Loading...
PC Minutes 1991-01-292 5 0 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission January 29, 1991 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in special session with Chairman Carr presiding. Present are Commissioners Brandy, Souza, Gallagher and Soto. Commissioners Moore and Boggess are absent. Also in attendance are Planning Director Liberto - Blanck, City Attorney Skousen and Current Planner Spierling. PUBLIC HEARING - SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 90-01 AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 1834; PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE, GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 90 -03 AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 1994; PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE, GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 90-04 AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 1997 (OTTSE, INC.) Chairman Carr advised that at least two more public hearings are proposed for these projects before the Planning Commission and then there will be additional hearings before the City Council before a final action is taken. He stated that tonight the staff and developers will essentially be gathering input on what the concerns are of the Commission and the public. Planning Director Liberto -Blanck advised that this is the first public hearing on the proposals for most of the Rancho Grande residential area. Phase two was introduced a little more than a year and a half ago. At that time the City Council requested that the applicant return with a plan for the unplanned area so that the entire project could be looked at as a whole. She stated that the applicant has done that and there is an Environmental Impact that has been prepared. The City of Arroyo Grande has hired Mike Multari who is with the firm of Crawford, Multari and Starr. Mr. Multari will be giving the staff presentation. Mr. Multari reviewed the past history of this project and gave a brief update on where the project is now. One of the goals tonight will be primarily to review the draft environmental impact report and to take comments from the public; these comments will then be given to the EIR consultant. The consultant will then respond to those comments in the final EIR, which will be brought back to the Commission in March. Mr. Multari described the three closely related subdivisions that are part of the project before the Commission tonight. He noted that the area in between the two parts of Tract 1834 has been designated as a cluster development to accommodate 40 units. A tract map has been received for this area but it came later than the ones being discussed tonight and there are some specific site problems with that particular area which require a separate EIR. Mr. Multari reviewed that Ordinance 186 C.S. was adopted by the City Council in 1978. This Ordinance rezoned the Rancho Grande area from Agriculture to Planned Development, and an EIR was completed and certified which addressed the various potential impacts identified at that time. Ordinance 186 C.S. approved a general development plan for a total of 527 residential lots and 40 acres of commercial area. The ordinance also included a conceptual plan of a road system and lot layouts for all but 133 of the lots. The 133 units were to be distributed over the remaining "unplanned" areas. Mr. Multari advised that in 1983 the City approved Tentative Tract 1132, east of Rancho Parkway, which was Phase 1 of the Rancho Grande project and included the first 134 residential lots. Mr. Multari stated that in the unplanned areas there were no layouts for roads, so what the applicants have proposed now is 75 lots in Tract 1994 along a road that would be roughly parallel to Camino Mercado and Rancho Parkway. The 56 lots proposed in Tract 1997 would be on a similar convoluted road network, and the reason for that is to avoid the groves of trees. The large properties on Noyes Road are already divided into two very large lots and those are to be no further divisions and are to accommodate one unit. The remaining 131 are in these new subdivisions. As a little more history, Mr. Multari advised that in 1983 the City approved 302 C.S. which was an ordinance that approved the development agreement. The development agreement essentially said that in exchange for certain public benefits and improvements, the City would assure the developer that they could proceed with their plan until 1998, subject to the rules and regulations that were in effect at the time the development agreement was approved, unless State or Federal laws requires new local ordinances to be enacted. He pointed out that, essentially, Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 1/29/91 the number of units and their general distribution were largely laid out in that development agreement, which is a contract between a municipal, corporation and the development corporation. In that same year, Tract 1132 Phase 1 was approved, and then in 1989 this Commission and the City Council reviewed Tract 1642, which was the 2nd phase and corresponds to the same area as Tract 1994. That tract map was denied and the City directed the applicants to look at the whole area comprehensively and to prepare a full environmental impact report. With regard to these applications, Mr. Multari advised that they were submitted last year and staff did initial environmental studies and required an environmental impact report for all of these applications. It was felt it would be wise to combine them all into one document because of their close inner relation. That draft environmental impact report is now complete and there is a public review period until February 22nd. Oral and written comments will be accepted up to the 22nd from interested agencies and the public. Any comments received will be given to the environmental impact report consultants who must respond in the final document. r He stated that the deadline for City action on the proposal, at