PC Minutes 1995-05-021
1
1
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 2, 1995
The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chairperson Keen
presiding. Present are Commissioners Soto, Carr, Deviny, and Beck. Commissioners Tappan
and Hatchett are absent. Planning Director Doreen Liberto - Blanck is in attendance.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None
PUBLIC HEARING - DRAFT EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION ON THE PROPOSED 10 ACRE RANCHO GRANDE PARK
(ELDER PLAN), LNCLUDING PLAYING FIELDS, TENNIS COURTS, PLAY AREAS
AND PICNIC FACILITIES; RANCHO GRANDE PARK (ELDER PLAN) PROJECT
APPROVAL, LOCATED SOUTH OF JAMES WAY BETWEEN RANCHO PARKWAY
AND RODEO DRIVE WITII FRONTAGE ALONG AVENIDA DE DIAMANTE,
APPLICANT IS TIIE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Planning Director Doreen Liberto - Blanck gave a brief historical background on the Rancho
Grande Park, stating that the original Rancho Grande Park was adopted by the City Council in
1988, and an Expanded Initial Study on the 1988 approved plan and an alternative park plan was
prepared addressing the environment issues expressed by members of the public in 1992. Ms.
Liberto - Blanck stated that in 1993 the City Council adopted a Resolution approving a Mitigated.
Negative Declaration for the Alternative Rancho Grande Park Plan. Since the adoption of the
Resolution in 1993, the City retained Ted Elders to modify the park plan, which implemented
the mitigation measures adopted by the City Council in 1993. This plan has been referred to
as the Elder Plan.
Ms. Liberto - Blanck stated that the Parks and Recreation Commission held three public hearings
on the proposed Elder Plan to review the proposed project and accept public testimony. They
recommended the Elder Plan to the Planning Commission and the City Council. She said
SEDES has been retained to prepare another Expanded Initial Study and proposed Negative
Declaration.
Ms. Liberto - Blanck said that on December 6, 1994, the Planning Commission requested policy
direction from the City Council. On February 28, 1995, the City Council decided to proceed
with the Elder Plan and referred it back to the Planning Commission.
Ms. Liberto - Blanck mentioned three issues the Planning Commission might want to address in
addition to the environmental issues:
• Specific Uses and Cost of Phases
Since this information was only made available last week, and is part of an Errata Sheet
for the Expanded Initial Study, Staff recommended the environmental review period be
extended to May 31, 1995, so the public can review and comment on the information;
• Night Lighting
Ms. Liberto - Blanck stated night lighting was not included in the Elder Plan except for
security along the walkway, in the rest rooms, and in the parking lot. She said if night.
lighting is considered in the future, a new environmental review would have to be
conducted; and
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 2
May 2, 1995
• City Scheduled /Organized versus Unscheduled /Unorganized Activities
The Planning Commission may want to discuss whether activities in the park need to be
scheduled through the City Parks and Recreation Department.
Ms. Liberto - Blanck su mmarized Staff's recommendations to the Planning Commission:
• After a presentation by David Foote of SEDES, open and accept public testimony;
• Extend the environmental review period to May 31, 1995; and
• Continue this item to the next available regular meeting, which is July 18, 1995.
David Foote of SEDES referred to the Errata Sheet in Attachment G of the Staff Report. Mr.
Foote discussed the Phases and Costs of the Plan. Mr. Foote briefly discussed corrections
identified on the Errata Sheet, which included:
• Page 3 - Changes in the description of the phases within the project making them more
specific and identifying costs.
• Page 8 - Change than the term "organized use" to "City- authorized" use.
• Page 24 - Delete the words "recreation building, score building ".
Mr. Foote said to his knowledge the only grading plan available is in the Expanded Initial Study,
which was utilized in their analysis of the elevations, especially regarding visual impacts.
Mr. Foote clarified significant versus insignificant impacts. He stated that ultimately the
significance. of an impact 'under CEQA is determined by the decision- making body, including
input from professionals and community consensus.
Mr. Foote explained how the noise levels were analyzed and the noise standard used. The noise
section reflects the City's standard for noise level significance. He explained that because an
issue is found insignificant under CEQA review, it does not mean there would not be a
noticeable increase in noise or in traffic.
Mr. Foote said he would remain available to answer any questions.
Planning Director Liberto - Blanck said the Planning Department had received numerous letters
within the last two days and the consultant would respond to them by the next Planning
Commission meeting. She mentioned that Tini Carmel, City Attorney's Office, Ted Elder, and
John Keisler, Director of Parks and Recreation were present to answer questions.
Planning Director Liberto - Blanck asked those in the audience who had not received notices but
would like to be on the mailing list for this item, to provide their names and addresses on the
sign -in sheet provided in the foyer.
