Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1995-08-08MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, AUGUST 8, 1995 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 EAST BRANCH STREET ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA The City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande met at 7:30 p.m., m;i-h Mavor A. K. "Pete" Dougall presiding. 1. AND 2. FLAG SALUTE AND INVOCATION Wayne Dempster of the Knights of Columbus, Arroyo Grande Council No. 1375, led the Pledge of Allegiance to Our Flag. The Rev. Franklin Scott of First United Methodist Church delivered the invocation. Mayor aDougall Counciltto Mr. Dempster ed a letter of appreciation for leading the behalf of hams Flag Salute. 3. ROLL CALL Present with Mayor Dougall were Council Members Drew Brandy, Michael Fuller and Michael Lady. Mayor Pro Tem James Souza was absent. Staff members present were City Manager Bob Hunt, City Attorney Roger Lyon, City Clerk Nancy Davis, Planning Director Doreen Liberto-Blanck, Current Planner Scott Spierling, Public Works Director John Wallace, Parks and Recreation Director John Keisler and Chief of Police Rick TerBorch. 4 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS eal (.Agenda REYNOLDS RITCHIE, 271 Traffic Way, spoke about his app Item 6.a.), and City Attorney Lyon said the remarks were directly related to the hearing on the sign. He recommended that they be made a part of that public hearing. 5. CONSENT AGENDA It was moved by Lady/Brandy, and the motion passed unanimously to approve Consent Agenda Items 5.a. through 5.f., with the recommended courses of action, including the revision to 5.d. 5.a. July 25, 1995, City Council Minutes. Approved. 5.b. July, 1995, Investment Report. Received and Filed. 5.c. Harvest Festival Banners. Purchase of two banners approved. 5.d. Opposition to AB 1164/SB 1257; Limitation of Local Authority Regarding Rent Control. Since Governor Pete Wilson signed AB 1164 on August 3, 1995, and SB 1257 was in the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee, staff recommended the City Council write a letter to Assemblyman Dan Hauser, chair of the committee, in opposition to SB 1257. Revised letter approved. 5.e. Water Neutralization Program; CUP Case No. 95-536; 303 South 1 2 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 8, 1995 Halcyon Road; Dr. Michael Limberg. Approved. 5.f. Register of Checks. Approved. REYNOLDS ROE Current Planner Spierling referred to the Staff Report dated staff recommended that the City i August 8, 1995, and said ssion adopt a resolution denying the appeal of the Planning Comm decisions. After being assured that the hearing had all legal requirements met, Mayor Dougall open and said all persons would be heard Speaking in support of the appeal were MR. AND MRS. RITCHIE; CARL BOCKHAHN, 139 East Cherry Avenue; MR. AND MRS. MELVIN JOHNSON, owners of the Vagabond Mobile Home Park, and PARIS JOHNSON, 535 Traffic Way. Their remarks included the following: been duly published and declared the hearing regarding the matter. 1. The service station owner has not considered the wishes of the surrounding homeowners, some of whom have view problems and others who have night -light problems with the sign. 2. The sign cannot be seen before exiting the freeway from the north or south, and, therefore, a larger sign is not needed. 3. one of the station owners thedoes neighborslive ofltheArroyo stationGrande or understand the concerns 4. The new larger sign will devalue the surrounding property. 5. A variance should otbe sbyetheecause Planningesign was Commissiondiscussed when the project was approved 6. The Vagabond Mobile Home Park has not been protected enough by the City. Too much light from the station is going into the park at night. 7. A larger sign, which has been dimmed to emanate less light, would look dingy and washed out. Speaking against the appeal were HOURI WARTANIMN, 491 GarfeVogue Street; RALPH MUSSLER of Mobil Oil Company; Sign Company; WALT FRIESEN of NOW Construction, which handles 2 3 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 8, 1995 imaging and standards for Mobil Corporation; and KHATCHIK ACHADJIAN, owner of the Mobil Service Station at 525 Traffic Way. Using a demonstration sign in the darkened Council Chambers, Mr.. Worrell showed how the brightness in a sign could be reduced. Mr. Achadjian gave Council Members copies of a report from newspaeersvcculdaberTim read ato139nandh251eEastdCherrymbytthehat light newspapers emanating from the service station sign. The remarks of the speakers opposing the appeal included the following: 1. Whether the station owner lives in Arroyo Grande has no relevance to the sign. Mr. Achadjian spends a great deal of time in the city and gives his time and money to many causes here. 2. The new station has improved the looks of that part of Arroyo Grande. 