Loading...
PC Minutes 1999-01-191 MINUTES ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 19, 1999 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Lubin presiding. Present are Commissioners Parker, Keen and Haney. Commissioner Greene was not in attendance due to a conflict of interest with the Rodeo Heights project. Staff members in attendance are Community Development Director Jim Hamilton, Contract Planner Lezley Buford and Senior Consultant Engineer Craig Campbell. MINUTE APPROVAL The minutes of November 4, 1998 and December 15, 1998 were approved unanimously. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 1. Agenda Item II. A., a letter from Lisa Ann Saltzman, dated January 12, 1999. 2. Fair Political Practices Commission Bulletin dated December 1998. 3. City Council minutes from November 14, November 24, December 3, and December 8, 1998. PUBLIC HEARING -. RODEO HEIGHTS PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT - 970991, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 970995, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2236 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 970549. Contract Planner Lezley Buford presented the Staff Report. Ms. Buford stated that the Environmental Impact Report had been before the Planning Commission in October 1998. At that time the Commission took, and provided comments on the Draft EIR. The purpose of the hearing tonight was to consider a recommendation to the City Council certifying that it has been prepared under the CEQA Guidelines and Statutes and adequately addresses the environmental concerns that may be associated with this project. Ms. Buford continued that, since the time that the Draft EIR was out for public review, the applicant has met with City Staff and provided a revised site plan that they wish to be included for consideration in the Final EIR as another alternative. This is identified as the North Site Plan Alternative, number four (4) in the Final EIR. The purpose of providing the Commission the analysis in the Final EIR is to insure that there are no new, different or different levels of impacts that may result in an alternative design such as this. The analysis presented in a Final EIR it goes through issue area by issue area, comparing and contrasting. The EIR concluded that there would be less impacts than from the project that was originally proposed. In addition to the alternatives there also are responses to comments that were received on the Draft EIR, both verbally from the Commission and also some in writing. In the correspondence that the Commission received tonight the School District clarified a table that was in the Final EIR correcting some of the numbers that were indicated in there. This change would appear before the Final EIR was proposed for City Council final consideration. In addition there was another issue that had been drawn to Staff's attention in regards to the Cumulative Project List. To the question regarding the Cantrell property and confusing it with the People's Self Help Project, the correct response to this question is MINUTES Arroyo Grande Planning Commission January 19, 1999 Page 2 of 24 that the Community Development Department has no application for the Cantrell site. The People's Self Help Project was actually on Juniper Street, which is on the other side of the Freeway. Ms. Buford further stated that in reading through the Final EIR and the response to comments, the Commission should note that several of the issues related to the Land Use Compatibility, Planning and Policy issues will be addressed at the time the Staff Analysis and Staff Report are prepared on the project. The Commission raised the issue of significance and how the City determines the significance of a particular impact. Ms. Buford stated that there are two very important questions in the environmental review process and both have to do with significance. The first is, is a potential impact on the environment. If the answer is yes to that, staff requires the preparation of an EIR, the purpose of which is to provide an analysis, potential alternatives and mitigation's measure that may mitigate any potential impacts. This is a costly effort on the part of the applicant, and time consuming on both the City Staff and applicant. This is a decision that is not made lightly. In this case the decision was made to require an EIR. After the decision was made and there was analysis provided there is a threshold decision as to what is the level of significance and does this particular project cross over that threshold. She told the Commission that at this point it is important to remember that the significant threshold should be supported by scientific evidence. At this time Staff would like to move forward with final certification of the Environmental Impact Report. Chair Lubin asked if the Commission had any questions of Staff. Commissioner Parker stated her feeling that the land use compatibility issue was confusing and she questioned how these concerns differ between the Environmental Impact Report and the project study? In other words, how would the community and Commission address land use compatibility solely on the basis of an EIR as compared to that addressed in the project? Ms. Buford advised that the standards with regard to identifying a significant land use impact relates to the resources use, such as the noise, air quality, traffic, aesthetics, as to whether or not this is truly incompatible land use, that this is going to be a significant environmental impact that this would make it incompatible with the surrounding area. She further advised that, in her opinion, the threshold for a significant land use impact is fairly high, and it really has to be a use that has adverse impacts and for an example you do not want to locate that land use there because of surrounding residential areas, a school, hospital, etc. That differs from your consideration when considering a project and you look at all of the land use issues and all of the General Plan considerations in sort of a balance as to whether or not this project is compatible and, in this case, the Planned Unit Development is of such a design and is such a desirable project that you want to recommend a General Plan amendment and zone change; that is outside of the environmental review process. It may be that there may not be any environmental impacts 1 1 1 MINUTES Arroyo Grande Planning Commission January 19, 1999 Page 3 of 24 associated with the project; yet the Commission may still recommend that the project be denied. Commissioner Parker inquired if the concerned issues with land use compatibility with surrounding land use in regards to density and lot size are those environmental issues only if they are concerned with traffic, noise and lighting, or are they also concerned with environmental issues if there is concern about the compatibility with regards to cost factors? Ms. Buford stated they are land use compatibility issues based on sound planning decisions and sound planning practices. She further stated, in her opinion, in order for them to raise to the level of significance per CEQA and require mitigation or avoidance, they have to result in some physical change in the environment and some physical impact in the environment that therefore would be considered significant. Those are some of the indicators as to whether or not something is compatible with the surrounding land use in terms of environmental factors. There being no further discussion between staff and the Commission at this time, Chair Lubin opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission. Dan Lloyd, EDA, stated he is here this evening representing the applicants. He stated as the deliberations begin, it is important to keep in mind the comments make by the planner. He commented we are not necessarily talking about the style of the project at this time, we are merely talking about what impacts may be associated with any type of project, whether it be 38 or lesser units on this property. An incompatible type or style of project would have to be something such as a massive apartment project; something that is not single family residential. However, to say a project is not appropriate because it is not the size of my lot next door is inappropriate; whether it is going to hurt my property value is conjecture and is not substantive. The quality of the community of Arroyo Grande dictates what will be at that location. He stated what has been heard from the project proponents that what they really want to produce is a high quality project. They have heard the comments from the neighbors and the community and, in his opinion, they are moving in a path to try to bring something that works from a perception standpoint, because substantively impacts do not appear to be significant or that is unavoidable, but really, what the end product looks like. Mr. Lloyd stated with regard to traffic, Grace Lane will greatly improve the traffic conditions in and around Rodeo Drive and will make things better. Whether or not the traffic capacity standards for Rodeo Drive do not warrant a significant impact at this time, still construction of this project will alleviate some of those problems. The question tonight is does the project really cause impacts that are unavoidable and cannot be mitigated, or rather does this provide something that might improve the fabric of Arroyo Grande, provide something better and take a piece of property that