least for Tract 1834 and Tract 1994, must be acted on by the City by the 1st of May. The deadline for Tract 1997 is somewhat later, but since they are so closely related, it seems it would be good to act on them together. Mr. Multari reviewed some of the key issues that staff has identified and that the EIR has identified. The first issue is the loss of open space and the removal of oak trees. Under the proposal, an area that is open space now would be converted into urban type development of a residential nature. The project area constitutes an attractive open space, covered with grasslands and, in places, dense oak groves. Under the present proposal the applicants would have to remove approximately 670 trees, out of a total that have been identified on these tract maps of about 7,600 trees. He stated when staff looked at the Tract 1834 proposal, which is the 220 unit tract map, it was felt that a more sensitive design was needed. Staff met with the applicants and their designers, and as a result, they came up with an improved alternative to the project which appears to be muck more acceptable. Also the Tract to the west was reconfigured to avoid some very steep areas and areas that would require a lot of grading and fill, and would also require the removal of a number of trees. Mr. Multari commented that most of the trees which would be lost are in Tract 1834, however, if the alternate design is used, only 139 of the 6,943 trees would need to be removed. Also, this alternate design would require roads somewhat narrower than City standards and would have to be private roads With regard to the water issue, Mr. Multari advised that the City has in reserve 550 acre feet of water supply that has not been allocated to any development. However, this project needs about 286 acre feet, which is approximately half of the City's remaining supply. Under the development agreement, it seems as though the City has, in essence, committed this water to this project. Mr. Multari stated another concern is the possibility as more impervious surfaces are built, there will be more run -off and that it will affect drainage, and perhaps cause flooding downstream of the project. A drainage analysis has been prepared and has been reviewed by the EIR consultants and their hydrologist. A retention basin is proposed on site which is intended to collect all of the new run -off and insure that the amount of water that goes down stream is no different in the future than it is now. With regard to traffic concerns, Mr. Multari stated that the EIR identifies that certain road segments and intersections in the City are already impacted. This project would generate more cars as residents move in over time; possibly 3500 more trips per day, about 350 trips in the peak hour. The analysis by the EIR traffic consultant suggests that while there is additional traffic, it will not change the level of service at any existing intersection or road segment. What it will do in combination with all the other development that is likely to happen in the City in the near or long term future is overall impact the road system even more. So this, like all of 2 25;i 252. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 1/29/91 the other projects that will go forward, will incrementally impact the road system. The mitigation that the City has been imposing on other subdivisions, and is recommended for this project, is to charge a fee for each new lot that is created that would be used to build the necessary road and intersection improvements over time. Another concern is the displacement of wildlife and endangered species on the site. Mr. Multari briefly reviewed several of the mitigation measures proposed for this conce=rn and those concerns relative to fire protection and air quality. Another issue has to do with open space; where it should be, what it should be used for, and whether it should be privately or publicly owned. A significant amount of property will be retained in permanent open space, approximately 67 acres. In the current proposal, if the alternative is adopted, the open space would be even more. Mr. Multari advised that some other issues are aesthetics and compatibility with nearby uses, and the conversion of the open space into a developed area and suburban type housing will have an aesthetic impact; it is a very attractive part of the community and will be converted into residences. He pointed out that there may be mitigation measures that are imposed, such as unusually large rear yard setbacks to insure that there is open space between anything that is built within the boundaries and with the surrounding neighborhoods. He mentioned other aesthetic concerns such as lighting, the types of structures, their height, their heights on the ridge lines, their integration with, and protection of, the oak woodlands. It is believed that a development handbook is needed that will be carried on beyond the approval of these tract maps which will be used to review specific houses to make sure that their design, their scale and their location is in keeping with the goals of the City regarding this project. In summary, Mr. Multari advised that first of all, the review of the draft environmental impact report ends on February 22nd, so all comments should be given to staff by the 22nd, and those comments will be given to the EIR consultant for a response. The next hearing will be held on the 5th of March and staff should have some preliminary recommendations at that time. The Final EIR should be available around the 10th or 1 lth of March, and at your March 19th meeting, the Final EIR will be available to you and a recommendation to in turn recommend to the City Council. The Council will then go through the same process of hearings, and we expect those to start in late March and continue through April, and a decision must be made by May 1st. Commissioner Gallagher inquired if, in lieu of cutting down one foot diameter trees, it would feasible to transplant a number