Loading...
PC Minutes 1998-12-151 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION December 15, 1998 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Lubin presiding. Present are Commissioners Keen, Parker, Haney and Greene. Also in attendance are staff members Community Development Director Jim Hamilton, Associate Planners Tom and Lezley Buford, and Senior Consultant Engineer Craig Campbell. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 1 - Letter from John R. Ziomek, D.P.M. dated 12 -15 -98 (Agenda Item II.A) 2 - Letter From A. Wysong, dated 12 -15 -98 (Agenda Item II.A) PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 98 -571, PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM CASE NO. 98 -129; APPLICANT: HALFERTY DEVELOPMENT /RITE -AID; APPLICATION TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A RETAIL PHARMACY; LOCATION: NORTHEAST CORNER OF OAK PARK BOULEVARD AND GRAND AVENUE Associate Planner Tom Buford advised that Planned Sign Program No. 98 -129 will involve one or more variances to achieve what the applicant wishes to do, and instead of submitting an incomplete Planned Sign Program, the sign application will be brought back to the Commission at a later date. Mr. Buford advised that the site size is 2.58 acres and sits on the northeast corner of Oak Park Boulevard and Grand Avenue. He briefly reviewed history of the site and proposed access according to the preliminary site plan. He advised that the proposal includes landscaping of the site, and parking spaces to be provided are 86 spaces and, according to the Development Code, 67 spaces are required. The proposal includes one space for motorcycle parking and bicycle racks will be installed. Also proposed is a two lane drive - through pharmacy; one lane with the pharmacy window and the other lane would be served by a vacuum tube. Those vehicles leaving the pharmacy would proceed northbound and either exit on Oak Park or return to Grand Avenue. Mr. Buford stated that a part of the project is to install a bus pocket east of the project site on westbound Grand Avenue. At the intersection, Grand Avenue would be re- striped to provide a right turn lane but there would be no change in the curb at that point, and Oak Park would be widened by 5 feet from Grand to Brighton Avenue, and would also be re- striped to provide an extra lane of traffic. The intersection of Grand Avenue and Oak Park would be re- striped in cooperation with the City of Grover Beach. He commented that traffic is a major consideration, and part of the process involves looking back at the previous projects and determining the impact of traffic at the site. He referred to the previous Williams Bros. Market on the site and the proposed Von's project. He pointed out that the Von's proposal was the basis for a traffic study by Omni -Means and, based on the square footage and other 2 components of the project, Omni -Means estimated that 4,748 daily trips would be involved. In terms of Rite Aid utilizing the Institute of Transportation Engineers data estimate of 40.7 trips per 1,000 square feet for a retail specialty center, 680 daily trips for the Rite Aid proposal was estimated as noted in the staff report. Mr. Buford advised that the Architectural Advisory Committee reviewed this project on November 23, 1998, and the Staff Advisory Committee has also reviewed the project. The Environmental Review in this case was a mitigated negative declaration and was circulated for public review. The public review period closed today at 5:00 P.M. and staff received no public comments in response to the mitigated negative declaration. He pointed out that, as noted by the Chair, two public comments were received in writing with regard to the project. The letter from Dr. Ziomek, dated December 15, 1998, addressing traffic concerns at the corner of Brighton and Oak Park, and the effect of the project. His concern specifically is Oak Park between Grand Avenue and Brighton, and he requested that a stoplight be placed at that intersection to allow pedestrians to cross safely. Another letter, dated December 15, 1998 from John A. Wysong also discusses traffic concerns at Oak Park and Brighton. The letter states that it is difficult for the elderly and is a safety hazard for children to be crossing Oak Park Boulevard. Mr. Wysong also requested that a stoplight be installed at that intersection. He recommended an extra lane on Grand Avenue from Courtland to Oak Park to assist 18- wheelers entering the store site. Mr. Buford briefly reviewed Commissioner Haney's comments regarding the 1995 Omni -Means traffic analysis. He noted that the roadway improvements proposed by Omni -Means included three components and he questioned why only two were included in the project. Mr. Buford advised that one aspect is the current status of the intersection; another relates to the reduced number of daily trips that would be generated by this project as compared to the Von's project, and the impact on the anticipated Level of Service at the intersection. The analysis at the P.M. peak hour intersection Level of Service summary that was included in the Environmental Impact Report indicating that, with regard to General Plan buildout and anything in between, the Level of Service at the intersection of Grand Avenue and Oak Park Boulevard would remain at least at Level C, and the same for the A.M. period remaining at Level C. He noted that the conclusion reached is that the improvement of putting in the left turn lane at the corner of Oak Park and Grand Avenue would not be necessary in order to maintain Level of Service C, and that Level of Service would be maintained especially with the improvements that would be required as a condition for the project. In response to Chair Lubin's question regarding the widening of Oak Park Boulevard, Senior Consultant Engineer Craig Campbell advised that the overall plan for Oak Park Boulevard does include widening on both sides, however, the current funding is prioritized for the east side. Mr. Campbell noted that the northbound "S" curve is a challenge and is going to have to be addressed. 