1
1
1
1
1
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 3
May 2, 1995
Chairperson Keen asked for the audience to limit their time to 3 minutes, focusing their
comments on the environmental issues of this item. He said that at the next public hearing, the
Commission would like to address any new issues, and provide consultant's responses to
comments received. Mr. Keen stated the Planning Commission does not make policy, only
recommends policy. He then opened the public hearing.
Bill Foster, 102 Via Bandolero, asked if Staff's recommendation to extend the environmental
review period was going to be granted. • Chairman Keen responded in the affirmative.
Marcia Bess, 856 Forest Glen, spoke in favor of the park as a parent, a teacher, and a
representative of the Central Coast Women's Soccer Association.
Jerome Kapacinskas, 208 Via Bandolero, spoke of his concern as a taxpayer, questioning if
the costs reflected future inflation for phases that would not be implemented for several years.
He stated the costs would be much higher than shown, and the taxpayers should be apprised of
the ultimate cost and a time table.
Bill Sornmermeyer, 2356 Oak Haven Lane, as a coach spoke in favor of the park. He said he
hoped the environmental portion of this item would be resolved.
Carter Hooker, 380 Spanish Moss, said his main concern was noise, stating that you hear actual
noises, you do not hear averages over a 24 -hour period. He said he was concerned with the
inclusion of little league scheduled baseball, and did not feel inclusion of a time limit (6:00
P.M.) would realistically be adhered to, and that scheduled play would make more noise than
random play. Mr. Hooker said that five of the subdivisions gave land or paid extra money over
and above their regular taxes and this was supposed to be a neighborhood park. He said these
people should be able to say more of what is in the park or you should give them their land or
money back. Mr. Hooker said the people who want the ballparks in this park pay taxes also,
but they didn't put in the extra. But it isn't fair, he said, to set it up as a neighborhood park,
have the owners and builders put in extra for that type of park, and then say, it's no longer a
neighborhood park. He would like the Commissioners to consider the noise because scheduled
little league play will certainly affect the noise far more than random playing. He felt most
young people were not involved in organized sports. Mr. Hooker said there was no senior
citizens center and the noise level of seniors was quite low.
Bill McCann, 575 Crown Hill, stated he lived across the street from Paulding Middle School
and did not hear any noise from the school or their two soccer fields, baseball field, or roller
hockey arena. He was in favor of the proposed Elder Plan and that sports and civic minded
groups would supply labor and money to develop facilities as needed. Mr. McCann suggested
the property be graded at this time in a way that ultimate use can be derived in the future.
Jim Wysong, 884 Longbranch Avenue, said he was the Vice President of the Five Cities Girls
Softball and gave reasons his organization needed more play areas, stating that for safety reasons
a skinned infield was preferable to grassy field.
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 4
May 2, 1995
Jim Suovanen, 422 Collado Corte, asked if this was the last chance the City of Arroyo Grande
had to build a sports complex, or is this the only area left. He said listening to some of the
comments it seemed that if this doesn't go through that many children will be deprived of an
opportunity to play sports. Mr. Suovanen stated this park was presented originally to be a low
impact park and the residents of Rancho Grande never expected anything like what was being
proposed. Mr. Suovanen said the whole Rancho Grande project was excellently laid out and he
did not feel a sports complex fit into the design originally envisioned. He said despite the
emotion involved he urged the Commissioners to be fair. He ended by saying that in fairness
to the current homeowners, a park designed more with senior use in mind should be approved.
Art McCoubrey, 413 Chaparral Lane, stated the garden area of his home is very close to the
park site. He said he noticed plans were designed to install berms for an area opposite his
home. Mr. McCoubrey said the berms would intensify the noise in the direction of his hone.
He asked the Commission to consider those in the opposite area from the proposed berm area.
Mr. McCoubrey stated he and his neighbors were not opposed to organized sports but questioned
them on this site, saying people outside the community should not be involved in this issue.
Tracy Thomas, 1152 Outland Court, said a community park is needed in the north area of town
with a multi -use playfield. She said the entire community of Arroyo Grande should decide the
uses in the park and not just residents of Rancho Grande. Ms. Thomas gave her letter to the
Planning Commission Clerk;
Chuck Fiorentino, 337 Mesquite Lane, spoke in favor of the park, saying children in Arroyo
Grande needed another park. He stated those who purchased in the Rancho Grande Park area
should have investigated the plans for the park.
John D'I 613 Avenida De Diamante, said at the time most of the people in the Rancho
Grande area purchased their lots, the only document available describing Rancho Grande Park
was the original Negative Declaration which described it as a passive park. He said the park
now proposed is different from the one originally described.
Jim Bigelow, 781 Cardinal Court, said he felt the park as planned was a good one, and hoped
it would move onto the City Council soon.
