Loading...
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