mr. Costello said that Mr. Newland stated very clearly that there is no way that the project should go forward in a phased approach without the interchange being funded. Mr. Locacciato explained to Mr. Costello that he had told Mr. Newland that the project traffic study had showed an acceptable level of service and Mr. Newland indicated that Caltrans understood that. Mr. Newland's comment seems to be related to funding and the mechanics of funding as opposed to a significant environmental impact as defined by CEQA. Mr. Costello stated that this was not the way that he had interpreted what Mr. Newland had said to him. Mr. Costello then asked for a clarification of one of the water issues. On page 2.012 the language stated that "water obtained from the Monterey aquifer... would not be suitable for drinking water supply without desalinization ". Mr. Costello asked why this was and what it would take to have a desalinization plant to make the water usable. Chair Greene stated that the Planning Commission had not had any discussion at this point on the water issues. The applicant's water expert was going to do a presentation on water issues later in the meeting. Vice -Chair Parker asked if the Traffic Impact Analysis was a part of the CEQA environmental document? ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 30, 2000 PAGE 3 Mr. McCants replied that it was an appendix to the environmental document. Tim Cleath, the hydrogeologist for the project, spoke to the Commission. He stated that the project would incorporate some water from the City's water system and would also have on -site wells. There are currently two wells that are being considered for use by the proposed development. Mr. Cleath stated that there are three questions that he has heard about the water for this project. The first question was "are these wells inside or outside of the Santa Maria, Arroyo Grande, Tri- Cities mesa groundwater basin. The answer is that both wells are outside of the basin, clearly in rocks that are older than the sediments that are in the basin. The second question Mr. Cleath addressed was the adequacy and reliability of the water sources. Mr. Cleath explained that there were two totally separate wells tapping different aquafirs. They do not effect each other. They have different water qualities and permeability. Both wells have not been operated at the proposed rate that the project would use them, but they have been tested and they produced 100 gallons per minute. They looked at what yield the other property owners have gotten from similar wells. With this information it was reasonable to assume that the wells would yield the 100 gallons per minute. As far as water treatment, Mr. Cleath stated that both of the wells have very hard water. The well on the north side of the freeway has a total dissolve solids of 1,000 mil. per liter. So, desalination was suggested as a means to lower the salinity in the water. They have not gotten to the point of say what the most appropriate treatment would be but they recognize some treatment will be needed because there is iron and manganese in the water. Commission Costello asked how difficult it was to remove the manganese? Mr. Cleath stated that it was not difficult to remove and explained a bit about how it would be done on facility. Mr. Costello stated that in the mitigation measures it stated that if this were not possible, the applicant would provide for a new water source that was adequate. Where would this source come from? Mr. Cleath stated that he did not prepare the EIR so he did not know where this water would come from. Furthermore, he stated that one of the wells was close to a stream and it is likely that the applicant would need to consider putting the well a little farther away from the stream so that the surface water treatment rule would not be required. Vice -Chair Parker stated that she was concerned about providing water to a large area and wanted to make sure that water would continue to be provided to the people that already lived in the area. She stated that she was also concerned about providing water to the area's farmers. Who else uses these aquifers besides the farmers and is there any way to tell whom else uses them and would it effect the agricultural production? Mr. Cleath stated that he knew the wells in this area well because he has worked on them ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 30, 2000 PAGE 4 extensively. He said that each property owner has its own right to produce water. He does not judge whether it should be for agriculture or domestic uses. Generally, in water law, domestic use is a higher right than agriculture use. However, he stated that he did not believe that for the wells, which were at least 3000 feet away from the project wells, that there would be any significant impact. Ms. Parker stated that she did not want to debate who it was that had a right to the water but she believes that the people that already have the water have the rights to it. If the Planning Commission is going to allow water for a new rezoning then she wants to make sure the people that have the water already will still have enough. Ms. Parker stated that in looking at a development that places structures and cement, would there be enough water that would still get into the water basin? Mr. Cleath explained how they evaluated how drawing from one well impacts the other well. In his opinion the impact would not be significant. Vice -chair Parker asked about the amount of water that would be taken from the wells during drought years? Mr. Cleath stated that the 103 -acre feet of water that they were predicting would be available from the wells would be the sustainable amount of water. Ms. Parker stated that according to the County Planning Department, the upper aquafirs are already maxed out. The County did agree that the aquafirs in question were deep aquafirs and therefore not included. The County did say that it would be very costly to pump water out