is scarred at this time and create something that might join the two areas of Royal Oaks and Rancho Grande. Cindy Orr, 464 Rodeo Drive, stated that at the previous Planning Commission meeting concerning the Draft EIR of Rodeo Heights a group of homeowners spoke representing 187 people from Royal Oaks and Rancho Grande who had signed a petition objecting to the proposal based upon environmental impacts. Ms. Orr wanted to comment on her overall MINUTES Arroyo Grande Planning Commission January 19, 1999 Page 4 of 24 impression of the EIR, stating that many of the answers were found to be non - responsive in general to their concerns. As far as the revised proposal, more time was spent talking about the ten houses they wouldn't have in their neighborhood rather than environmentally justifying the 28 houses they still want to build. It was the neighbors feeling that this was a very backward approach to an environmental report. Many felt this to be an overly dense inappropriate project and just because 1 0 units were subtracted, does not mean that now everything is OK. She further stated they do not see any way that the Final EIR could be considered complete or accurate at this point in time, and they respectfully ask that Planning Commission carefully review the validity of the neighbors environmental concerns and take a serious look at the lack of meaningful responses given in the report. Robin Crossno, 493 Avenida de Diamente, commented on some of the responses contained in the EIR regarding Aesthetics (Continuation of Response AES1, Page 3 -8) and the Biological Resources (Response BR1, Page 313). She pointed out that the landscape plan still advocates the use of Eucalyptus because of their fast growth, stating they are non - evasive. She commented having lived near Eucalyptus before and having fought with them, she would disagree that they are non - evasive. She stated they are messy, nasty trees that quickly take over and are constantly shedding something on a year around basis. As for their fast growth, she inquired who will be responsible for cutting them back and for the cost involved when their views of the Oak covered hills and surrounding areas begin to be obstructed? She commented that this response is still largely non - responsive and unworkable. Also, under the heading of Noise, Light and Glare (Response N, L and G3 on Page 3 -1 1) states in part "Residents surrounding the project site may experience an increase in noise levels due to an increase in human activity in the area, and that these noises are not unique." She commented that the special acoustics of the canyon have yet to be adequately observed, much less addressed or accounted for. She spoke regarding the quietness and serenity of the surrounding neighborhood and their consideration of each other at this time, she doubts this would be the case with 28 additional households with children, pets, vehicles, lawnmowers, etc., and their resounding noises resounding about the canyon and into their homes. The response to the question of noise pollution with specific regard to the acoustics of the canyon is inadequate because it is non - existent. Kirk Scott, 520 Via Vaquero, stated he is currently the President of the Rancho Grande Homeowners' Association and a frequent spokesperson for the Citizens Committee for Responsible Development. He stated they are confounded and repulsed by the EIR before the Commission, and they are equally dismayed by the developer's lack of response to the wishes of the citizens of this community and the citizens of Arroyo Grande as a whole. He noted that the wishes of the citizens have been expressed time and again, and the will of the people as evident in the General Plan was made crystal clear in two workshops to update the General Plan. The results of those workshops indicated an overwhelming desire for low density 84.1%; types of housing to be encouraged in Arroyo Grande concluded large lot, rural estate, and single family. Second place was "Typical" lot single family detached. Mr. Scott pointed out that substandard lot sizes are not only disdained by the adjoining residences, but also by the overwhelming majority of this community. He stated that the citizens are asking for low density, and the developer is bringing in high density; 1 1 1 MINUTES Arroyo Grande Planning Commission January 19, 1999 Page 5 of 24 the citizens and the General Plan ask for a minimum of 7200 sq. ft. lots and the developer is bringing substandard lots and unusable lots to be counted as open space. The citizens and the General Plan ask to maintain the character of the existing neighborhoods; this project is surrounded by Royal Oaks and Rancho Grande all with good sized custom homes on large lots. The developer is proposing three smaller floor plans of cookie cutter homes with mix and match exteriors that do not maintain the character of the existing neighborhood. Mr. Scott stated that the EIR does not adequately address the community's concerns for noise, traffic, water, viewshed, pollution or the destruction of natural habitat. He noted when Royal Oaks was built, the developer of Royal Oaks agreed to leave this tract alone, or to perhaps build one house. Mr. Scott requested that the Planning Commission do not accept this EIR that is forcing the community to choose which option is least destructive. He commented that, as stated in the EIR, all of the suggested building options will be destructive to the environment and, therefore, the citizens' find the project fatally flawed. He stated for the developer's benefit, the citizens of Arroyo Grande would probably look favorably upon a plan that calls for no more than 12 custom homes with a minimum of half acre lot sizes, which would maintain the character of the community. C.Z. Brown, 350 Old Ranch Rd.: The following letter was read and submitted. Commissioners: 19 January, 1999 Subject: The Final EIR of the Rodeo Heights Project I will attempt to be brief and will speak to the following points: Has this EIR (Draft and Final) adequately identified and analyzed each and all impacts associated with the project? II. With regard to the draft and final EIR, are the mitigation measures proposed adequate? III. Justification as to why the Planning Commission should not certify this document as being complete and in compliance with CEQA. First, I would like to invite the Commission's attention to page 1 -2 last paragraph: "The intent of this alternative (Alternative 4) is to lessen the potential impacts of the project by reducing the number of dwelling units from 38 to 28 increasing the size of the lots and clustering the development to provide additional open space" Commissioner Keen noted on page 3 -6 of the EIR that this property was zoned for one residential unit. Chairman Lubin also indicated "clustering homes in this area is a problem " (The lessening) analysis provided in the EIR attempts to mitigate the various environmental impacts throughout the EIR, and is seriously flawed in my judgement. It is also difficult to understand how 4.3 additional acres (last par page 2 -1) of open space would be generated with alternate 1.. which is mentioned as least detrimental to the MINUTES Arroyo Grande Planning Commission January 19, 1999 Page 6 of 24 environment. Realize that all the open space was previously dedicated or arranged when Lot 182 was established. In addition, many of the responses in the final EIR were non - responsive and it leaves me wondering how a 6.5 or 7.5 parcel as described in the previous presentation to this Commission, can now cover 12.6 acres. However, a further analysis of this point will be presented by a following speaker. Realize that the developer was aware that lot 182 was established as one residential parcel, or could be used for institutional use, if approved by a zoning change and related CCRs and architectural reviews. Ordinance No.355 dated May 1987, page 2, par SF, and the draft EIR were commented upon by Commissioner Haney. To quote the ordinance: "The YMCA and /or alternative institutional use on Lots 182, 184 and B may be considered pursuant to PD amendment, zone change procedures, but in no event shall additional residential re- subdivision be considered." To quote Commissioner Haney "this language seems to be pretty strong for an ordinance It would appear that if the developer is able to obtain authority for further subdivision at this time, it would be in conflict with the existing ordinance and resolution regarding Lot 182. It appears that the property owner has been encouraged in the past by city staff and /or city fathers to develop this property. This has caused unnecessary expenses for research and revisions to a proposal that should have had a zoning revision prior to numerous hours expended by city staff, community members and the developer. The alternatives outlined in the EIR, No's I through 4 appears to be very confusing and is misleading especially when Alternative 4 is chosen over Alt 1 or 3. As you are aware, Alternative 1 would be more environmentally acceptable - remaining as one residential parcel. Alternative 2 suggests 32 units, while Alternative 3 suggests 21 units, and Alternative 4 (the chosen one) would allow 28 units. Cluster homes are also incompatible with the surrounding homes and could impact neighboring home values as noted on page 2 -2 of the final EIR. In addition, geological hazards, storm water drainage and biological resources would be lessened by reducing the lots from 38 to 