3. The larger sign will be seen by commuters, who will remember that the station is there and return at a later date. Part of the station's success will be based on the exposure it gets to residents of adjacent communities and the rest of the Central Coast. larger will rightnesscan sbenepercent 25 less perct, and the ent. cent. brig 5. Bright lights at a service station increase the security and comfort of the customers. 6. The Mobil station has one-third less signage than other stations in the area. The larger sign is necessary for the station to compete in the marketplace. 7. The new service station is an improvement over the last one and has improved nearby property values. 8. All 28 employees at the new service station are residents of the South County. When no one further came forward to speak to the council, Mayor Dougall closed the hearing to the floor. Mayor Dougall read a memorandum opposing the appeal from Mayor Pro Tem Souza, who wrote the "the new station and larger sign is a vast improvement over the former unit." 0 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 8, 1995 Some of the Council Memberssaid they a vTheirdcommentsthe cwere'as home to view the sign from their windows follows: 1. Many signs could be seen from the Ritchie home; the new Mobil sign is only one of them. 2. The station's canopy lights appear to be brighter than the new Vaga sign. Some of the mobile homes in ossibiadirectlyre lityof dimming impacted by the canopy lighting. The p those lights should be examined, with security kept in mind. 3. The new sign will be smaller than many of the signs seen up and down the freeway. 4. The new sign should be dimmed and made less bright, as was demonstrated by Mr. Worrell of vogue Signs. Of 5. One solution would be to a11F�eewayvariance exposureowould bethe lgained the sign but not on the size a level" for the Ritchies. and the sign would not be at "ey 6. The light on East Cherry is from the street lighting. 7. The new service station with the larger sign`.will bring more money into the community. It was moved by Lady/Fuller (4-0-1, Lady, Fuller, Brandy and partially uphold the appeal Dougall voting aye, Souza absent) to p planned sign roving the amended variance and amended by app including directing staff to work with program with conditions, vogue Signs to obtain in the larger sige,the least aingnthef mou illumination per square fo p lightingat the Police Department to reevaluate the canopy yresolution on the station. Staff was directed to place Consent Agenda of August 22, 1995. ^T CON DIT ONAL ubt, rJL11—=11 EW - 260 SPR C 1 `'"' """ CHIT ASSOCIA ED ASSOCIATION HOMEOWNERS have a conflict of interest in this Mayor Dougall said he may resided. matter and left the room. Council Member Brandy p t Planner Spierling referred to the August 8, 1995, staff Curren Council support report and said staff recommended that the City n and adopt the resolution denying is the Planning Commission decisioted that if the project the appeal. He said the appellants sta 4 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 8, 1995 to be built, the plan should be reversed. After being assured that the hearing had been duly published and all legal requirements met, Council Member Brandy declared the hearing open and said all persons would be heard regarding the matter. Speaking in favor of the appeal were DIANA DUQUESNE of 286 Spruce Street; MARYLEE IVERSON, who owns property at 282 Spruce Street, and DELORES CARLSON, who owns property at 278 Spruce Street. Points made by the speakers included the following: 1. The new Planned Unit Development looks directly into the yards and windows of the existing homes creating a lack of privacy. 2. Property values will be reduced by the current design of the P.U.D. 3. There is a lack of adequate on -street parking. 4. Rear setbacks are not adequate. 5. The Fire Department would have access to both units ifthe driveways backed up to existing fences. An approved nce agreement for fire access is necessary. 6. If the project is aPPr�hedboundarythe fencesappeal willlbe)andthe ifubhec should be informed where existing fences will be used. 7. Sunlight to the existing homes will be blocked by the new units. Speaking against the appeal were MARK GAMMON of RMO Architects and RICHARD DALE ARMSTRONG, applicant. Their remarks included the following: 1. The present design of the project is the best way to go. 2. The developer has provided almost double the number of parking spaces (23 plus two on -street) that the City requires for the five units. Parking is on the northside of the units to reduce noise for adjacent neighbors. 