Larry Greene, 393 Rodeo Drive, stated that the City not only had the obligation to provide for
the children, but also for the protection, life, and liberty for its citizens. He said though these
are important considerations, the main issue was environmental. Mr. Greene said this park area
was unique and asked the Planning Commission to consider whether this was the best use for
this property. He said a natural, rural type of park seemed more appropriate, asking the
Planning Commission to consider a redesign. Mr. Greene said he spoke with Ted Elder on
several occasions and suggested Mr. Elder be allowed to design a park less structured. He
offered to donate money for Mr. Elder's time and felt others in the community would contribute
funds for this purpose.
1
1
1
1
1
1
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 5
May 2, 1995
Fabbian Detweiler, 202 Avenida De Diamente, said when they purchased their homes, it was
with an understanding that the park would be passive and benefit the neighborhood. She stated
the park plan prepared in July 1987 included minor grading and no play fields. Ms. Detweiler
made several comments based on the "Time Saver Standards for Housing and Residential
Development ", Second Edition, by De Chiara, Panero, Zelnik; McGraw -Hill, Inc., publisher,
1995, quoting from pages 41, 221, 227, 228, and 229. She gave a description of neighborhood
park versus community parks. She stated that the Elder Plan violated the City's grading
ordinance, that it was poor planning for this type of facility at this site, and that funds would be
wasted on excessive grading. She referred to Study IV, Environmental Analysis, Section A,
Grading.
Ms. Detweiler's stated the City seems to disregard the worst problem, which is noise. She said
the present study assumes most of the noise will be from baseball and soccer games, but does
not consider the noise from visitors using the picnic areas, boom boxes, radios, CD players, and
portable microphones. She said the Rancho Grande area is a relatively quiet neighborhood and
a small amount of extra noise would be noticeable. Reflective noise, she said, was not discussed
in the study. Ms. Detweiler said a 24 hour average was not an accurate way to present noise
levels, and is therefore inaccurate and incomplete. She said it should be taken with actual people
making noise.
Ms. Detweiler stated her other concerns were traffic and parking. She said there needs to be
a recorded letter of agreement on the park property regarding restrictions on lights, use of the
property, limits to future changes, and so forth, that could take place by a future Council. She
asked whether the City is willing to commit to the above.
Ms. Detweiler said she was a homeowner and the President of the Rancho Grande Homeowners
Association Board of Directors and presented her letter to the Planning Commission Clerk for
distribution to the Planning Commission.
Pat Sanger, 573 Crown Hill, spoke in favor of the park and gave reasons why she felt noise
was not an issue. During the daytime hours of 7 A.M. to 3 P.M., there would not be the
organized kind of play as children are in school. Ms. Sanger said the length of the proposed
field was for children up to 12 years of age and possibly for women's softball. She also stated
there are no lights and no PA system.
Fred Flannel!, 550 Via Vaquero, said the only compromise that the homeowners desired was
to eliminate the ball field, and some of the items changed on the Park Plan were not issues with
the homeowners. He said the 1988 version of the Parks and Recreation Element of the General
Plan shows a circle around Rancho Grande Park and the legend says it is a neighborhood park
needs area, and there is nothing to indicate that it is a community park needs area. He said this
plan, approved by the City, should be adhered to. Mr. Flannell said when former Mayor
Gallagher signed the contract with SEDES to prepare the Expanded Initial Study, it was signed
without due process. He read from Section 2 -4.03 of the City Ordinance and questioned the
legality of this process we are presently going through. Mr. Flannell stated the purpose of an
initial study is to determine whether or not a negative declaration is appropriate for the project
or if a full Environmental Impact Report is warranted, and the consultant was told to prepare
an expanded initial study and that initial study will result in a Negative Declaration. He said
a Negative Declaration is only appropriate if the initial study indicates that the impacts are
insignificant and it was obvious that the impacts of this project are significant. Mr. Flannell said
the Supreme Court of California has ruled that post -hoc rationalization is inappropriate and
unacceptable. He gave his letter to the Planning Commission Clerk.
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 6
May 2, 1995
JoAnn Bowen, 1033 Acorn Drive, said they did a development and were told what they could
and could not do and that this proposed grading of the park is out of line.
With no further comments from the audience, Chairperson Keen closed the public hearing, and
asked for comments from the Commissioners.
Commissioner Deviny asked if the cost estimates for the phases of the park were current or
projected dollars. Ted Elder said they were present value dollars, because they had no idea
when the phases would be done. Commissioner Deviny asked if skinned versus a grass infield
was an EIR issue and Chairperson Keen said it was not.