28, nonetheless, these problems would only be lessened and would result in loss of woodlands and animal habitat. The mitigation measures relative to water, schools, traffic give me extreme concern. Water: water is to be mitigated by retrofitting - -I assume by all businesses and residents of Arroyo Grande. It seems to me that Arroyo Grande residents have already been retrofitted to the max and as noted in Commissioner Parker's letter to the city dated 10/29/98, "permit new developments only where and when adequate water services can be provided and a provision of adequate water service can be insured by providing system -wide water improvements in advance of needs." Commission Parker also stated "it is imperative that we keep in mind the future of Lopez Dam ". Retrofitting of the dam will 1 1 1 1 1 1 MINUTES Arroyo Grande Planning Commission January 19, 1999 Page 7 of 24 be extremely costly and "the financial issue as well as the issue of water supply during the retrofit process needs to be addressed. Traffic: Commissioner Parker's comment on traffic as outlined in General Plan objective 8.06 states "insure that the approval of development proposals will not increase the traffic on our city streets.... above the roadway's existing capacity at the Level Of Service -C at the peak hour ". To suggest that the El Campo interchange which is still in the idea phase, . and may be 5 -10 years away, or not at all, will relieve traffic in Arroyo Grande is absurd. Accumulative effect from the Highlands, possible annexation of the Village Glen proposal into the City, the pending Cantrell property for 17 homes, (which was erroneously designated as "Self -Help Housing" and is actually on the other side of 101, and also refers to a non - existent Table 3), will increase traffic on Rodeo Drive, West Branch and Brisco interchange. This does not include traffic generated relative to the Wal -Mart Center. The response to traffic volume on page 3 -22, T -9, did not appear to be responsive to the flawed traffic study by Higgins & Associates. It is understood that residents on Rodeo Drive are sorely in need of traffic mitigation, and that the completion of Grace Lane might relieve part of that dilemma. Safety issues and excessive speeds on Rodeo Drive have been mentioned; however, with the cumulative impact of upstream housing developments leads me to believe that traffic on Rodeo Drive will only increase. As you are aware, the draft EIR for the Village Glen project off James Way mitigates their traffic impact by assuming Grace Lane is completed as a 2 -lane roadway and Rodeo Drive would be used as a traffic corridor. Schools: The EIR shows on page 3 -35, that the school districts current enrollment and capacity are as follows: AG High School - 148% of capacity Paulding Middle School - 131% of capacity Ocean View Elementary - 122% of capacity It is of extreme importance that the impact of additional students be considered especially when our schools are already overcrowded. Mitigation by assessing school fees just does not resolve this problem. Lucia Mar School District calculates that total over - capacity of all their schools is 2,502. We need schools!! In conclusion - mitigation measures have only slightly LESSENED the environmental impacts of the project ... not corrected or eliminated the problems. By suggesting that mitigating public service impacts should be studied for a year or two and to rely upon completion of El Campo overpass, to retrofit Lopez Dam and to resolve current and future traffic circulation problems by only reducing 38 lots to 28 is pure pie in the sky. These issues need to be resolved, not just lessened, before this EIR can be considered an environmentally sound project. There remain serious misgivings as to assessing park fees and school fees to relieve the immediate needs of this Community. Therefore, residents of Royal Oaks and Rancho MINUTES Arroyo Grande Planning Commission January 19, 1999 Page 8 of 24 Grande strongly urge the Commission to reject the final EIR and not forward it as certifiable to the City Council. In addition, no further expenditures of City Staff Time, or Architectural Review should be accomplished prior to a determination being made with regard to any changes in Ordinance No. 355. Respectfully, C.Z. Brown Tel: 473 -0128 350 Old Ranch Road, Arroyo Grande Ca 93420 Robin Greene, 393 Rodeo Drive, stated that she has lived on Rodeo Drive for ten (10) years. She further stated that she understood that tonight's hearing was limited to the consideration regarding whether the Commission should certify the EIR for Rodeo Heights projects, and that other issues pertaining to this project will be considered at a later date. She said that even though she is not qualified to discuss whether the EIR meets the criteria for the certification under CEQA guidelines, she would like to make a few brief comments about the situation that the residents face on Rodeo Drive with the potential impact of the development of the Rodeo Heights area. Mrs. Greene said that when she first moved to her home on Rodeo Drive in 1989 the traffic was at a volume and speed consistent with Rodeo Drive's designation in the General Plan Circulation Element as a local street designed for residential traffic and the minimization of pass through traffic. She went on to say that over the last several years the City and County have approved several ill- considered, excess density projects to the east and north of Royal Oaks. As a result, traffic on our street has increased in volume and number to levels consistent with a residential neighborhood. In a 1997, traffic study cited in the Village Glen EIR established the fact that at present than 2,300 trips a day occur on Rodeo Dr. This is unacceptable for a residential or local street. If the Village Glen project is approved, traffic counts could exceed 2,600 trips per day according to their EIR. Virtually everyone involved with City traffic issues, including Chief TerBorch, has remarked that Rodeo DR. traffic is the worst in the City. Mrs. Greene said that many times over the last several years, the neighborhood has tried to get the City to mitigate the problem. Each time the City Council mentioned that the development of Grace Lane is the only hope for traffic relief on Rodeo Dr. Beyond the installation of two (2) stop signs, nothing has been done. When the graded area across from the proposed Rancho Grande Park gets developed, and the WaI -Mart Center opens, the traffic will only worse. The development of the Village Glen project would further worsen the problem. She went on to say, that when she saw the plans for thirty -eight (38) homes with driveways spilling onto the street, she was disappointed in the design. She gave credit to her neighbors who worked hard to get the applicant to downsize the project to a more acceptable size. Never the Tess she stated that she wanted the Planning Commission to know that she does favor development of a project that includes the Grace extension. She 1 1 1 1 1 1 MINUTES Arroyo Grande Planning Commission January 19, 1999 Page 9 of 24 feels that only with the development of Grace Lane will the sixty (60) families on Rodeo Dr. have any hope of getting traffic relief and provide a safer living environment. She felt the applicant has, in her judgement, made significant and material improvements in his plans. He has eliminated all driveways from the access to Grace Lane, cars will be able to travel along the street and divert much of the traffic that comes along Rodeo each day. In making this change, he has eliminated the risk that she faces each day in entering and leaving her driveway. He has reduced his housing density by 30% and has increases the lot sizes. Reduced density means reduced environmental impacts for the neighborhood. She strongly urges the Commission, the City, the applicant and her neighbors to come to sensible resolution of these issues so her children and neighbor's children can grow up safely. Van Rodick, 413 Mesquite Lane, stated that he was a recent addition to the area and he felt it gave him a special confidence to get to the merits of the issues before the Commission tonight. His stated that his concerns are two -fold. The first is the logistics of the proposal. The second he called a 'residents infliction impact report ". He feels this is as important as any wild life that may be in the area that always gets preferential consideration. He felt that Mr. Brown had covered the logistics well, except for the traffic considerations. He said that without the "Big Box Atrocity" the Brisco Area will have a problem and each development will compound that. He further stated that in the future, besides EIR's, it would be useful to have "residential infliction impact reports ". which is how the residents in the area feel about the project. David Sachson, Chaparral, stated that he is a retired architect and he had moved to Arroyo Grande two years ago thinking that he had moved to a sleepy hamlet. Subsequently he found out that this was not true. He told the Commission that his neighbors had asked him to take a look at the site plans and to do some summation and ask some questions. He further explained that he was not there to speak for, or against, the project. He wanted to share with the Commission, his observations and rough calculations on the project. He raised the following questions: He questioned the differences in the names and designations on the old site plans and the newer site