Minutes 1986-01-27
"-, -~
CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 27, 1986
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA 7:30 P.M.
The City Council met in Regular Session with Mayor B'Ann Smith presi-
ding. Upon roll call, Council Members Matt Gallagher, Dorace Johnson,
Gene Moots and D.G. Porter present.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND INVOCATION
Council Member Moots led the Pledge of Allegiance to our flag. Counc il
Member Gallagher delivered the invocation.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
CONSENT AGENDA
Council Member Johnson withdrew Item No.6 for discussion. On motion
of Council Member Moots, seconded by Council Member Gallagher, and unanimously
carried, to approve Consent Agenda Items 1 through 12 with the exception
of Item 6.
1. January 14, 1986 COl1uciI Minutes (Reconmend Approval)
2. Demand Register (R ecoamend Appt:ovd)
3. Request to Hold Sidewalk Sale in Village,
February 14 and 15, 1986 (Reconmend Approval)
4. Resignation of Faith E. Wescomfran QtiZU1S
Transportation Advisory Clxmlittee (Recoamend Approval)
5. League of California Otie.' Legialative Bulletin
No. 2-1986 (Jnfotmation)
7. January 8, 1986 Parks and Recreation Comnillion Note. (InEonnation)
8. Decanber 16, 1985 Parking and Traffic C.....m..ion
Minutes (InEoanation)
9. Resolution Establishing 3D-Minute Parking Zone in front
of 1312 Grand Avenue (Te1ep:.ones to Go) (Recoamend Adoption)
10. Resolution to Establiab Certain Oty Property as "~pus"
(Reconmend Adoption)
11. ean for Bids - Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk District - Le Point Street,
(south side), frem North Mason Street to Tally Ho Road (Reconmend Approval)
12. South County Sanitary Senice Rate Increase Statui Report
and Set Public Hearing Date'
(JDfolDlRtion and Set Public Hearing for February 11, 1986)
---'-'--~'-~'~- ,---
-
CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 27, 1986
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA PAGE TWO
CONSENT AGENDA Continued
Council Member Johnson referred to Item 8, Architectural Review Case
No. 86-355, Replace Existing Sign, 100 Traffic Way (Skilley's Camper Sales).
She asked if this matter would come before the City Council and if the sign
design could be viewed. Planning Director Stanley Eisner said the item would
not come before the Council unless it appealed the Planning Commission decision.
He said the item had been continued to the next meeting of the Planning Commis-
sion. He said the sign could be viewed in his City Hall office. On motion
of Council Member Johnson, seconded by Council Member Gallagher, and unanimously
carried, to approve Consent Agenda Item 6.
OAK PARK INTERCHANGE REPORT
Public Works Director Paul Karp said that the cities of Arroyo Grande,
Grover City and Pismo Beach had met to discuss the project and that Pismo Beach
is against the project as it is written primarily because of the relocation
of the northbound ramps to Camino Mercado. He said Pismo Beach is still in
favor of spending money for a project, however. Mr. Karp said that subsequent
to that meeting he and Mayor Smith had met with Reuben Kvidt, developer of
Oak Park Acres, who said he would be willing to donate land in the drainage
area of Tract 604 for relocation of the frontage road to accommodate appropriate
storage for signalization of the northbound ramps in the present location.
Mr. Karp said that R. Baker Construction also had volunteered to donate land
to relocate northbound ramps on his property in Pismo Beach. Mr. Karp said
Caltrans is reviewing the proposals. He said the relocation of the northbound
ramps to Camino Mercado without the remaining originally planned project (proceeding
on our own) would cost $800,000.00, and Arroyo Grande would be short of Federal
Allocation Urban funds. He said the Arroyo Grande FAU Fund contains about $500,000.00.
He said he would be waiting to hear from Caltrans on the matter.