of those trees to another location. Mr. Multari advised that the EIR recommends that trees of a smaller diameter be transplanted if possible to see if they can survive. He suggested a mitigation monitoring program to watch these to see if they grow and if they were to die, then they should be replaced; the recommended ratio is 3 to 1. Commissioner Brandy suggested that the removal of the trees be decided by staff or the Parks and Recreation Commission, and stated he would like to see that whoever removes those trees apply a concerted effort to remove the trees properly to assure a better survival rate. With regard to erosion potential, it was noted that the establishment of permanent vegetation coverage on slopes is recommended. He suggested that native vegetation and drought resistant vegetation be incorporated as a mitigation measure. Commissioner Brandy also commented regarding the:' cut and fill proposed on Tract 1834, stating that by putting roads and homes on that cut and fill . should be watched carefully. In the new revised plan, Commissioner Brandy inquired about the cluster housing and if that was going to be included in Tract 1834. Mr. Multari advised that there is a separate tract, No.1998, that is being processed independent of these, however, in terms of the cumulative impacts, the EIR consultant was asked to be aware of the fact that 40 units are proposed for this area. He pointed out that a separate EIR has to be done just for that tract because there are some site specific concerns that are not covered in the other book. Commissioner Souza stated, in terms of long time water use, these are large lots and landscaping is a major factor. He suggested that drought resistant landscaping and maximum lawn size per lot be required. 3 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 1/29/91 Chairman Carr stated he likes the idea of the design handbook. He asked if most of the smaller lots that are along the street are going to be designed to drain to the street? Mr. Multari advised whether or not they drain to the street depends 'on the topography. He stated that the design of the overall drainage system, and particularly the non -street drainage, both aesthetically and hydrologically is a real important issue. Commissioner Soto stated that on the City water demand, Page 99 of the EIR references a 1989 water usage report from the City. He asked if that could be updated to 1990? Mr. Multari stated that it could, however, Public Works Director Paul Karp indicated that this was a pretty good number for the current demand, but staff could ask him to check that. Upon being assured by the Planning Commission Secretary that the public hearing had been duly published and property owners notified, Chairman Carr declared the hearing open. Mike Durkee stated he represents Ottse and Rancho Grande, and will be happy to answer any questions the Commission or audience may have. Pete Miller, stated he is the local attorney and general representative for Ottse. He introduced April Roselund, Vice President at RRM Design Group, Planning Consultants; Chuck Woolburth, who is an official with Ottse, Inc.; Jim Garing and Mark Bell, Project Engineers with Garing, Taylor and Associates. George Curtis, Oak Park Leisure Gardens, 1145 Clevenger Drive, referred to a letter he recently'sent to the Commission. He stated that Oak Park Leisure Gardens is the low spot for quite a ways around and is sitting in a saucer, and one side of that saucer is this development. The area that the condominiums are built on has been filled somewhere around 15 feet from the original ground level in order to try to provide a dry area. In the discussion he has heard tonight and of the maps he has looked at, he stated there are a couple of items that have either been omitted or are very vague. He pointed out Rancho Parkway and James Way on the map and the location of Oak Park Leisure Gardens. He stated that the way the street intersection was constructed, there is the beginning of a drainage path which follows all the way along James Way, and he has not seen this on any of the maps, but it is a distinct waterway and, in rainy times it is fed by what comes down the hill. It drains from the top of the hill and eventually hits thiswaterway which is sort of a creek, until it gets down into this area. There it flattens out and'you have, at times, a marsh, and that goes around back of Oak Park Leisure Gardens. Mr. Curtis stated that, in the discussion, there was some mention of a retention pond, however, no one has said where it is or how large it is going to be. He stated he wanted the Commission to be aware that in this area, when it rains, we gather enough water so that the water comes up underneath the ground into their streets and then rolls off, with everything going downhill to the retention pond which is located by West Branch Street and Oak Park Boulevard. Mr. Curtis stated that if the developer builds a retention pond somewhere in the vicinity of Oak Park Leisure Gardens, or above, they will be increasing that underground water pressure and, Oak Park Leisure Gardens will be in even more trouble. He requested that they be very cautious of where they build a retention pond if it is in the vicinity of Oak Park Leisure Gardens. He also stated that they would like to see the calculations that go into the size and the building of that retention pond. Mr. Curtis suggested that since there is an area there where the water seems "to hang up and causes problems, instead of a retention pond, they could provide a conduit or an t open concrete sluiceway built from somewhere well above the condominium area to collect this water and sluice it down to the retention pond at West Branch Street and Oak Park Boulevard. He stated the system they have now will not take any more water without causing them trouble. He stated they have not had any trouble so far, but the residents think that the Commission, the developer and the City should take some responsibility to make sure that they don't get washed out. With regard to answering the questions and concerns expressed by the public tonight, Planning Director Liberto -Blanck advised staff would like to have the opportunity to respond in writing, and that will be available in the EIR. Also, the hearing will be continued to March 5th and we will try to have the responses ready by that time. Lee Webb stated he lives on a private street off of Printz Road at the northeast corner of the Rancho Grande property, and he certainly favors this latter development plan over the previous one. He spoke regarding his concerns over the wildlife in the oak grove up there, 4 2 54 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 1/29/91 commenting that there are a number of wildlife in that area, including deer, bobcat, cougar, coyote, fox and the kit fox which is an endangered species, and these animals are going to be displaced when those oak groves are removed. He stated he is personally opposed to violating those oak groves because Arroyo Grande has some beautiful hills, and when you remove those oak groves you have barren hills and not a beautiful area at all. He commented that to destroy a resource that is as attractive as these oak groves in order to build houses when you have an abundance of land without encroaching on these groves doesn't make much sense. Ifl C Lot 91 in Rancho Grande, stated he is concerned about the drought and the fact that we are not supposed to have any water around here, and now he hears that approximately 30(' houses are proposed for this area. He commented that the water was allocated in 1983 before the drought. He stated he doesn't understand why we are doing this at all. He suggested that the public vote on this project, questioning who decides that the developer can go up there and build 300 homes? He also questioned who is going to benefit from this; why are we doing ithis; is this going to benefit Arroyo Grande, or are the developers the only ones who will benefit? David Chipping, 999 Pismo, Los Osos, stated he is the Conservation Co -Chair of the California Native Plant Society. The issue he is concerned about is the oaks and the natural habitat up there. He stated he has several problems with the EIR. One is the minimal addressing of the CEQA requirements. In looking at the EIR, the only alternative project addressed is the developer provided alternative project and it maintains essentially the same number of lots. The object of CEQA is to look at a range of projects, including "no project ". He also stated what he would have liked to have seen is at least a critique of the impact of various sections of the subdivision on the oak forest. There are certain sections where the roads go into quite dense oak cover and, in particular, at the edge of Husetta Del Sol on Tract 1834 on the northwest side, and on Rancho Parkway in the southern block of Tract 1834, and between Jenny Place and Andre Drive in Tract 1997. It might be possible to redesign sections of these projects in the way that Tract 1994 was effectively redesigned in terms of .road re- routing. He advised that he did like the way of narrowing the roads, but here is found a major problem with the EIR in terms of evaluating the impacts of the project. He referred to the table on Page 41, stating that in looking at the numbers on oak removals, and then turn to Page 145, where they are generating some arguments for oaks saved under the alternative project, where it says that 627 trees will be removed "due to street and right of way improvements under the proposed project considered in this EIR." He stated, as it turns out, the number of trees we are looking at are only from the right of way development. He would like to know, what the houses are going to remove from the project? If we are going to be looking at cumulative impact, we should be looking at what housing pads will do. Presumably, you are running a road slightly to the edge of an oak grove in order to save the trees, but are obviously requiring the houses themselves to be in the oak grove. He stated there is a cumulative impact way beyond that addressed in the EIR, and that essentially invalidates these tree calculations in terms,of the actual project itself; the project is not roads - the project is houses and roads. He stated.in regard to that, it would seem that, if trees are considered a valuable resource in the City of Arroyo Grande, the EIR should look at the alternative to assure that maximum levels of tree salvation is attained in the actual developed portions of the lot and not just the roadways. He further commented that if irrigated landscaping is placed among the oaks, it will kill them. If this project does go in there, then the C. C. & R.'s should require that there be no irrigated landscaping between the oaks. He suggested that a consultant be hired, such as the Native Sons Nursery, who are experts on tree removal, to look at the question on whether trees can he removed from this substraight. Another concern expressed by Mr. Chipping was the drought, He also spoke regarding the assessments in regard to the botany, commenting that any botanist that is doing a survey of rare plants is doing it now at a time of drought. A great number of annuals have not been able to seed, and a number of annuals have not seeded for a number of years and, therefore, it would be impossible to know what the forerange of the Pismo Clarkier is. He advised that the Pismo Clarkier is a species of extreme concern. Chairman Carr advised that before proceeding with public comments, Paul Karp, Director of Public Works, is now present and will talk about the traffic situation. Public Works Director Paul Karp stated, regarding the Oak Park Interchange, that CalTrans is about 80% complete with the civil portion of the design work for the interchange. The project is scheduled to go to bid in September of this year, and to begin construction at the 5 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 1/29/91 end of