plans. The first was a designation called "Lot A, Open Space on the original plans. On the new plans there is a designation called "Building Restricted Open Space" which looks like the same area. These are really the same in terms of usage, but on one it is dedicated and on the other it is not. Using Lot three (3) as an example, the property line seems to define this parcel as going from the cul -de -sac up to the north property line and over to the east property line. Yet, the area of the buildable portion of the site is about half of what the total site is. This is true of about 75% to 80% of the parcels. He felt, if he was reading this correctly, if someone were to buy lot 3 they would buy the entire parcel. However, they would not be able to build on it by easement, dedication, topography, or economics. He explained that this happenstance effects all the figures he would be discussing. MINUTES Arroyo Grande Planning Commission January 19, 1999 Page 10 of 24 He said that another thing that was unclear to him was that the drainage easements were included or excluded from the described open space. Most of the site plans were generated by computers and he did not try to figure out the areas. But, there is a lot of land that is drainage easement and he can't figure out where that falls in the area calculations. He said that he would include this in the open space area. He showed the Commission that one building restricted open space was marked 1.8 acres and another one 1.7 acres. He hoped that the Commissioners could see that one space was larger than the other which leads him to believe that the drainage easement was taken out of the calculation. Another point he wanted to make is that at some time this space will be deemed not buildable, so if he were to buy this parcel and he wanted to build something, the City would have to deny him that right. He went on to say that the Lot Summary does not agree with the plans. He could not get the numbers to match up. He stated that there was a term used in the Lot Summary that is called "developable site area ". He did not know what the definition of that was. On the Lot Area Table it says "average lot area 12,120 square feet. On the plat map the largest usable area is 10,162 square feet. The average buildable lots range from 6,007 and the largest is 10,162 square feet, so he would like clarification on this. So, what are the figures based on? He told the Commission that he had prepared a simpler site summary that he would distribute to the Commission. He felt it would be well to see the total site area with the open space broken down into easements with the drainage, etc. He also suggested that there be a calculation of the circulation areas. He asked what section five (5) was because it wasn't clear to him. In summary, he said the key seemed to be how the various areas were described and how they were used to come up with the percentages and coverage. If this was described, everyone would feel more comfortable by knowing how the project would look. Beverly Cooper, 388 Rodeo Dr., the City has a Master Plan that says there are three (3) estate lots. The number of problems that will be generated with this project will be too great. There is already heavy traffic on Rodeo Drive and this will make it worse. She does not think that Grace Lane will mitigate this. This project will feed more traffic through the Rodeo Dr. area. The second problem is that she thinks there is too much pollution occurring now. Again, this project will increase pollution in this area. Ross Kongable, 255 Rodeo Dr.: The following letter was read and submitted. Commissioners: January 19, 1999 Subject: In regard to the Final EIR for the Rodeo Heights Project: The California Environmental Quality Act was created so that damage created by a change in the existing environs and surroundings of a community could be evaluated, and put on record. Then the community has an opportunity to object and /or approve, and the "decision - makers", i.e. the City Council in this case, will decide if such damage is warranted. 1 1 1 1 MINUTES Arroyo Grande Planning Commission January 19, 1999 Page 11 of 24 There, the shell game begins... this developer, hoping to maximize their benefits (profits) propose and put forth a project in the Draft EIR which will create the most damage to the environ and surrounding community: - 38 homes, on sub - standard Tots, with driveways backing out onto the roadway, (and that roadway built to discourage other than residential use), homes that are not consistent with the surrounding neighborhood, an evident increased demand on water, schools, noise levels, traffic and completely inappropriate for the setting...all this in a "canyon "... and they name it "RODEO HEIGHTS" Well.. sooprize. . sooprize.. after the community objects to this Draft EIR proposing such a development, outlining all the damage the project would create, the developer comes back in the final EIR with three alternatives (not counting the Number 1 alternative. which is . leave the area zoned as is, and develop according to existing code) Alternative 2 suggest 32 homes.. not 38.. a reduction of damage by 15 %.. (but they don't submit that plan for review) Alternative 3 suggests 21 homes.. not 38.. a reduction of damage by about 45 %.. (but they don't submit to plan for review either). Alternative 4 suggests 28 homes... not 38.. a reduction of damage by about 26 %.. (and they pick this one for review because. even though it does not meet environmental objectives... "it meets the development. objectives." Note that I have used comparisons of the alternatives with percentages of damage, because that is how the final EIR responds to all the damage assessments: "this, project has 10 fewer homes than 38.. thus less damage ". Does this community have to accept damage at all? Why is the only choice to accept more damage to our community? but we are allowed to choose the degree of damage. Is that the purpose of CEQA? To support the "basic objectives of the project" which is to burden the community and environment with more and more damage. In response to Land Use (LU -S page 3 -5), it is stated that since the City has no record of recorded CC &Rs for the tract, subdivision is permitted. Ordinance No 355 C.S. dated 19 May 1987, page 2, par SF: alternative institutional uses on Lots 182, 184 and B may be considered pursuant to PD amendment, zone change procedures, but in no event shall additional residential re- subdivision be considered." Why is it that once an ideal setting is found, and a community develops there, greed takes over and project after project are added until it is no longer an ideal setting. The previous city regime felt that Arroyo Grande needed a bigger job base - which would bring more people - which would require more housing - more commercial - which would bring more traffic - and a bigger tax base to provide more city services because the demand grows and MINUTES Arroyo Grande Planning Commission January 19, 1999 Page 12 of 24 grows.. And of course there are the commissions on real estate sales... does the city get a percentage of those ? ?? That is not why the majority of residents are here in the Five - Cities area. On page 182, Section 7.0 Alternatives it reads....... The CEQA Guidelines indicate that the range of alternatives evaluated in the EIR should be sufficient to allow decision - makers a reasonable choice between alternatives and a proposed project. This evaluation should not be speculative in nature but.. the alternative analysis should, however provide sufficient information to provide decision - makers with an understanding of the environmental merits and disadvantages of alternatives to the project." On page 202, Section 7.0: it reads.. "... compared to Alt 2 and 4, Alt 3 would involve less total development, and would occur on a more disturbed site with lesser biological and aesthetic resources. Further, Alt 3 would be consistent with the City's General Plan, while Alt 2 and 4 would require a General Plan amendment. Considering the above, Alt 3 would have less of an impact to natural environment, public services, and public utilities compare to Alt 2 and 3. Therefore Alt 3 would be environmentally superior to Alt 2 and 3. Nonetheless when considering onsite alternatives, Alt 4 would be environmentally superior to Alt 2.... "can anyone explain those statements? Are our Decision - makers going to use that statement as "sufficient information to determine the merits and disadvantages of any of the alternatives to Alternate)? Perhaps Staff in Community Development is also adept in Logic Development - but then how did they come up with their recommendation to the Commission: the proposed revisions would reduce environmental impacts of the project, and by themselves would not create any new, potentially significant environmental impacts." "by themselves" no new impacts but staff avoids advising about cumulative impacts of this and other projects of the surrounding area. Staff also reports that "the final EIR identifies mitigation measures.. .and (their) implementation of the identified measures would reduce the impacts to less than significant level ". "The final FIR concludes that impacts.... would be less than significant ". The author of the EIR concludes that? Who is the real author of the EIR? Where was the bar set in the first place? where does significant start? Perhaps it is customary to certify the final EIR proposal as the "lesser of alternative evils, and let the decision - makers decide how much damage the community is willing to accept. But it could also be customary for a community to stand it's ground and not accept further damage. The current property owner of that project knew the restrictions of that site.. knew the zoning established.. knew the fiscal possibilities of the site. That property is appropriately zoned, and if it is to be developed beyond that existing restriction - the benefit to the community should be commensurate with the benefits to the developer. 