Loading...
PC Minutes 1991-03-27270 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission March 27, 1991 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in special session at 7:00 P.M. with Chairman Carr presiding. Present are Commissioners Moore, Gallagher and Souza. Commissioners Soto, Brandy and Boggess are absent. Also in attendance are Planning Director Liberto- Blanck, City Attorney Judy Skousen, Current Planner Scott Spierling, and Contract Planner Mike Multari. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 90 -01 AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 1834; PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) REZONE, GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 90-03 AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 1997; PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) REZONE, GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 90 -04 AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 1997 (RANCHO GRANDE PROJECT /OTTSE, INC.) Contract Planner Mike Multari briefly reviewed the history of the project to this point and the public hearings held by the Commission, and the field trip with the City Council on February 5, 1991. He noted that at the Commission's last meeting, several changes to the preliminary conditions of approval were suggested, and the Commission also directed staff to work with the applicants to attempt to resolve certain especially complex issues, including the limitations on house sizes, and public vs. private streets. Mr. Multari advised that meetings were held with the applicants and the results of those meetings are reflected in the changes of the conditions shown in italics in the staff report. Mr. Multari discussed the key issues and the Commission's concerns that have been addressed in the Final EIR. He made reference to the material that was handed out to the Commission tonight, which includes the five resolutions; one to approve each of the three tracts, one to approve the general development plan for the previously unplanned areas, and a fifth to recommend certification of the EIR to the City Council. Also, inadvertently, a letter was left out of the Final EIR from Bruce Bodine & Associates, and a copy of that letter was given to the Commission tonight. Mr. Multari noted that some letters were received after the Final EIR was published; one was from the Department of Fish & Game, and one was received from George Curtis, Oak Park Leisure Gardens, expressing a serious concern on his part with the hydrological analysis and his suggestion that there be no up- stream development, including this development, until Meadow Creek is fixed by the City and the developer. Lastly, a letter was received from Kirby Gordon, which basically states that he has reviewed the EIR and he feels it should be certified. Nick Hall, representing Denise Duffy & Associates, gave a brief presentation on the Final EIR, stating his firm prepared the Final Environmental Impact Report for this project. He stated that the Draft EIR was circulated for agency and public review from January 9th to February 22, 1991. Public and agency comments received by the City during the 45 day review period have been included in the Final EIR. He commented that the Draft and Final EIR before the Commission for certification represents an informational document identifying the environmental impacts associated with the proposed project and mitigation measures where appropriate and feasible to reduce the potential impact. Significant environmental impacts that can only be mitigated by redesigning the project are identified in the category of Biotic Resources. These include the loss of 670 live oaks. Significant impacts that can be mitigated to a less than significant level have been identified under the categories of Geology, Soils, Drainage, Biotic Resources, Traffic and Public Services. Impacts determined to be less than significant have been identified under categories of Biotic Resources, Aesthetics, Air Quality and Public Services. Mitigations have been recommended to further reduce those impacts. In response to the concern expressed by Commissioner Gallagher relative to the conflict of the school children and the vehicle trips generated as they come down Brisco Road, Mr. Hall stated that the mitigation was a response from the traffic consultant for the project, and the point was that the schools need to upgrade their pedestrian plans for the school children; increased traffic and development in the area may warrant their attention as well as the applicants. The traffic generated by the project as a portion of the cumulative development is rather small. Paul Karp, Director of Public Works, advised that there are State guidelines for 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 3 -27 -91 establishing a plan for each individual school, and the only school plan that has been adopted in the City of Arroyo Grande has been for Margaret Harloe School, however, a school plan should be prepared for all of the schools in the City. In answer to Commissioner Gallagher's question about the realignment of West Branch Street, Mr. Karp advised that would be an improvement to which the mitigation fees could be applied, however, that would be some time away and would have to be planned first. He further advised that, at the present time, the City Council policy is not to eliminate any ramps, but there could be a number of different solutions to the Brisco interchange, some of which will include realignment of the frontage roads and re- ramping. Mr. Karp stated that, in his opinion, the Brisco Road area is worse than Oak Park Boulevard and it is his feeling that a commercial development on the 44 acres cannot be approved without a major improvement at Brisco Road. With regard to the issue on Meadow Creek, Mr. Karp stated it is staff's feeling that the impact of this project is very minimal on Meadow Creek. Regarding the issue of the wildlife crossing, Mr. Karp advised that the Parking and Traffic Commission has looked at this at great length, stating that the project street has only been designed for 35 miles per hour site distance. Currently people are driving in excess of that speed, apparently because the speed limit is not being enforced. A study is being made and possibly some revisions will be made to those speed limits. The Council will be taking action on the speed limit shortly, in