November, and it is estimated to be a year and a half job. He advised that the Camino Mercado interchange is part of this project. The Oak Park Interchange includes a six lane bridge over the freeway, the alignment of the present bridge; and elimination of the southbound freeway access ramps, southbound on and southbound off, and those will be relocated to 12th street in Grover City. The northbound off -ramp will be eliminated and two ramps will be • installed northbound at Camino Mercado, and there will be a four way intersection there. With regard to the Brisco Interchange, he advised that there is a study being done by CalTrans to six- lane the freeway, which includes some alternatives for reconstruction of the interchange at Brisco Road. There have been two alternatives looked at and they are presently before the Parking and Traffic Commission in the review stage. He further stated that Arroyo Grande is participating with the Council of Governments in preparation of a South County traffic model to look at backbone and circulation improvements which will be required throughout the South County, and will be looking at a uniform method of calculating and assessing impact fees to construct' routes that are considered regionally required to reaching a certain level of service. Gary Elms, 1105 Grieb Drive in Oak Park Leisure Gardens, stated one of his prime concerns is traffic circulation and the Oak Park Interchange because they use it probably four or five tifnes a day and are very familiar with the congestion that develops there. He referenced Mr. Karp's statement that ground might be broken sometime late this year and, if it is on schedule, Mr. Elms stated that would mean another year and a half before it is completed; so we are looking at approximately 2 -1/2 years and maybe more. He referred to the Post Office facility now under construction in Pismo Beach, stating that this is going to be a very large regional facility and developing a tremendous amount of traffic. With regard to Mr. Elms' questiofi about whether a circulation traffic study was done for the Post Office, Ms. Liberto- Blanck`advised that in talking to the City of Pismo Beach she learned that there was no traffic report' done for the Post Office itself, but there was a parcel map done on that site that created two parcels and based on that, apparently , there :. was some preliminary traffic assessments conducted: She stated she would get some information from Pismo Beach on those assessments. Mr. Elms stated that the traffic assessment as reported in the EIR indicated that the Post Office would generate approximately 2,871 local trips a day, and only 222 during the peak hour in the p.m., and 175 trips during the peak hour in the a.m. He further stated, based on what he has seed working i n Santa Maria around their post office, which is a very large facility, these figures would seem grossly inadequate if they were applied to the Santa Maria Post Office. The interchange at Oak lark between the southbound on -ramp and the north bound on -ramp right now' is rated at a Level F as far as traffic circulation is concerned and, from what he understands, traffic circulation levels are rated from A to F; A to C being acceptable and D to F `being unacceptable. F is the most unacceptable level you can arrive at, so when the study says that levels wouldn't be impacted to the extent where they would change because of this development, we know that Level F can't go anywhere, and we will have to deal with that for the next 2 -1/2 to 3 years. He stated he thinks it is important that the traffic generated from that post office be considered because it is very critical. Regarding the Brisco Road under crossing, the study stated that overall that was rated at a D Level right now, and from what he understands that is not scheduled to be altered, at least the access underneath the freeway, for ten years, so that is going to create critical traffic concerns, because there are only two lanes and a lot of individuals from this development would be using that to get on to the freeway or yto get past the freeway into the other part of town. Another point Mr. Elms brought up concerns air quality. He referred to the staff report under "Air Quality" concerning the Draft EIR stating that "The longer term impacts from automobile emission generated by this project are not in themselves significant. However, as in the case of traffic, the project's specific impacts do contribute cumulatively to the overall degradation of air quality in the area." He • stated his concern is "..these automobile emissions are not in themselves significant ", because in the study under "Air Quality" on Page 94 of the Draft EIR, it says "development of the 351 single family units proposed for this project would result in direct emissions of 843.8 pounds of carbon monoxide per day. Then the Draft EIR goes on to say that, based on a comparison of calculated project emissions to district emission thresholds, the project impacts are considered insignificant with the exception of carbon monoxide, and then it says the significant threshold for carbon monoxide is 550 pounds a day. It then goes on to say that "...emission level for carbon monoxide is considered significant and should be mitigated." 