1 1 MINUTES Arroyo Grande Planning Commission January 19, 1999 Page 13 of 24 I would respectfully request that you NOT certify this EIR. ROSS KONGABLE Commissioner Parker stated to study the public service needs is good, but it left it hanging. She would like to see this situation mitigated. She would like to see, if there is a police or fire impact and it is proven that there needs to be more of these services because of these growth areas, it would be nice to calculate that into helping to pay for this increase. Commissioner Parker originally has some concern about the clustering of the homes. This is a complicated issue to her and something she is just beginning to understand the benefit of. She believes the clustering of homes can be a good thing. It saves the environmentally sensitive areas by not having to build into them. It is possible to create large open space green belts that are not someone's back yard but out in the open where people can hike and ride through them. So she thinks clustering is a benefit to the community especially as we are continuing to build out. However, she also believes that when the homes are being clustered, it still must be acceptable to the Community . around them. It needs to be compatible with the character of the surrounding area. In order to save open space and protect our environmentally sensitive areas, developing home sites in a cluster would obviously be more environmentally sensitive. Land use compatibility relates to physical design characteristics such as height, bulk, and density of development says page 71 of the draft EIR. So even in the EIR it states that density is an issue. Rodeo Heights is now at 6,000 sq. ft. lots requesting a variance to the City's Development Code lot size. The Development Code 9- 06.050a states that the minimum size lots are to be 7,200 sq. ft. A lot size less than this requires a variance which is what the developer is asking for. Land Use General Plan objective 7.1 states "to require that new developments be at an appropriate density or intensity based upon the compatibility with the majoring of existing land uses. As part of the development review process, treat the densities and intensity outlined in the Land Use Element as the maximum allowable. It further states in C. "where a question of compatibility exists, require the new use to conform to the lower density use ". Many people in the Community, mostly in the draft EIR have brought up the very valid concern of higher density. Stated that it is confusing about how much of the density issue remains an environmental problem and how much is a project report that has nothing to do with the specific density issue. Regarding traffic, the figures with this EIR are not consistent with any of the other traffic studies that have been done in the past years. To Commissioner Parker they do not work. She had looked at eight (8) previous reports, she had called the City to find the Higgins report that was referenced and they did not have it, she could not figure out where the numbers had come from. She would like to know that there was a level of C service as stated in the report when all other reports had stated a level of F service. She would like to make sure that the studies are correct. On page 3 -27, the last paragraph it states "with construction of the El Campo, U.S. 101 interchange the level may be substantial better at the East -West Branch, Wesley, and Traffic Way intersection. None - the -less no other plans for improvement in this intersection exist." Regardless, the purpose of the EIR is to MINUTES Arroyo Grande Planning Commission January 19, 1999 Page 14 of 24 address the impact of the project on this intersection. Because the project would not add any measurable traffic to critical movements effecting the operation conditions, impact were considered to be less than significant based on City criteria. Her feeling is if there is no impact at these intersections anyway, then no mitigation needs to be addressed and it shouldn't even be in the EIR. If however, there is a problem with those intersections, then not only do they need to be in the EIR, but also they need to be correct studies. She felt that there were many people at the meeting that had many legitimate concerns. She has many of her own that she already addressed in the Draft EIR. She doesn't feel that by decreasing project by ten (10) homes that this in any way mitigates the concern of the EIR itself. Lot sizes remain too small for the area, the impact of traffic is not addressed and she is disappointed by the final draft. The general land use compatibility's have not been adequately mitigated or addressed, nor have the traffic concerns. As C.Z. Brown stated, "by decreasing the homes to twenty -eight (28), the problems will be lessened but not mitigated. As Cindy Orr stated "the final draft is non - responsive in general." This report focused on the ten (10) eliminated homes rather than justifying the twenty -eight (28) that was left. And as Ross Konable stated, "the alternative analysis should provide sufficient information to provide decision makers with an understanding of the environmental merits and disadvantages of the alternatives to the project." She is wrestling with this report. She has a hard time saying to the developer saying that she is disappointed in the Final Draft. She would like to have seen a better response and a better address to the issues that were raised by the Community. Commissioner Keen stated that he agreed with Commissioner Parker on the compatibility of the lot size with the neighboring community. He does not feet that there is any way that this area should not be any smaller that the 7,200 square feet designated by the Development Code. He is very concerned about the removal of the Oak trees. In the EIR it says 2.7 acres will be cleared but it aloes not say where the Oaks are and how many will be taken out. The EIR says that the Parks Director requested a specific plan to be presented to him for his approval but, what he is afraid of, when it is given to a staff person to make a decision, they have to go by what is set out in the Ordinance. This may mean that they can be cut down and replace them by three (3). He thinks that the planning Commission ought to have that map and if need be have the areas redesigned to save those trees. The 2.7 really bother him because that is over a quarter of an acre because it could be two or it could be thirty. He would like to know exactly where they are. They have talked about all the other things including water and mitigation measures for retrofitting. He felt that the City was supposed to have an updated program for these issues but he has not seen it so he doesn't know so how far along they are with the retrofitting and if it is possible to keep on doing the program. 1 1 MINUTES Arroyo Grande Planning Commission January 19, 1999 Page 15 of 24 Most of the other questions that he had have been addressed in the EIR but he has a little different take on this and it is his opinion that Grace Lane will help Rodeo Drive and this is why he has always favored a development on this property. He feels that it will be a benefit to that neighborhood. There are traffic problems "downstream" that will happen anyway. If Grace Lane is not put in and then the go ahead is given to other projects to build out around it will be worse. Commissioner Haney stated that their activity at this meeting is really an evaluation of the EIR. There are two pieces to it, the Draft and the Final EIR. The issue for this evening is to say whether or not, in their judgement, the EIR has adequately identified the impacts associated with the project, appropriately analyzed them and proposes the appropriate mitigations. In his judgement, this set of documents needs a lot of work before he could vote to commit it to the City Council. They are a long way from having a tool that adequately informs the public and the decision - makers about the key impacts in an understandable way. He dislikes the process they have gone through with this EIR which started out with one set of assumptions, a thirty -eight (38) unit development, mid - stream it is switched to a twenty- eight (28) unit development and the problematic issues in the project by declaring that there are ten Tess units. With this moving target, it is hard for an experienced and able commissioner to keep tract of all the pieces and he can only imagine what it is like for the public to deal with these pieces. It presents a real problem for him to say that this is a set of documents that he could turn over to the City Council and say here is a coherent plan that they could look at and in some reasonable period of time they could pass judgement on it. Commissioner Haney also finds that the responses to the issues are largely non - responsive. They largely deal with the issue of the reduction of the ten homes. Many of the Commissioners and the public made many