1 1 1 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION . 3 December 15, 1998 After further questions and comments between staff and the Commission, Chair Lubin opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to make a presentation. Dan Lloyd, EDA, 1320 Nipomo Street. San Luis Obispo. stated he is representing the Rite Aid development. Mr. Lloyd stated he has a lot of history with this project and with this property and, in his opinion, staff has been very thorough with the 70 recommended conditions of approval. Mr. Lloyd stated this is a much smaller scaled project than the one previously proposed. He noted that this parcel is separate from the one next door, and it was his feeling that the project that might be developed on the adjoining parcel would be somewhat similar in scale to this project. Mr. Lloyd reviewed various aspects of the proposed project including access, the bus turn -out lane, the left turn stacking lane distance, drainage, on -site improvements and street improvements. He pointed out that the project has been before the Commission for pre - application review and has been reviewed by the Architectural Advisory Committee and the Staff Advisory Committee. A lot of good feedback and input was derived from those meetings and has been coordinated into the project. Mr. Lloyd briefly described some of the architectural features of the project and requested that the Planning Commission approve the project tonight and approve the negative declaration. In answer to Commissioners Haney and Parker's question regarding the open space and landscaping at the rear of the property, Mr: Lloyd stated he doesn't believe the 8 foot chain Zink fence back there is on their property. He commented it is their goal to screen that area with landscaping and permanent open space. Commissioner Keen stated one of his concerns is the Oak Park /Grand Avenue intersection and the fact that if the widening of Grand Avenue is not addressed now, when the other project on the corner comes in, it will be too late. Mr. Lloyd commented that there would be a right turn lane with this project. He explained that originally what they were going to do with the right turn lane was put the bus turn- out lane on the other side and leave this the way it is today. He stated if there is a serious concern, it might be possible to offer a little bit more frontage. Herb Hart, representing Peace Lutheran Church, stated he is on the Board of Directors as the church's Property Chairman. He advised that one of their concerns is the retaining wall between the two properties, which was built by Giant Foods on the church's property. He noted that their property line is at the base of the wall and the wall has deteriorated quite a bit since it was built. There was an alley way there for many years that serviced the markets and trucks would hit the wall breaking out sections of the wall. He stated that two years ago there was a hole in their parking lot, caused from the water that gets in behind the wall and takes the sand out. If this continues they are eventually going to lose their parking lot. He commented they ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION 4 December 15, 1998 are also concerned about the liability if that wall does let go and their parking lot ends up on their neighbor's property. Mr. Hart pointed out that the condition of the wall has changed since the building there was demolished because the concrete alley that ran at the base of the wall, which helped support the wall, was also torn out. Mr. Hart stated another concern they have is the widening of Oak Park Boulevard, noting that they do have quite a bit of street frontage on Oak Park, which includes the parking lot, the church and the house next door to the church. Mr. Hart questioned how much property they are going to lose and what the width of the sidewalk will be? Mr. Hart also commented regarding a concern on Oak Park where, in his opinion, a mistake was made years ago when they installed two left turn lanes on southbound Oak Park on to Grand Avenue. He stated he doesn't think this was needed then or is needed now, and the only thing it did was narrow northbound Oak Park making it very difficult to make that turn and not end up in the opposite traffic lane. He suggested eliminating that second left turn lane and making it a northbound lane. Other concerns include water drainage from the church property and the question of under grounding utilities with the widening of Oak Park Boulevard. Mr. Hart also inquired what they are going to be looking at from the back of this building and the roof top? Will they be screening heating and cooling units and other equipment? Ken McKently, McClellan Hunter Architecture, responded to Mr. Hart's concerns with respect to the side of the building that will be facing the church and reviewed architectural features used to break up the expanse of the building. He pointed out that there are raised parapets, which help screen, the roof top units, and if they are visible, they will be screened individually. However, the roof slopes from front to back and a lot of the units will actually be screened by the parapet itself in the raised areas so there shouldn't be a problem with that. In response to questions from the Commission, Mr. McKentley reviewed the proposed garden center and also the colors and materials proposed for the project. In response to Commissioner Parker's question as to how the wall is going to be handled, Mr. Lloyd advised that the wall is located on the adjacent property and appears to be undermined, so they will work with the church and their people to