25`5 25'6 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 1/29/91 Chuck Fusco, 1015 Hodges Road, Oak Park Acres development, stated his property backs into Tract 1997 on the low end just above James Way. He stated his property is a little better than acre, and in looking through the EIR he noted that Lots 54, 55 and 56 all are under one half acre and, in earlier discussions there was talk from the developer's point of view that they were going to try to put acre lots back in there. They have a very small strip of land they can build on there and he feels they should have at least 40,000 square foot lots backing into 40,000 to 60,000 square foot lots. Mr. Fusco further stated that there will be five streets coming into James Way when this all gets developed, and maybe we can eliminate this one totally and put these lots somewhere else back up on the other side. He commented it is bad enough having three streets going into James Way; there have been three traffic accidents in the last 8 months down there. With the additional traffic from this project, it is really going to have an impact. Greg Southcott, 1011 Hodges Road, Oak Park Acres, stated he would like to see a full sized standard road and, normally, parking on narrow roads is a real nuisance and it is also a hazard. He inquired if further study has been made on the Noyes Road parcels with respect to being able to support additional units. He stated that the developer, in their original proposal, proposed 38 units on those two parcels and he would like to know if any further study has been made as to whether they would be able to support those units. In discussing the flow of water past Oak Park Leisure Gardens, Mr. Southcott stated that the Draft EIR indicated that if the two or three conduits go underneath 101 fail, and the water flows over 101, the Oak P;crk Leisure Gardens will be 6 inches above the height of water. Mr. Southcott stated a concern 'lie has with the EIR is the method of enforcing the goals. The EIR suggests using C.C.& R.'R to control water usage, landscaping and oak tree protection. Since C. C. & R.'s are not enforceable by the City, he feels they will not give adequate protection so that the goals will be achieved. Also, in his opinion, standard sized roads should be used as much as possible. If the lots. were smaller, then the lots could be placed outside of the oak trees and use standard site roads as well. He further stated it was his feeling that the City Council wanted this project to be presented again with the following emphasis. First, they wanted the EIR to address real alternatives; secondly, they wanted the entire project to be considered together. He feels that the present EIR draft doesn't really fulfill what the City Council asked for. He statr;d that the Draft EIR presents an alternative of no project, and it presents another alternative of allowing less units than were agreed upon with the City. Those are two of the alternatives and, his opinion, neither one of those alternatives have ever really been considered viable alternatives, and what we need are viable alternatives to be included in the Environmental Impact Report. Another alternative that was presented was more clustering of units. The EIR did an excellent job here because it went on to present many of the benefits of clustering units, but they didn't follow through with real viable options. He stated he felt some of the options, for example, could be that all of the lots could be smaller and stay out of the oak trees altogether. There. could be clustered housing adjacent to the commercial zone. He stated he personally, feels that high quality clustered housing would be more attractive than open one -half acre lots,, Also, it is his feeling that the lots all over could be smaller; and that there are too many half acre and larger lots, and if overall lot sizes in general would be reduced, it would solve many of the problems. He further commented that more lots could be placed where the two or four lots are proposed right now. There are many ways the project can stay out of the oak trees and still provide the agreed upon number of lots and standard size streets. The City Council wanted this entire project to be presented as a single plan, but there is very little mention of those 50 acres over there along Noyes Road. It appears to him that more units could be built on the Rancho Grande project that were originally agreed upon. So he feels that this parcel ':tas to be considered as part of the project, or else the developer could come back in the future with a new proposal to place 50 homes on there. He did not feel that the EIR has sufficiently studied these two parcels. The draft EIR states that the torrey pines should be given the same protection as the oak trees. He didn't see why this was included because these pines are thriving so much that they could become a nuisance, and may actually even threaten the oak trees. Carol Elms, 1105 Grieb Drive, spoke regarding the oak trees. She stated that when they went out and walked the property with various people that were tree experts, there were trees that were tagged with ribbons that were 6" or under that were considered a shrub. She stated that until she had done some studying, she didn't realize that the old landmark trees are dying trees, and that the most important trees for the oak groves are the trees that are 2° to 1' in 7 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 1/29/91 diameter; that's our oak grove. The oak trees that are 3 and 4 feet in diameter are rotting now and they are in a state of dying. She asked what the criteria is from determining a tree from a shrub, and who determines that criteria. Also, she asked where the tree count comes from; is it RRM, Ottse, or is it from Carolyn Leach, the City's Tree Coordinator? She stated she would be very satisfied having a City person, as Carolyn, determining what is considered a tree and what is considered a shrub, and how many actually are on the property. She further stated that one of the problems she had through this whole thing in asking for a new EIR is that she doesn't feel that the first EIR done in 1978 -79 was ever used, and nobody seemed to incorporate it into the final layout of this project, and that is evident by what has happened with James Way. That report emphatically stated that "you will disrupt that wildlife corridor if James Way goes through ". 