of these aquafirs. Has there been a study on what it would cost to pump water out of these wells? Mr. Cleath stated that the cost would not be prohibitive for pumping water for these two wells. Commissioner London asked why the environmental document, while it discusses the source as far as the mitigation goes, does not address distribution. Are the wells going to be pumping water into the City's water system and shouldn't this be part of the mitigation measures? Mr. McCants stated that it is a requirement that they provide the water and that this is a part of the conditions for annexation. The developer is required to provide the water and what ever kind of infrastructure that it takes to make the water part of the City system. Mr. Justesen stated that in the Specific Plan for the project there was a section on infrastructure where this issue was addressed. Mr. London asked if the developer was responsible for future deficiencies in the water supply should they occur? Mr. Justesen explained the long range plan for the project and stated that as it was developed the City would have the opportunity to review many issues such as water and traffic impacts ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 30, 2000 PAGE 5 and make a decision on each of the stages of the development. He explained how the developer had looked at the issues for the project up to this point. Mr. London stated that his question was that the developer was providing mitigation for water? Mr. McCants stated that it was important to make the distinction that this was a program EIR. Each project that is proposed that is within this area will have to be evaluated. If a problem arises in a subsequent project, then it will be subject to an additional evaluation. Commissioner Keen asked how much water would be used to raise a 100 acres of grapes? Mr. Cleath stated that it was an acre -foot of water for an acre of land, plus or minus. Mr. Keen and Mr. Cleath discussed the water use for agricultural land. Chair Greene asked about changes in the EIR between the Draft, written in 1999 and the Final EIR. Mr. Greene stated that the draft document, under the section 5.2 "Water Resources" had the following language, "water drawn from the wells have been shown to meet the State drinking water standards, however they range on the upper limits for iron and total dissolved solids. For this reason, the City's Public Works staff has indicated that the private wells are considered marginally desirable as a source of drinking water." This language has been stricken from the Final EIR. Mr. Greene asked if Mr. Cleath knew why this had been taken out? Mr. Locacciato stated that, at the time they prepared the draft environmental document, this was Mr. Campbell's opinion based on the information that he had at that time. In response to the questions in the draft document, City staff had received additional information and the opinion of Mr. Campbell had changed. Mr. Greene asked if any of the additional language added to the Final EIR, which represents the City staff's changed position? Mr. Locacciato stated additional information had been provided on the reliability of the wells, their pumping ability and the quality of the water and that staff had reviewed the final document so that it does reflect the views of City staff. Continuing with the same section of the document Chair Greene questioned the following sentence, which stated, "in addition, they are low producers in comparison to other City wells. If these wells are to be used as a water source, the City indicates that it would be to restrict the wells to irrigation use. If water from the private wells are used as a municipal drinking water source, additional well quality testing will be required to determine if any treatment would be necessary prior to use." Mr. Greene asked why the language about the water being restricted to irrigation use has been stricken from the final document? Mr. Locacciato stated that the answer was the same as the previous question. Chair Greene stated that language on the same page of the draft document that stated "given ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 30, 2000 PAGE 6 the uncertainty associated with supplemental water sources the City's ability to meet water demand in the future and whether or not the private wells would be suitable water sources it is not known if an adequate water supply would be available to meet the demand that would be created by the Specific Plan," was also stricken from the final document. Mr. Greene asked why this was taken out of the document? Mr. Locacciato stated that the City had an updated Urban Water Master Plan, which provided new information regarding Citywide sources in addition to the fact that, the more information about the onsite wells. Chair Greene asked if it was the City's position at this time that the studies that have been done on wells one and two indicate that the well's production capacity for one and two would be comparable to existing City wells and therefore no longer makes them considered to be marginal as a source of drinking water. Mr. McCants stated that the only thing he could comment on was that Public Works had reviewed the document and if they had had any comment on this issue, it would have been reflected in the final document. Mr. Greene asked if, the well that the applicant was indicating as well number two (2) was located within the confines of the Specific Plan? Mr. Cleath answered that well number two was within the property and it was included as part of the onsite water. Mr. Locacciato stated that well number one was located on the 185 -acre area that is currently in the County, but in the Sphere of Influence of the City of Arroyo Grande. Well number two is located on the opposite side of the freeway on the Frederick's property. Vice -Chair Parker stated that in the document it states that after the project would be approved that each individual project coming before the City would have to address the adequacy of their own water needs. Her question was whether or not the Planning Commission had to address the water needs to the entire project? Mr. McCants stated again that the Planning Commission had to recognize that this was a program EIR and that there will be subsequent environmental review of the projects as they come forward. This document is intended to provide the overall environmental document for the Specific Plan. Steve Orosz, traffic engineer, stated that he had prepared the traffic study that the EIR was based on and further stated that he wanted to give the following updates to the Planning. Commission: ■ The traffic study that is included as an appendix to the EIR was reviewed by the City's consultant that is preparing the General Plan Circulation Element, Meyer Mohaddes Associates and offered several comments that were taken into consideration when preparing the final document that is before the Commission. 1 1 1 1 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 30, 2000 PAGE 7 • With regards to the West Branch and Grand Avenue intersection and whether that could be signalized. In a letter dated March 23, 1999 from Caltrans it stated that they had reviewed the information from Village Centre and did not feel that any signal was warranted at that time. However, as traffic volumes grew and that they determined that the signal was warranted they would pursue an agreement with the City to construct the traffic signal or to agree to have it installed. • On April 1 1 th the City Council approved an agreement with Dokken Engineering who is preparing the PSR for the Brisco /Halcyon Interchange and to look at a modification that would basically remove the northbound on -ramp at Grand Avenue further north. There are discussions with Caltrans to further evaluate options that would improve circulation. • Finally, Mr. Orosz stated that he had also spoken to Larry Newland at Caltrans and Mr. Orosz had heard very clearly that the main issue with the response was related to the funding of the interchange. Mr. Orosz presented some detailed information to the Planning Commission about the financing of the El Campo Road interchange. Commissioner London restated some of the issues he had with the project as follows: • If the Planning Commission certifies the EIR, they are not obligating the City to allow the developer to proceed past Phase I of the project without the interchange approved? • The success of the project is based on the building of the interchange. Mr. London stated that he would hate to see Phase I of the project built and create a traffic nightmare with no end in sight because Phase II of the project does not happen. • Finally, if the Planning Commission recommends this EIR for certification to the City Council, he wanted to make sure that the project did not start and "get out of control" and create a nightmare for the City. Mr. Orosz explained what recommending certification of the EIR meant to a project. Mr. London asked why "hook ramps" were not proposed for the south portion of Phase I as an interim measure? Mr. Orosz provided additional information to the Planning Commission regarding this idea. He explained that the issue to construct some sort of ramp system somewhere along the frontage has some difficulty with Cal Trans processing. There is an existing at grade intersection with a connection up to El Campo Road. If there were hook -ramps installed along this area there would be a lot of confusion to the motorists going northbound to figure out what is going on. This was the main reason that this idea was not pursued with Phase I. Commissioner Keen stated that it was his understanding that the funding for the interchange had to be in place before anything was built. Mr. Keen asked Mr. Orosz at what point in the project process would the interchange be addressed? Mr. Keen felt that Traffic Way and Traffic Way extension would have to have signals installed from the very beginning of the project. Mr. Keen asked Mr. Orosz if the City would have wait for the project to start and then have the applicant build the interchange and put in the signals? ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 30, 2000 PAGE 8 Mr. Orosz answered the questions that Mr. Keen had raised, reiterating that this was a program EIR. Vice -Chair Parker stated that one of the mitigation measures mentioned was a left had turn signal placed at Halcyon Road. Would this project be responsible for the traffic signal? Another problem area is the Fair Oaks /Highway 101 off ramp. Ms. Parker wanted to know if a light was put in at this intersection had there been a study done that showed it would actually have some effect? Mr. Orosz stated that at any intersection, when it is "un- signalized" there is a lot of confusion about who is supposed to go and when which slows down the intersection. When an intersection is "signalized" the traffic flows more easily and some of the confusion is reduced. Mr. Orosz explained the different studies that have been done to determine the LOS and the impact of the signal at this intersection ". Vice -Chair Parker asked if there would be monitoring of the mitigation measures? Mr. Locacciato stated that adoption program for measures that mitigate significant impact have been required under CEQA for many years. A mitigation- monitoring program is required at the time a project is approved. Ms. Parker stated that she was very concerned about the Traffic Way extension. With the proposal to close the existing El Campo Way to emergency access only, she stated that this would put a huge amount of pressure on Trinity /Traffic Way extension through Phase I. If Phase II of the project is not built and the El Campo interchange is put further south, Traffic Way would be greatly impacted for a long time. She said that in the Traffic Report, the figures for Traffic Way are 500 trips a day, increasing to 21,000 with project buildout. If there is no other opening into the project except through Trinity Avenue and there is no other mitigation other than a signal at the intersection of Traffic Way and Trinity Avenue, how will this work? She had the following questions: • Had Caltrans been notified that the City was considering putting a traffic light at this intersection? • Had a feasibility study been done at this area to make sure that the light would actually help the traffic situation rather than just the assumption that putting a light at this intersection would take care of the problem? Finally, Ms. Parker had a concern that if El Campo is not opened, that the delivery trucks coming off of the freeway will have to make the hairpin turn to the right to go up Trinity Avenue. She does not feel that this will be possible. Mr. Orosz presented a detailed explanation of this intersection and the outlook for it with the signal in place. He did not feel that trucks would use this off -ramp and make the right hand turn onto Trinity. He felt that trucks would use the alternate measure of taking the Grand Avenue off -ramp since it would be difficult for trucks to make the turn onto Trinity. Vice -Chair Parker asked Mr. Orosz what would happen if Caltrans said no to the traffic signal? 1 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 30, 2000 PAGE 9 Mr. Orosz stated that they had spoken to Caltrans and, although their main concern was with the El Campo interchange, they did discuss other intersections and Caltrans did not seem to have any problem with the light at this intersection. Caltrans had asked that the City consider removing the left lane on -ramp in this area. There was further discussion about the Caltrans, the El Campo interchange, truck traffic coming into Arroyo Grande and where it would go, and the removal of the left lane on -ramp. Ms. Parker asked Mr. Orosz if he had taken into consideration all the different possibilities that could happen when he prepared his traffic study? Mr. Orosz replied that he had taken them into consideration. Mr. Orosz also wanted to correct and clarify some of the figures Ms. Parker had described with regards to the Traffic Way extension. He said that the existing traffic volume on the Traffic Way extension, west of the Mormon Church, is 500 trips at this time. At completion of Phase I of the project this number would increase to 7,800 so the total would be 8,356. When Phase II of the project is completed, with the El Campo Road interchange in place, the total trips will be 11,302. He further explained the signalization during the Phase I development. Not only are they looking at the signal at Traffic Way /Traffic Way extension, there is a proposal to widen Traffic Way extension. Ms. Parker questioned who would pay for the traffic signal. She also asked Mr. Orosz if, in his feasibility study, he had discussed the queuing of the off ramp to accommodate traffic? Mr. Orosz stated that the interchange improvements would need to go through the next level of design where site distance, stopping distance, any minor widening of the ramp to meet design standards, etc., would be specifically addressed. With regards to East /West Branch, Ms. Parker stated that she had called Abe Delgado at Caltrans and he said that they (Caltrans) would not put a light at this intersection. Mr. Delgado stated that Caltrans had done a feasibility study at this intersection and their decision was that they would not put a light at this intersection. Ms. Parker stated that she felt this needed to be cleared up and put in the environmental document. She could not approve any recommendation on the environmental document until she knows what will be done at this intersection. Mr. Orosz stated that he would speak to Caltrans again about this issue. Vice -Chair Parker asked what justification there is for an El Campo with Phase II build -out? She went on to say that according to Caltrans, at this time there is no justification for an interchange at this time. Mr. Orosz stated that Phase I of the project would give the justification for the interchange. Ms. Parker stated that in the environmental document, one of the mitigation measures is that the Fredericks will pay their fare share of expense for the interchange. If, Ms. Parker asked, based on Caltrans assessment that there is no other justification for the interchange except this ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 30, 2000 PAGE 10 project, what would be their fair share? Mr. Orosz stated that there is more justification than this project for the need of an intersection in this area. There is a real safety issue at this intersection especially with people coming off of the Nipomo Mesa and trying to turn left onto the freeway. Ms. Parker stated that this was not something that Caltrans agreed with and that this was only the perception of Mr. Orosz. Mr. Orosz stated that there are two levels of the interchange: • There is an interchange that could be constructed to satisfy the development on the upper Nipomo Mesa. • Then there is the issue of the project. Mr. Orosz and Ms. Parker further discussed the issue with the interchange. Chair Greene had the following questions: • What is the estimated time for the decision making process to complete regarding selection of a site for the interchange? Mr. Orosz stated that on May 23, 2000 the City Council authorized the circulation of the PSR on El Campo Road for 45 days. Once this review period is over it goes back to the Council for review and determination of its completeness. It would then go into the project report phase and this is when a specific location would be chosen and funding percentages would be decided. Although this is the City's time frame, the other agencies involved are on what is called a project development team and their time frame is the same as the City's. • Mr. Greene asked when the decision was likely to be made? Mr. Orosz stated that he could not be sure but it could be as long as a year or sooner. • If a different location for the interchange was chosen, (further south than what is proposed), would the project be able to connect up with the interchange to produce the same sort of desirable traffic results that would be achieved if the interchange was placed when the consultant has shown it in the diagram? Mr. Orosz stated that if this happened, a road system could be designed that would work. • Would the conclusions of Mr. Orosz with regards to the traffic impacts of Phase I and II be different if the interchange was sited farther south or east? Mr. Orosz replied that Phase I would not change at all because it is separate from the interchange. He would have to take a look at the PSR analysis to answer the question about Phase II, but the PSR had the same volumes that he had and the basic process of the PSR is to identify the feasible alternatives. Mr. Orosz stated that he believed that the further south the interchange is placed there will be 1 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 30, 2000 PAGE 11 less benefit for the project. Erik Justesen, RRM, stated that the entire PSR process has been driven by this project. This project has been developed over a number of years. The interchange is paramount to this project's success. If the interchange were place on the Williams property, this project would have to be entirely reconfigured. • In Table 5.4 -13 it shows that the Arroyo Linda Crossroads project will add 20% average daily trips to Highway 101 between Grand Avenue and Traffic? Mr. Orosz stated that this assumption was correct. • Is the applicant proposing any mitigation to deal with this 20% increase in traffic on 101? Mr. Orosz stated that if the interchange is located in the area that has been depicted on the plans, as part of the El Campo Road interchange one of the improvements would be an auxiliary lane between the on ramp at El Campo and the off ramp at Traffic Way. • Mr. Greene stated that he was talking about North of Traffic Way to Grand Avenue? Was there going to be an additional lane there? Mr. Orosz stated that there would not be a lane added there. • Mr. Greene asked if Mr. Orosz had considered the impacts of the Woodlands project on traffic numbers through Arroyo Grande? Mr. Orosz stated that the effects of the Woodlands were included in the numbers. • In Table 5.4 -10 is intersection number 18 on the map is Valley Road and Fair Oaks? Mr. Greene asked if the LOS of D would improve with the new traffic signal? Mr. Orosz answered that it would improve. • In Table 5.4 -1 1, roadway section 5, East -West Branch to Traffic Way, Mr. Greene asked if Mr. Orosz was correct that at baseline, plus Phase I and II, the project will add only 700 trips a day to this roadway? Mr. Orosz double checked the Traffic Study and stated that the 700 trips a day would be in the Village of Arroyo Grande. • On the same table, street section No. 8, Mr. Greene asked Mr. Orosz if the figures were correct that there would be an increase of 90% in traffic on Traffic Way between Fair Oaks and Cherry Avenue? Mr. Orosz stated that this was correct. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 30, 2000 PAGE 12 • In Table 5.4 -13, regarding the same intersection, street segment No. 8, at completion of the project, there will be 18,500 trips per day in this location? This will be an 80% increase over what would be there if the project were not built? Mr. Orosz again answered that this was correct. Commissioner Costello asked: • He wanted to confirm that if Caltrans said there could be no signal at the corner of Grand and Branch Streets, then the City would not be allowed to install one there? Mr. Orosz stated that there would be a possibility that the City could install the signal even with Cal Trans opposition. • In the back of the Final EIR, there are mitigation measures listed on pages 54- 24 and 25 that are in the text but which are not in the Executive Summary? Why is the reason for this? • On page 2.0 -20 it states that "prior to the issuance of building permits for Phase I, the applicant shall submit a funding and financing plan for the El Campo interchange..." Mr. Costello stated that he understood, if he was reading the document correctly, that prior to the issuance of any building permits for Phase I, the funding and financing plan has to be before the City. Is this a correct interpretation? Mr. Orosz stated that this was correct. Commissioner London asked if the language in the EIR that states no building permits may be issued before the funding was in place for the interchange could be amended to include grading permits or building permits might be issued? Mr. McCants stated that the wording could be changed to make sure that no building or grading permits could be obtained. Chair Greene opened the Public Hearing. Mark Harmon, SLOCOG, spoke to the Planning Commission and stated that SLOCOG's primary concern has been with the El Campo Road interchange. He said that he was satisfied with the provision in the EIR regarding the requirement for the interchange to have a funding program in place prior to Phase I. Manuel Mendoza, stated that he was concerned that this project will have negative traffic impacts for residents living next to Huebner Lane. How does the City plan to enforce the use of Huebner Lane as an emergency use only? Mr. McCants stated that a crash gate would be installed with restricted access. Ben Luna, Environmental Defense Center legal staff, was attending to comment on the CEQA process and the adequacy of the environmental document. He said the EDC had the following issues: ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 30, 2000 PAGE 13 • Mitigation Monitoring program ■ Distinguishing Proposed Mitigation Measures • Mitigation Measures: Phase I /Tentative Tract Map and Phase 2 (FEIR page 5.1 -23) ■ Specific Mitigation Measures to Address Faulting (Page 5.124) • Mineral Resources (FEIR page 5.122) • Agricultural Soils /Failure to Analyze Cumulative Impacts (FEIR page 5.122) • Cumulative Impacts of Agricultural Soils (FEIR page 5.122/23) Mr. Luna recommended that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council deny certification of the Arroyo Linda Crossroads Final Impact Report until the issues he had outlined had been addressed. Mr. London asked why the Environmental Defense Center did not come forward during the initial review of the Draft EIR with these issues so that they could have been addressed at that time? The following members of the public spoke to the Planning Commission concerning the environmental report and the project: Heather Jensen Marjorie Dean, 1 1 1 Orchid Lane Marie Cattoir, 195 Orchid Lane Nick Alter, 354 Corbett Canyon Road Karen Cross - Harmon, 390 Mercedes Lane, stated: • According to CEQA Guidelines, all oral and written comments must be responded to in the Final EIR. The comments she made at the October 5, 1999 Planning Commission meeting were not included in the Final EIR. • She had also read into the record excerpts from the LAFCO file that were not responded to. She also had concerns with: • Water and the cost associated with the water that is available. • Traffic • The EIR not being developed so that it is an informative document. • The Diablo emergency response plan should be included in the EIR document. • The inconsistencies of the Specific Plan with the General Plan. Nick Alter, 354 Corbett Canyon Road James Guthrie, 514 Star Light Lane Mr. Locacciato spoke briefly to the Commission with regards to some of the remarks of Mr. Luna from the EDC. Commissioner London stated that he was concerned about the issues raised by the EDC. He was also concerned about the remarks being made that this project would be inconsistent with the current General Plan. Chair Greene asked if the inconsistency with the General Plan is an environmental impact that needs to be addressed by the EIR? ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 30, 2000 PAGE 14 Mr. McCants replied that this project would be an amendment to the General Plan. Chair Greene stated that in adopting the project, would they be adopting the project not withstanding the fact that it may be inconsistent with one or more portions of the various component parts of the General Plan. Having said this, he asked what roll this would play in the analysis for certification of the EIR? Mr. Locacciato stated that CEQA requires analysis of consistency with environmental goals and policies. CEQA does not require analysis of every goal, policy or objective standard in the General Plan if it does not relate to an environmental topic. Mr. Greene asked if "hypothetically" if some one were to conclude that the General Plan and its various component parts is inconsistent with the project, and this person was trying to decide to recommend certification of the environmental document, is the certification an acknowledgement that the provisions of the Specific Plan which contravene the General Plan are environmentally acceptable? Mr. Locacciato answered that the answer would no because, what the environmental impact report looks at, is if the project that is proposed would cause significant Impact on the environment. However, the issues with the General Plan are outside the scope of what the environmental document is supposed to address. Commissioner London stated that he was concerned about Ms. Cross - Harmon's comment that she had given comment at an open meeting and that these were not addressed in the Final EIR. Mr. McCants stated that he would look into this and find out what has happened with those comments. Commissioner London asked what status did this place the Final EIR in? Can the Planning Commission move the EIR forward without those comments? Mr. McCants stated that the Planning Commission could qualify their recommendation by saying that the EIR was acceptable if Ms. Cross - Harmon's comments were included in the final document that would go to the City Council. A discussion ensued between Mr. McCants and Chair Greene regarding the issue raised by Mr. Greene of the Specific Plan versus the General Plan. Vice -Chair Parker had comments on an issue that related to the Final EIR and the CEQA process. In the CEQA book under the section 15088.5 regarding the recirculation of an EIR prior to certification, it states that "a lead agency is required to circulate an EIR when significant new information is added to it after public notice is given of the availability of the draft EIR for public review ". Ms. Parker stated that there are statements in the original traffic impact analysis (page 5) that ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 30, 2000 PAGE 15 are in the DEIR that are different for the Final EIR and therefore create discrepancies that she feels the public has not had a chance to comment on. She raised the following issues with the documents before the Commission. In the Traffic Analysis the following was stated: • During the first phase the northbound off -ramp will be open to El Campo Road averting traffic from the freeway onto the Traffic Way extension. • Huebner Lane is proposed as a secondary access road to the project and it provides an alternate route from the upper Arroyo Grande Valley to Highway 101 at the new El Campo Road interchange. This alternate reduces trips on Cherry Lane and Traffic Way. The elimination of the Huebner connection may result in additional delays at Cherry Lane and Traffic Way intersection, possibly warranting a signal. In the DEIR: • Removes the flow of traffic on Huebner and makes it an emergency access only road. • The El Campo Road flows all the way through to the Traffic Way extension. She feels that that the problem is that the Public Review of the DEIR is review and commented on and then in the Final EIR, when the project itself has been changed significantly, the Community has not been allowed to address these changes. Mr: McCants stated that Ms. Parker was looking at the Draft Traffic Study. The only Traffic Study that counts in this process is the Traffic Study that is contained in the Final EIR. Vice -Chair Parker stated that according to CEQA, if the City has impacts from a project that it is addressing, and then the project has been changed after the Community has had time to address the impacts of the project significantly enough, then the document should be recirculated. There was further detailed discussion on this matter. Chair Greene called a five minute recess at 11:25 p.m. Chair Greene reconvened the meeting at 11:30 p.m. Vice -Chair Parker had the following issues and concerns with recommending the certification of the EIR to the City Council: • She believes the lighting impact will be substantial. She would like to see a mitigation measure on lighting, there is no measure listed at this point. • The traffic on East -West Branch is an LOS of D to F. This is a real problem and it is only going to get worse. Without a Tight at this intersection there is no mitigation listed. As far as she is concerned, no light is going to go in there. • The El Campo interchange is one of the biggest problems for this project. If the City does not know where the El Campo interchange will be, the City does not know how it will be funded; will it even have any justification? If the El Campo interchange does not go where this project anticipates it to go, this would change the entire EIR. She feels that it would be prudent to hold off on the EIR until these questions have been answered and then the ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 30, 2000 PAGE 16 Planning Commission would have the information necessary to make the best decision about the document on facts. • There needs to be more information addressed in the EIR on the distribution of water. New information to be included in the document regarding the water issue itself such as the newly added well, the water used to be drinkable now it is not, it was one way and now another. She would like to see who made the decisions about the wells, and what they based it on. Where the wells are located it on the property. • Ms. Parker stated that there are "huge" changes in the EIR, especially with regards to the El Campo /Traffic Way issue and she feels that the public has a right to comment on this. She therefore feels that the EIR should be recirculated. Commissioner Costello stated that many of the issues with the EIR are still unknown and had the following statements, issues and concerns: • The impact on agricultural soils, while it may not be significant is counter to the General Plan goal of maintaining the rural atmosphere of Arroyo Grande. • He is satisfied with the water issue. • The transportation issue and his questions about it have not been resolved for him. Page 2.019/2.020 is well crafted. He feels that this is a good protection for City but there seems to be many other questions about the other intersections that he is not comfortable with. • The issue of Air Quality, had an issue and felt that more to be done to mitigate the air quality through the whole project. (See Page2.025 - Operational emissions - Why only one "soot - trap"? Mitigation measures, not adequate. • On page 2.032 - Biological resources - Everything is less than significant, however, the cumulative effects on the loss of biological resources may well be significant. • Public Services - 2.052 - The explanation of how Police and Fire Services are going to be funded are not adequate in the EIR. • Page 7.03 - Precedent Setting - He feels that this project would set a precedent and the document should say that it is. ■ There appears to be a need for a mitigation- monitoring program. ■ Mr. Costello is also concerned about missing mitigation measures, inconsistent language, testimony statements that just are not in the document. • He had serious questions about the adequacy of the document. Commissioner London had the following statements, issues and concerns: • He wondered how the City could move forward with this EIR without answers to such things as the monitoring program. If this could be answered in some way he would be comfortable with that. • He was concerned that there were some missing comments from the public and he would like to see these added and fixed. • He does not want any development unless the interchange (El Campo) is approved. He would like to see the wording changed in the Conditions of Approval that "no permits of any kind" shall be issued unless the interchange is approved. • With regards to the Specific Plan being in conflict with the General Plan, should there be additional comments added when sending this forward to the City Council for their recommendation. 1 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 30, 2000 PAGE 17 Commissioner Keen had the following statements, issues and concerns: • He thanked Impact Sciences, and the other contributors, for the work they had done on the EIR. He stated that overall they had done a very good job. • The questions that had come up concerning the turning radius onto Traffic Way from the Highway 101 exit is a very hard thing to judge at this time. The road will have to be widened at that point and when this is done it will make a difference. • Eventually the El Campo Road interchange will be built whether this project is approved or not. As Caltrans has funds they will be putting an interchange there. • Mr. Keen stated that whenever someone talks to Caltrans about putting in a signal their reaction is that it can't be done because they think the City is expecting Caltrans to fund it. ■ The West Branch and Grand Avenue signal is a problem however, a new proposal has just come out for the Halcyon /Brisco Road reconfiguration and it may be that the off ramp at Grand may be closed and it may end up not even being a problem. • The funding for the Police and Fire may be changing as the City Council just recently passed -a new ordinance that will charge all new development for these public services. • He feels that the water for this project is all right and he has no problem with this issue. • He believes that the EIR