FINAL READING OF ORDINANCE TO EFFECT MODIFICATION OF ZONING ORDINANCE BY CHANGING
THE TITLE OF C-N DISTRICT TO C-A ZONING DISTRICT~ CREATING A NEW DISTRICT ENTITLED
C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, AND ESTABLISHING STANDA OS; CHANGING THE TITLE OF
THE H-S DISTRICT TO C-3 DISTRICT AND CHANGING STANDARDS IN THE C-3 DISTRICT;
AND MAPPING PROPERTIES FOR C-2 AND C-3 DISTRICTS.
Mr. Eisner read the title of the proposed Ordinance, and, on motion of
Council Member Moots, seconded by Council Member Johnson, and unanimously carried
to dispense with further reading of the ordinance.
MARIE CATTOIR, 195 Orchid Lane, asked for a point of clarification saying,
"If the legal notice of the Ordinance, for instance for C-3,
was published in the newspaper, could the Council legally adopt something other
than what was published?" She said she believed that general offices, professional
offices, banks, and savings and loan offices were listed in the Ordinance
under Sec. 9-4.1403. Uses permitted subject to a conditional use permit.
City Manager Robert Mack said the legal notice Mrs. Cattoir was referring
to was a Notice of Public Hearing. He said the Council is free as a result
of the Public Hearing process to adopt something other than what was proposed
or advertised, and that was the purpose of the Public Hearing. Mr. Eisner said
that the Planning Commission had deleted office uses from C-3. After Council
discussion with City Attorney Art Shaw, and the withdrawal of the previous
motion by Council Members Moots and Gallagher, on motion of Council Member
Gallagher, seconded by Council Member Moots, and unanimously carried, that
the Ordinance prepared for the public be modified to represent the opinion
of the Council; that the second reading be held at the next Council meeting,
and that notice be given to the public of the changes made in the Ordinance.
- -~.
CITY COUNTI L JANUARY 27, 1986
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA PAGE THREE
FINAL READING OF ORDINANCE TO EFFECT MODIFICATION OF ZONING ORDINANCE, BY REPEA-
LING THE CURRENT R-G AND R-3 ZONING DISTRICTS AND ESTABLISHING A NEW R-3 DISTRICT
WITH STANDARDS
Mr. Eisner read the title of the proposed Ordinance. Dn motion of Council
Member Gallagher, seconded by Council Member Moots, and unanimously carried
to dispense with further reading of the proposed Ordinance. '
ORDINANCE NO. 339
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE MODIFYING
THE MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
BY REPEALING ARTICLE 8 "GARDEN APARTMENT RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT OR R-G DISTRICT," AND REPEALING AND AMENDING
ARTICLE 9, "MUL TIPLE-FAMIL Y RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT OR
< R-3 DISTRICT," AND AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE TITLES
AND THE LEGEND ON THE ZONING MAP
On motion of Council Member Gallagher, seconded by Council Member Moots
and on the following roll call vote, to wit: '
AYES: Mayor Smith and Council Members Gallagher, Johnson, Moots and Porter
NONE: None
ABSENT: None
the foregoing Ordinance was passed and adopted the 27th day of January, 1986.
APPOINTMENT TO THE CITIZENS' TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
Mayor Smith said she had no appointment to make, and asked Council Members
to suggest names of citizens who would be interested in serving on the committee.
OAK PARK PROFESSIONAL CENTRE (TRACT 1240) ACCEPTANCE BY COUNCIL
Mr. Karp referred to a letter from Jim Reed of Bonita Homes requesting
action by the Council. Mr. Karp said that the tract was completed I and recom-
mended Acceptance of Improvements on behalf of the public of the public portion
of the project (the street work). On motion of Council Member Johnson, seconded
by Council Member Moots, and unanimously carried, to approve Mr. Karp's recom-
mendation.
