Loading...
PC Minutes 1999-07-201 1 1 JULY 20, 1999 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Vice -Chair Parker presiding. Present were Commissioners Keen and London. Chair Greene and Commissioner Costello were absent. Also in attendance were Interim Community Development Director Henry Engen and Public Works Director Don Spagnolo. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JUNE 29, 1999 The minutes of June 29, 1999 were approved as written with the following amendment; Page 3, 4th paragraph from the bottom, the date should be 1996 instead of 1966. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS None Vice -Chair Parker changed the order of the Agenda Items to allow the consultant from Dokken Engineering to arrive for the Non - Public Item Discussion. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP REPORTS Interim Director Henry Engen discussed items from the current Project List. He noted that the EIR for the Arroyo Linda project is not quite ready. Once the EIR is ready it will be distributed and there will be a 45 day review period. The AutoZone project, which was denied by the Planning Commission, is tentatively scheduled to be heard by the City Council on August 24, 1999. The James Way Annexation is being revised to include a 19 -acre school site. This should be before the Planning Commission sometime in November. The next meeting of the Long Range Planning Commission and Core Outreach Committee will be on July 22, 1999. This is for continued discussion on the General Plan Update. There will be a new element added to the General Plan. This is the Safety Element that has been done together with other cities in the county with the County as the lead agency. JULY 20, 1999 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 2 Finally, he reminded the Commission that at their last meeting there were two issues the Commission had asked him to research. First, the Village entry billboard has a lease on it for the next 3 years. Mr. Engen told the Commission that to have an amortization program for nonconforming signs would be very expensive. There is really nothing that can be done at this time. The second item was Tract 1998 and the problems with work that had been done there. Mr. Engen told the Commission that on July 14, 1999, Tom Buford, Code Enforcement Officer Dave Crockett and Mr. Engen had gone to the site. There are clearly land use violations on this site. They met with Don Ritter of Castlerock Development and he agreed that this should be cleaned up. Mr. Crockett will spearhead this project. In the meantime, Mr. Ritter has brought in the grading plan for the access road for Tract 1834. These plans show that this access road will not go across the site for Tract 1998. The water line for Tract 1834 will go down La Canada and then James Way. When this is going through the initial study process the City will look further into defining the Dept. of Fish and Game violations that the City believes to be there from the situation that has happened from activity on this parcel. Commissioner Parker stated that the last time this issue was discussed the Planning Commission had decided that they were going to walk the site. She asked if this was cancelled now that the owner had agreed to clean up some of the problems. Mr. Engen stated that if the Commission wanted to do this they would have to be careful not to violate the Brown Act. This would have to be very open to the press and public. Commissioner Parker stated that she was concerned with follow -up of what they have cleaned up and putting the site back into the condition it was in, prior to what Mr. Shetler had done to the site. She did not know what that would mean as far as Fish and Game, the Environmental Defense Center, and the Army Corp of Engineers_ were concerned. Since the Department of Fish and Game recommended that the City report this to the Army Corp of Engineers she would like to see that the site is in compliance enough so that the City is doing the job despite the fact that the City is not reporting it. This would be a difficult area for the Planning Commission because it would not know what it means to put an environmentally sensitive area back to being an environmentally sensitive area. She did not know whether it would behoove the Planning Commission to have an environmentalist or a botanist walk the site and let the Planning Commission know what needs to be done specifically so that Mr. Shetler can have a list of what he needs to do to comply. Then it can be taken care 1 1 1 1 JULY 20, 1999 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 3 of and the City does not need to contact the Department of Fish and Games further. Mr. Engen stated that to complicate matters further, the City does not know what will be proposed on that site. There is an EIR that was going to be done that is on hold now. If there was to be a real project proposed on the property there would be an EIR done on it which would address some of the issues Ms. Parker had mentioned. However, there might be some grading that would be retained and some that would not. It is very difficult to know what will happen. Ms. Parker asked if it was possible to do an EIR on property that is damaged and needs to go back into its natural environmental state? Can an EIR be done on a project that is already damaged? Mr. Engen replied that one problem is that the City does not have the money to do a sophisticated analysis along those line when there is no project application that would cause the applicant to pay for the analysis. Ms. Parker stated that the Department of Fish and Game has recommended somebody who has volunteered her time. Mr. Engen replied that this might be a way to take care of the situation. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS DRAFT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS - BRISCO ROAD - HALCYON ROAD /ROUTE 101 AND EL CAMPO ROAD /ROUTE 101 PROJECT STUDY REPORTS Public Works Director Don Spagnolo spoke to the Commission and informed them that the Public Works Department wanted to solicit their comments on the two Project Study Report Traffic Analysis that were before them so that these comments could be forwarded on to the Project Development Team. The draft traffic analysis was prepared for both projects and there were several options of resolution proposed in these reports. Mr. Spagnolo explained that the report talked about the existing conditions and conditions which were forecasted for future projects that would contribute traffic to these interchanges. It also included the Tong -term traffic demands and provides a summary of the deficiencies and constraints of these projects that would effect the Brisco Road - Halcyon Road /Route 101 and El Campo Road /Route 101 interchanges. Mr. Spagnolo informed the Commission that Wendy Tkacheff from Dokken Engineering would be in attendance shortly to help answer any question they had. JULY 20, 1999 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 4 In addition, Larry Hail with Higgins and Associates who has done much of the work and traffic analysis for this study, was also. in attendance to answer questions. Commission London commented that there was one factor in both of the reports that puzzled him. 1. He wondered how the Arroyo Linda Crossroads project was figured into the reports when no one really knows the status of that project? 2. Further, why go forward with the El Campo /101 PSR at all because of this? Mr. Spagnolo explained to the Planning Commission, during the evaluations of certain traffic impact reports the "baseline" or where the traffic actually comes from. The three issues to this "baseline" were: 1. What is the impact to the existing infrastructure? 2. What is the potential impact of the projects that are proposed? 3. What is the impact of potential projects? To do these PSR,s the Public Works Department took these issues and incorporated them into this study. Commissioner London stated that he understood this as far as the Brisco- Halcyon /101 interchange was concerned. His concern is to take these studies one step at a time and if at some point in the future Arroyo Linda Crossroads is approved, deal with it later. Mr. Spagnolo stated that this was a good comment and this would be put into the report to the PDT members. Commissioner Keen stated that he would like to see the counts for Arroyo Linda kept in the PSRs. He would rather see a project overbuild than have to come back in five years and have to add more lanes at that time. Mr. Spagnolo replied that it is good to get a "worse case scenario" to plan for the future. Wendy Tkacheff, the consultant from Dokken Engineering, spoke briefly to the Commission and explained how they had developed the Project Study Reports. The Commission decided to discuss the Project Study Reports one at a time. Brisco Road - Halcyon Road /101 Project Study Report Traffic Analysis 1 1 1 1 JULY 20, 1999 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 5 Commissioner Keen had the following questions and comments: On page 7 of the study under "Traffic Volumes" it talks about the study being made in February of 1999 and then a summer adjustment was made. Mr. Hail replied that traffic fluctuates during the year. This adjustment was made for the recreational traffic during the summer. Commissioner Keen felt that one of the problems at that intersection is that there is a huge impact from the 2 elementary schools in that area. This is not a consideration during the summer. He wanted to make sure that the school traffic was incorporated. Commissioner Keen discussed the option of putting Halcyon across the freeway. He felt this was one of the best long range plans although he realized there would be some problems with this scenario. This would be good because a lot of the morning traffic comes down Halcyon and goes to Brisco to get on the freeway to go north to San Luis Obispo. Commissioner Keen asked if this will come back before the Planning Commission before a decision was made? Mr. Spagnolo stated that the Project Study Report would come back to the Commission. Commission Keen asked if there would be a time when the Commission could look at the different alternatives and select parts from each of the alternatives? Mr. Spagnolo said that if Mr. Keen made that one of his comments that this would be possible. Commissioner London had the following questions: 1. What is a hook ramp? 2. Are they easier or cheaper? 