Loading...
PC Minutes 1999-03-301 1 1 MINUTES ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 30, 1999 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in special session with Chair Greene presiding. Present are Commissioners Parker, Keen, Costello and London. Community Development Director Jim Hamilton, Planning Consultant Tom Buford and Senior Consultant Engineer Craig Campbell are also in attendance. MINUTE APPROVAL Hearing no additions or corrections the minutes of the regular meeting of March 16, 1999 were approved as prepared on motion by Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Costello, and unanimously carried. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 1. Letter dated March 29, 1999 from Eugene L. Nooker regarding the James Way Annexation and EIR (Village Glen Annexation). PUBLIC HEARING - JAMES WAY ANNEXATION/VILLAGE GLEN ANNEXATION /TRACT 2265; GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 97 -004; DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 97 -009; APPLICANT: GARY YOUNG AND ASSOCIATES. Chair Greene advised there are three issues pending before the Commission tonight. The first issue pertains to the Environmental Impact Report, which has been prepared and circulated. The action requested is relative to a request that the Planning Commission make a recommendation to the City Council in regard to certification of the EIR. Other issues relate to a request that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that they adopt in whole or in part, General Plan Amendment 97 -004 and Development Code Amendment 97 -009. He noted that these are separate yet related issues that will be discussed in sequence in order to preserve some continuity in the discussions. Planning Consultant Tom Buford reviewed in detail the staff report dated March 30, 1999. He reviewed the applicant's request, which includes several actions. The Environmental Impact Report was prepared in regard to the proposed annexation and the development of proposed Tract 2265. Before the Planning Commission is a recommendation to the Council with regard to certification of the EIR. The applicant has also requested General Plan Amendment 97 -004 and Development Code Amendment 97 -009, with the effect of pre- zoning the property. In addition, matters not before the Commission tonight are recommendations with regard to vesting Tentative Map Tract 2265 and Planned Unit Development 97 -56, which are subdivisions of approximately 64 acres of the site that would create residential lots and one open space lot. The Planned Unit Development is for the purpose of allowing clustering of the homes and, in effect, creating lots less than one acre in size. Mr. Buford explained that part of what the Commission is dealing with this evening has to do with the annexation process, noting that when property is outside of the City it is not the City's prerogative to actually take action on the annexation. That is the role of the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) for San Luis Obispo County and, in this case, they would be called upon by the applicant (assuming favorable action by the City) to modify the sphere of service and to annex the property. Bringing the property into the City allows the City to Arroyo Grande Planning Commission March 30, 1999 Page 2 of 19 provide water, sewer and other services to the site. He pointed out that the City's actions at this point in time, basically, involve pre- zoning and the General Plan Amendment, and the LAFCo action. The applicant is asking the City to indicate its intention to zone the 86.3 acre annexation area in a particular way because the applicant is proposing subdivision of the property, which depends upon receiving a particular zoning once that property is brought into the City. The LAFCo action would basically be approval of the annexation and, following that action, the applicant would be proposing a vesting tentative tract map which would call for actual development of the parcel. At the time the tentative tract map is brought forward for action before the Planning Commission and City Council, appropriate conditions of approval would be required. Mr. Buford commented that the Environmental Impact Report included each of the actions that was requested by the applicant, and if the Planning Commission recommends certification of the EIR and the City Council certifies the EIR, the conclusion then would be that the EIR produced information that was accurate and sufficient to advise the decision making body as to the environmental impact of the proposed project, which includes tentative tract map 2265. He noted that tentative tract 2265 has been revised due largely to discussions the applicant has had with staff, the Staff Advisory Committee and the environmental hearings. It is also conceivable that tract 2265 may never be developed as proposed even if it were eventually adopted by the City Council. However, it is a guide at this point as to the applicant's stated intentions with regard to that portion of the property. With regard to earlier discussions regarding a possible Printz Road access, Mr. Buford stated as far as he knows only negative comments have been received about that possibility and the applicant is not interested in pursuing any proposal for Printz Road access into Tract 2265. He noted that there is a proposed access area through Lot 44 for fire safety purposes that is included as a result of a request and recommendation by the Fire Department. Mr. Buford mentioned a couple of issue areas, commenting that there has been a significant amount of discussion regarding water resources; the standard in the General Plan as set forth in the staff report states basically that there be no impact on water resources due to annexation. The water demand for the project is estimated at 53 acre -feet per year; the applicant has proposed satisfying the water demand by bringing on line and dedicating to the City the Deer Trail well. He stated that the well would draw from the same aquifer as the existing City Oak Park Well, and it is noted in the EIR that the water quality from the Oak Park Well is not good and it is likely that the water from the Deer Trail well would have been treated at the well head. There are also some questions that are raised in the EIR with regard to the policy of taking on line a well that has relatively low production and has relatively higher cost than higher production wells, and whether that, in fact, satisfies the intention of the General Plan. Another significant issue is the matter of traffic. Mr. Buford advised that the Environmental Impact Report relied on a traffic study that was conducted with regard to anticipated traffic from the site. He pointed out that the standard in the City is that intersections should remain at a minimum of a Level of Service C, and that a Level of Service D is acceptable only if traffic improvements are identified that would improve the intersection to Level of Service C when completed. He referred to the table in the EIR stating that basically the conclusions drawn were that the project when added to the existing projects did not create a significant impact because 1 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission March 30, 1999 Page 3 of 19 it did not lower any intersection below a C Level of Service. However, at base line, it is noted that the Brisco Road /West Branch Street /US 101 northbound ramp would operate at a D Level of Service. When the project is added to the base line, basically, there are two intersections where a slight increase occurs in the delay but there is no reduction in the Level of Service. The conclusion based on the City's threshold is that the traffic from the project would not cause a significant environmental impact and would not violate the policies of the City of Arroyo Grande. The note in the EIR with regard to the Brisco Road /Halcyon Road /US 101 interchange is that the City is completing a study or analysis with regard to alternatives for that intersection and with implementation of any of the three long term measures proposed, the