'It further stated that if James Way does go through, then put a corridor underneath it and raise up James Way so that the wildlife can continue to live in their natural habitat; so they can continue to have that corridor from top to bottom. Instead, what we see there all of the time is `dead wildlife, such as bucks, skunks, etc. She stated they would like to see the wildlife issue addressed. Another question is "what will make this EIR any better ?" Are the public comments going to be used and incorporated, and are the public's concerns going to be valid to the Commission and developers? She commented that views and environment has changed drastically since 1978; the influx of people into California and this area; the stress on all of our resources needs to be addressed now. Are we going to have our water rationed to us so that we can build 500 more homes? Just because they have a right to build 500 homes, doesn't mean in a situation like this, with a drought, that they have a right to go ahead and put the rest of us in jeopardy. She pointed out that whether that water was allotted or not, we are going into'a fifth year of drought and it seriously needs to be looked at. Phfl Ashley, 1586 Lasita Court, San Luis Obispo, stated it appears one criteria is to add to the City's inventory at 527 units, and it also appears that another criteria is to preserve the oak woodland wildlife habitat. In looking at the map of the project, it appears the way this was done, thedeveloper came up with a project and just more or less laid out 527 lots on the site; many of the lots inner - imposed with the oak woodlands don't provide buffers, open space, etc.. That is not the way to biologically design a project. A biologist should be consulted from the very beginning, or it is going to have significant wildlife impact. In looking at this project, I think you could go back and redesign the entire project; get the 527 units with some clustering, open space, buffering from the wildlife areas, and even take into consideration the people who do not want small lots or vice versa. There seems to be plenty of land that is fairly open where you could get away from the wildlife habitat. He suggested reducing the size of the lots, cluster them an&come up with a more preferable wildlife project. Once this habitat is gone, its gone. You don't displace animals; they don't go somewhere else; when their habitat is eliminated, those animals are reduced in the same proportion to the elimination of their habitat. Judy Southcott, 1011 Hodges Road, stated she has read the EIR and did not see any real viable alternatives for the site plan for Tract No. 1994. She stated she would like to see a tract plan that 'shows a tract with fewer lots and smaller sized lots, and the houses clustered. If that were done, the oak trees could be preserved. She stated that mitigation 12 talked about building envelopes in Tract 1994 so that more trees can be saved. However, in the next sentence it says ..."but if you have to cut down trees, you can dig them up and re -plant them, or plant replacement trees." She commented that mitigation 12 seemed ambiguous to her and was not clear at all. Also, she did not feel that the safety of James Way was really addressed. It talks about capacity for James Way but it doesn't really address whether or not it is safe. She stated she drives up and down that street every day and, in her opinion, it is not safe. She suggested that a "Stop" sign be installed somewhere along that street because from Oak Park Road to the top of the hill there are no "Stop" signs. She suggested a "Stop" sign at Stevenson Drive and possibly one at La Piniata. She also spoke regarding the bike lane on James Way suggesting it might be placed someplace else. There being no further comments from the audience, Chairman Carr advised that this hearing.will be continued to another meeting. He asked for comments from the Commissioners regarding their concerns on the project. Commissioner Soto stated one of the things he would like to see is an overlay showing how the open space ties in with the lots, see what lots truly are going to be impacted, and 8 25 258 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 1/29/91 showing the drainage, etc. Also, he agreed with some of the people who stated that some of the mitigation measures do not have enough "oomph" to them and maybe there needs to be something done to them. One of the things he feels the traffic study missed is the traffic impact on James Way and Tally Ho Road. A couple of things that the traffic study may have taken for granted; one is the James Way Extension is still mentioned in the traffic report, however, it is not going to be done, and that may be why they left out the James Way /Tally Ho Road impact. He referred to Page 129 of the EIR limiting construction time from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., pointing out that 7:00 p.m. during Standard Time might be a little late, and perhaps Standard Time and Daylight Savings Time should be addressed. Also, the City water demand on Page 99 references 3,025 acre feet and then back on Page 139 it references 3,126 acre feet, so there is a few acre feet difference there. Commissioner Souza stated, in terms of the oak trees that will be on the lots, he would like to have a specification that landscaping is not allowed within the drip lines. He further stated he feels strongly if we allow landscaping underneath the oak trees, they are history. That could be something to include in the design handbook. Further, he agreed with the suggestion of possibly clustering the lots in Tract 1994 to preserve more of the oak woodland. Commissioner Gallagher spoke regarding drainage concerns, noting that at times this area gets massive amounts of rain, and the points made by Mr. Curtis relative to his situation in the corner down there, and the comment that was made about the off -site water retention, he feels there is potential for some real adverse situations evolving in that lower corner that are significant, and with all the other developments around there, more discussion on the retention basin is needed. He stated he is real concerned about how much more water could be put in that retention basin. Also, the issues that were raised about the air quality that Mr. Elms