substantive points on the Draft EIR that he felt deserved and merited response within the EIR. What is the significance issue that the community assesses for land use impacts or aesthetics impacts. The Commission specifically asked that these be called out, not only for themselves but also for the public so that everyone_ could see them and agree or disagree or have their own opinion about them. Those are not visible unless you dig deep into the responses. This is problem_ atic for him. Consequently, they have missed an opportunity with this final draft to clarify a lot of the legitimate issues that were raised in the draft by not focusing on the responses. He has a lot of difficulty with the language, as he did in the initial draft. There are many sections in the final draft where there are vary vague and generalized language. Specifically he called out 2.2 of the plan. In the second paragraph, second sentence where they are describing the reduction of the number of units from thirty -eight to twenty- eight. In essence it says in addition the location and size of Tots included in this alternative are more consistent with the size of the lots in the surrounding area. If you read this and you did not look at the numbers you would be left with the impression that they are more consistent than the thirty -eight lot plan. But, if you look at the lots, only five of the twenty -eight Tots actually have more than twenty thousand square feet, which is the MINUTES Arroyo Grande Planning Commission January 19, 1999 Page 16 of 24 average lot size in . the surrounding area. The same number that was proposed in the original proposal at the very end for the larger lots. Thirteen of the twenty -eight lots, as several people have observed, fall below Development Code standards. It leaves a very misleading implication. At a minimum, there should be some tables which shows the numbers so the Commission and the Council does not have to do the math to disprove what is obviously a false statement. On 1.2, which refers to a design that the. Community submitted previously, where they recommended that there be a cul -de -sac design with twelve units. The proposed EIR have characterized this proposed redesign of the project that is similar to a design submitted by the Community. There are some similarities, but in terms of the number of units, twelve versus twenty- eight, lot sizes are vastly different, again the EIR is leaving a misimpression with everyone that somehow they have substantially done something to respond to the Community concerns. This is replete throughout the EIR. He would like all the summary conclusions be eliminated and if they are going to tell him something, tell him the facts, don't draw conclusions. This leaves an inability to determine if the impacts have appropriately been identified and evaluated so he can agree with them. He is equally confused with the traffic issues. What are they evaluating here? Is not clear in the Final EIR. They shift between twenty -eight units, thirty -eight units, does Grace Lane have a series of chokers to reduce the traffic flow and volume on Grace Lane. In the Draft EIR they don't, in the revised they do. They haven't changed the text in the original. If they chokers are there then the relief of traffic from Rodeo may not be as great. All of those on the Commission want to see some relief for Rodeo and they are all hopeful and optimistic that a project in this location may help bring this about. But again, a lack of clarity and specificity here leaves a vague impression what is occurring with the traffic. He also wrestles with the conflicting traffic study data that he sees in the reports. He still believes that they need to see a very specific evaluation of traffic volumes and shifts of the roadway segments in the immediate neighborhood with all of the approved and proposed projects in the area with the premise that Rodeo is a problem. There is a dismissal in both reports that Rodeo is a problem based on the fact that it has technical volume carrying capacity of x thousands of cars. Yet they have residents continually reporting safety issues. This has been going on for years so for a drafter or preparer of a Draft EIR not to start with that as an assumption means they are either ignoring it or they don't understand the issue. He believes there is a fundamental opportunity to shift some traffic off of Rodeo, the question is "at what cost ?" And, what is the density that they are going to be looking at in this project or in the area to support that? The traffic for him remains an open issue. He has three areas that he is going to identify three issues where he has very fundamental problems where he has a strong disagreement with the drafters of the EIR. These issues are not new. They were raised in the Draft EIR and he would have hoped that they would have been addressed in the Final EIR. 1. He believes there is a fundamental land use incompatibility with the original, and the alternative proposal. Furthermore, he believes this to be a significant environmental impact. He knows that this may be open to interpretation in a lot of people's minds. Mr. 1 MINUTES Arroyo Grande Planning Commission January 19, 1999 Page 17 of 24 Haney quoted from a previous EIR on the Village Glen project and the consultant's perspective on the land issues and whether or not the land issue impacts constitute the basis of a significant environmental impact. According to CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, "a project impact may be deemed significant if it would conflict with adopted General Plan designations or policies; create a land use incompatible with existing land use... ". Then it goes on to say "the identification of a significant effect for inconsistency with adopted plans is included in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. He had read those to make sure he understood the examples they were using and how they were applied as well as some of the attendant Court cases. The document went on to say, "inconsistencies with General Plan policies should be a material element in determining whether there is a substantial impact in the EIR. The very first item that it quotes says, "in the initial study was it determined that there was a possibility of incompatibility uses with the adjacent land ?" If you look at the CEQA Guidelines there were many boxes checked that should this possibility. The lot sizes are too small; the density of the development is too high. That is a significant impact. He thinks that this either needs to be mitigated or an alternatively there needs to be an overriding consideration. He feels that this impacts the property values of the surrounding neighborhoods.. When you look at the environment, this is a pure impact on the environment. This is extended from a physical impact to a fiscal one of valuation. While he is not suggesting that this be included in the consideration, he feels that this is appropriate to have this as a context to have this as a framework when they look at something like this. He believes that the criteria for significance is more than just "is it a single family residential unit ". He feels that it has to do with the character, quality, ambiance, and openness and with the feel of the area as to whether or not this is compatible with the immediately adjacent properties. Again, he would invite the drafters of the EIR to address this. 2. He believes the aesthetic impacts of the project are significant, contrary to how the Final Draft EIR are on the project. What is the appropriate standard that they should be addressing themselves too? What is allowed there is a single - family residence. To say that the addition of twenty -eight homes and a major roadway would not have a significant aesthetic impact in this area contrasted with a single - family residence defies common sense and logic. It is the sort of contorted language that we get into with the legalisms of CEQA. He feels they have to come back and apply some common sense to this and make an assessment as to whether there is an aesthetic impact. Largely, in the EIR, the framing of that for the conclusion that the drafters drew had to do with whether or not there was an immediate obstructive view with adjacent neighbors. If you look at the CEQA Guidelines you will see it is far more than that. They look at more than that specific aspect. They look at ridgelines, canyon lines and a whole series of things and not just immediately adjacent neighbors. This development represents a significant change from what was there and therefore a significant impact that needs a level of mitigation. The levels of mitigation that are currently proposed in the EIR, deal largely with dropping in a few five and fifteen gallon trees and in fifty to seventy -five years they will provide some screening for some of the adjacent neighbors. As Commissioner Keen stated, this is a wholly inadequate solution and it only deals with the immediate neighborhood. There is a grove of Oak trees that are identified on the site but it is not MINUTES Arroyo Grande Planning Commission January 19, 1999 Page 18 of 24 clear from the materials here what is to be done with them. Again, the mitigation of the Oak Trees is to replace them with three trees to one that is taken away. He would rather see something done with the design to preserve the Oak trees. He would like to retain the character of Arroyo Grande in every way he can. As he looks at the aesthetic impact, he