baseline Traffic would improve to Level of Service A or C depending on the alternative. Mr. Buford stated that the parcel to be annexed of 86.3 acres is not a level parcel and has a significant topography. He referred to the table taken from the Development Code to illustrate the manner in which the Development Code approaches parcels that have significant slopes, stating that staff believes the intention is evident that on a parcel such as this where there are areas of significant slopes they would be designated as open space. This table indicates slopes 25% and up, there will not be building and grading on those sites, and if those parcels were to be subdivided they would be intended for open space to be owned by a Homeowners' Association. He stated in looking at the parcels that have been created, staff believes they are consistent with the Development Code. He commented that even though Tract 2265 is not before the Planning Commission for recommendation at this time, it is felt it makes sense to be sure that the proposal by the applicant is realistic in terms of the City's General Plan and Development Code, and it is staff's opinion that it is. Mr. Buford advised that staff is recommending the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council certify the EIR, and recommend that the General Plan be amended to designate the project site as Rural Residential, and that the City's zoning map be amended to pre -zone the project site as Rural Residential. In response to Commissioner Costello's question regarding method of funding for additional police and fire personnel as a result of the project, Community Development Director Hamilton explained the funding would be based on an incremental increase that would have to be allocated and /or addressed through the budget process. Commissioner Costello also questioned Impacts B1 and B2, storm water runoff, and inquired if the estimate of 2.1- acre -feet proved to be inadequate, where would the additional funds come from. Mr. Buford noted that the fiscal impact analysis has identified a certain source of revenue from new development and the rest would fall in the present manner in which the City is financing those services, and there are a variety of avenues for the City to address those. However, once the tract is approved, you don't go back and impose conditions again on that tract. Commissioner Costello stated he has some serious concerns regarding the water quality of the Deer Trail well, and the language in the EIR seems to be couched with "hedging the bet ". He commented it isn't clear what the quality or quantity is going to be, or what the net impact will be on the existing wells or impacts from other projects that might tap into the existing aquifer Mr. Hamilton explained that the mitigation measure is attempting to put in place a monitoring process to insure that the water quality is adequate and to determine whether or not additional Arroyo Grande Planning Commission March 30, 1999 Page 4 of 19 measures need to be taken to insure that. Commissioner Parker referred to a previous comment regarding provisions that could be taken to keep the 33 -1/2 acre lot from being developed at a later time, and inquired about the deeding process. Mr. Hamilton advised that an easement would be placed on the property and would be a legally described part of the title of the property and is a condition of approval of the tract map. Removal of the easement would require the approval of the City Council. In other words, it would be a privately owned parcel of property with an easement and, in essence, that easement would stipulate there be no development within that property, and to change that easement to something else or to remove it would require approval of the City Council. Commissioner Parker expressed concerns regarding water quality and costs related to treating the water and the effect the Deer Creek well would have on the Oak Park well. She commented that if the study shows that because of costs, condition of the water, and the drop in the Oak Park well, it really does not support the building of 56 homes but perhaps would support 30 homes, she questioned if that information would be given to the Commission before or during the project review? Mr. Buford advised that the mitigation measure require that information all be determined prior to any grading or construction occurring on the property and prior to any subdivision map approval. He stated the map condition requires that these matters be resolved to the satisfaction of the City prior to any approvals being granted that would result in modifications of the property or the project. Commissioner Parker referred to the information in the staff report indicating that the water demand for the project is 53 acre -feet a year, and inquired if that figure takes into consideration the summer months where the water needs may increase? Mr. Buford advised the figure is based on the City's procedures for determining water demand and the EIR consultant's review of that information. Commissioner Keen referred to Page 11 of the staff report relating to the mitigation measures requiring development costs and ongoing services to be funded by the project applicants or future residents, and inquired if the City has a mechanism that could charge a subdivision a different water rate than the rest of the City to recover treatment costs? Mr. Buford stated he is not aware of such a mechanism. After further discussion between the Planning Commission and staff, Chair Green opened the public hearing and invited the applicant and his representatives to speak first. David Foote, Firma. 849 Monterey Street, responded to Commissioners' questions during the foregoing discussion. With regard to the question regarding the Pismo Clarkia, Mr. Foote advised that a botanical survey was conducted in the spring, the time the Clarkia would normally be present, and none was found. The Department of Fish and Game felt that due to the nature of the species, it can be abundant some years and almost non - existent others, so they requested that another survey be done before any dirt is moved out there, which is a normal procedure. Regarding the question of the increase to Tally Ho Creek with the 50 cubic feet per second, Mr. Foote stated it is his understanding that it is impossible to calculate the level of increase; it is 1 1 1 1 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission March 30, 1999 Page 5 of 19 negligible in a channel of its relative narrow width, and if there is no increase, the width increase would also be very little. He explained the reason width is referenced is that usually flood levels are the key thing and not the width itself. With regard to the timing of the interchange, Mr. Foote pointed out that if design studies are under way, the Level of Service D that is forecast for that intersection, until that interchange is improved, that LOS D would only be a result of buildout of all of the cumulative project list, which includes a full buildout of Los Robles Del Mar and all of the projects within the City, some of which have not even been approved yet. He commented that the buildout of that list is some number of years in the future, and the process to get the interchange designed and built . is also a number of years. Whether or not they will coincide nicely is somewhat speculative. In response to Commissioner Parker's question regarding the collector status on Rodeo Drive, Mr. Foote referred to response to comment 15.1, and the answer is it is both a collector street and a local street depending on which end you are standing on. From Mercedes Drive west it is built to a collector width per the Circulation Element standard for a Collector Street; the area eastward of Mercedes to James Way is built to a Local Street standard and the volumes that it is currently carrying are within Level of Service C or better for those widths. Mr. Foote stated that the water forecast of acre -feet per year is an average over the whole year so it does take into account peak periods as well as low periods. With regard to Commissioner