try to come up with a way to handle the erosion and also take steps to stabilize the wall. He stated they would also work with the church on a solution to the drainage that has been causing the problem. Jim Strahl, commented regarding the site elevation difference between the church and the project site, stating that the church site will be looking at the roof of the proposed project. He also inquired about the sewer line that runs right along the edge of the church property and asked if they are going to tie into that sewer line. 1 1 1 1 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION , 5 December 15, 1998 Commissioner Greene questioned the landscape architect regarding the choices of some of the landscaping materials, stating he would like to get together with him and suggest some alternatives. Mr. Lloyd stated they will be back before the Commission for a variance on the signs and would welcome any input on the landscaping at that time. Commissioner Keen referred to the large oak tree that was cut down for the development of the Von's project, stating that a lot of time was spent addressing mitigation measures on the removal of that oak tree. Some of that mitigation was on this property which was a condition to allow those trees to be cut down. He asked what the developer's responsibility is now with regard to those trees? Jim Halferty, Halferty Development, reviewed some of the history of the property, commenting that one of the mistakes was taking the oak tree down prematurely and is something that is going to have to be addressed when development is proposed on that property because, in his opinion, that is where the mitigation belongs. Mr. Halferty also noted that when the project was before the Commission last spring on a preliminary basis, a second building was proposed. However, it turns out that the property is not quite big enough to comfortably fit in both the Rite Aid building, which is almost 17,000 square feet, and another shop building and still provide adequate parking, and yet it is too big for Rite Aid by itself, so the community is going to benefit from the open public area with very nice landscaping, which will also provide a screening for the concrete drainage wall. This will hopefully offset in some way the loss of the oak tree. Commissioner Greene suggested that perhaps some modifications could be made in the open space landscaping that might incorporate some of the natural vegetation and trees that were on the site originally. He further suggested that the landscaping issue come back to the Planning Commission after the City staff has reviewed it. Mr. Halferty commented that Von's acted hastily in removing the trees, and although Halferty Development is not responsible for that mistake, they will address those concerns and they would be agreeable to bringing the landscape plans back to the Commission. Commissioner Haney noted his concurrence with the Architectural Advisory Committee's recommendation that an additional tree well is needed on the west wall to help break up that building mass. Chair Lubin commented that the landscaping plan would be brought back to the Commission for more of a visual concept. Hearing no further comments from the audience, Chair Lubin closed the public hearing and restricted further comments to the Commission. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION 6 December 15, 1998 Associate Planner Tom Buford referred to Condition #54 with regard to access, noting that the applicant would guarantee there would be common access to the site and it was his feeling that staff would prefer if the eastern site is going to use this access as the access to their site, that the project be conditioned on a deed restriction of some kind on the eastern portion. That would ensure that either the current owner or any future owner is aware of the fact that in order to reach that site from Grand Avenue, they have to use the access across the applicant's property. Mr. Buford pointed out that with regard to the retaining wall, there is no condition in the project that would require any action by the applicant pertaining to the retaining wall that is on the church's property. Commissioner Greene commented it is important, in his opinion, that the church representatives understand that the City is not in a position to dictate to the applicant that they work on the retaining wall, and at this point it is a matter of a gentleman's agreement Mr. Buford stated there has been discussion about landscaping being brought back to the Planning Commission, and he suggested that Condition #22 would be the appropriate condition to add that requirement. Other changes to the conditions were recommended by Commissioner Keen as follows: Condition #8 - amend last sentence to read: "Only high pressure sodium lights shall be used for all external lighting." Condition #9 - eliminate the words "or Sundays" at the end of the sentence. After additional discussion and comments from the Commissioners, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 98- 1679 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 APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 98 -571, APPLIED FOR BY HALFERTY DEVELOPMENT, AT GRAND AVENUE AND OAK PARK BOULEVARD, 1650 GRAND AVENUE WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AS AMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY STAFF On motion by Commissioner Greene, seconded by Commissioner Haney, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Parker, Keen, Haney, Greene and Chair Lubin NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing resolution was adopted this 15 day of December 1998. 