3. What is a roundabout? Mr. Hail explained these things to Mr. London. Commissioner London asked how the different scenarios created and counted out and since these were aligned to the widening of the freeway, at what point do we know if Caltrans will actually widen the freeway and if the numbers are valid? JULY 20, 1999 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 6 Mr. Hail explained that there was a new traffic count base done in February and further explained how this was counted out for the next twenty years. Commissioner London then asked: 1. How this widening fits into the projections 2. Are the calculations based on three lanes in each direction? 3. Are the projections based on the freeway traffic today? 4. Are the engineering plans flexible enough to accommodate either scenario, i.e. whether it is widened or not? 5. Who pays for the Study? Does the City then go to SLOCOG and ask for money? Vice -Chair Parker had more questions about the widening of the freeway. She asked: 1. If after 2020 (the year the traffic study projected to) and Caltrans decides that Highway 101 needs to be widened to six lanes, will the new interchanges be enough? Will having more lanes mean more people take the freeway and therefore the exits? 2. With regard to Halcyon Road up to the Nipomo Mesa, she had just heard that this would be widened into 4 lanes. This will mean that people on the Mesa will have easier access into Arroyo Grande, which will mean an increase in traffic on Halcyon. She believes this will change the numbers substantially. Will the consultant go back and "pad" the numbers to reflect this? 3. As changes occur within the County will it be too late to look at these projects and use the new calculations from these changes and incorporate them into the Brisco Road - Halcyon Road /101 and El Campo Road /101 studies? 4. In the report there is a base and then there is approved projects' that include projects that have not been approved, for instance Arroyo Linda Crossroads, why was this done? 5. It would be very helpful to be able to see the calculations with the proposed projects and without them. This would make it easier to see if the City needed the projects or not, how much would the project effect the traffic, etc. 6. This would help to more clearly make a case for the justification for funding and feasibility. Commission Keen stated: 1. He agreed with the idea that the Arroyo Linda Crossroads project would impact the Brisco - Halcyon intersection. 1 1 1 1 1 JULY 20, 1999 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 7 2. If the El Campo interchange is built, he feels it would take a lot of traffic off of the Nipomo Mesa because it will be a better route for those people to take. 3. If the El Campo interchange isn't built there will be a lot more traffic on Halcyon. 4. However, the City needs the people from the Mesa to come into town and shop. The City does not need them to have easy access to the freeway and go somewhere else to shop. This is a Catch 22 situation. 5. As long as the prices in the City of Arroyo Grande keep going up, there will be more and more building on the Nipomo Mesa which will generate more traffic into the City. 6. When the Five Cities Center was put in there was some discussion about putting in a roundabout at the Brisco - Halcyon interchange. He knows that they move traffic but he does not like them. Vice -Chair Parker opened the discussion to the Public. Otis Page, 606 Myrtle stated that: 1. The subject of the Brisco - Halcyon and El Campo interchanges cannot be separated. This is a regional issue, which deals with the General Plan and the Circulation Element. 2. He felt that any member of the Commission that wanted to should attend the next meeting of the Project Development Team. Their insight would be helpful in making their decisions. Mr. Page stated that the following were the problems with the traffic analysis: 1. It builds on an empirical base — the Omni Means Study —, which was proven to be wrong. 2. It builds on the Arroyo Linda Crossroads Traffic Analysis and the City has not accepted that plan. 3. The El Campo interchange is in the County. This PSR assumes the annexation of the land into the City. 4. The assumption of traffic going from El Campo to the Mesa increases by 500% by the year 2020. 5. Both Caltrans and the County disagree with the above calculations. 6. Even if El Campo is approved it won't be built for 12 to 20 years. 7. The issue that is foremost is Brisco Road /Halcyon Road. 8. The numbers used for El Campo Road going to the Mesa are incorrect. 9. If you talk to the general public, they do not want the El Campo Road interchange. 10.The major players in this scenario are Caltrans and the County of San Luis Obispo because they have the money. JULY 20, 1999 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE8 Tim Brown, 125 Allen St. stated that: 1. The issue of not including what the County might be doing and how that might change circulation, as is indicated on page 17 of the PSR, seems to be a glaring flaw. We are in a fluid 'situation and we cannot consider all the alternatives; however, the County is the biggest player in this scenario. The City has to look at what the County may be doing with Halcyon Rd. 2. The Omni Means Study is outdated. 3. The City of Arroyo Grande is considering purchasing a traffic model that could be used as a guideline for the rest of the development within the City. 4. Is it possible to do this study, using an independent traffic model that is being paid for by the City and will be at our disposal in the near future? 5. He is suspicious of the date that was used in the study. Commissioner Keen commented that Highway 227 does not go to Highway 1. The City cannot ask Caltrans to extended it down Halcyon to Highway 1. Commissioner London asked if the numbers that have been given in the report for the Halcyon /Brisco Road interchange would project the additional traffic from the Mesa? Vice -Chair Parker had the following comments: 1. It would be beneficial to add the numbers from the Halcyon Road widening into the report. 2. She would like to see a baseline without the numbers from projects that have not been approved. Lastly, Commission Parker thanked the consultants for their report. She stated that normally traffic reports are not easy to read. This report was much easier to understand as well as being very thorough. Commissioner Keen stated that he would hate to not look at upcoming projects and then underestimate what is needed in the future. El Campo Road /101 Project Study Report Traffic Analysis Commissioner London stated: 1. Should the City be looking at this Project Study Report at this time since the Arroyo Linda Crossroads Project is not approved? 2. He wanted to complement the Consultants on this report. It is well done and the assumptions are valid. 1 1 1 1 JULY 20, 1999 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 9 Commissioner Keen stated: 1. As planners with the possibility of the Arroyo Linda project there is a mandate to look at this option. This report is very timely because of the possible growth of South County and what effects it will have on our City streets. 2. He accepts the number counts and assumptions of the reports. 3. Any of the alternatives proposed that close the freeway one side at a time to construct it, is not an option as far as he is concerned. It would _ be economically devastating to South County to do this. 4. Any underpass should not be considered because of the above. 5. Closing any ramps on or off of the freeway would not be a good idea. The City depends on sales tax and it is important for it to be convenient to enter the city while still moving traffic. 6. If a ramp has to be closed it should be replaced by another one within the city. 7. He would hate to see any ramp closed at Traffic Way nor does he want an underpass there. 8. His alternative would be to move the El Campo interchange moved to line up with the straight part of El Campo and widen El Campo across to Los Berros. 9. He wanted the consultants to understand that the reason he keeps talking about the traffic coming off the Mesa to El Campo Road is it might help with funding for that interchange. 10. He asked why there are only hook ramps shown at the El Campo Road off ramps? How will people get across the freeway? Vice -Chair Parker had the following comments: 1. She agrees with Commissioner Keen that there is a need to know and find out where the traffic flow is coming from with regards to the El Campo Road interchange. 2. Justification is one reason that this study needs to be done. 3. The report states that the level of service at this intersection is level D. How many people realistically use this and is this a real problem? She would like to see the numbers to decide 4. If the City has no justification on its own to build this interchange, what will be done? If Arroyo Linda Crossroads and the Williams property is annexed into the City this will change the whole picture. 5. The Highway 227 issue has to be looked at. 6. She does not feel the Omni Means studies should be used. 7. Add in the potential numbers with relationship to widening Halcyon. 8. The capacity for traffic on Halcyon needs to be clear. 9. What does the "level of service D" at El Campo really mean? JULY 20, 1999 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 10 Vice -Chair Parker thanked Mr. Spagnolo and the consultants for attending tonight's meeting. It helped a great deal to have them present to answer questions. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. ATTEST: Kathleen Fryer, Commi AS TO CONTENT: Henry Erigen, AICP Interim Community De Iopment Director /l11-uMJMC��v2-11 - on Clerk Laurence Greene, Chair 1