HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1993-02-04T
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1993
COMMUNITY CENTER, 211 VERNON AVENUE
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA
The City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande
met at Also
P.M., with Mayor Matthew Peter Gallagher, III, presiding.
present were Council Members Drew Brandy, Bernard Burke, Gene Moots
and James Souza. Staff Members Present were City Manager Chris
Christiansen, City Attorney Judy Skousen, City Clerk Nancy Davis,
Planning Director Doreen Liberto-Blanck and Parks and Recreation
Director John Keisler.
FLAG SAU=
Mayor Gallagher led the Pledge of Allegiance to our Flag.
Mayor Gallagher requested speakers to limit comments to five
minutes, use the two podiums and allow those who had not spoken to J
speak first. He said the meeting would be adjourned at 9:30 P.M.
Mayor Gallagher asked the City Attorney to explain what the
topic of discussion for the meeting should be. Ms. Skousen said
that the main topic would be the Expanded Initial Study and the
proposed Negative Declaration on the park. She said the public
also could talk on whether the park is needed, its benefits or its
detriments and any other California Environmental Quality Act
issues connected with the park.
The Planning Director listed a sequence of events on Terra De
Oro Park and clarified some dates of official actions in response
to comments made at the last Rancho Grande Park hearing. She said
the filing of Notices of Determination and other official actions
were taken in a correct manner and consistent with the law.
The City Manager spoke about the turning radius of fire
equipment into the park's parking area. He said it would be very
unusual for a ladder truck that needs a very large turning radius
to be sent to the park in an emergency. He said most likely a
rescue van would be sent. He also said that median strips could be
designed in a rounded manner so that large trucks could go over
them if necessary.
ORAL CO►,nWNICATIONS
FRED FLANNELL of 555 Via Vaquero said there were errors in
dates given by Ms. Liberto-Blanck, that advisory commissions could
not legally adopt resolutions and that the Notices of Determination
were not filed on time.
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC uFaRTNG - RANCHO GRANDE PARK EXPANDED
;N:.-SMj• STUDY AND MITIGATED NErATIVE DECrsuATSON
Speakers in favor of the construction of the Rancho Grande
Park included JIM DE CECCO of Pismo Beach, MELVIN CALDWELL of 565
Woodland Drive, JENNIE COLLINS of 270 Hillcrest Drive, JOYCE RAUSCH
of 1462 Mercedes Lane, LAURA RUNELS MOSS of Grover Beach, KELLY
DODDS of TRUH
CALDWELL,B49 GEE GEESSOTOeofDrive, SA312 Alder Street (also of over read Beach, read asupporting
letter from B'ANN SMITH of 548 Crown Hill), RAY NILSEN of 207 Rodeo _
Drive, TRACY THOMAS of 1152 Outland Court, LYNN JOHNSON of 405
Mesquite Lane, LYNNE BUHLMAN of 240 Spruce Street, SHELLEY WYSONG
of Grover Beach, TOBY DART of 160 S. Elm Street, DENNIS DONOVAN of
327 Gularte Road and JAMES BIGELOW of 781 Cardinal Court.
Points made by those in favor of the park included the
following:
1. The park is the best use for this land and it should be
constructed as -it was originally designed.
1
rZ
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
FEBRUARY 4, 1993
2. There are not enough playing fields in the City, some teams the Cis soon
will have to leave the City for practice and play, Y
enough passive parks already.
3. Organized sports keep children busy and out of trouble.
4. The objections to the park have been mitigated.
5. James Way is one of the least traveled east/west streets in the
City.
6. Concrete bleachers are less noisy and will serve as a retaining
wall in the park.
7. The number of cars coming to the park will be much less than the
opposition says, and there will be much less traffic than at the
Soto Sports Complex.
8. The park will not be fully scheduled all year round, only during
certain seasons.
9. The Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan is supposed
to be used as a guide only and is not meant to be followed without
any deviation.
10. Lighting may be a legitimate concern, but "futures" for
lighting should be installed.
exchange11. The suggested land City,
Rancho Grande developers istoo difficult to accomplish. and the
12. Crime and vandalism are more likely to occur in a passive park.
13. Citizens voted for some of the Council Members because they
said they were in favor of the park.
14. The park will take many years to complete, and people, who
probably will not be in Arroyo Grande by the time the park is
completed, are worrying needlessly about impacts.
15. People who live around public facilities such as parks and
schools do not complain because they know the land is going to a
good use.
16. volunteers and donations will be used to construction gist in the
of the park, thus saving the City money.
17. If the Rancho Grande developer wanted restrictions on the park,
he should have required them when he gave and sold the land for the
park.
Speaking against the park, or parts thereof were FRED FLANNELL
of 550 Via Vaquero, ED VILLEGAS of 114 Via Bandolero, CLYDE BRGDON
of
of 536 Via Vaquero (also spoke on behalf of JOHN HARE, president
the Rancho Grande Homeowners Association), LEONA LEWIS MONTGOMERY
of 126 Via Bandolero (also read a letter from A. MARKUS, president
of Ottse, Inc.), PETER MILLER, attorney and general representative
of Ottse, Inc., JEAN WADE of 750 ne Avenida Pori ma tep KEN Rancho ONCE of
Grande
Shell Beach, JOHN BELSHER, Y
ofmllbHoeowners Rodeo ssociationDrive and�CHARLES RANDALL of MIKE TITUS of 404 L4111pani h Moss Lane.
Points made by those opposing the park, or parts thereof
-included the following:
1. More playing fields are not needed in the City.
2
88..
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
FEBRUARY 4, 1993
2. The City should follow the General Plan that says more tennis,
basketball, handball and volleyball courts, a senior citizen center
and a swimming pool are needed.
3. Too much is planned for the size of the proposed park.
4. Games could be played all day on the one field.
5. Lighting, traffic and noise are the main negatives.
6. The Negative Declaration is flawed and a full Environmental
Impact Report is needed.
7. Day and night, league and tournament organized sports activities
are opposed.
S. This type of park should be on flat land; the proposed park will
require too much grading.
9. Drawings that describe the park are out of date, the project is
anot skingefort"post hoc" environmental determinatial exposure by
nsg
10. There will be negative visual impacts on the day and night
vistas.
11. An alternative to the proposed park could be an exchange of
land .worked out by the City, the YMCA and the Rancho Grande
developer.
12. The City should sell the park property and buy a bigger piece
on land elsewhere.
13. The Traffic Study was not based on correct data.
14. Property values will be reduced by a park constructed as
originally designed.
15. Since the City did not allow non-CEQA issues to be discussed at
the last public hearing, it should not have done so at this
meeting.
16. Parks should not be designed and built just for school -age
children, but for adults also.
intent17. it was the Grande
e park
would benefit t e527 unit de elopm nt,not belaper that h
detriment to it.
Mayor Gallagher said that concluded the testimony from the
public on the issue of the proposed park. He said the next meeting
would be for Council discussion only.
THE COUNCIL ADJOURNED AT 9:20 P.M. FOR A RECESS AND RECONVENED
AT 9:25 P.M.
4 ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Moots/Souza, and the motion passed unanimously
to adjourn at 9:26 P.M. to a Continued City Council meeting at 7:00
P.M. Thursday, March 4, 1993, at the j)rroyo Grande Community
Center, 211 Vernon Avenues h
PETER
ATTEST: \� ^�—C•G DFTG�-u
NANCY A. VIS, CITY CLERK
3
MAYOR