which case you will see a significant amount of speed enforcement applied to that particular alignment. In addition to that, there is going to be a requirement for installation of lighting along the corridor, particularly through Rancho Grande; that should help as far as pedestrians are concerned and it should help to some extent as far as being able to see animals in the roadway. However, the speed enforcement is going to be the key in protecting both the animals and the public. Commissioner Moore referred to the letter written by Mr. George Curtis, Oak Park Leisure Gardens. Mr. Karp stated that there is ground water in the Leisure Gardens tract the year around, and the drainage that runs through the channels is the topic staff is prepared to discuss. We have actually had to go in and replace quite a bit of material, and it was that tract itself that caused us to change our standards as far as materials are concerned; we have gone to stainless steel hardware on a lot of our valving as a result of that tract. Commissioner Moore stated his feeling that we need a good investigation now, because whatever might happen in the future, this new project will be blamed for it. After further discussion among the Commissioners, Chairman Carr re- opened the public hearing for public comment and additional testimony. Jim Garing, of Garing, Taylor & Associates, engineers for the project, reviewed the drainage plan for the project, including the Meadow Creek drainage basin and storm intensity and run -off factors, and described the proposed retarding basin for the project. Chairman Carr announced that public testimony would now be continued and, hopefully, the major issues can be resolved. Tom Wilcock, 581 Bakeman Lane, stated he is the landscape maintenance contractor for Oak Park Leisure Gardens and his biggest concern is that the creek is kept cleaned out and maintained by the City, and the reason for his concern is the problem with percolation. Phil Ashley, 1586 Lasitas Court, San Luis Obispo, spoke regarding the proposed lighting on James Way, commenting that animals do not like to move into a lighted area. He referred to the wildlife study in the EIR, stating there is a lot of wildlife in the project, noting that the animals listed by the consultant is, in his opinion, pretty much complete. The wildlife study shows that there are a lot of animals in there, however, the study does nothing in terms of mitigation, other than the recommended signs to slow traffic on James Way. He further stated that D. L. Holland did a good job 2 ' 7 <� 272 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 3 -27 -91 on the plant study for the revised EIR, and that most of the suggestions and recommendations were already in the EIR, and those that were not, have been incorporated. The study states that once you build in the oak woodlands, you are going to eliminate a lot of the wildlife habitat. He stated that what the applicants have done in Tract 1834 east is feasible because they have moved the rear property lines out of the oak woodlands and they have done a very significant amount of mitigation for wildlife habitat there. He stated this would also be feasible in Tract 1994 and also would feasible to a great extent in Tract 1997 by pulling lots out of the oak woodlands and increasing the size of the wildlife corridors and the overall size of the open space to mitigate the significant loss of wildlife. Mr. Ashley also expressed concern about the future Tract No. 1998 with regard to the wildlife corridor. Mike Durkee spoke on behalf of the Rancho Grande team. He stated one of their minor concerns is condition #78 stating "No such permitted structure shall extend above any oak tree canopy, nor shall it extend closer than 10 feet to any canopy." He stated that the applicants have one problem with that condition, and that is they respect the drip line and know the type of condition is important to allow moisture to get to the roots, however, they would like the ability to put a deck into that canopy. He advised it is their feeling that a deck with piers and posts where it would not be invading into the root zone, would be keeping the structure off of the roots and making sure the moisture got to them, and that type of enjoyment should be allowed. He stated that the condition could read that it would have to be shown that the deck would not jeopardize the tree by stealing nourishment. Mr. Durkee stated their second concern is with regard to Mitigation #25, Page 10, the second sentence stating "...The master plan shall be consistent with the Parks & Recreation Element and Circulation Element of the General Plan ". He pointed out that reference should be made to the 1966 General Plan. Also, No. 26 on the same page, "Mitigation Monitoring Program ", he stated they have no problem with the bike lanes except for the Branch Street frontage of the site. It is their feeling that putting in those improvements may be very difficult and outside the scope of the impacts of thi project. Chairman Carr commented that on the pedestrian traffic and the bike lanes on and around the Brisco Underpass, it is his feeling that something can and should be done there. Chairman Carr asked for a concensus of the Commission on the issues of public streets vs. private streets; gates or no gates, and whether the houses be sprinkled or non - sprinkled. The majority of the Commission indicated they would prefer private streets, an ungated development and unsprinkled structures. Chairman Carr expressed his appreciation for Mr. Ashley's time and effort in presenting an alternative design that is more considerate of the wildlife and other things. He requested that staff and the applicant look at this most recent work and see if there is anything that might be incorporated in the final design. Chairman Carr advised that this item is being continued to the next Planning Commission meeting of April 2, 1991 at 7:00 P.M. and, hopefully, the final issues will be resolved at the next meeting and the Commission will act on the resolutions. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, on motion by Commissioner Gallagher, seconded by Commissioner Souza, and unanimously carried, the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 P.M. ATTEST: Pearl L. Phinney, Secretary Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Arroyo Grande Planning Commission 3 Robert W. Carr, Chairman