1 1 1 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION. 7 December 15, 1998 PUBLIC HEARING - DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION, ROSEMARY LANE EXTENSION; REQUEST BY CASTLEROCK DEVELOPMENT FOR A GRADING PERMIT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A SECONDARY ACCESS ROAD TO PROVIDE EMERGENCY ACCESS ONLY TO TRACT 1834 - PHASE 5. Associated Planner Lezley Buford advised that the project before the Commission is to take comments on a proposed emergency secondary access road to service Tract 1834 Phase 5. She stated that as proposed originally, Tract 1834 Phase 5 had access off of James Way at two points. During the hearings on the project and the hearings on the Environmental Impact Report that was prepared for the project, there were concerns expressed regarding having two accesses, particularly the access to the west onto James Way and safety issues were raised. At that time, the project was conditioned to provide a secondary emergency access through the area that is now the proposed tentative tract 1998. Upon receiving an application for a grading permit, the Public Works Director determined that there should be further environmental review on the proposed road extension and meeting this condition of approval. Ms. Buford pointed out that while preparing the Initial Study, the owner of Tract 1834, Castlerock Development, also then acquired the area that is now Tract 1998. When this occurred there was some concern raised regarding the environmental review that would be necessary for Tract 1998 and the relationship between the two projects. However, because the road is a condition of approval for Tract 1834 and because of the applicant's desire to move ahead, secure building permits and final the map for Tract 1834, they have asked staff to do the environmental review for the road only as a secondary emergency access for Tract 1834 Phase 5. She stated that, in light of the fact that Tract 1998 is now also in the process, the City required consultant prepared studies regarding issues such as biology, hydrology and drainage, which are all, attached to the Draft Negative Declaration. She further stated that when Tract 1998 came in for processing, there were concerns raised in consultation with the Army Corps of Engineers, Fish and Game, as well as with the City regarding the wetlands on the site, and the applicant was asked to submit a wetlands delineation data form. She advised that the responsible agencies that are also involved and will be using this document are the Army Corps of Engineers because of existing wetlands on the site, Department of Fish and Game because of the crossing of the creek, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board because of possible discharge into the waters. She noted that the public review period on the Draft Negative Declaration closes at 5:00 p.m. on January 8th and comments will be accepted until that time. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION 8 December 15, 1998 In answer to Commissioner Greene's question regarding EIP's recommendation that the proposed crossing of Meadow Creek be a single span bridge replacing the box culverts, Ms. Buford advised that the design EIP is recommending would avoid impacts to the streambed and to the banks because they would not be disturbed and there would not be as much fill required as the design that is being proposed by the applicant. She commented that the purpose of the hearing tonight is to hear comments from the public and the Commission, and attached them to the Final Negative Declaration, or address those comments through changes in the Negative Declaration or mitigation measures and forwarded them to the Public Works Director for his decision on the grading permit. In answer to Chair Lubin's question as to who initiated the Draft Negative Declaration, Ms. Buford advised that the Public Works Director initiated the environmental review and asked the Community Development Department to move forward on the environmental review because of the issues identified. With regard to Chair Lubin's question as to authority in terms of the negative declaration, Ms. Buford stated that the decision- making body must approve the Negative Declaration and make a finding that all of the impacts have been mitigated or are less than significant and, in this case, it is the Public Works Director. She further stated that normally a grading permit is considered ministerial, in other words, if the code is met and plans provided, it is similar to a building permit. She noted, however, in this case because of the environmentally sensitive area, it was kicked up to require an environmental review. Ms. Buford explained that this document has been separated from the environmental review because it is to provide an emergency secondary access for an existing approved tract, and was a condition of approval. Commissioner Parker stated it was her understanding that CEQA guidelines stipulate that a segment may not be pulled out of a whole EIR as mandated on a parcel to be given a lower level of review and, if it is, it is in violation of CEQA. Ms. Buford stated that would be what is referred to as "piece meal ". She noted that because of the condition of approval and the fact that it is an approved tract and because of the secondary emergency access road, the environmental review is on a different project that happens to be located on a parcel that has a proposed development on it, however, they are only seeking approval for the road as secondary emergency access. The developers have agreed that this in no way constitutes environmental review for anything having to do with Tract 1998. In response to Chair Lubin's question if this project will come back before the Commission, Community Development Director Hamilton advised the Commission could request that but cannot require it. He stated that the Public Works Director is 1 1 1 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION 9 December 15, 1998 responsible for making the decision on whether or not to issue a grading permit, and that is why the Community