PUBLIC HEARING-APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION OF DENIAL OF LOT LINE
ADJUSTMENT AT 114 AND 116 BELL STREET, LOT SPLIT CASE NO. 85-4421, BY JEFFREY
A. SALSER
Mr. Eisner said that in March, 1984, the applicant was granted a use
permit for a second residence on an existing residential lot. He said the
zoning then, as now, was R-1. He said the second dwelling was granted with
certain stipulations, including that all development standards, including yard
setbacks, can be met and that no further division of the property shall take
place. He said that while a lot line adjustment is not technically a further
division of the property, the requested lot line adjustment will make it possible
for the buildings to be individually sold on separate parcels, while the existing
circumstance has the lot line running through both buildings. He said the
Planning Commission had heard Mr. Salser's request and denied it by a 5 to
1 vote.
Mayor Smith said the Notice of Public Hearing had been duly published
and all requirements met for this public hearing and invited the public to
address the Council.
JEFF SALSER, 116 Bell Street, referred to his January 12, 1986, letter
to the Council expressing his reasons for appealing the Planning Commission
decision.
~ -~
CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 27, 1986
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA PAGE FOUR
PUBLIC HEARING-APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION OF DENIAL OF LOT LINE
ADJUSTMENT AT 114 AND 116 BELL STREET, LOT SPLIT CASE NO. 85-4421, BY JEFFREY
A. SALSER Continued
LOUIS G. BRAZIL, 603 Cornwall; E.J. LEBOW, 515 Cornwall, and SUSAN YODER
518 Cornwall, all spoke against Mr. Salser's appeal.
Mayor Smith called for others to speak; when no one came forward the
public hearing was closed.
. Council Member Gallagher said he would be against the appeal because
lt would change the character of the neighborhood. Council Member Porter said
he would rather see two parcels on two lots, than two houses on one lot. Council
Members Johnson and Moots said they did not want to see the lot split or to
jeopardize the neighborhood. Mayor Smith said that the Council should not
have allowed Mr. Salser in 1984 to build the second house without sufficient
square feet. She said that technically this is a lot line adjustment.
On motion of Council Member Johnson, seconded by Council Member Moots, the
appeal was denied on the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Gallagher, Johnson and Moots
NOES: Mayor Smith and Council Member Porter
ABSENT: None
Council Member Gallagher suggested to the Council that an ordinance be
drawn up for the reversion to acreage for substandard lots adjoining each other
in the same ownership with buildings across lot lines. Mr. Eisner said that
normally when an applicant comes to the City with some descretionary action
the Planning Department tries to condition the action that a lot line be removed
from the middle of the lot or at least reduce the degree of non-conformity.
Mr. Shaw suggested that he and Mr. Eisner discuss the problem and come back
to the Council with a solution. Council Member Gallagher agreed to this.
PUBLIC HEARING-USE PERMIT TO ALLOW CHURCH FACILITIES AT NORTHEAST CORNER OF
OAK PARK BOULEVARD AND JAMES WAY, WIT IN LANNED DEVELO MENT DISTRICT P-D
IN OAK PARK ACRES, BY RICHARD DAY, OAK PARK F URSQUARE CHURCH
Mr. Eisner said that this is a request for renewal of an expired Use
Permit previously approved by the City Council. He said that because the church
was unable to exercise the permit within one year and because they failed
to request an extension prior to expiration, it is necessary for the Planning
Commission and the City Council to re-examine and re-adopt the original Use
Permit request. He said it should be noted that because of the substantial
changes in the project design, approving a use permit means a new application
for architectural review also will be required for review by both the Planning
Commission and the City Council. He added that approving the Use Permit simple
means a recognition that a church will be built on that site. Mr. Gallagher
asked if additional conditions had been added to the project, and Mr. Eisner
said no, they were just reworded.
Mayor Smith said the notice of Public Hearing had been duly published
and all requirements met for this public hearing and invited the public to
address the Council.
RICHARD DAY, 2076 Wildwood Lane, representing Oak Park Foursquare Church,.
said the site plan has not changed, just a downscaling in the building size.
Mayor Smith called for others to speak; when no one came forward the
public hearing was closed.