comes to a very different conclusion that the drafters of the EIR. He would like to see the standards used in coming to the conclusions in the EIR. 3. His final issue has to do with noise. He believes the noise impact of the project is significant in terms of CEQA terms. His frame of reference has to do with several issues. First, what is existing there now. The area is zoned for a single - family residence. How much noise would that generate on the project site? How much of an impact will there be to the immediate adjacent neighborhoods. The standard of significance in the EIR states, "the noise levels for medium density quite suburban residential areas average from between 48 to 52 decibels. There is an impact on the adjacent property, according to this report, if they have DBA's that go above 60 decibels. However, we don't have a medium density residential in process or in location on that property. That is the impact. What there is a very quite canyon location. A canyon amplifies sound. The acoustics of the canyon are very important. They need to do some measurements in the canyon to see what the decibel levels are there currently. Then look at the medium density residential standard that is used for assessing that and make a judgement if the Commission determines that this a significant impact. We should not be assessing this just based on some average levels over twenty four hours. It should be looked at this in terms of its peaks, its spikes, its road way levels when cars are going by; those things are useful in a decision making process. It is not helpful to quote some average that may or may not be relevant in some urban environment. In conclusion, he stated that there is a significant impact with this project that requires mitigation either by adoption of something to reduce the dwelling units on the site or we have an overriding consideration; which is OK if there is a significant basis for doing that. He is not prepared to support the advancement of this project toward the City Council. It is in too premature form. He suggests that it either be continued or maybe someone else has another suggestion. He would like to see something happen to relieve some of the problems that the folks on Rodeo Drive are dealing with. To him this is an overriding consideration and a public benefit that may be merited by some of these things. He understands that there are some cost issues involved in the construction of the roadway. There is a project, Village Glen, that is going to generate more traffic and it will have an impact in the area. If the traffic count is 2,300 cars on Rodeo, before Wal -Mart opens, can you imagine the traffic that will be pulled through the canyon when that opens. We haven't seen the significant impact yet of the largest thing to come to the South County in terms of traffic impacts. Why, does he mention the Village Glen development? Because he thinks there may be a source of impact fees there that should be picked up and should be allocated specifically to the Grace Lane extension to help solve and mitigate some of the costs associated with this problem. If all the proposed projects pulled together there may be a way to reduce the overall density of the projects, create a by -pass of Rodeo and allow some of the traffic to flow off of that. 1 1 MINUTES Arroyo Grande Planning Commission January 19, 1999 Page 19 of 24 He feels that the EIR needs more work and he hopes his comments have been helpful to the drafters to this end. Chair Lubin stated that one of the over - riding considerations is Grace Lane extension. He feels that this is extremely important in this whole project. He is not sure if it is the number of Tots that are considerable in this project or whether it is not the number of lots, until the mitigation's in the EIR have been totally factual and been brought a point that everyone agrees on. It seems to him that there are a lot of questions left, unanswered questions. Questions that need to .be addressed by the developer and the drafter of the EIR. It also occurs to him that someone needs to encourage the homeowners and the developers to come together, as Robin mentioned, to some form of agreement that makes sense for this project. If this does not happen, this EIR will either be approved or turned down by the Planning Commission, will go to the City Council and the whole thing will start up again, leading to another series of conflicts. It appears to him that the best solution would be to come together to arrive at what is the proper solution for this project. He believes there should be a project at this location. He is very encouraged by what has already been done. The elimination of ten units was at least a start and some movement in the right direction. Was it enough? It is not enough to decide at this time. The Commission needs to decide is what is the environmental impact and is this report covering all those impacts? He could go through and list all the issues already raised by the Commissioners previously tonight. These issues need to be addressed in a manner that satisfies the Commission so it can, with good conscience, approve and ratify the EIR so it can move on to the City Council for their adoption. He would encourage the continuation of this item. He believes that if it has a little more work done to it, it can be resolved, hopefully between the developer and the homeowners, so it could come back to the Planning Commission as a report that provides for a solution to what he believes is a very important problem. He requested that Mr. Locacciato please, when he does a mitigation, please look into all the ramifications of that mitigation so that people end up quoting sections of it and causing laughter in the audience. He realizes that Mr. Foote takes pride in his work and he thinks it is a fantastic doc_ument. But, be aware of the impact it has on the public as a whole who are not professionals in this area, who look at a mitigation and say why does one thing effect another. From his prospective, they have been fortunate to have the input of a couple of Commissioners who have really done their "homework" and have provided a lot of detailed information. He supports those Commissioners and encourages the continuation of this item rather than have it rejected at this time. Mr. Lloyd spoke to the Commission likening the applicant' s position to that of a tennis ball, with the Commission with one racket and the Community with the other one. The applicant's have a unique position, because they may have started the game but it is out of their hands. They have no control over everyone's position. While they are in the problem solving mode also, i.e. trying to get to a better position, they are in a somewhat of a MINUTES Arroyo Grande Planning Commission January 19, 1999 Page 20 of 24 responsitory mode. He appreciates the input and he feels working with the Community is what needs to be done. He stated that no one comes out to be a 100% winner, not there should be. He is in support of a continuance, as is the EIR preparer. However, at some point the end has to come, the EIR needs to be taken to the Commission and acted upon. He would like to say that the EIR preparer, dealing with issues of what is significant, is not out of line, and he would like some respect for the preparer because he is doing his job consistent with the standards he works with. Mr. Lubin wanted to say that he did not feel that the Commission has any lesser feelings about the preparer of the EIR as anything but a true professional. It is just a question of what they would like to see in the report. He respects Mr. Locacciato's ability and his reports as they come before the Commission. On motion by Commissioner Haney, seconded by Commissioner Parker, it was moved that this item, approval of Rodeo Heights Project Final Environmental Impact Report, be continued to an unspecified date to be determined by the Applicant and Staff. The motion was approved by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Haney, Keen, Parker and Chair Lubin NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Greene PUBLIC HEARING — TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2306 AND VARIANCE 98 -211 (JORGENSON) Contract Planner Lezley Buford presented the staff report to the Planning Commission. The proposal is to subdivide a 0.88 acre lot into four parcels. She explained that the Variance is requested to permit the applicant to leave the section of Alpine in front of the parcel in its present condition, with a curb to curb width of 32 feet. The standard width is 40 feet, curb to curb. The purpose of the variance is to permit development of the site without grading for additional street width, and thus avoid disturbance of an archaeological site identified on the project site. This archaeological site, Number SLO -393, consists of an intact midden (trash burial site) on the eastern portion of the proposed tract site. The visible midden covers an area measuring approximately 325 feet (north- south) by 100 feet (east -west) and is more than four feet deep. There is also a 20 -foot by 20 -foot Indian burial area at the southwest corner of the site. The Applicant, Jerren Jorgensen briefly reviewed the history of the project. He stated that he was in attendance at tonight's meeting to answer any questions the Commissioners had for him. Jim Adelman 302 Woodland, stated that the reality of this is there will be something built on the site. The reason he wanted to