Development Department is doing the environmental work. He noted this is the opportunity he chose in order to get public input because of the controversial issues. After further discussion, Chair Lubin opened the public hearing and invited comments from the audience. Darren Shetler, owner of Castlerock Development, reviewed some of the history of the project and how he became involved in it. Don Ritter. representing Castlerock Development, responded to Commissioner Haney's question regarding their willingness to adopt some of the recommendations made by the consultant who reviewed the negative declaration information regarding the crossing, possible realignment of the road, etc. Mr. Ritter stated their position is they have a problem with a lot of the issues the consultant has come up with and he disagrees with some of their recommendations. He commented they are not opposed to relocating the road or putting a bridge in if it is really warranted, however, he has personal doubts as to whether it is in fact warranted. He further stated he would rather hear the public's comments and the Commission's comments on the negative declaration so they will be able to provide a comprehensive response to the Community Development Department by January 8 Bob Brownson, resident of Highlands Estates, stated he is representing a group of homeowners who are very concerned about the environmental impact of the proposed plan for tentative tract 1998. He pointed out that Rosemary Lane turns in, as the applicant has designed it, as a one way road leading in and through tentative tract 1998, so this road is an extension of another road that plays a major roll in tentative tract 1998. The concerns expressed by the homeowners are what this extension does to the environment. Mr. Brownson commented that Rosemary Lane's extension seems to be a premature subject for approval since it is also proposed as the access road to the majority of the proposed tract 1998 home sites, and it is also proposed as an emergency access road to the undeveloped eastern portion of tentative tract 1998, so the fingerprints of 1998 are all over this extension plan; the conditions are all one and the same. He pointed out that on August 4 this Commission directed at the suggestion of the memo prepared by staff, that a full scale EIR be required for tentative tract 1998. At that time that request was done following a preliminary scoping study done by the EIP Associates in San Francisco, who did the preliminary study on tract 1998. It was that study that led the staff to direct a memo to the Commission requesting that an EIR be asked for by the Commission. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION 10 December 15, 1998 Mr. Brownson noted that the draft EIR of tentative tract 1998 is still to be presented to the Planning Commission. He stated the full picture needs to be considered, including all of the environmental and building constraints therein. The Rosemary Lane extension should not be considered until the overall impact of Rosemary Lane in total can be determined. He further stated he is aware this takes time and holds the project back somewhat, however, they ask that the Public Works Director consider putting this on hold until the EIR on tentative tract 1998 has been completed and all of the environmental issues around this can be looked at. He stated there are serious environmental concerns and need for constraint in the construction of this extension road. While the negative declaration draft explains the project could have a significant effect on the environment, the concerned Highlands residents disagree; we say this extension plan would definitely have significant negative effect on the environment, and that the mitigation measures presented in that document do not reduce the environmental impact of grading and building the Rosemary Lane extension to Tess than significant as indicated in that document. Mr. Brownson commented that the basis for a great reference point is what EIP prepared and is labeled as Figure 1 in their study. It identifies all of the areas of concern such as the Coastal Scrub, the Freshwater Marsh, the Coastal Live Oak Forest, the endangered species Pismo Clarkia, and the Riparian Forest Areas In looking at the planned extension lane and in looking at that map, you will see that almost all of those areas of environmental concern fall within the path that the road takes. He pointed out that there is no indicated mitigation measure suggested in the report for the Pismo Clarkia and asked that it be considered. He addressed the issue of preservation and maintenance of oak trees, pointing out that this plan calls for the killing of 40 coast live oak trees on one segment of the path and the clearing of 3 coast live oak forests. For the most part these trees would be mitigated on a five to one ratio with the requirement they be properly irrigated and maintained. He advised that the EIP report states it is likely some nesting bird activity occurs within the construction corridor, and that such activity would kill eggs and cause birds to abandon their nests. Mr. Brownson stated that all of the above are violations of the environment directly in the path of the corridor of the extension of Rosemary Lane, including the unnecessary removal of habitat, the killing of oak trees, the violation of the Clarkia, and the damaged fresh water marsh land and seasonal wetlands. He also addressed the issue of the re- vegetation plans stating locally collected plants were not specified and they really must be specified, otherwise seeds and plants from other areas can be inappropriately imposed in this area. They also want to make sure that the creek and adjacent wetlands are being protected. He stated it seems that the bridge, 1 1 1 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION . 11 December 15, 1998 because it spans over those areas, would be a far better alternative. He commented that what the Highlands group is mostly concerned about is the impact that this very same extension does to the environment in tract 1998. Don Ritter, Castlerock Development, presented a copy of a vesting tentative map for tract 1834 which was approved in 1991 with this road as part of Phase 5, stating that this road existed long before tract 1998 ever existed. He commented when they submitted their grading plan two years ago for Phase 5, they naturally submitted a grading plan for Rosemary Lane because it was their feeling it was part of that tract. It was at that point that the issue came up about the environmental review, and if the road had been reviewed. The developers argued strenuously that the road had been reviewed He stated he has copies of the preliminary and the final EIR for Tract 1834, and there is a whole section in the back which talks about tract 1998 where the road goes through. The EIR is very clear in its statement that it does not cover tract 1998, and that is why we have to do an EIR for that tract. When this plan was approved, it was known that Rosemary Lane was going to go through there as part of Tract 1834. Mr. Ritter stated they then bought tract 1998 and it only makes sense to access it off of the road that is already existing, and it would be foolish not to utilize that road for the design of tract 1998 because it runs right through the middle of it Mr. Ritter addressed issues in the draft negative declaration and concerns brought up tonight by Mr. Brownson. To clear up any confusion, Chair Lubin noted it was stated that an Environmental Impact Report was done on Tract 1834 and there was no Environmental Impact Report prepared for Tract 1998. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Lubin closed the public hearing and reserved further comments to the Commission. Commissioner Parker read a statement expressing her concerns with the draft negative declaration. One of her concerns is the crossing of the creek and the proposed crossing structure. She commented she sees this as a huge disturbance of the natural flow of the watershed creek area. Storm drain inlets on either side of Rosemary Lane would deliver run off from the road surface to the concrete apron into the creek on the down side of the box culverts, taking with it silt, pollution and erosion. She stated that the single span bridge uses much less fill and involves less land disturbance. Since this is a very sensitive site, it would seem prudent to at least consider the least obtrusive method of creek expansion. She stated when reviewing this negative declaration, several issues brought out ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION 12 December 15, 1998 which fall under the hearing of "potentially significant unless mitigated ", she found that either they cannot be mitigated or, in her opinion, they were not acceptably mitigated. Under geophysical erosion changes and topography are unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill, she stated she did agree with staff's report on the findings and, in her opinion, they were very well done on this geophysical discussion. The mitigated suggestions were all good ones, however, they may not be enough as we may see in other surrounding projects with similar interests. Commissioner Parker stated, according to the report by EIP Associates in August of 1998, they stated that development activities on surrounding tracts and recent grading vegetation removal on Tract 1998 have actually already increased the area of soil disturbance and have resulted in degradation of the creek channel by excessive siltation. Already erosion is affecting this highly sensitive area, and these are plans that have already been accepted. On mitigation #11 it states that the applicant shall implement a re- vegetation or restoration plan. The plan shall utilize native fast growing plants that will quickly cover the outlet structure and thrive in a rocky environment. A concrete box culvert however regrown with native brush does not mitigate the fact that a 100 foot section of wetland area has been deleted. A restoration to an area of disturbance may well come back as wetlands riparian project over time, but one that has been reformatted in concrete and asphalt will never do. This may be addressed as an eventual trade -off as an emergency access route, but in her opinion, she does not see this as a mitigation. She referred to Biological Resources, stating that an endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats as listed under potentially significant unless mitigated, but is not mentioned under mitigation measures. There are species growing in this wetlands area that are listed as endangered species that grow only in this area and only under extreme conditions. She stated she realizes that Pismo Clarkia can apparently be transferred under specific conditions, but according to the application, 1/3 of the Pismo Clarkia will be removed just for the building of this road. She reiterated her concern over the interpretation that she sees is that the City may, in fact, be pulling it out of the entire EIR that has already been requested, and the fact that we may be segmenting this project and may be in violation of CEQA. Commissioner Keen stated his feeling that Rosemary Lane was part of tract 1834 and, therefore, it is not being pulled out for that other project; it was already established as a requirement for that project. He further stated he is not in favor of cutting down any oak trees and would like to see the road rerouted in some way, and now that it is designated an emergency road, rerouting it would be easier to do and would not be as confining as it was when it was permanent access. With regard to the 8' tall culvert on James Way, he noted that was required to enable deer to cross the road. He