brought up regarding the carbon monoxide, he felt there should be more expansion on what those numbers mean to us; what it means to the people in the community, and what it means to the site specific area. Regarding private vs. public roads, his concern was fire access because if a fire starts in a windy, drafty down draft situation through the canyons, we would be in a desperate situation to assure the people of the community that they are relatively safe. Another real concern would be in a situation of providing fire vehicle access on narrow streets. Referring to open space /public space and some of the areas for the City to maintain as opposed to the Homeowners' Association, he stated it seems that if we were suggesting that we would 'provide open trails park ways, gardens, etc., his concerns would be 1) the personal safety of the individuals wandering through there, and 2) that if we were going to be planting and were looking at young trees and saying that these are the oak groves that we need to be sensitive to, the potential for those to be damaged as a result of more access through there would compromise our intention to promote the development of the grove. Chairman Carr stated it is his feeling that the majority of open space should be publicly owned rather than privately owned, and anything that can be done to accommodate that, should be done. As far as the streets are concerned, he stated he doesn't have any strong feeling,as to whether the streets should be public or private, however, he feels that the City should possibly be looking at re- thinking our standards and accepting something different in an effort to protect the environment and to make the project work the best they can. If we are not able to do that for one reason or another, then his feeling would be private streets to protect the oak woodland would be better than wide public streets that destroy the trees. He again stated he likes the idea of a design handbook and he would like to see something in there that assures that the building envelope is locked into place, including future grading. Also, he would like to know tow legally binding the design handbook may be in the use of the C. C. & R.'s and if there are any alternatives that may be more binding than what we have at hand. He asked if we are going to have to go into the development agreement to accomplish such things as the alternative to the one tract that is being proposed, and if it is going to change the development, should we be looking at the entire development agreement to see what improvements might be made to it. With regard to wildlife, Chairman Carr stated he has not yet gone through the entire EIR so h doesn't know what the wildlife mitigations are, but there may be some kind of a crossing at James Way which would be something to help to offset the destruction of some of the wildlife habitat that is going to occur with this project. Also, he would not like to see conduits or L. A. river type structures built around our hillsides, but would like to see us be able to handle our drainage in a less obtrusive way, however he does have concerns about the accuracy of that 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 1/29/91 holding pond and would like to hear more about convincing data that we can rely on to show that it is going to do the job. He also hopes that the drainage pond can be left in a natural state and not be fenced. Commissioner Soto cited a correction on Page 125 under "consistency" pointing out that there is 36,99 to 54,400 sq. ft., stating he doesn't know what it is supposed to be. Commissioner Soto also asked if street trees were going to be required for this project, and if 3 for 1 will include those street trees, or will they be trees other than the street trees that would normally be required? Mr. Multari stated he would check and advise the Commission. Mr. Multari stated that the comments from the public and the Commission seemed to be wide -range and covered most of the concerns that he had, and they have some good direction. He thanked the public for their comments, advising them that they will try to get something back to them in writing. He asked if they do think of something else that wasn't mentioned tonight, to try to get those comments to him before the 22nd of February. On motion by Commissioner Soto, seconded by Commissioner Souza, and unanimously carried, the matter was continued to March 5, 1991. , Ms. Liberto -Blanck advised that a joint City Council /Planning Commission field trip of the Rancho Grande property is tentatively scheduled for February 7th at 3:30 p.m. She advised that the public is encouraged to attend. PLANNING DIRECTOR/PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS. Planning Commission Institute. Planning Director Liberto -Blanck advised that the Planning Commission Institute is scheduled to be held March'20 through the 22nd in Monterey, and she would like to know how many of the Commissioners would be interested in attending. She stated that the agenda should be available by the end of this week and copies will be provided to the Commissioners. Commissioners Soto, Brandy and Chairman Carr indicated they would be interested in attending. City /County Planning Commission Field Trill. Ms.Liberto -Blanck stated she has met with Ruth Brackett and the new Planning Commissioner for the South County. They discussed the possibility of setting up a Saturday field trip with the County Planning Commission, possibly in April or May. The date needs to be coordinated with the County. One of the purposes of the joint field trip would be to look at projects in the County and in the City. She stated her feeling that it will be a good opportunity to open up some dialogue with the County. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 P.M. on motion by Commissioner Brandy, seconded by Commissioner Souza, and unanimously carried. ATTEST: L k 411. L , �.� J/. ..i I, Pearl L. Phinney, Secretary / Robert W. Carr, Chairman 10 25)9