address the Commission was that there was dirt deposited on the site several months ago and repeated phone calls to the City of Arroyo Grande made them realize that there was something being done with this property. As far as the road widening, he feels it would be bad to not widen it, because it is a very narrow road. One of the options he would like to propose is possibly having the entrance to the 1 MINUTES Arroyo Grande Planning Commission January 19, 1999 Page 21 of 24 property come from a different direction to cut down on some of the traffic flow on the narrow road. Kavoshi Sakurai, 271 S. Apline St., lives across the street and feels that there are many problems on this street because it is so narrow. He would like to see the street widened. He stated that there were other neighbors that felt the same way that were that were unable to attend this evening. Chett Williams, 649 Sierra Vista Circle, stated that the dirt was a big surprise to him. When they called the City and the City did not know what was happening he didn't like it. He didn't like being lied to. If a project is going to be done then the people doing it should go through the proper channels. The street is a sub - standard street and the sewer would be a problem. The traffic on that street is terrible. He knows that the houses will be put in there eventually, but if it is done in the right way he has no problem with it. But, the traffic is a big problem. If there are Indians there then move them and do the project. Don Selvv, 251 South Alpine, wanted the Commission to ask Staff again about the burial site. He was under the impression that the burial site was back beyond the residential subdivision. In addition to being a former planner he is currently a certified building inspector so he wanted to talk about the fill needed to compact the area. If two story houses are allowed he felt more fill would be needed. If two story houses were build they would be towering over the houses across the street. So, if the full 2 feet of compaction is not allowed then restrict it to one -story houses. This would accomplish two things: the houses across the street would not be towered over; not as much fill has to be brought in. As far as the street widening goes, he does not feel it would be necessary considering the archeological site as long as there is no red curb along the property. The only part that should be red curbed is where the street narrows down on the south part of Alpine. Chair Lubin closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Keen stated that he had no problem with this project. He felt it was time that it was developed and was glad to see the larger lots. The Variance requested by the applicant was reasonable considering the archeological findings. Commissioner Haney had a question for Craig Campbell, which was at what point in this process will Public Works be looking at the soil issue and compacting issue with regards to if it is, or is not, appropriate. Mr. Campbell stated that there are two soils issues, one being unrelated to this project but it may be overlapping. If this project is approved, then a grading plan will be processed that will end up with two feet of fill over the site. This will help them comply with their Conditions of Approval that limits them to eighteen inches of trenching depth. MINUTES Arroyo Grande Planning Commission January 19, 1999 Page 22 of 24 Mr. Haney asked if the Conditions that were a part of the project now would allow the soils to be compacted on site. This would not be a future condition that the public would have a further opportunity to comment on? Mr. Campbell replied that this was correct. Commissioner Parker stated that she does hear the Community's concern about the road. She had driven out to the site and seen the narrow condition of the road. But she did feel that this was one of those times where there is nothing to be done because of the archeological site. She feels that Dr. Jorgensen has done a good job of working things out and she appreciates that and she has no problem with it. Chair Lubin stated that after reading the conditions he realized they are very stringent. He felt also that the burial sites were in a different area. Mr. Lubin said that he agreed with Mr. Selvy in that he thought the burial sites were somewhere else. The plan mentions the fact that there will be a path to the burial sites as dedicated open space. Ms. Buford stated that the easement was being left so that there was a path to the "reburial" site. There was a body found in a different area across the street when the original tract was developed, however, the midden was found in the middle of the parcel some of the artifacts that were found were associated with a burial site. Mr. Lubin stated that he was not usually in favor of narrow streets, but in this case he felt that the Commission's hands are tied because of the restrictions of the archeological site. He also recognizes the concern of the neighbors concerning the two story houses but that will be left until the design elements are brought in. Again, the narrow street will continue and there is no hope of resolving this problem. Commissioner Haney moved to for adoption of 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 in approving Tentative Parcel Map No 2306 and approving Variance No. 98 -211 located at Alpine Way before Fair Oaks and Dodson Way, applied for by Jarren Jorgensen subject to Exhibit A. DISCUSSION ITEMS NONE PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS Mr. Lubin thanked all the staff and the employees of the City for their help and the time and effort they have put in to support himself and the Commission in all the things they have attempted over the last three and one -half years. He would also like to thank the Commission itself, starting with Dan O'Donnell, Fran Rondeau who are no longer on the Commission. He would also like to thank Larry Greene, Del Haney, John Keen, and Nanci Parker for their energies and their input. The Commission has gone through several projects that been significant to the City in both size and energy that would cause and had a lot to do with the future of the City of Arroyo Grande. Regardless of the outcome of those projects, regardless of the opinions on those projects, he feels that the Commission 1 1 1 MINUTES Arroyo Grande Planning Commission January 19, 1999 Page 23 of 24 has worked extremely well together and He, for one, has been extremely proud to be on the Commission. He personally would also like to thank Jim Hamilton for his work and for what he has accomplished since his short time with the City and he would also like to go on record to thank Doreen Liberto - Blanck for her energies and dedication to the City of Arroyo Grande. She was extremely helpful to him when he came on the Commission and when he took over as Chairman of the Commission. He stated that he had one last comment to make. He said that one of the things that he tries to guide himself on during the last three and one -half years is the recognition that there are differences of opinions, and varying degrees of opinions, and it is very important that all future Commissioners would consider that the City is larger than just one area. He would encourage everyone on the Commission in the future to look to the potential for . compromise and for the potential for bringing the Community together. He hopes that the Community would not be torn apart over items such as they have seen in the past. He would also hope that the new Commission would work as smoothly as this one has done in the past. Commissioner Haney stated that he would like to thank staff, as this was also his last meeting. To Craig Campbell and all the other folks that he has had the pleasure of working with maybe not always agreed with, nor has he always been agreed with, in some issues. But, he has really enjoyed the professionalism, particularly that Jim, Lezley and Craig have brought to the activities. He stated that he also, as Sandy Lubin had stated earlier, that there was something he was going to miss. He feels that what he will miss Is the professional comrades that one develops as one goes through and share the activities that everyone works together on. These are the things that he will treasure long after the short time that he has been in this position and for that he is extremely grateful. He feels grateful also that Sandy Lubin has been the leader for the time that he has been on the Commission and he has been very fortunate that he has worked with Dan O'Donnell, Fran Rondeau and the current Commission. He feels, as individuals, that they are dedicated and committed to the City's interest. He also feels, as Mr. Lubin does, that they will go forward and Zook out for the interests of the City. Commissioner Parker thanked both Commissioners and stated as a member of the public that had come before the Commission, she always felt comfortable and that the things she had to say were listened to. She felt it was a privilege to become a member of the Commission. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP REPORTS: Mr. Hamilton thanked both Commissioner Haney and Chair Lubin for the excellent job they had done as Commissioners. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by Chair Lubin at 12.30 a.m. MINUTES Arroyo Grande Planning Commission January 19, 1999 Page 24 of 24 ATTEST: Kathleen Fryer, Commission( Ierk AS TO CONTENT: Roe James Hamilto , AICP Community Development Director 1