Council Member Porter questioned the findings by some Planning Commissioners
a year ago that there was not sufficient water and sewer facilities available
for the project, and traffic would impact negatively. Mr. Eisner said that
a year ago the Council found to the contrary and approved the project. On motion
of Council Member Johnson,
--' -~
CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 27, 1986
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA PAGE FIVE
PUBLIC HEARING-CHURCH FACILITIES AT NORTHEAST CORNER OF
OAK PARK BOULEVARD AND JAMES WAY Continued
seconded by Council Member Moots, and approved on the followin9 roll call vote,
to wit:
AYES: Mayor Smith and Council Members Gallagher, Johnson, Moots and Porter
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
PUBLIC HEARING-USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FREE STANDING SIGN AT 555 CAMINO MERCADO,
BY E-Z EIGHT MOTELS, INC., WITHIN PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (P-D).
Mr. Eisner said this is a request for modification of the existing sign
plan for the E-Z Eight Motel and the modification has been brought about by
the insistance by the State of California that the existing sign, now located
off premises, be removed to comply with federal laws. He said the Planning
Commission approved the overall sign plan and has sent it to the Council with
the condition that hydroseeding of the cut slope between the motel and the
office complex westerly of the motel be done.
Mayor Smith said the Notice of Public Hearing had been duly published
and all requirements met for this public hearing and invited the public to
address the Council.
LES KRAUCH, who represented the owners of the motel, said that the redesign
of the sign came about upon the notification by Caltrans. He said that rather
than argue with Caltrans, and keeping in mind that the City objected to the
color of the present sign, the company decided to redesign the sign entirely.
He circulated to the Council a rendering of the sign. He added that all his
company is asking for is the free-standing sign, and that it is no longer asking
for the sign on the motel building. Mr. Krauch answered questions of the Council,
and referred to the sketch of the sign in the Council's packet.
Mayor Smith called for others to speak; when no one came forward the
pUblic hearing was closed.
Council Member Johnson said she was happy to see the sign moved from
the corner of the cemetery, and hoped the applicant would be deligent in lands-
caping the bank. Council Member Moots said this sign is an improvement, but
would rather see a monument type of sign. Council Member Gallagher said this
sign is an improvement and thanked the applicant for working with the City.
Mayor Smith said she wished the sign were lower, but will be glad to see the
previous sign coming down. Mr. Eisner said he would draft a resolution on
this matter for the next Council meeting, February 11, 1986. On motion of
Council Member Gallagher, seconded by Council Member Johnson, to approve the
applicant's sign design plan as modified (the request for the sign on the motel
building deleted) on the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Mayor Smith and Council Members Gallagher, Johnson and Porter
NOES: Council Member Moots
ABSENT: None
.
PUBLIC HEARING-APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF USE PERMIT FOR
RELOCATION OF SANTA MANUELA SCHOOL TO STANLEY AND BRANCH STREET-CONTINUED HEARING
On motion of Council Member Moots, seconded by Council Member Gallagher,
to grant the continuance of the hearing to March 25, 1986, as requested
by the South County Historical Society.
CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 27, 1986
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA PAGE SIX
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
Members of the Council received revised copies of the Circulation Element
of the General Plan, and decided to take more time to read the document and
review changes which have been made. Mayor Smith said a Public Hearing date
will be set at a later time.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Mayor Smith asked the Council to hold a study session on Mobile Home
Rent Stabilization, and February 12, 1986, at 1:00 P.M. was set.
A discussion of fees for new development-related road improvements took
place, and Mr. Mack said he would be bringing a draft of a Traffic Signalization
Fund Ordinance to the next meeting.
ADJOURNMENT TO A CLOSED SESSION
The Council adjourned to a closed session at 9:05 P.M.
RECONVENEMENT AND ADJOURNMENT
On motion of Council Member Gallagher, seconded by Council Member Moots,
and unanimously carried, to adjourn immediately after reconvenement at 10:34 P.M.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK