Loading...
PC Minutes 1999-11-02MINUTES ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 PAGE NO.1 CALL TO ORDER Chair Greene called the regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL X Commissioner Costello X Commissioner Keen X Commissioner London X Vice -Chair Parker X Chair Greene ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 1. ARC NOTES — MONDAY, OCTOBER 4, 1999 2. Planning Commissioners Journal — Fall 1999 3. Letter from George Hiester, M.D. dated 10/31/99 regarding the Village Glen EIR. 4. Letter from William and Alice Daniel regarding the Proposed Village Glen Annexation, Tract 2265. 5. FACTS ON REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE, submitted by Howard Mankins. PUBLIC HEARING Chair Greene informed the Public of a change in the Agenda for the November 2, 1999 Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Greene explained that the Planning Commission was going to consider items II. A,B,C, and D in the order in which they were listed on the Agenda, however, in order to facilitate the Public Hearing on Agenda Item II.E., the Commission would end their discussion of the first items at 8:00. Any item, which has not been heard by 8:00 p.m., will be either, put to the end of the Agenda, or will be continued to a later date. This will be at the discretion of the Commission, Applicant, and the Staff. II. A. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 99 -003; LOCATION 121 EAST BRANCH ST. Tom Buford, Contract Planner, presented the staff report and explained to the Commission that the Certificate of Compliance grows out of an approval by the Planning Commission of Conditional Use Permit Case No. 99 -011 and Variance Case No. 99 -005. The CUP and Variance provided for the construction of a two -story commercial building at 121 East Branch. At the time of approval of the permits the Planning Commission imposed two conditions. Condition of Approval No. 38 required the applicant to obtain a Certificate of Compliance. This Certificate will document that the lot is both legal and able to be built on. The other condition imposed was the abandonment of an easement on the property, which is 3 feet wide. Mr. Buford explained that there is a passageway between the project site and the building on the right. The abandonment of the easement will also have to be heard by the City Council. Mr. Buford noted that the Planning Commission had received some communication from Howard Mankins expressing his concern over the abandonment of the easement. He explained that staff had indicated to Mr. Mankins, and would indicate to the Planning MINUTES ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 PAGE NO.2 Commission, that issues relating to the abandonment of the easement and the communication from Mr. Mankins are not part of the consideration for the Certificate of Compliance. Finally, the Community Development Staff is recommending approval for the Certificate of Compliance. Commissioner Parker asked if the public access that would be left would be 7 feet, and would there continue to be public access? Mr. Buford replied that there would continue to be public access to the parking lot and it would be 10 feet. Craig Campbell, Public Works, stated that this action would not change the access and all existing easements would remain in place. Commissioner Keen asked if, when the building was built, would it be built in such a fashion that there would be a zero lot line at the remaining easements? Would there be any overhang from the second story into the remaining easements? Mr. Campbell replied that the building that was approved at the previous Planning Commission meeting had walls that came out to the edge of the property, requiring the abandonment of the easement and beyond that had balcony and roof line overhangs into the pedestrian walkway. Chair Greene asked if, by approving the Certificate of Compliance, the Planning Commission was foreclosing any opportunity for Mr. Mankins to raise his issues before the City Council? Mr. Buford replied that the Planning Commission approving the Certificate of Compliance would not effect Mr. Mankins issues. The lot in question is a legal lot. The Certificate of Compliance attests only to the legality of the lot. Chair Greene opened the Public Hearing. Howard Mankins, 200 Hillcrest Dr. asked if the Certificate of Compliance on the 21 -foot project lot and 3 foot easement or on the 21 -foot project lot only? Mr. Campbell answered that it was on the 24 -foot lot, which includes the easement. Chair Greene closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Costello wanted reassurance that, by voting on the Certificate of Compliance, they were not preempting on the rights of Mr. Mankins. Commissioner Parker asked if the Commission was granting a Certificate of Compliance on the 24 foot lot, were they not in effect saying that the 3 foot easement belongs to the legal lot? 1 1 MINUTES ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 PAGE NO.3 Mr. Buford answered that what the Planning Commission would be saying by granting the Certificate of Compliance was only that the lot is legal. If, when the applicant goes before the City Council they deny the abandonment of the easement, they applicant will not be able to build the building he has proposed. He could however, build another building on the lot but not encroach into the easement. Commissioner London asked what the original purpose of the easement was? Mr. Campbell replied that it was for a pedestrian mall /walkway. The remaining easements of 6 feet and 4 feet are for the same. Each easement has some rights that reserved to the owner of the land that the easements lie on. Commissioner Keen stated that he has a problem with the approved building and the way it will overhang the remaining easements that the City would retain. Mr. Buford stated that the overhang was part of the project that was approved by the Planning Commission. Chair Greene stated that he wanted to make it clear that by virtue of the Planning Commission's decision to approve this resolution, they are not rendering any judgement on the applicant's. request for the relinquishment of the easement and that Mr. Mankins has the opportunity to appear before the City Council and be heard with his concerns. Mr. Mankins spoke to the Commission and stated that if the relinquishment of the 3 foot easement were granted he wanted the 10 feet of easements given back to him as a condition. Mr. Campbell explained to the Commission that the easements provide rights to the City, the land upon which the easement rests is owned by the person who owns the land. The 3 foot easement is a part of the property Mr. EI -Helou is purchasing and is his property. Eddie EI- Helou, applicant, spoke to the Commission stating that he was rather confused by the discussion because he thought the purpose of tonight's meeting was the Certificate of Compliance. Commission London moved that the Planning Commission approve: RESOLUTION NO. 99 -1712 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE CASE NO. 99 -003 FOR A LOT LOCATED AT 121 EAST BRANCH STREET, APPLIED FOR BY EDDIE EL -HELOU with Attachment A. Commissioner Parker seconded the motion. The motion was approved by the following roll call vote: MINUTES ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 PAGE NO.4 Roll CaII Vote Aye Commissioner Costello Aye Commissioner Keen Aye Commissioner London Aye Vice -Chair Parker Ave Chair Greene II. B. TENTATIVE PARCEL MPA 99 -005; PROJECT LOCATION - 1196 GRAND AVENUE; APPLICANT - ORRIN COCKS Tom Buford, Contract Planner presented the staff report and stated that this project is the division of an existing office condominium and requires a Parcel Map if the number of condominiums in a project is increased above the number that was originally established, which is the case in question. The project is exempt from environmental review because it is 4 or fewer parcels. Commissioner Parker asked if there was anything in the Development Code dealing with airspace and if there was anything to preclude Mr. Cocks from dividing this condominium as far as the Development Code was concerned? Further, would he need to place a firewall between the two? Would Mr. Cocks need to have separate entrances and restroom facilities in each unit? Mr. Buford replied that this was legal by the Development Code standards. He did not know about the fire wall. He stated that this was something the Building Code would address. Kerry McCants, Community Development Director, stated that the walls and access were already there. What the applicant was doing was simply to legally divide the units. Chair Greene opened the Public Hearing. Orrin Cocks, applicant and representative of the family who is subdividing the units stated that the family wanted two lots so they could sell them off one at a time. Chair Greene closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Costello moved that the Planning Commission approve: RESOLUTION NO. 99 -1708 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 99 -005, LOCATED AT 1196 GRAND AVENUE, APPLIED FOR BY ORRIN COCKS with Exhibit B. Commissioner Keen seconded the motion. The motion was approved by the following roll call vote: 1 MINUTES ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 PAGE NO.5 Roll Call Vote Ave Commissioner Costello Ave Commissioner Keen Aye Aye Aye Commissioner London Vice -Chair Parker Chair Greene II.C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99 -010; LOCATION — 124 WEST BRANCH STREET; APPLICANT — AMANDA LAMBERT (CONTINUED FROM 10- 19 -99) Tom Buford, Contract Planner, presented the staff report and stated that the project consists of residential apartments that would be turned into commercial units. The zoning is Village Commercial. The environmental review consisted of an initial study and circulation of a mitigated negative declaration. Commissioner Parker had a question concerning the staff report, which stated that the applicant must have a one -hour firewall or a 20 -foot easement on the West Side of the building. Had it been decided which of those would occur or would that be decided at a later date? Also, why was it stated that there would be no windows facing the Village Centre? Mr. Buford stated that first issue would be implemented through the Conditions of Approval, No. 18. There would be no windows facing Village Centre because it would be near a zero lot line and the Fire Code does not allow windows on a zero lot line. Commissioner London asked if there would be a violation of the Fire Code if the windows were boarded up? Mr. McCants replied that this was an existing structure that had gone through staff review. If the Fire and Building Department had had a problem with this it would have been stated at that time. Commission London asked who owns the parking lot behind the neighboring buildings and would they have a right to close off the existing access to the parking lot? Since the Planning Commission would be creating a small business district, he wanted to be sure there would be access to it. Mr. Campbell explained that there was language in the City's Circulation Element that is aimed at interconnecting the parking lots in this area. Staff did not recommend an easement at this time because it was their thought with uses contained in the existing building there was some question as to where that easement would be located. However, it is consistent with the Circulation Element that this parking lot be connected with the others. It would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to require that that access be a condition with this project. Chair Greene opened the Public Hearing. MINUTES ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 PAGE NO.6 Tony Orifice, Architect spoke to the Commission stated that he was approached by the Lamberts to fix a problem that the City has been experiencing with this residential area. They wanted to convert this area to small offices that could be used as start -up offices for small businesses. In answer to Commissioner Parker's question about the 20 foot easement vs. the fire wall, the applicant has a letter from the neighbors and an attorney is drawing up an easement agreement so the applicant does not have to build a fire wall. Mr. Orifice explained that the easement to the parking lot was purely a convenience thing that has happened over the years between the owners. Further, Mr. Orifice was concerned about Condition of Approval No. 12 which deals with landscaping. No additional landscaping was planned at this area. Also, Conditional No. 15 that deals with burglar alarms would be coordinated with the Police Department. It is too much to asked the owner to install alarms in each of the units. Chair Greene closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Keen stated that he felt that the Police Department wanted to have alarms in all commercial establishments and he felt uncomfortable with changing that condition. Commissioner Costello felt that Mr. Keen was correct in his feelings and asked if staff knew what the Police Department guidelines were on this? Mr. Buford replied that the condition was written so that the Police Department can determine their guidelines. If the applicant can convince the Police Department that they have satisfied these guidelines with their proposal it will be fine. Commissioner Parker stated that with regards to the landscaping, the City has strict landscaping guidelines and she would like to see some landscaping done around the buildings to make them look better. Further, she felt that this was a logical conversion of these buildings to commercial use. Putting small start -up businesses in here is a great idea and will improve the area. Chair Greene asked if Condition 12 that dealt with the landscaping could be modified to read that any new landscaping and irrigation planned should have landscaping plans submitted? Commissioner Keen moved that the Planning Commission approve: RESOLUTION NO. 99 -1713 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, INSTRUCTING THE SECRETARY TO FILE A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION, AND APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 99 -010, LOCATED AT 124 WEST BRANCH STREET, APPLIED FOR BY AMANDA LAMBERT MINUTES ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 PAGE NO.7 with Attachment A, Exhibit B and including the revision to Condition No. 12. Commissioner Costello seconded the motion. The motion was approved by the following roll call vote: Roll Call Vote Aye Commissioner Costello Ave Commissioner Keen Aye Aye Aye Commissioner London Vice -Chair Parker Chair Greene II. D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99 -014; LOCATION - 137 TALLY HO ROAD; APPLICANT - L.C. LAVINE This item was continued to the November 16, 1999 Planning Commission Meeting. II. E. VILLAGE GLEN ANNEXATION AND ELEMENTARY SCHOOL #12 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 97 -004, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 97 -009); LOCATION - UNINCORPORATED AREA OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, ADJACENT TO AND NORTH OF JAMES WAY NEAR MESQUITE LANE; APPLICANT - VILLAGE GLEN HOMES, LLC Joe Prutch, Contract Planner explained that the project was approximately 86 acres north of James Way. The site is surrounded on three sides by the City and is within the City's Sphere of Influence. Mr. Prutch explained that the actions before the Planning -- Commission are: Approval of Resolution 99 -1715 recommending that the City Council certify the completion of and make findings as to the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Village Glen Project; Resolution 99 -1716 recommending that the City Council amend the zoning map of the city of Arroyo Grande in Development Code Amendment No. 97 -009; Resolution 99 -1718 recommending that the City Council approve an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element and the General Plan Map, General Plan Amendment 97 -004; and Resolution 99 -1719 recommending that the City Council make certain findings regarding the environmental impacts of the Village Glen Annexation, and adopt a statement of overriding considerations He explained that the Tentative Tract Map was not before the Planning Commission for approval at this time, however, because the Environmental Impact Report was written for the Tract Map he gave a brief description of Tentative Tract Map 2265. There is a 19.1 - acre school site, 40 residential sites with 36 of the sites clustered along James Way and 4 custom large lots. The 4 custom lots will have a condition placed on them, which will not allow them to be subdivided in the future. The 4 custom sites will have access only from Canyon Way. The 36 clustered residential sites and the school site will have access from James Way. There will be an emergency access from Canyon Way to the school site. A retention basin will be on lot number 38. Finally, he stated that the main issues are traffic, water and pre- zoning of non -tract areas as well as others identified in the EIR. According to the EIR, all issues can be mitigated to a "less than significant impact" except for the issue of traffic. The Final EIR determined a MINUTES ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 PAGE NO.8 significant and unavoidable impact for traffic. CEQA requires that City Council must make certain findings and adopt a Statement of Overriding Consideration to approve a project with a significant impact. For a Statement of Overriding Considerations CEQA requires that the decision makers balance the economic, social or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable impacts. If the benefits outweigh the impacts the effects may be acceptable. The main benefit is the school site, which may take trips away from the Brisco Road /101 interchange. Commissioner Costello stated that from the beginning of the project he has had many questions on the impact of the water drawing down on the current well. The EIR talks about taking, and continuing to take data and measure the wells for a period of two years. He does not see anything that talks about the consequences if that data is negative. What might the consequences of this be? Craig Campbell stated mitigation that calls for the monitoring of the Oak Park well, as part of the City's normal procedures, means that they want to insure that the City is going to verify compliance with water quality standards. The idea that the production testing and water quality testing contained in mitigation E.1 would verify the adequacy of the supply prior to product implementation, that is the mitigation that is being counted on to verify that the City is getting what it needs. Commissioner London stated that he was confused by some of the wording in the resolution dealing with annexation findings it states that "the proposed annexation will not impact the water resources elsewhere within the City ". The staff report, page 11, states that "although the new well is expected to provide the City with the quantity of water at least equal to the project demands, the new well will not necessarily improve the City's water capabilities ". This sounds inconsistent to him. Mr. Campbell stated that what is being said is that the well may actually produce more than the project demand and would increase water supply to the City. However, the lower limit may be that it would not increase the water supply. Commissioner Keen stated that he is concerned with the water issue also and that after the well turns out to not produce that the City is stuck with coming up with the water for the project especially now that the school is involved. Chair Greene asked staff to explain the City Council's action on September 28, 1999 pertaining to the General Plan policies and traffic and how it relates to this project and if it has any impact on the decision making process before the Commission at this meeting. Kerry McCants, Community Development Director, stated that the City Council's action established the City's position with respect to the LOS and the impact of a project on that LOS. In this particular case the EIR has indicated that there is a significant impact. The Statement of Overriding Considerations states that the significance of the school is the overriding consideration issue that will allow the project to be approved and be in compliance with CEQA if the Commission chooses to make that recommendation to the City Council. If the Planning Commission can make the findings for the overriding considerations it will allow the project to go forward. MINUTES ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 PAGE NO.9 Commissioner London asked, if the school decided to go forward with the project in the County, would the City have any responsibility to supply water to the school? Mr. McCants replied that the City would have no obligation to supply water. Chair Greene opened the Public Hearing. He asked if there were any children in the audience that wanted to speak first as the time was getting rather late. Chris Reiniker stated that he is the vice - president at Ocean View School and he believed that the Planning Commission should approve the new school, as Ocean View School is very crowded. There are too many students in the classrooms, they have had to add an extra table in the lunch room which makes it hard to move around and it is very noisy, and they have to wait at recess to get equipment. Some thing has to be done and he urged the Planning Commission to approve the new school. David Foote, Firma Consulting, stated that the EIR is a revision to a previous EIR done on the project. He wanted to briefly point out some of the differences in the two documents: • The previous project had 64 residences; this one has 40 with the addition of an elementary school. • The amount of water needed for the project is less in the new EIR. • The new project will create more landform disturbance. • The new project will create more noise. • This project will redistribute traffic in such a way that there will be less impact that the previous project on the Brisco /101 interchange. However, it will add more traffic to Rodeo Drive. Mr. Foote explained that these changes have been documented in the new report. The water mitigation is the same as in the previous report. Tim Cleath the hydrogeologist is present to answer any questions related to the aquifer, the characteristics of it, and the potential for both water production and well interference. The aquifer is noted to have a potential of 250 -acre feet of recharge, with existing demand is about 150 -acre feet. He believes this project's demand on the remainder of the two numbers is 27 -acre feet per year so there is no significant impact identified for overdraft. The nature of interference with other wells is documented in the EIR. As he understands it, the equations that are used to estimate well interference, are conservative. Mr. Foote explained that the EIR also summarizes some of the issues that were raised in public comment on page 11-2 and also includes some of the revised mitigation measures on table S. The revised mitigation measures related to some biological issues and also visual issues. With regard to project access, the school district's architect is in attendance to discuss those, however the revised site plans due appear to address most of those issues satisfying the concerns of the Police Chief, and providing an alternative way out of the project East on James Way. Lastly, the issue of cumulative traffic impacts, which was a concern of the City Council the last time the EIR came before them, the consultant felt there were alternative ways of looking at this issue has been discussed in the EIR. MINUTES ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 PAGE NO.10 The Commission discussed the issues of water, the proximity of the school to the neighboring homes, the additional grading and who is responsible for the retention basin with Mr. Foote. Vice -Chair Parker stated that when she walked the project site, she could see how close the school was going to be to the homes in the rural areas. She stated that her concern was, that with placing a school in this area next to these homes, there should be some kind of a buffer between the two uses. She went on to say that in the CEQA report it talked about the grading. When looking at the site, she realized that the grading would be significant and that this is not consistent with the General Plan. The CEQA document stated that the cuts will be revegetated and slopes will be filled with plants native or characteristic to the area. She asked if there was anything more that could be done, other than varying the slopes and revegetating them, in order to cut off the school site from the existing houses so that are not overlooking the school and maybe to cut done on the noise? Mr. Foote, stated that the actual pad that the school was going to be located on was down 10 feet or more from those homes. The slope bank would not be a barrier rather it would be a depression and whatever planting would grow on it would tend to block the neighboring residents' view of the core campus. Because they knew this would take a while to happen, they have added to the mitigation measure for the visual that tree planting be included in the campus core up against the buildings. Chair Greene had several questions with regards to the traffic impact on Rodeo Drive. Most particularly that at the present time Rodeo Drive carries approximately 1,480 ADT south of Grace Lane and 1,270 ADT north of Grace Lane. Further in the EIR it states that "local streets carry an average of 1,200 ADT at a high rate of service ". What does a "high rate of service" mean? Also, the EIR states that approximately 330 additional trips a day will be produced by the project, so the total would be around 1,800 ADT? Mr. Foot deferred the question to the Traffic Consultant to be answered at a later time in the meeting. Chair Greene referred to the responses and comments section of the EIR where it states that the volume of traffic on Rodeo Drive has been a source of concern and objectionable to residents for many years and that "this is a quality of life issue that should be considered by the decision makers ". Chair Greene asked what the consultant meant by this statement? Mr. Foote explained that there are some areas where a consultant deals with environmental impacts that necessarily move from the realm of something that is quantifiable and based on an objective standard that the consultants use to determine a threshold of impact. Some cities establish "quality of life" criteria for roadway evaluation, although he is not aware of anything explicit in this City. Therefore, it is not unusual to arrive at this sort of a question between the engineering calculation of an issue and the perception of a resident. So, when the consultant talks about "quality of life" it is something that has to be weighed by the decision - makers. MINUTES ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 PAGE NO.1 1 Tim Cleath, Hydrogeologist for the project spoke to the Commission. He stated that he had been working with the applicant to identify a water source that would be dependable for this project. The initial studies of the well on site showed that this well would not be sufficient for the project. He has identified an aquifer, that was originally discovered in the 1950's for a project that was never built, which is a 200 foot thick, marine sand deposit, that is very clean and uniform, that is uplifted and formed into a bowl. It essentially goes from the end of Erhardt over to Corbett Canyon and ends not far from where the City's Oak Park well is and comes back up by Ormonde Road. This is a large aquifer that goes down very deep within the middle of the bowl so that no other wells tap it in the deepest zones. In looking for a particular site where we could find it at a deep enough depth so it would provide a reliable source of water, the Deer Trail site was chosen and a well was dug. There have been a couple of test wells, the Oak Park well and a couple across the street, that have produced over 150 gallons per minute. A well has not been completed but he believes that there is a very reliable source of water that is deeper than other wells in the area providing the reservoir storage to take it through the drought years and allow it to be recharged on an average that is adequate to supply the demands that would be placed on it. On the question of adequacy of water, he stated that it is his opinion that this well should produce over 150 gallons per minute. The project proposed would require Tess than 35- acre feet of water so this would mean that this well would have the capacity to produce in excess of what this project would require. With regards to the adequacy of recharge, based on his understanding of the extensiveness of this aquifer, it is his opinion that there is adequate recharge to provide for existing uses and for the proposed project. On other points to be made, he stated that this is not a shallow well. This well is in deep groundwater. It is not a riparian source; it is what is called percolating groundwater. The water can be used in the same area for whatever purposes. Commissioner Costello asked if there was going to be a 2 -year test, what was being tested? Also, what would be the negative consequences if the other well levels were dropping? Mr. Cleath answered that the main purposes for the test was to see how it effected other wells in the area as well as how the well itself was producing. As part of the proposed mitigation the EIR consultant was recommending that they do an extended test and that they measure regional water levels to see how they change. It is not his opinion that it will drop to a level that will cause any significant problems. This is a 200 -foot thick zone that goes very deep. There are wells in the vicinity that produce without any effect what so ever because the wells are only 400 feet deep. This well would have to be approximately 900 feet deep. The well that may be most effected would be the City's Oak Park well. So he has looked at it to see, if this effects the Oak Park well, will it be offset by the amount of water that this well could produce? It is his feeling that the effects would be offset and the new well would be a more reliable water supply. The City has tested the water quality MINUTES ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 PAGE NO.12 and there are some manganese and iron problems that are treatable but the water is quite good. Commissioner Parker asked who would be responsible for the cost of treating the water? Mr. Campbell replied that the applicant would pay for the treatment facilities and the City has also discussed a way to condition the project to pay for the increased output. Commissioner London asked if this well should impact the other wells in the area, is there any legal recourse that the people effected could take against the City? Mr. Campbell stated that this question would have to be answered by the City Attorney. Commissioner Keen asked if Mr. Cleath knew how many wells were drawing off of the aquifer at this time? Mr. Cleath replied that there are some on the edge, where the sand aquifer comes up, that you find some wells. There are some wells at the end of Paseo Del Mar. But overall there is a very limited number of wells using this aquifer. Chair Greene stated that if he understood this correctly, there is an aquifer above the one he is referring and there is some level separating them? Mr. Cleath replied that that was true and there were clay zones separating the two. In fact, it is interesting that on Oak Park Road there were wells drilled that went down 250 feet, and did not find any water. Chair Greene asked how certain Mr. Cleath was that there was no transferability between the upper aquifer and the lower one? Mr. Cleath replied that the only places he believes there is a connection is strictly in the area of the alluvium overlying where the sand zones outcrop. Otherwise, there are several hundred feet of clay that separate this zone from the overlying aquifer. Steve Orosz, Traffic Engineer with Penfield and Smith, spoke and answered several different questions from the Commissions. Commissioner Keen asked Mr. Orosz why the LOS that he came up with at Brisco /101 interchange is so much different that what has been stated before? Mr. Orosz gave a brief history of what he had done on a previous analysis before and had come up with the poorer LOS. What has happened in the last year and a half since the last analysis is: ■ In the traffic engineer profession the methodology of how they handle signalized intersections has been updated. The current procedure is out that is used in the profession that is being used in the PSR for Brisco /101 and El Campo interchanges. He used the new methodology for the updated Brisco /101 traffic study. MINUTES ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 PAGE NO.13 In the previous analysis that had the poor level of service they were working with stop signs that were there. This was prior to the signals going in and prior to the widening of Branch Street. The new analysis had all the physical improvements in. They actually documented traffic flows during the peak summer months, which was consistent with the data Cal Trans has been using with the PSR's for Brisco /101. They documented all the facts. They documented the signalization; the current traffic flows and compared them with the analysis of the PSR being done by Cal Trans. The traffic volumes that were documented for the PSR was done in February. They forecast what the volumes would increase during the summer months and use that to do their analysis in their PSR. We took our counts in the summer months and did the actual numbers and they were very close. This ended up being a good check. • The project traffic has changed from the previous Village Glen project with just the residential trips. Now they have both school and residential. The school trips because of the district boundaries for the school, the school trips are no longer going under the Brisco interchange. We have estimated approximately 500 daily trips are going to be removed from the interchange from this. Also, the cumulative list of projects that had been being carried along during the years needed to be updated. Many projects on the list were at the proposed level and not what was actually approved. For example, there was a project that was proposed at 31 units was actually approved at 19 units. The current analysis used the actual project numbers. So, the cumulative traffic was reduced by about 30 %. So when you have less traffic actual volumes, you have a better idea of what is going on there. • There is also a difference in the analysis in the PSR versus what was done in the traffic analysis for the EIR. The methodology has some detailed factors that can be used as a default. This is the reason that they are talking about a potential overriding consideration and a significant impact. The methodology has some detailed factors that can be used a default, which is a general factor, or you can use what is actually on the ground. Since they had done all the updates on the cumulative project list and looked at all the specific details of the intersections, they had used what was on the ground. This created the difference in the values and a different result. Following this conclusion, staff was in a position where they had one consultant saying one thing and one saying something else. At the time this EIR went to print there was no direction which result to use so David Foote decided to use the worst case scenario and proceed on. Subsequently to this documents circulation, they had received a call from Craig Campbell's office indicating that the factors available for the existing condition should be used, not the typical average default. However, from the traffic analysis they feel their numbers are fairly valid. The Commission questioned Mr. Orosz about the use of summer time for the study and stated that it seemed to be contrary to what really going on at that intersection without any of the schools in session. Mr. Orosz explained that they look at the P.M. peak hours, between 4 p.m. and 6 p.m., on a Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday. Schools peak hours are at 3 p.m. The traditional MINUTES ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 PAGE NO.14 commuter peak hours that occur throughout the year, along with any tourist traffic is what causes the summer to be higher at the freeway interchanges. This is what Cal Trans has documented over the years. In the window of time that they analyze traffic impacts for EIRs there is more traffic in the P.M. hours. Chair Greene questioned, that because the school traffic may make the Level of Service at the Brisco /101 interchange below standard in the morning hours, the traffic study looks at the LOS in the P.M. peak hours for the purpose of the traffic study for the EIR. He also stated that the EIR stated that there would be 500 less trips a day at the Brisco /101 interchange because the school would reduce the number driving to the other side of the freeway. He asked how many trips would be added by the new project and, with the reduction because of the school, what would the total number trips actually be? Mr. Orosz replied that because of the elementary school traffic being oriented to the north of the freeway, 95% of that traffic would not be going through the Brisco /101 interchange. If all of the traffic from the project went to the interchange it would total about 446 ADT. However, 100% of the project will not go through the interchange. It appears that only 50% of the project traffic will be using the Brisco interchange so there is actually a benefit of 200 to 250 ADT. Chair Green stated that the school then would actually be a benefit to the interchange? Mr. Orosz replied that that was true. Chair Greene asked about the traffic on Rodeo Drive. Since the traffic study that was being used was done in December 1997 for a different EIR, what were the traffic conditions today? Mr. Orosz replied that they felt the traffic volume had grown 5% to 10% at the most. The ADT at this time would be approximately 1600. With the additional 300 ADT from the project there would be 1900 ADT. With regards to Chair Greene's earlier question about the Level of Service and what was adequate and what was a high Level of Service he referred to IV. D -6 of the EIR which talks about the local streets carry about 1250 ADT at a high Level of Service which is generally a LOS of A. The national standards that provide guidance on LOS and daily traffic, which was used in the evaluation of Rodeo, indicates that 5000 ADT is a LOS of C. Gary Young, 2815 Mesa Alta Lane, applicant spoke briefly to the Commission. He said that members of the Lucia Mar School District were in attendance to speak to the Commission concerning the project. Nancy DePue, Superintendent of Lucia Mar School District, spoke to the Commission stated that there has not been a new elementary school in this area since 1962. The school district desperately needs a new school. The schools are now housing students in relocatables but the infrastructure is not satisfactory. Ms. DePue showed an overhead of the current school enrollment and explained that the schools in the area have a capacity of 2,660 students and there are now 4,250 students at 1 MINUTES ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 PAGE NO.15 the schools. The only way they can do this is because of all the portable classrooms on the grounds. However, this is why the infrastructure is so impacted. For instance, Margaret Harloe Elementary cafeteria, restrooms, playground and library was built to hold approximately 450 students and there are 700 students there now. Over 35% of the classrooms in the district are in relocatables. The parking at the older schools is not adequate because they were built at a time when parents were not driving their children to school as much. The field and play areas are not adequate because relocatables have had to be installed in these areas. Again, the infrastructure, cafeterias, libraries, restrooms are not adequate. Margaret Harloe Elementary is especially impacted. The district is very excited about having the new school. When they discovered they were eligible for money they went looking at every available plot of land in the area. The school district did not want condemn someone's land but wanted a willing seller. They are very appreciative of Gary Young working with them and them will do everything they can to be good neighbors. Vice -Chair Parker asked if there was any way to connect the park funds that are collected from the developer, with school funds to increase the infrastructure on the playgrounds or the park on the school site so it is not only a school play ground, but also a community park. Ms. DePue stated that they would love to work with Parks and Recreation and have that kind of relationship and share open space and play areas. Ms. Parker asked staff if it was possible to have City Council hear a request to add the developer's park fees to the school site? Mr. McCants stated that he understood that there was already a plan for the use of these funds, although the City Council can change this and reprogram the direction of the funds. Chair Green asked if the construction from the new school would have a positive impact on all the schools in the area that were listed on the overhead Ms. Depue was showing? Ms. DePue answered that it would except for Branch Mill School. The school district was hoping that with this new school, all the schools would be at around 550 students, which just barely accommodates everyone. Furthermore, Margaret Harloe School, which is the most impacted with 700 students, has students from the canyons that have to ride a bus an hour and a half to get to school. These students could go to the new school and greatly decrease their bus time. When asked about the decrease in the busses going through the Brisco interchange she stated that she did not believe that there would be too many buses going to the school. Chair Greene stated that according to this there would be a wide range of benefits to students, facility, staff and the people who use some of the streets. Ms. Depue answered that that was correct. MINUTES ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 PAGE NO.16 Raymond Deutch, Architect for the Lucia Mar School District, spoke to the Commission discussed the criteria the school district is required to follow in identifying a school site. He also explained some of the changes that have been made to the school plan since the last Commission meeting including: • Location of the buildings and parking areas on the site. • There will be 4 classroom buildings with 6 classrooms each. Two classroom buildings will be built initially as permanent classrooms; one will be built with relocatable classrooms; one will be for future relocatable classrooms or permanent classrooms. • There are now 2 parking areas: one for busses and one, which will serve as a drop off area for parents to drop off their children safely. • A revised landscape plan that will utilize mostly native trees such as Oaks. Trees will be planted at the building sites to help mitigate the visual impact of the roof area and help with the look of the school. Commissioner Parker left the meeting at this time. Tom Murray, Lucia Mar Facility Advisory Committee, gave a history of the exhaustive hunt the school district went through looking for a school site. He congratulated Mr. Young for stepping up and offering this site for a school. He stated that from his point of view, it was not a matter of feeling like it is a quality of life matter, he thinks that the EIR shows in real numbers that this gives the Commission the basis to find overriding considerations for approval of this project. He stated that the school district is a part of the fabric of the community and if the project is approved the community will be better off. Toby Charles spoke in favor of the school project. Ron Dodgen, Rodeo Drive had the following concerns: • Growth does not come without impacts • This project will increase traffic on Rodeo • He worries about his kids playing and riding their bikes with the increased traffic. • He wanted to encourage the Commission to ask that the money collected in park and traffic fees be spent on Rancho Grande Park and traffic mitigation on Rodeo Drive. Tomi Kobara, Ocean View PTA, spoke in favor of the project and said if they let this site go there may not be another one to take it place. If everyone works together everything can be worked out. Kathleen Wendel, had the following concerns: • Water • Land use • Noise • Excessive grading • Couldn't the school look for alternative sites? • Was the open space in the project really going to have 33 acres? C.Z. Brown, 350 Old Ranch Road, had the following concerns: • One -acre parcels per gross acre with