3. The density of the five units is less than the surrounding complexes. is north 4. Sunlight will not be blocked because the new P.U.D. of the existing complex- 5 a is CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 8, 1995 5. There are only three windows that arethe minimum and notsavwhole en foot setback looking into the adjacent property, wing of units. When no one o speak, Council Member Brandy further came forward t closed the hearing to the floor. eal and questioned staff with said Council Members discussed the app pro] ect. Mr. Spierling regard to the original designof the pr with larger setbacks, and the original design had only would the driveway to the south. He noted that the driveway act an oak tree. He said if thhecurrent oak treedesign stillwere willreversed, imp t as the appellants are requesting, probably have to be removed. Council Members, staff and Mr. Armstrong discussed implications P.U.D. projects. The privacy on setback size if the design were reversed. It was noted that there are no minimum setbacks o issue was addressed, as was mitigation of the oak tree. The City Attorney said if the applicant is willing to redesign erred thek to project, the matter would bthe°final edecision d and fw uld becmade. P Commission, where the Planning licant is entitled to have a final He said, otherwise the app asked if staff answer from the Council. Council Member Brandy ect if it and the Planning Commission coulds"fasaid yesrack" the project were to be redesigned, and staff Mr. Armstrong said he would be willing to accept the continuance. 3-0-2, Fuller, Lady and Brandy it was moved by Fuller/Lady ( to continue the matter voting aye and Souza and Dougall absent) ect, then refer it to give the applicant time to redesign the project, the Planning Commission, and direct staff to "fast -track" the to ect. processing of the submitted pro] Mayor Dougall returned to the dais. The Council recessed at 9:50 p.m• for five minutes. p T TNG APPEAT, OF PI ANN�GC KKT SSION ..—WTmTTTTTTin PUBLIC ' n�+TTSa+ 2 H T,rTac ! T 1 7OHlIlG SSUE- APD INC - VONS COMPANIES three subjects to deal with on Mayor Dougall said ted the lVonsdcompanies representatives for this appeal. He thank 6 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 8, 1995 working diligently with the City. He also praised City staff for its work on the staff report. He said this project is the first under the City's new "business friendly" banner. Planning Director Liberto-Blanck said staff had been meeting with the appellants and many of the disputed issues had been resolved. She said the three unresolved issues are: 1. Future permitted uses in Building A with only issuance of a business license. 2. Waiving of the drainage fee of $23,968 due to the offsite drainage improvements that are being made. 3. Additional credit being provided against the traffic impact fee for improvements the City has requested that Vons make on Courtland Street and Oak Park Boulevard. She said alternately Vons representatives have indicated that they prefer not to make improvements on Courtland and not get the credit back. The Planning Director said that concerning Parcel Map Conditions of Approval No. 11, there had been a change to the appellant's modification that would now read: "Concurrent with recordation of the parcel map, the applicant shall record CC&R's and easements that, at a minimum, regulate joint parking, drainage, access and maintenance. The City Attorney shall review and approve CC&R'sd easements with respect to these specific items." Ms. Liberto-Blanck said staff had recommended that the following language be added to the end of the appellant's suggested wording: "Those provisions required by process may not be amended or written consent of the City." the City as part of the approval otherwise changed without prior Public Works Director Wallace addressed the Council on drainage fee issues regarding Courtland Street and Oak Park Boulevard. He said there is a requirement for improving Oak Park Boulevard across the frontage of the property, widening the roadway by approximately 12 feet and incorporating a sidewalk. He said the City of Grover Beach had requested that Arroyo Grande require Vons to continue to widen the street up to Brighton Avenue to make a more uniform street (at the cost of $90,000 to $95,000). He said the applicant would not object to that suggestion as long as the work would be credited to the traffic impact fees it pays to Arroyo Grande. He recommended that the Oak Park Boulevard 7 I CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 8, 1995 transition remain undefined because the City does not know what the transition will look like until design information is Of received from Vons, and disthecussions annexingare of thedwith the small widenedystrip Grover Beach concerning to Grover Beach so Arroyo Grande will not have to maintain it. Mr. Wallace said the second issue has to do with CourtdStreet and a condition requiring a sidewalk, curband gutter andcredit some the paving of the roadway. He said the applicant traffic impact fees for the $24,000 cost. He recommended that the City require the improvement of at least recurbsrand gutters sidewalk to be made at the appropriate grade so could be constructed at a later time. as He The Public Works Directorhadrequested aid the nal somessue timewagodtolmake•some explained the applicant off -site