Minutes 1986-12-01
--
. .-
CITY COUNCIL DECEMBER 1, 1986
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA 1:00 P.M.
The City Council met in a regular adjourned session with Mayor
B'Ann Smith presiding, and Council Members Dorace Johnson, Gene Moots,
and D. G. Porter present. Council Member Matt Gallagher was absent.
The subject of the meeting was Drainage Improvements' Requirements
l-.. for Walnut View Estates, Lot Split Case No. 85-408, Cherry Avenue
at Branch Mill Road. Court Reporter Claire B. Trout was present.
City Attorney Art Shaw said Coker Ellsworth, the property owner,
was present, and his attorney, Gerald Weaver, was expected to arrive
[at any minute. Mr. Shaw reviewed the history of the case. He said
this was a public hearing which began on November 11, 1986, was
continued to November 25, 1986, and then to this meeting. He said
that the Exhibits were "A," excerpts from the Court's decision on
- a suit filed by Ellsworth and Vick Pace against the City earlier
this year; "B," recommendations from the Public Works Director for
drainage, six recommended steps with reasons and discussion, and
a diagram of the area and proposed improvements attached; "C," a
larger diagram of the area. He said Mr. Weaver had been provided
with a transcript of the last proceedings.
MAYOR SMITH CALLED A FIVE-MINUTE RECESS TO ALLOW TIME FOR
THE APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY AND ENGINEER TO ARRIVE-l:04 P.M.-1:09 P.M.
FRED SCHOTT, 200 Suburban Road, San Luis Obispo, referred to
his hydrology map of Newsom Canyon and Guaya Canyon to Arroyo Grande
Creek. He suggested that the Council approve the lot split without
any drainage improvements except for requiring that houses be built
above the floodplain. The Hydrology Map was entered into the record
as Exhibit "D."
[Mr. Shaw said that for the record Attorney Gerald Weaver was
now present.
MR. AND MRS. ALBERT STILLWELL of 734 Myrtle Street expressed
concerns about the drainage affecting the surrounding area if the
lot split were approved.
ATTORNEY WEAVER said that the proposals of Paul Karp, Public
Works Director, for solving the drainage problem, were originally
made by Mr. Ellsworth when he was asking for 54 units 'on the property.
He said he would be willing to install those improvements, which
he estimated at $200,000, if he received approval for 54 units.
However, when the 54-unit project was rejected by the Council, the
improvement proposals were withdrawn, Mr. Weaver said. He added
that Mr. Ellsworth objects vehemently to putting in those improvements
on a four-way lot split; they are not economically feasible, rational,
fair. Mr. Weaver said that requiring Mr. Ellsworth to do more than
build the houses above the floodplain would be asking him to handle
I drainage problems occurring beyond his property. Mr. Weaver asked'
I that a letter dated December 1, 1986, to Attorney Weaver,with facts
i relating to the City's proposed development requirements for the
, Walnut View Estates project, be entered into the record as Exhibit
IIE4 ..
I LARRY TURNER of 323 Noguera Place said he felt that anything
l done to the property in question would be detrimental to downstream
properties. He said that Mr. Karp's plan would help alleviate some
of the drainage problems.
Mayor Smith closed the public portion of the hearing.
Discussion by the Council followed, with questions of the
staff and input from the attorneys and applicant. Mayor Smith said
that after hearing all of the testimony she would still favor Mr.
Karp's recommendations. She said that the people living in the
-
ot
Z2.~.~"
CITY COUNCIL DECEMBER 1 , 1986
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA PAGE TWO
homes eventually built on the four parcels would be affected by the
drainage problems. She said that it is the Council's responsibility
to protect those people from potential flooding on their property.
Council Member Johnson said the Council realizes that this
proposal is not a panacea and not a solution for a 100-year storm
or what happened to homeowners in 1968-69. She said that she expects
problems to be solved so the home owners will not face flooding. l:
She raised the issues of proper fencing that would not interfere with
good drainage, and the preservation of bistoric oak trees.
Council Member Moots agreed that the City has to have some -~
sort of drainage plan for the property. Council Member Porter said I
he feels the Council should stay with the problem until it is
solved. He said the City Engineer's recommendations should be
accepted.
Mr. Shaw said he would be presenting the Council's actions to
the Superior Court Judge William Fredman, who on August 29, 1986,
rejected three of four reasons the Council cited for denying the
lot split and ordered that the fourth reason, drainage concerns,
be re-examined. (Judge Fredman said the Council needed to clarify
its concerns about drainage and determine if the concerns could be
reasonably resolved. He said if the Council determines that the
problems could not be resolved and would pose a threat to public
health and safety, the Council could be justified in rejecting
the lot split. He said, however, that if the problems can be
resolved through proper engineering practices, the Council cannot
reject the project based on those concerns.)
On motion of Council Member Porter, seconded by Council Member
Johnson, to grant the appeal for the limited area of drainage
improvements only; to accept the recommendations 1 through 6 on I
the November 4, 1986, Staff Report of the Public Works DirectorCExhibit"B"
to add a seventh condition that there be a deed restriction that _~
no fences or fills be allowed in areas that lie below the 100
year flood level; to accept all of the recommendations and
conditions of the Planning Commission, and, therefore, to approve
the project, on the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Mayor Smith and Council Members Johnson, Moots and Porter
NOES: None
ABSENT: Council Member Gallagher
THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 2:07 P.M.
I)'~ h4 ~
MAYOR
ATTEST: ~ d. ~
CITY CLER