stated that the bridging, in his opinion, is a good idea except that it 1 1 1 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION , _ 13 December 15, 1998 could possibly impact the creek stream almost as much as the culverts because of the way they have to be formed to be built. Commissioner Greene stated it is his feeling that the pathway chosen for this road is not merely to facilitate emergency access to an existing tract, but to facilitate the construction and development of tract 1998. He noted that there are probably less environmentally sensitive areas that could be used for an access road for emergency purposes and, since the road is an access road, it would not be necessary to align Rosemary Court and Rosemary Lane to provide emergency access to the back side of tract 1834. He suggested that Mitigation #18 be modified to include a broader mitigation that covers all forms of plants throughout the entire route that the road takes. He commented, in his opinion, it would be incumbent upon the applicant to implement a plan submitted by an arborist or biologist, approved by the Community Development Department, that deals with the re- vegetation of the entire length of the road, because that area is notorious for erosion and the applicant would be well advised to re- vegetate whatever land is cut or filled to prevent erosion. He further suggested that selected species be native to that particular area. Commissioner Greene stated it appears to him that a bridge would be less intrusive into the environment than a culvert. Commissioner Haney stated that most of his comments have already been addressed, however, he would like to reiterate a few of them. He commented that the extent of the improvements is obviously more than just an emergency access road and, if it is treated just as an emergency access road, there are a lot more alternatives to look at and we are not dealing with any of the access issues for tract 1998. So, if we are just dealing with this as an emergency access road and not trying to fold in the access for tract 1998, then there are several other alternatives that present themselves. He agreed with Commissioner Greene's comments on Mitigation #18, stating he too would like to see the restoration and re- vegetation, and include the roadway used to traverse and access the site that was referred to as the "farm road ". Another important mitigation element would be familiarization and some education of construction crews with the issues they will be facing while working in sensitive habitat areas. Chair Lubin thanked staff for all of the work that has gone into their presentation and the awareness of this project. He also thanked the homeowners for their diligence in maintaining and awareness of what is going on and staying on top of it. He thanked the developers for their input and their presentation. Chair Lubin stated he does not like the road and, in his opinion, there should not be an emergency access road there, and there needs to be another alternative. He commented it is his opinion that when this project was originally approved and the ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION 14 December 15, 1998 future road for tract 1998 was put on the plan, it was not well thought out. The way he looks at the road is the possibility of someone coming back in 6 months or a year from now and asking for this road to be turned into a major access road for tract 1998. He further stated, for clarification, that when there is a project of this nature and there is a requirement for a study to be done, the city issues a list of approved consultants to the developer and the developer must choose one of those consultants. When they choose a consultant, they have to pay for it, however, it is then an approved study because it is done on behalf of the city and is not a developer ordered study. Chair Lubin also stated he disagrees with the process that allows the Public Works Director to take a project to the Community Development Director, who takes it to the Planning Commission, who goes through this process and has no authority. He commented he does not feel the process is appropriate and if the Planning Commission has no authority, then let the Public Works Director hold the public meeting. Community Development Director Hamilton explained that CEQA is a process whereby we take public input regarding the environmental effects of a project. The City's implementing procedures have determined that we have an opportunity to provide that public input at a public forum, and that is why it is here this evening. If the Planning Commission chooses that they do not want that opportunity then, as a director, he could make a determination that the Public Works Director could hold that public hearing as well. As further explanation for his comments, Chair Lubin stated he wants the Planning Commission to have the authority to approve or deny the mitigations. He noted he does recognize that is not what the rules or regulations stipulate, however, the Planning Commission is deeply involved in these types of projects, and after reviewing projects of this nature, they do not have the authority to go forward. Mr. Hamilton advised that the comments made by the Commissioners this evening go into the decision process and are given great weight. NON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS - None DISCUSSION ITEMS - None PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS - None COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP REPORTS A. Update of Projects - None B. Follow -up Reports - None 1 1 1 1 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION December 15, 1998 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by the Chair at 12:15 P.M. ATTEST: Pearl L. Phinney, Commission,¢lerk AS TO CONTENT: ..,,1110 J y es Hamilton, AICP Community Development Director 15 3/2