improvements rather construct facilities.onHelsaidethetion basins and underground water storage cost difference, according to Vons' engineer, is $55,000, and therefore Vons wishes the City to waive drainage fhad alreadyees of 000. He recommended against this because, (1) Y provided the facilities to accommodate the Vons drainage, (t ain Vons had received significant benefit by not having to maint the on -site facilities in perpetuity, and (3) Vons has approximately 20,000 square feet more area to be developed. Council Member Fuller askedsaid, off -site larimprovements Street basin be made by Vons. Mr. Wallace, (1) thepoplar installation of would be lined for higher capacity, and (2) a bleeder line for the Soto Basins down various streets Arroyo discharge to a atallowingnthe sCity tem etondrain ygoing the basins. He said Grande Creek an this would be of mutual beefit to the and Vons, its property. would not have to construct and After being assured that the hearing had been duly published and all legal requirements met, Mayor beDheardldeclared the regarding the matterhearing open and said all persons would Speaking in favor of the appeal were TOM COURTNEY of Courtney Architects, representative Oak Center; l,LEN Companythe Vons Companies, JOHN BARTLETT ofHalfertyDevelopmentan and DAN LLOYD of Engineering Development Associates, project engineer. Mr. Courtney thanked the City for its cooperation in working out the issues of this project. He said it boiled down to two issues, the drainage and Courtland Street. 8 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 8, 1995 Mr. Lloyd used the overhead projector to illustrate his talk. He said Vons was asking to construct only the concrete sidewalk at the appropriate grade, but not construct the curb and gutter and not relocate the utilities. He asked the City to credit the costs of anything required beyond the sidewalk to the traffic impact fees. The project engineer said Vons agreed with offsite drainage improvements, but there is some benefit to be gained by the City. He said the $123,000 cost for constructing the offsite drainage improvements should be credited to fees charged by the City. He answered questions of Council concerning the equity of the trade- off. He said the second issue was Oak Park Boulevard improvements, and stated that the condition requiring an approved transition at the Vons frontage line does not mean widening the street all the way across the Peace Lutheran Church property and homes to Brighton Avenue. He said that was not Vons' responsibility, and the City of Grover Beach should be involved in solving the problem. Ms. Carmichael, owner of property across Grand Avenue from the Vons project, asked the Council if the Poplar Basin potential would be used up by Vons, how this would affect future development, and if the City would in the future be able to provide more drainage. DON HILLYARD, president of Peace Lutheran Church congregation, said the church does not want a large transition at the church parking lot. He said the cities and Vons should get together and make three to four lanes for good traffic flow on Oak Park Boulevard. Mr. Bartlett said Vons is looking for economic fairness and feasibility, and he reaffirmed what Mr. Lloyd told the Council. Mr. Wallen addressed the uses relative to the zoning of the project. He said it is not Vons' intent to go though an immediate conversion of the use of the building and the proposed development. He said the goal was to get a confirmation of Vons' r ability to convert the building to a different use or recycled use in the future if that is required. He said some proposed uses had been submitted. o When no one further came forward to speak, Mayor Dougall closed the hearing to the floor. The Council began consideration of the appeal and reached the following decisions. on Zoning Issues, Conditions Related to Fees 9 10 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 8, 1995 and General Text Clarifications as listed in the August 8, 1995, Staff Report prepared by the Planning Director: 1. CUP Condition of Approval Council consensus to approve No 6 - Planning Department staff recommendation. 2. CUP Conditions of Approval 18 and 45 - Public Works Department Mayor Dougall and Council Members Fuller and Lady agreed to approve the Appellant's request. 3. CUP Condition of Approval No 42; Tentative Parcel Map Measure No. 29-Fire Condition of Approval No 22: and Mitigation Department Council consensus to approve staff recommendation. 4. CUP Conditions of Approval 28 and 28a - Public Works Department and Planning Department staff recommendation. Council consensus to approve 5. CUP Condition No's 33 34 35 and 36: Parcel Is- 13 14, 15 and 16. Mitigation Council consensus to approve Measure 26-Public Works Department staff recommendation, and work with the City of Grover Beach on the transition. 6. Mitigation Measure No 16 Water Neutralization Program -Public Works Department council consensus to approve staff recommendation. 