Commissioner Carr said the Expanded Initial Study does what it's supposed to do and supports
the Elder Plan. He said he had questions about the dollars, but felt those were addressed; we
are not going to know how much it is going to cost in future dollars and when it's actually going
to get built, and the best we can hope for is today's dollars and some kind of a reasonable
phasing, and he felt we had been provided that. Commissioner Carr felt there should be lights
on the tennis courts, and wanted to hear what the other Commissioners comments were on this
subject. He stated the staff report indicated if the City decided to install lights, a new
environmental review would have to be conducted, and wondered if that would include lights
on the tennis courts. Regarding organized versus unorganized play, Commissioner Carr said
should be some measure of both; some periods for organized and some for unorganized. He
would like a response to the legal question regarding the validity of the document because of the
way the contract was signed.
Commissioner Soto said there were three issues he wante,d to comment on. He said there were
many groups in the community that would be willing to do a lot of the work as they have done
in the past. He said most of the youth activities did not require night lighting. With regard to
organized versus unorganized activities, he said that is the responsibility of the Parks and
Recreation Department.
Commissioner Beck said she visited French Park in San Luis Obispo, that there were all kinds
of activities in progress, and there was no noise problem. She urged members of the audience
to visit the park.
Chairperson Keen stated the visit to French Park was advertised and the public was invited, and
wished everyone present had gone on that tour. He said French Park is almost identical in size
to the proposed Rancho Grande Park. He said they moved about 50,000 cubic yards of dirt to
build the park and yet it is still a nice, rolling park with a lot of green turf, whereas Rancho
Grande Park is only talking about moving 30,000 cubic yards. Mr. Keen agreed with
Commissioner Beck that there were various activities going on at French park, including roller
blading, basketball, tennis, little league practice, and so forth. He asked everyone to visit
French Park before the next meeting and felt it was very comparable to the proposed Elder Plan.
Chairperson Keen said the City purchased property for the proposed Rancho Grande Park,
therefore, the taxpayers of the community paid for part of the land.
1
1
1
1
1
1
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission P age 7
May 2, 1995
Commissioner Deviny, referring to a portion of the Parks and Recreation Element handed to him
by Planning Director Liberto - Blanck, spoke to Mr. Flannell saying the Parks Needs Analysis
Figure 9.6 and dated November 22, 1988, shows a one mile service radius for community park
locations, where Rancho Grande is proposed, and the whole general area, a vast majority of
Arroyo Grande, is identified as a Neighborhood.Parks Needs Area including the area around
Soto Park, another community park. He believed a neighborhood park is typically 5 acres and
a community park is 10 acres.
Commissioner Deviny asked about average versus peak noise. Mr. Foote responded that a 24
hour average allows monitoring for the entire duration and that's usually the baseline that's used
in the model, so you have an ambient noise level which they derived from the City's Noise
Element. Mr. Foote discussed the analysis portion of the Noise Section of the Expanded Initial
Study.
Commissioner Deviny asked Mr. Elder about stubouts in Phase I. Mr. Elder responded that
stubouts were from the street for sewer, water, and so forth.
On a motion by Commissioner Carr, seconded by Commissioner Soto, and unanimously agreed,
the Commission extended the review period to May 31, 1995, and continue the public hearing
to July 18, 1995.
PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS - None
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
1. May 1, copy of The Citizen newspaper.
2. Letter from Bill and Doris Matteson, in regards to Rancho Grande Park
3. Letter from Daniel J. Villegas, in regards to Rancho Grande Park
4. Letter from Patrick A. Dempsey, in regards to Rancho Grande Park
5. Letter from John and Janet Maple in regards to Rancho Grande Park
6. Letter from Maurice F. Phillips in regards to Rancho Grande Park
7. Letter from Ronald Y. Nishida in regards to Rancho Grande Park
8. Letter from Paul and Linda Grable in regards to Rancho Grande Park
9. Letter from Fabbian Detweiler, President, Rancho Grande Homeowners Association in
regards to Rancho Grande Park
10. Letter from Jerome J. Kapacinskas in regards to Rancho Grande Park
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 8
May 2, 1995
11. Two letters from Arthur and E. Marsile McCoubrey in regards to Rancho Grande Park
12. Letter from Diane C. Heckrodt- Baldwin, Bob and Mary Schultz in regards to Rancho
Grande Park
13. Letter from the Pezza Family in regards to Rancho Grande Park
14. April APA Zoning News
15. Letter from Bob and Hope Helmer regarding Rancho Grande Park
16. Letter from Tracy Thomas regarding Rancho Grande Park
17. Letter from Fabbian L. Detweiler regarding Rancho Grande Park
18. Letter from Fred Flannell regarding Rancho Grande Park
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Commission, on a motion by Commissioner Deviny,
seconded by Commissioner Soto, and unanimously carried, the meeting was adjourned at 9:35
P.M. to the next regular meeting on May 16, 1995.
ATTEST:
Nancy Brow
Commission Clerk
Keen, Cl erson
1
1