is adequate and feels comfortable with passing it on to the City Council. Chair Greene had the following statements, issues and concerns: • The Fredericks family represents the best part of living in this town and it concerned him that he was placed in a position that he had to make a decision /recommendation based on the feelings about their project. • With regards to Mr. Luna's and the EDC's issues, there seems to be some dispute about his objections. Between now and the time the City Council considers this EIR there should be some resolution to the issues he has raised and something written to the City Council. • With regards to Karen Cross - Harmon and her opinions concerning this project that were not addressed in the EIR, the consultant make sure that her issues are addressed in the environmental document. • With regards to the water for this project, he would like to see the same kind of mitigation monitoring for this project as was done for the Village Glen project. He does have some reservations about the water issue. • The Specific Plan /project is incompatible with the Land Use and Open Space /Conservation Elements of the General Plan in "profound and unalterable ways ". • Page 15 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan states "The essence of Arroyo Grande's desirability is its rural, small town character. The Character encompasses a wide range of components including the scale and intensity of the existing development, the rate scale and intensity of new development, the existence of the proximity of agriculture and open spaces, including natural hillsides, park lands, rural residences, and preservation of historic structures ". It is apparent throughout the General Plan the retention of this character is a primary focus of the people of Arroyo Grande. ■ The project before the Planning Commission involves at buildout 90 + homes and 1.4 million square feet of industrial, retail and commercial development. To put this into context the Five Cities Center is 350,000 square feet. • The decision to implement this kind of proposal must come from an elected official and Mr. Greene cannot in good conscious find that the environmental impacts from this project, as ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 30, 2000 PAGE 18 identified, have been mitigated in view of the incompatibility with the General Plan. • Mr. Greene stated that he did recognize that the 100 +/- acres of the property that is located within the City is zoned for residential development. Mr. Frederick could build 77 +/- homes there. The 190 +/- acres that will be annexed to the City is zoned Agriculture and its primary use is cattle grazing. • The Open Space /Conservation Element, Objective #1 states, "Agriculture is the primary land use within much of Arroyo Grande and surrounding lands. It is the primary determinate of the City's rural, small town atmosphere. An intrinsic part of the City's heritage and a critical factor in the Arroyo Grande residents' perceptions as to what makes their community desirable." "Preservation of Agricultural lands both within and adjacent to the City, and retention of Arroyo Grande's traditional ties to agriculture is of paramount importance of the City. This intent to preserve agriculture involves avoiding decisions that could be interpreted to be indicators of urban and rural development expansion. It will ensure the long term availability of affordable supplies of water to agriculture interests." • The Fredericks could develop the land within the City consistent with the existing zoning. Mr. Greene feels it is a mistake to divide the project into phases as has been proposed. • Objective No. 1.0 states: "Discourage land speculation, reduce the pressure for urbanization and prevent the continued conversion of lands used for agricultural production to non - agriculture use within the City of Arroyo Grande and the surrounding areas." ■ In his opinion, dividing the project into phases has resulted in "beguiling" mitigation of the El Campo interchange as a way to solve the traffic problems. This is where the project fails. • The traffic impacts have been trivialized in the EIR. • The development of the interchange depends on so many agencies outside of the City that it is speculative of the City to say that it will be built in a certain location within a certain time frame. • Building the project in phases will result in significant traffic increases on roadway segments, which will not be improved. • Example: a 90% increase in traffic on Traffic Way without a single mitigation. ■ It is irresponsible for the City to permit development, which adversely impacts the ability of people to travel on the freeway. • The project cannot succeed without significant impacts that cannot be mitigated unless the project moves forward in a unified fashion. • If the project were presented to him in one phase with annexation being considered contemporaneous with the development of the land within the City, and interchanges were being considered contemporaneous with the development of the project then he would have less concern about the traffic impacts that cannot be mitigated. Commissioner Keen moved that the Planning Commission adopt: 1 1 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 30, 2000 PAGE 19 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE ARROYO LINDA CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT with the changes suggested by the Planning Commission. Commissioner London seconded the motion. The motion was defeated by the following roll call vote: ROLL CALL VOTE NO Commissioner Costello YES Commissioner Keen YES Commissioner London NO Vice -Chair Parker NO Chair Greene The meeting was adjourned at 12:15 a.m. on May 30, 2000 to the next scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission on June 6, 2000. ATTEST: RESOLUTION NO. 00 -1743 kuumicli CzapAi;c Kathleen Fryer, Comm' on Clerk Laurence Greene, Chair AS T CO ENT: 1N- erry c Pants Community Development Director