7. CUP Condition of Approval 15g; Mitigation Measure No 9-Public_ Works Department and Planning Department Council consensus to approve staff recommendation. 8. CUP Condition of Approval 19: Parcel Map Condition of Ap Xovaj 17 Planning Department and Public Council consensus to approve Works Department staff recommendation. 9. parcel Map Condition of Approval Council consensus to approve No. 11 staff recommendation. 10. CUP Condition of Approval No 33: Parcel Map Condition o Approval No 13 and Mitigation Council consensus to approve Measure o. the appellant's request. 11. Mitigation Measure No 11-Planning Department Council consensus to approve staff recommendation. 12. Additional Issue Council consensus to approve staff recommendations on time frames for collecting fees on the Building Tax, the School Fee, the 10 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 8, 1995 Traffic Signal and Traffic Impact Fees and the Sewer and Water Fees. City Attorney Lyon said staff should review the resolution partially upholding the appeal before the Council votes on the matter. At 11:05 p.m. Mayor Dougall said there would be a five-minute recess, while staff reviewed the resolution. 7 A CLARIFICATION OF CREDIT FOR --RI unAn IxTERCH iGQEE T AKA da15 STUDY the City Council agree City Manager Hunt said on March 28, 1995, to provide credit to Ottse for the portion of the traprovides a ffic analysis study on the Brisco Road Interchange, whichcitywide benefit and does not specifically benefit or apply to the-44-acre commercial site. He said the City drew up an agreement and sent it tativeroftOttse returned•theesaid lettero n July 12, 1995, the representative the City indicating the agreement should provide for 100 percent credit, not 10 percent. Mr. Hunt recommended that the Council (1) agree to provide 10 percent credit, as the current draft agreement specifies, (2) provide a percentage of credit to the developer based on certain events, or (3) provide 100 percent credit on the future traffic impact fee with no performance stipulation. Council Members discussed the alternatives, and chose a revised version of No. 2, as follows! 40 percent credit will be provided when a development application - on the 44 acres is submitted to the City for review and approval; 50 percent credit will be provided when entitlements (i.e., City approval of development applications) are received on the Council 44 acre commercial site, and 100 vercent credit will be provided when a building permit is issued on the first phase of development on the 44 acre commercial site. 8 A DESIGNATION Ul'" _vy-ri0_%' Mr. Hunt said to expedite the conduct of business at the Leagthe uety of California Cities annual conference business meeting, Council should designate a voting representative and an alternate who will be present. Council Members derided that -Mayor Dougall and Mayor Pro Tem 11 1Z CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 8, 1995 Souza would be delegates and Council Member Brandy would be alternate to the conference, which will be held in San Francisco October 22 to 24, 1995. 8 B SCHEDULING OF JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Mr. Hunt said it was the staff recommendation that the City Council schedule the next joint meeting with the Planning Commission for October 17 or 31, 1995. Council Members discussed the matter and approved October 17, 1995, as date of the joint meeting. g A WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None. 10 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Council Member Lady praised the Senior Advisory Commission for bringing to the Council's attention State Assembly and Senate bills regarding rent control in cities. 6 C VON APPEAL CONTINUED FROM EARLIER IN THE MEETING Council Member Brandy pointed out the late hour and the pressure being put on staff to revise the resolution so the Council could vote on it. He suggested that the appeal be continued to the next Council meeting. Other Council Members agreed. It was moved by Brandy/Lady, and the motion passed unanimously to partially uphold the appeal and bring the matter back to the August 22, 1995, meeting Consent Agenda for the Council vote. 11. CLOSED SESSION The Council adjourned at 11:55 p.m. to a Closed Session on the following: (a) Conference with Legal Counsel: Anticipated Litigation: Government Code Section 94956.9(b); Significant Exposure to Litigation Involving Two Potential Cases (b) Conference with Labor Negotiator: Gov. Code Sec. 54957.6 Agency Negotiator: Rick TerBorch, Police Chief Represented Units: Service Employees International Union Local 817; and Arroyo Grande - Police Officers' Assn. 12. AD.TOURNMENT The Council reconvened at 12:19 a.m. and immediately adjourned on the unanimously approved motion of Brandy/Lady. 13 J CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 8, 1995 A. "PET " DOUGA L, MAYOR ATTEST: NANCY A. VIS, CITY CLERK V NANCY A" 13