Costello's question as to what could be approved in the County, Mr. Foote referred to Section 2, Page 2, for a synopsis of the County code 'standards and the criteria that would have to be met to do a cluster development on that site, the amount of water that is available there now and the number of homes that it could sustain are about 50. He noted it is unknown what the septic capability is for that property and it may constrain that number lower; the realm of 40 to 60 is probably something that could be proposed to the County under their code without asking for a variance. Mr. Foote also clarified that if the Planning Commission were to approve a pre- zoning that is more intense, he is not sure that this EIR would cover it; this EIR covers a certain project density and, therefore, that would need to be thought through carefully. Also, regarding the question posed by Commissioner London relative to the situation of the Los Robles well, Mr. Foote pointed out that the EIR states that the City of Pismo Beach has no intention of using the wells at Los Robles Del Mar and that project would be receiving water from their State water allocation and, to the best of his knowledge, the wells that the City of Pismo Beach uses currently are actually located in Grover Beach. He noted they currently have surplus for their General Plan buildout and, in his opinion, it doesn't appear imminent that those wells are to go on line; they certainly could in the future, however, that is not their plan. In answer to Commissioner Parker's question regarding effect of water availability and the water quality from the well during peak periods, Mr. Foote stated it is his understanding that the deep aquifer at 900 feet does not have a lot of seasonal fluctuation. Mr. Foote further advised it is his understanding that there is a well currently on the property and it has been analyzed by Cleath Associates and the report indicates about 50 residences could be served under a mutual water company formed within the County. He pointed out that the report was Arroyo Grande Planning Commission March 30, 1999 Page 6of19 actually prepared for another property owner. He stated water doesn't seem to be a constraint in the County, but septic might be. Mr. Foote advised that the open space lot is 33 acres, which is Tess than the overall annexation area but is Tess than half of the tract. In response to Commissioner Parker's question relative to responsibility of the cost of water treatment assuming the proposed Deer Trail well requires some type of well head treatment, Senior Consultant Engineer Craig Campbell explained the two components of cost with a treatment facility, which is a filtration facility at the well head. One is the construction cost, which would be the applicant's expense. There is also an ongoing maintenance expense, including treatment, which would be the City's expense. Dan Lloyd. EDA. 1320 Nipomo Street. representing the applicant, spoke regarding the comparisons of the project if developed in the City or County. He stated the applicant is required by the County to exhaust their opportunity for annexation by the City, therefore, the project is being brought to the City first because that is the logical sequence. The property is adjacent to the City, is a logical infill on the edge of the City and is surrounded on three sides by the City. If for some reason the City is not prepared to take that step toward annexation, then the applicant will go to the County. Mr. Lloyd stated, in his opinion, the annexation is appropriate from a revenue standpoint and from a control standpoint. The idea of clustering is allowed by the ordinance and is a very good planning tool because it provides better use of the resource of the land, putting development where it should go and leaving the open space which should remain open. He presented a brief comparison of this project to other projects in the City of similar nature, such as Oak Park Acres, 250 acres with 251 units (1 unit to the acre); the Rancho Grande project of 82 acres with 83 units (1 unit to the acre), and the Royal Oaks project of 151 acres with 233 units (1 -1/2 units to the acre). The proposed annexation of Village Glen has a proposed density of 59 units and is .9 units to the acre. With regard to development in the County, Mr. Lloyd stated that one unit per gross acre could result in 64 units, which would require development of an on -site water company and a community disposal field. The community disposal field would be regulated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. They have a minimum requirement for about 50 units for a community septic system, and that system would be located on the more northerly portion of the site where the soils and slopes are appropriate. Mr. Lloyd answered some of the questions raised previously. He stated, with regard to drainage, a detention basin is proposed on site that will limit flow down to Tally Ho Creek in its existing water course, in fact, it will reduce water going into that water course by spreading that water over time. He noted that is an improvement and betterment and with respect to capacity, it would need to meet all of the standards that are set by the City, and could actually exceed that criteria if deemed necessary and warranted. With regard to water quality and water quantity, Mr. Lloyd advised that in order to bring a water supply into the City, the applicant would have to address water quality and quantity. 1 1 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission March 30, 1999 Page 7 of 19 As far as quality, he advised that generally speaking, that water is treatable to a standard that would be usable, and the City could actually identify those costs associated with treatment and apportion a flat fee of those costs against those residents' water bills. With respect to grading and landform, Mr. Lloyd commented that the first plan did show maximum usage of the parcels and create the biggest usable area. However, in the redesign, they were able to show they can actually reduce the slope adjacent to James Way, contour it and create a more natural looking sloped bank with landscaping, boulders, etc. He noted that trails are proposed at the request of the City, however, there are none within the site at this time so the actual final location would be determined in consultation with the Parks and Recreation Director. Mr. Lloyd stated his feeling that the most important thing as far as he has seen is that the level of review and analysis that has been conducted by Firma on behalf of the City is thorough, comprehensive and answers the questions. He stated there are no impacts that cannot be mitigated, the density is appropriate and is in keeping with the residential density existing within the area. With respect to the General Plan Amendment, in his opinion, it is appropriate to bring this property into the City, and he feels it is appropriate to look at the one unit per gross acre density and is consistent with the ordinance and with County.standards. He further stated he feels the City is in a position to have a better project by having it developed within the City. Spencer Harris, 1390 Oceanaire Dr., San Luis Obispo. stated he is a registered geologist in California and representing Cleath and Associates as a hydro geological consultant. Mr. Harris responded to Commissioner Parker's question regarding water resources noting that the deep aquifer within the Pismo formation is not directly hydraulically connected with the Arroyo Grande Valley and the groundwater basin that underlies that portion of the City of Arroyo Grande and the adjacent cities. Therefore, this particular aquifer is not going to impact the water availability of resources within the groundwater basin. The aquifer that is within the Pismo formation is structurally bowl shaped and is relatively deep beneath the site which was selected for the test drilling. If the City decided it wanted to develop this water resource, then a well at this location would be recommended. Chair Greene commented that it appears Mr. Harris' position is that the Deer Trail well, when operational, is not a redundancy with the Oak Park well. Mr. Harris stated it is not a redundancy and is an additional asset that will provide additional water from this resource. He noted that the Deer Trail well will be tapping this aquifer at a significantly greater depth than the Oak Park well, so it has the capacity to draw from a much greater storage area than the Oak Park well and will tap water that the Oak Park well will not tap. Chair Greene asked for Mr. Harris' opinion regarding the quality of the water and what sort of treatment will be necessary and what costs would be associated with that treatment Mr. Harris stated his opinion that the water has a problem with iron and manganese; these are secondary standards which are not directly health related and relate more to user preference. The rest of the water quality he has seen, based on his review of water quality on the James estate that has the same aquifer is that it is fresh and not too hard and, therefore, he didn't see any major problems with the water quality other than iron and manganese. He further commented that Arroyo Grande Planning Commission March 30, 1999 Page 8 of 19 there are many wells throughout the County that are treated for iron and manganese so, in his opinion, this would not be an overly burdensome problem, but he would refer it to the Public Works Department for a cost. Gary Young, Arroyo Grande, applicant, stated when they originally went out to the other property owners that are joining them in the annexation, they went out at the request of LAFCo, one of their requests was that they be zoned with one acre parcels. Therefore, when the applications were turned in to the City with the concurrence of City staff back in 1996, it was agreed that the zoning come in as one block. He commented in defference to the property owners, he would not say that he specifically represents them, but he has met with them and, in his opinion, it would be their desire at this point to have the same zoning being requested and that is the RR1 zoning. Commissioner Parker inquired if the applicants had met with the property owners about the emergency access route from the proposed development going straight to the back of Easy Street? Mr. Young stated there are actually three property owners up on the hill and he had met with two of them last evening. Their property backs up to the project boundary where the Fire Chief has asked for the emergency access, and the one owner who really has all of the access on his property is in agreement. He understands the project will be providing him a way for the Fire Department to get there should they not be able to come around the back of the hill. Phil Whitaker, 921 Huasna Road, stated he is in support of this project. He is a general contractor and has lived in the City of Arroyo Grande for 10 years. He stated he has reviewed this project and the Environmental Impact Report, he has walked the project, has been to the Deer Trail well site, has reviewed the models that are being proposed, and he knows the developer. He stated he likes the project and it gives him an opportunity in the future to possibly have a home up on that hill. He further stated he likes the idea of clustering, which allows the opportunity for some smaller and some larger homes. He commented he would like to see the Commission recommend this project and agree with City staff that this would be a good project for the future of the City and, in his opinion, it fits well with the idea of providing for future families. He stated he believes it would be wise for the City to control this project instead of the County, and he would like to see the revenue come into the City. Fred Wendell, stated he had made comments during review of the Draft EIR and the number of changes he observed in the Final EIR were relatively few compared to the Draft EIR. He stated that because of the number of questions being asked indicates to him that the document has not gone the full measure to provide the Commission with the information needed to determine whether or not this project is in the public's best interest. He further stated the questions he asked during previous reviews of the Draft EIR were not answered, and he would have liked to have those answers. One of the points he would like clarified relates to clustering. He stated there is no modification in the Final EIR and he has not seen the tract map so he doesn't know if there are changes there. However, what he saw in the Final EIR still suggests small lots adjacent to larger acre homes and, in his opinion, this will affect property values and will also affect his view. He stated he would like to see larger lot sizes proposed for adjacent properties with larger lot sizes. Mr. Wendell stated he is still concerned about the 1 1 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission March 30, 1999 Page 9of19 water issues. He commented his property lies in a direct line between the deep aquifer and where it surfaces, and he is concerned that his well, as well as many other wells within the area, may be deep enough, and if you are drawing a lot of water from deep in the aquifer, is that going to affect his ability to draw his water from his well? Mr. Wendell stated, from a larger community perspective, he would like to have an answer about the cost of treatment. He noted he does not understand why this cost information is not in the EIR if there is a well that is already producing and drawing water from that aquifer and is being treated; the information is there and should have been incorporated in the Final EIR. Mr. Wendell concluded that he opposes the annexation, as currently structured and as he understands it. The project EIR has not addressed his concerns; and it appears that its goals are the developer's goals at his expense, and he is not sure it is structured to comply with all of the elements of the General Plan. Also, in his opinion, it exposes the City to unnecessary risks and expense with regard to the water issue. Glenn Hoving. 445 Cobre Place. stated he is a resident of Arroyo Grande and also works for Century 21 Real Estate. He commented about the compatibility of this particular project, stating from his perspective the project is compatible and makes sense with the homes surrounding this parcel. He stated over the last year and a half he has received numerous questions regarding this project and when it will be completed. Mr. Hoving stated his opinion that this annexation makes sense and he highly recommends the City go after this project rather than have it develop in the County C. Z. Brown. 350 Old Ranch Road, stated he has had the opportunity to review the EIR and Tract 2265. The proposed tract composes 64 acres, which includes five other parcels under various ownerships, totaling 86.3 acres. The annexation has five existing residences, four of which are not included in Tract 2265. He questioned if this means four more plots should be included and, if so, how big are they? Are they 22 or more acres? He noted that 86.3 acres plus 22 additional acres equals 108.3 acres, and the EIR speaks of 1 acre plots. He questioned if this means 108.3 potential residences, or is 50% of that going to be dedicated to open space? In addition, he stated if acres are downsized, this could possibly provide for more homes and especially if they are clustered. He stated he couldn't tell from reading the EIR how many homes would be clustered and how many would be residences. He stated it is difficult to determine the exact number of duster homes to be developed and others; the EIR talks about 63 units, 904 units and 105 units. He further stated on Page 3 -6, Paragraph 6.1, "Consistency Analysis ", states over half the tract is to remain as open space. He questioned if this is one half of 64 or one half of 105? Mr. Brown referred to the entrance or exits from the project, noting the statement "The 11.5 acre parcel southwest of Tract 2265 would potentially Zink Rodeo Drive cul -de -sac to the street stub -out within the tract." He stated that Rodeo Drive already has a traffic problem and he urged that outlet to James Way from the project be moved further north. He stated he noticed from the plot plan on the board that there is a section there not included in the development but within the annexation for access. If that access road could exit on James Way nearer to Rancho Parkway, in his opinion, that would be more appropriate. If it could not exit further to the northwest and it is going to exit onto Rodeo Drive, he suggested an abutment there as it Arroyo Grande Planning Commission March 30, 1999 Page 10of19 exists on James Way so traffic wouldn't proceed directly down Rodeo Drive; put a right turn lane only and then going east on James Way, put a left turn lane only so that the traffic going on Rodeo to James Way could not go directly into the project. As a side note, Mr. Brown stated that in reviewing past traffic studies, it might be well to ask our own Traffic Commission to take a more accurate review of what is going on with the cumulative circulation problem within this respective area. This would include the Village Glen, the Highlands, the Rodeo Heights project, the Cantrell project, etc. He referred to Page 3 -4, 4 ' paragraph, 3`d sentence, stating "The process has led to the creation of many lots, some approaching one acre in size without an adequate road access due to a poorly planned overall circulation system ". Mr. Brown stated he agrees with that statement and a more comprehensive approach to planning is needed, not just review of this individual EIR. He also referred to issues of scarring of hillsides due to poor grading practices, inadequate drainage resulting in flooding and siltation of drainage courses. He urged the Commission to take a critical look at these potential problems. With respect to the traffic, he reiterated that perhaps the Traffic Commission could do a comprehensive traffic circulation study that would be helpful to this Commission and to the Council. He noted that on Page III, 13E, under "Known Controversy" it states "No known areas of public or agency controversy." Mr. Brown stated he totally disagrees with that statement. There is disagreement on traffic, water, park fees and where the funds are going to be spent, the impact on schools, etc. Under "Alternatives ", V, 1 and 2, under C, Paragraph 7, it states "Reduce project to 20 to 50 would avoid or reduce all significant impacts to a level not requiring mitigation for some or all impact areas." He stated, in his opinion, this would seem to be quite appropriate. He mentioned a letter from Larry Alien, Air Pollution Control District, wherein he made several pertinent observations. It states "District staff does not agree with the air quality analysis and that both short term and long term impacts to air quality could be affected. The project description is unclear as to the maximum number of units." Mr. Brown stated it is still very unclear to him; 81 units if the other 5 units are developed, or is it 99? In addition, will the 33.5 residential lots be retained or further subdivided? He commented he believes Mr. Allen's observations are pertinent and he questioned just how many cluster type units and residential units are to be planned for this particular project? Kathleen Wendell, 727 Printz Road, stated she and her husband were not notified about this meeting and did not find out about it until Saturday morning. She stated when they went to the library, a copy of the Final EIR was not available, however, they were able to obtain.a copy and spent a great deal of the weekend reading the document before they had to return it. She stated she was concerned about the fact that the Final EIR and the tract map do not match and is very confusing. She commented, therefore, her recommendation would have to be based on the Final EIR information. With regard to the well, she stated it seems if this were developed in the County, they could use this well and it is stated that could support 52 homes, so they could have a community well system and in that way they would be responsible for maintaining the equipment and the treatment of the water, which would all be internal to the site. One of the issues she wanted to emphasize was relative to comment 19.2 which states "....new development, and its need to be in an appropriate density and intensity based upon compatibility with the majority of existing surrounding land uses." She stated the reference 1 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission March 30, 1999 Page 11 of 19 to "majority of existing surrounding land uses" seems to be pretty cut and dried. She noted that adjacent to the north are 2.5 acres to 10 acre parcels, over 2.5 acre parcels adjacent in the west, and going to the east there are two 2.5 acre parcels and two 3.0 acre parcels, and only in the south across a large street behind a fence do you have a more dense environment. It seems if this development were to meet that criteria it would be in the RE 2.5 acre parcel at a minimum. Ms. Wendell stated she too felt there were .a lot of questions asked at the last meeting that were not sufficiently answered in the Final EIR, such as who would be responsible for treatment to the well, and the possibility of the long term need to do blending. Also, the question about legal conveyance of the well site to the City; whether it would be bought or leased? There were also comments in the draft EIR indicating that the current planning at the way we would be building out would use our allocated water supply and, therefore, anything additional that would be annexed would have to have their own water. She noted that the area •designated for open space and the trails is pretty steep. With the foregoing comments, Ms. Wendell stated it is her recommendation that the Planning Commission not recommend this Final EIR be certified by the City Council. Also, in her opinion, it appears that by using the guise of clustering we are not going in conjunction with the surrounding properties, and therefore it seems more appropriate to go with Residential Estate zoning. Carter Hooker, 380 Spanish Moss Lane, spoke regarding the traffic at the Brisco underpass, stating that three lanes is not sufficient now and when Wal Mart and the rest of these tracts are built out, it will be a lot worse. He commented that the Brisco underpass has to be widened in the near future and, hopefully, before it gets too crowded. It is a real physical concrete bottleneck that needs to be addressed immediately. He further stated he is surprised the City can't come up with any kind of conditions to take care of the additional cost to the City for the Fire and Police, school, buses, etc., and there must be some way to work on that. He noted that the water issue comes up in every City and in every meeting. Also, the sewer issue is one of his main concerns and he inquired if an overall assessment of the sewer requirements has been done, adding up tract by tract and building by building, and is there enough capacity for the treatment? Mr. Hooker referred to traffic on Rodeo Drive, commenting that it is the straightest shot to the freeway and everybody uses it. He stated addressing these things one at a time doesn't seem to be enough, and he urges using some kind of a score card to literally start keeping track of all of the commitments and keep adding them up because at some point in time the City is going to have to say "no" to somebody. Mr. Hooker recommended that the City consider the same kinds of questions for the non -tract section as for the tract section; what kind of rules, what kind of limitations and what are the requirements? He noted the City is going to have to maintain all of their streets and provide City services to them also. Jack Hardv, Grover Beach, stated he is in favor of the project and he feels it has been very well planned out, makes a lot of sense with the clustering of homes. The plan has a nice design and fits well with the transition of homes on the south side of James Way. He commented, in his opinion, it would be far better for the City to control a project like this than for the County to control it. He noted some of the advantages to the City such as 59 new taxpayers paying Arroyo Grande Planning Commission March 30, 1999 Page 12 of 19 property tax to the City, in -lieu park fees, and a lot of families spending money in Arroyo Grande. He stated he believes that this is the type of controlled growth that this community needs and urged the Commission to recommend this project to the City Council. Glen D. James, stated his father bought the property up there many years ago and his family has been working with Gary Young over the past three years. He encouraged the Planning Commission to recommend approval of the project to the Council, stating he believes it is an excellent project because it concentrates the development and still leaves a large green area. He commented that some of the other proposals made to them were for rather large rich estates and he hates to see only the rich get housing. Mike Lebow, Cannon Way. stated he is in favor of more of a no growth policy to keep the hills from growing with homes and keep the integrity of the nature of this area. Doua Dunn, Arroyo Grande. stated he has a piece of property that touches this development. His concerns include the density and building on that prominent ridge line, and also the water issue. Dick DeBlauw, 774 Alta Vista Wav, stated he has reviewed the plans for the property and the design for the subdivision and, in his opinion, it is a good design for development of the property. He further stated he would prefer to see it designed as the plans show than have . homes spread out all over that acreage. He noted he has been on a well from that same aquifer for 27 years and it is good water and the water table never seemed to move up or down. He commented, in his opinion, the Commission should think about good planning and seriously recommend taking this property into the City of Arroyo Grande for development rather than let go to the County. He urged that the Commission plan for the people rather than plan against the people because population is happening and we need to have places for people to live. Melissa Watkins. Heritage Lane, Arroyo Grande, stated her feelings that annexing this property as part of the City is a wise decision because then you do have control over what is done with the property, and it would be a financially sound decision. She also stated she feels that the tract project as presented is a good one and that the public expects that parcel of property to be developed and is something that everyone knows is going to happen eventually. She further stated she feels that people will be pleased to see a smaller project like the one across James Way instead of the larger estate lots, and she hopes the Commission will recommend approval of the annexation to the City Council. Sara Ann Marshall, 203 Montecito Ave., Shell Beach. stated she is in favor of the project. She noted one of the pros for her would be the fact that there are 4 bedroom homes at affordable prices and the Tots are larger and have more room for children to play. Bob Harris. Cleath and Associates, addressed various comments regarding the fact that there are wells along James Way that would probably tap this aquifer and it is the applicant's intent to be attentive to those. He noted that Cleath and Associates' position on water availability is that water for a property for development should be sustainable by the property, and generally speaking, the more property you have overlying an aquifer the more right you have 1 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission March 30, 1999 Page 13 of 19 to pump that water. Therefore, when Cleath & Associates looked at the recharge that is available for the property itself, it was felt there was a constraint on that recharge and informed the applicant of that, noting that this is the amount of water we would credit that property as being able to sustain. Beyond that you would be pulling water from outside of the property and thereby potentially impacting adjacent wells. Mr. Harris noted that their analysis is based on well interference and recharge, and the well interference has been analyzed conservatively and presented in the EIR, as well as recharge. When the well is drilled and tested, then a final analysis will be presented of the impacts. Dan Lloyd, EDA, stated their position this evening is to make sure the Commissioners' questions are answered. With regard to water, he noted that the proposed well site is going to provide water in excess of the project's needs and, therefore, there will be more water available to the City than will be utilized by this property. Also, this well will provide water for the additional parcels within the annexation area, and the sewer needs will be met. With regard to the density issue raised, Mr. Lloyd stated he doesn't believe there is an issue regarding density; one unit to the acre for the entire annexation area is not a problem. Chair Greene spoke regarding the traffic that would be generated by this project on Rodeo Drive, stating that the issue of traffic on Rodeo Drive has been a very contentious and troublesome problem for the City since the street opened a decade ago. According to the data . that was provided from a 1997 study, the street carries 2300 vehicle trips per day to Branch. He stated, according to the conclusion by Mr. Foote, 300 vehicle trips per day is not a significant environmental impact, however, it is agreed that it is a significant impact for the individuals who live in that community. He asked if there are any alternatives to mitigating the traffic problems available to the applicant? Mr. Lloyd stated, in his opinion, there are a lot of good suggestions that have been mentioned and it was his feeling that some good options could be looked at with the Traffic Commission. Mr. Lloyd stated that the timing seems to be right because there is a little time between now and the time when this project comes back to the Commission, and there could probably be three or four meetings with the Traffic Commission. One option could perhaps include the support of a consultant to deal with traffic calming suggestions and look at it in an aggregate way, and actually come up with some mitigation measures that the applicant could help fund and perhaps identify a mitigation program that could be adopted by the City. Chair Greene suggested that a mitigation measure be added in the EIR directing the applicant to engage in and work with community resources such as the Traffic Commission, Department of Public Works, and citizens who represent the community in that area in coming up with a proposal or a plan to either calm traffic on the street or to help fund an alternative route that might alleviate some of the traffic. Mr. Uoyd indicated their willingness to participate in a joint discussion and solution to the traffic issue. Chair Greene asked if Mr. Uoyd and the applicant have given any thought to endeavoring to work with the adjacent property owner and developer of Tract 1834 to provide an outlet for the subject development through Tract 1834 instead of running the road that is proposed to go through the existing James residence and maybe drawing it a little bit to the west and providing an access through that parcel. An opportunity could be offered to that individual to develop a secondary emergency access, which could be a benefit to both subdivisions to have access to an east /west corridor through what is now the Arroyo Grande Planning Commission March 30, 1999 Page 14 of 19 11 acre James property. Mr. Lloyd indicated their willingness to discuss various options. Mr. Young, applicant, inquired if the reference to additional mitigation measures that are not contained on his property, references funding something that is not on his property? Chair Greene advised when this project was before the Commission previously, one of the Commissioners recommended that there be some sort of complimentary agreement that would enable the current proposal to be considered tempering this effort to reduce traffic through the neighborhood that seems to be most impacted by this proposal. Mr. Young pointed out that his project needs to take care of his needs and to start talking about "funding" on another person's project is getting out of the purview of his responsibility at this point, especially when talking about a private developer with a private project. He noted he would certainly not want to link his project to Grace Lane, however, he would jointly work with the community for the betterment of the community to solve traffic issues. Mr. Young stated that the issues before the Commission tonight are the issues of recommending to the City Council to approve annexing the property, recommend to the City Council to have the General Plan Amendment show the pre- zoning and recommend the pre - zoning, and he encouraged the Commission to vote tonight. Hearing no additional comments from the audience, Chair Greene closed the public hearing. Commissioner London stated that his questions have pretty much been answered and the project seems to fall within all of the requirements of the General Plan and Development Code. Commissioner Costello stated his biggest concern about the project revolves around the water issues and, in his opinion, we won't have answers on the water until a well is actually drilled and testing is done. Inasmuch as the final approval of the tract map is contingent upon those wells being examined, he feels that is an issue that is going to be resolved down the line. In terms of some of the mitigation issues, the structure we have to deal with in the City such as public safety issues doesn't give any latitude, because there is no language that exists that says we are going to need an additional officer and we are going to fund it; that is going to happen after the fact. He stated he has a problem with full mitigation for schools, and he understands it is beyond the purview of this EIR to solve this particular problem. Density needs to be dealt with and, as pointed out by staff, when the project comes back, we have the flexibility to work with the project in terms of how we go about reaching the consistency. There are a lot of issues he needs to think about and that will need to be dealt with, but he believes the document does meet the minimum and does answer some of the questions. In principal, the annexation is a logical extension of the City's boundaries and does fit into the City of Arroyo Grande and probably should be annexed. The question remains; what is the best way to do that and what is the best project to put in there? Commissioner Parker stated she believes in the clustering type of density, and that this project conforms with the statement in the General Plan that when you put in a project, it needs to conform to the surrounding lands and, in her opinion, this one does. The reason she likes the clustering of homes here is because it leaves the lands she believes to be an environmental issue. The land in the culvert and the land that is surrounded by all of the Oak trees need to 1 1 1 1 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission March 30, 1999 Page 15 of 19 be preserved. She also believes that annexation needs to be addressed in the General Plan, and because this site is already surrounded on three sides by the City and is within the City's sphere, it doesn't represent an urban buildout, rather it feels like we are filling in the hole, and seems like a natural acceptable annexation that doesn't sprawl us out in one direction or another. She also stated whether or not this project is built, Rodeo Drive needs to be addressed and, in her opinion, Rodeo is not necessarily a problem because of this project, but Rodeo has a problem despite this project. Commissioner Parker referred to an Oak Grove area of six to eight Oak trees that is designated to be removed and suggested this area be looked at when the project comes back to the Commission to see if anything can be done to preserve the rural character even further and contain that Oak grove and not remove it. Also, she stated she believes that a community based sewer system that the City could provide to this area would be much more preferable to the area than having either individual septic systems or community septic systems. With regard to water, Commissioner Parker stated she is concerned, however, she is glad to hear that the water studies will be prepared and in place before the City has to look at the project. Commissioner Keen stated he feels that this project is a good in -fill project and needs to be developed by the City because of the different ramifications it would have if developed by the County. Regarding schools, Commissioner Keen stated the City's efforts of trying to designate land from a project for a school has been unsuccessful and, in his opinion, having school fees given is the best way to go. The Police and Fire Department have a mutual aid agreement and, therefore, if the County develops it, the City will still service that area. There will still be traffic on James Way and Rodeo Drive if the County develops it, so that is another reason the City should annex it and try to govern and develop some way to help on Rodeo Drive. He stated if there is a way that this traffic impact fee could go directly toward helping finance the Rodeo Heights bypass, in his opinion, that would be a step in the right direction. Senior Consultant Engineer Craig Campbell advised that presently the only traffic fee structures that are available are for specific lists of projects, such as a traffic facilities impact fee and a traffic signalization fee, and these each have their list of city -wide improvements where they are applicable for, and the City is restricted in using them for that, and correcting problems on Rodeo is not on that list. Basically, to use the fees for Rodeo, you would need to amend the Fee Ordinance to add that as one of the list of projects. Chair Greene clarified that the purpose of this hearing is to consider whether or nor the Draft and Final EIR together adequately (1) identify the environmental impact, (2) adequately analyze the environmental impacts, and (3) propose appropriate mitigations. If the Planning Commission votes to recommend to the City Council to certify the EIR, that does not mean that the project has been approved, only that the environmental impacts have been adequately identified, analyzed and mitigations proposed. He outlined other major steps in the approval process before the project can go on line, some of which are policy issues. Chair Greene noted the Commission is guided by the Land Use Element of the General Plan, Objective 10.0, which talks about expansion of city boundaries and annexation. He stated he believes this property should be annexed and he also believes reasons for the annexation have Arroyo Grande Planning Commission March 30, 1999 Page 16 of 19 been adequately explained by other members of the Commission. He stated he is very uncomfortable with this EIR because it focuses almost entirely on the annexation of Tract 2265 and addresses in a superficial manner only the annexation of the remaining parcels which constitute the other 19 acres. When some of that land becomes developed it is going to add additional environmental impacts which, in his opinion, have not been and cannot be adequately addressed in the EIR. He commented that the handwriting is on the wall and these properties are going to be developed and the impacts are going to occur. He is concerned because the water analysis focuses a great deal on some 59 homes and doesn't include a discussion regarding additional homes. Maybe the well that is on Deer Trail can absorb the additional water needs, and maybe the other issues regarding police, fire, public safety provisions, school issues, school fees and traffic mitigation issues can be dealt with, however, he is very uncomfortable that this is being presented to the City in this way. He agreed that there is no other way the applicant could present it since he doesn't have control over the James property. He stated his feeling that the decision makers need to address this issue and there needs to be some reference in the staff reports regarding potential impacts over and above those identified in the EIR. Chair Greene expressed concern over the water issue, stating it is not clear to him who is going to pay and how much. He feels that the EIR is deficient in that respect and, in his opinion, there should be some information provided to the City decision makers regarding the cost associated with the well. He noted that the Open Space and Conservation Element under the Water Resources section states "....the City's present entitlements to ground water and Lopez supplies are not adequate to support buildout of the General Plan." This was adopted many years ago, and at that time, they were telling us that there were water problems then and we have added a significant number of residences since that date, and we continue to add more. He outlined another concern he has regarding the proposal requiring that the property be pre - zoned as RR, which means one residence per acre. He commented this is compatible at some points and incompatible in others with the surrounding neighborhood. He suggested that staff include in their staff report to the Council some sort of options they might want to consider regarding alternative zoning measures. Chair Greene stated that the next issue to be considered is compatibility with the community's basic identity as a rural small town community and, in his opinion, this project is compatible. This is a residential area and we are annexing residential property and there is some degree of consistency. Another issue is whether the annexation is consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan in regard to protection of agriculture and open space. He stated he has a concern about that because there is a section in the General Plan that talks about maintaining slopes of 25% or more on 40 acre parcels, and there appears to be a slight deviation from that here. The applicant might want to consider setting aside extra portions of Tract 2265 for open space to bring it closer to that element of the General Plan. He further stated his opinion that everyone would applaud a reduction in the density or an increase in open space for that issue. Chair Greene agreed with other Commissioners why the City will benefit from annexation when considering what the County could build, the Toss of property tax values, park fees and traffic fees, which is a significant benefit to the City. Another issue is the contamination of ground 1 1 1 1 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission March 30, 1999 Page 17 of 19 water with septic systems. He commented there does exist a significant social and economic inner dependence interaction between the City and property proposed for annexation. There is adequate infrastructure and services that can be or have been provided and, finally, the proposed annexation will generate revenue to pay for provision of City services. After the foregoing _comments, Chair Greene advised he supports the resolution that would certify the EIR He stated he has a real problem with the pre- zoning and the density of the project. With regard to the traffic problems on Rodeo Drive, Chair Greene stated his belief that the City has the responsibility to provide for and protect the general welfare of the citizens of the community, and although it might not necessarily be an environmental impact for a residential street to have 2300 or 2600 vehicles go up and down it each day, it is a significant impact for the residents who live there. He believes the City has a responsibility to alleviate that situation; how they go about doing that and whether the applicant is involved or not is an issue that will be addressed later on. He commented he believes the applicant has the responsibility to help mitigate this problem and when this issues comes before the Commission again, it will be interesting to see what efforts have been made to develop a community response to this problem. Chair Greene reiterated his position that he is prepared to support a resolution certifying the EIR, however, he is not prepared to support a resolution that the property be pre -zoned RR. It is his feeling that process needs a little more investigation and discussion. There being no further discussion, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 99 -1689 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. On motion by Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Costello, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners London, Costello, Parker, Keen and Chair Greene NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing resolution was adopted this 30 day of March 1999. RESOLUTION NO. 99 -1690 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT AND THE GENERAL PLAN MAP; GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 97 -004 (APPLICANT: GARY YOUNG). Arroyo Grande Planning Commission March 30, 1999 Page 18 of 19 On motion by Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Costello, and by the following roll call vote, to with: AYES: Commissioners Keen, Costello, London and Parker NOES: Chair Greene ABSENT: None the foregoing resolution was adopted this 30 day of March 1999. Regarding Attachment 3, Resolution No. 99 -1691, Chair Greene pointed out that Paragraphs 5 and 6 are redundant and one should be deleted. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF ARROYO GRANDE; DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 97 -009 (APPLICANT: GARY YOUNG). On motion by Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Costello, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Keen, Costello, Parker and London NOES: Chair Greene ABSENT: None the foregoing resolution was adopted this 30 day of March 1999. NON- PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS - None DISCUSSION ITEMS - None RESOLUTION NO. 99 -1691 PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS Commissioner Keen noted the upcoming farewell gathering for Community Development Director Jim Hamilton. He expressed his appreciation and commended for Mr. Hamilton for taking over when he did at a point when there were several controversial projects and, in his opinion, he did an outstanding job. The Commissioners expressed their thanks to Mr. Hamilton and their wishes for good luck in his new assignment. Mr. Hamilton advised that Mr. Henry Engen will be the Interim Director and that he is well experienced and knows the community and the area very well. Commissioner Parker briefly reviewed the Planning Commissioners' Conference held in Monterey which she attended last week. She stated she would like to see the Council designate funds for Planning Commissioners to attend these conferences. She further stated, in her opinion, this helps Commissioners to learn their job better and, therefore, be more beneficial and provide more to the City in return. She encouraged City staff to approach the City Council in this respect and ask them to include funds in the budget. Mr. Hamilton advised he is in the process of preparing the budget recommendations for the department for the upcoming year, and he has made a request to increase the education portion of the budget to allow some opportunity 1 1 1 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission March 30, 1999 Page 19 of 19 for at least two of the Commissioners to attend the conference in the upcoming year. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW - UP REPORTS. Community Development Director Hamilton advised that at the last City Council meeting the Council took action whereby the City will be applying in concert with the County for an agricultural land stewardship program grant from the State as part of the next step in the CASP process, and right now it looks like we are asking for a joint grant of about $30,000 and looking at actually putting in place some of the implementation elements that were included in CASP. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by the Chairman at 12:30 A.M. ATTEST: /C'ww OWN, Kat Teen Fryer, Commiss n Clerk Laurence Greene, Chair AS TO CONTENT: ia2 Jim Hamilton 1 AICP Community Development irector