custom homes and cluster homes and where would these homes actually be? 1 MINUTES ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 PAGE NO.17 • When all the parcels are built out will there actually be 40 homes? • Water • Why not do the testing first and then issue the permits for building? • Why not locate the school nearer to James Way? • Traffic • Traffic and Park in lieu fees should go to Rancho Grande Park and Rodeo Drive Ross Kongable, 255 Rodeo spoke against the project with the following: • Traffic • The location of the school on the site • There could actually be 40 homes. • Traffic • Final EIR does not mitigate issues enough Rich Hagler, 417 Stagecoach Road spoke in favor of the project with the following: • It will save 4 trips a day taking his daughter to school. • There is a willing landowner, which is a hard thing to find. • There is a solution for the poor school situation. • There is a demonstrated need. • The school can be used for emergency services and this will distribute this need throughout the community, as there is not an emergency site on this side of town at this time. • It will reduce trips through Brisco /101 underpass. Colleen Martin, 855 Olive spoke in favor of the project stating the following: • Has been involved with schools and sees the need for additional space. • The infrastructure is too impacted • Will help with traffic at Brisco underpass Fred Wendel stated that there are real issues that the Commission needs to focus on. He said that everyone feels, because of the school site, they have to approve it to "grab the moment" and get the school site. He does not feel this is the best way to plan. If he has to accept the impacts, which he will have to do if the project is approved, he would like the Commission to tell him that this is the best thing that can be done for the City, not for convenience or the developer. Chuck Fellows, Canyon Way, submitted a petition signed by himself and 16 others on Canyon Way supporting the project as currently proposed but without an extension of Canyon Way. GiGi Soto explained to the Commission about all the sites the Facility Advisory Committee had looked at before finding this site and discussed this with the Commission. Gary Young, developer, discussed the different areas that will not be developed but are a part of the annexation properties explaining that the County requested a "block" annexation. All these properties are agreeable to the RR zoning. MINUTES ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 PAGE NO.18 The Commission and Mr. Young discussed different issues of the project including zoning, traffic, landscaping, grading, the compatibility of the school in a residential area and water. Commission London questioned certain language in the resolution which stated that "the proposed annexation will generate sufficient revenue to adequately to pay for the provision of City services ". Yet, in another place it states that there will be a loss of $57,000 because the school will not pay for itself. Tom Buford, Contract Planner, explained that fiscal impact analysis has been inserted in the General Plan to protect against annexing property into the City where the City ends up unable to pay for the services that it has to supply as a result of the annexation. However, there are occasions that the City needs to bring in facilities that are elements of the community that are critical, essential elements that by themselves do not produce revenue, such as schools, churches or parks. After a brief discussion the Planning Commission considered the four resolutions before them. John Keen moved to adopt: RESOLUTION NO. 99 -1715 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 THE VILLAGE GLEN PROJECT Commissioner London seconded the motion. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: Roll Call Vote Ave Commissioner Costello Ave Commissioner Keen Ave Commissioner London Absent Vice -Chair Parker Ave Chair Greene Commission London moved to adopt: RESOLUTION NO. 99 -1716 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT AND THE GENERAL PLAN MAP; GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 97 -004, APPLIED FOR BY VILLAGE GLEN HOMES LLC Commissioner Costello seconded. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: MINUTES ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 PAGE NO.19 Roll Call Vote Ave Commissioner Costello Aye Commissioner Keen Aye Commissioner London Absent Vice -Chair Parker Aye Chair Greene Commissioner Costello moved to adopt: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE IN DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 97 -009, APPLICANT VILLAGE GLEN HOMES LLC Including exhibits A and B. Commissioner London seconded the motion. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: Roll Call Vote Aye Commissioner Costello Aye Commissioner Keen Aye Commissioner London Absent Vice -Chair Parker Aye Chair Greene RESOLUTION NO. 99 -1718 The Commission discussed Resolution 99 -1719 stating the following: • There will be some negative impacts. • The school district has done all it could to find another location for a school. • Not withstanding all of the impacts the people will feel, as a result of this project, the City needs a school. • If the school district cannot find a site soon, the funding that is available to them will be lost. • The children will have to deal with the negative impacts of not having a new school site • It is of critical importance to the ongoing progress of the City to build this school. • The children have to come first. Commissioner London moved to adopt: RESOLUTION NO. 99 -1719 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL MAKE CERTAIN FINDINGS REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE VILLAGE GLEN ANNEXATION, AND ADOPT A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS MINUTES ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 PAGE NO.20 including Exhibit 1 and with Attachments A and B. Commissioner Keen seconded the motion. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: Roll Call Vote Ave Commissioner Costello Ave Commissioner Keen Aye Commissioner London Absent Vice -Chair Parker Ave Chair Greene The meeting was adjourned at 12:30 a.m. to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission on November 16, 1999. ATTEST: Q I QJL e L►�S� MCP Kathleen Fryer, Commis n Clerk Laurence Greene, Chair AS TO NT T: Kerry is Community Development Director 1 1