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