Loading...
Minutes 2001-10-09 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, OCTOBER 9,2001 COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 E. BRANCH STREET ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Lady called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL City Council: Council Members Runels, Dickens, Lubin, Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara and Mayor Lady were present. City Staff Present: City Manager Adams; City Attorney Carmel; Director of Administrative Services Wetmore; Director of Financial Services Snodgrass; Community Development Director McCants; Director of Parks, Recreation, and Facilities Hernandez. 3. FLAG SALUTE Phil Johanknecht, from Arroyo Grande Masonic Lodge #274, led the Flag Salute. 4. INVOCATION Pastor Jan Armstrong, First Presbyterian Church, Grover Beach, delivered the invocation. 5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS 5.a. Proclamation. Cancer Awareness Month Mayor Lady presented a Proclamation to Marcia Alter, who accepted on behalf of Cancer Action Now in San Luis Obispo, recognizing October, 2001 as "Stop Cancer Where It Starts" Month. 5.b. Proclamation. Recoanizing Eaale Scout Thomas McKenna . Mayor Lady presented a. Proclamation to Thomas McKenna in recognition of his attaining the rank of Eagle Scout. 5.c. Presentation by United Way of San Luis Obispo County Mayor Lady welcomed Janna Nichols from United Way of San Luis Obispo County. Ms. Nichols presented the City with a Certificate thanking the City for support of the community and caring spirit in the wake of the tragedies of September 11, 2001. 6. AGENDA REVIEW 6.a. Resolutions and Ordinances Read in Title Only Council Member Runels moved, Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara seconded, and the motion passed unanimously that all resolutions and ordinances presented at the meeting shall be read in title only and all further reading be waived. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 9, 2001 PAGE 2 7. CITIZENS' INPUT, COMMENTS. AND SUGGESTIONS Jeff Harstasis, 285 Mercedes Lane, spoke on behalf of the Royal Oaks community and read a letter into the record regarding the Reservoir #1 project expressing concerns with regard to removal and replacements of trees and the resulting aesthetic impact; the visual blight of the proposed design for a permanent chain link fence; the potential visual blight of the proposed sixty-five foot communication tower; and a potential reduction in property values. Gene Blanchard, 419 Greenwood Drive, protesting decision of Council for future development of the parcel adjacent to the Greenwood tract and the opening up of the dead-end street. Jenny Motine invited the Council to a showing of the movie Rachel's Daughters on October 24th at 5:30 p.m. at Cal Poly in the Performing Arts Center in Philips Hall. Colleen Martin, 855 Olive, spoke on behalf of Mike and Lynn Titus at 404 Lierly Lane, reading a letter into the record opposing the recommended zoning of the property on Lierly Lane, E. Cherry and Myrtle. On behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Titus, she recommended the density be reduced to 2.5 units per acre which would be consistent with the other lots. George Smith spoke in opposition regarding the decision to rezone the parcel next to the Greenwood tract and spoke of a past initiative to overturn a zone change decision at this location. He stated the voters overwhelmingly overturned the decision then and the issue may have to be turned over to the people again through an initiative process. Ella Honeycutt stated the buffer concept was agreed upon atter months of discussion and the issue was needed to stop the plan to build houses all the way to Lopez Lake. She stated that prime farmland that was designated as an agricultural buffer zone by putting a "0" overlay on the land use maps are now subject to change. She spoke of the domino effect of development and referred to Mr. Vanderveen's request for one zone change. She asked that if one change was granted, everything should be consistent and compatible and all the others have to be changed. She said you could not arbitrarily change one parcel and leave the others. She encouraged the Council to protect the farmland. Colleen Martin, 855 Olive, read letter into the record highlighting her involvement as a concerned citizen with a history of concern for planning in the City. She spoke regarding Map Area 7E located at Myrtle Avenue and Lierly Lane. She spoke in opposition to zoning this area being any denser than the smallest lot that currently is grandfathered into this area. She said that this property should not be zoned any smaller than the smallest lot currently in the neighborhood, which are 2.5 units per acre. Ed Harrison, 441 Lierly Lane, spoke in opposition to zoning recommendations for Lierly Lane. He also spoke on behalf of Roberta Oriental, 444 Lierly Lane, who also opposed higher density zoning in this area. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 9, 2001 PAGE 3 Bruce Hensley, 289 Tally Ho Road, stated that change is inevitable and the City has grown. He stated planned moderate growth is what has to be looked at. He supported Bruce Vanderveen in his efforts to build more affordable housing in this area. Bill McCann, 575 Crown Hill Road, referred to the action taken by Council on October 3rd with regard to the upzoning of the Vanderveen property. He stated he had originally lived on Tanner Lane and it did not take him long to realize that the Greenwood Manor development was a mistake and should not have been built on prime agricultural land. He referred to other developments such as Valley Gardens, the High School, the Mortuary which were all built on prime agricultural land. He said at many times the people of Arroyo Grande have expressed their desire that prime agricultural land stay in agriculture. He gave a brief overview of the land next to Greenwood Manor and how it was given an Agricultural designation with a "0" overlay on the parcels. He stated he believed that Mr. Vanderveen Was aware of the restrictions on the property when he purchased it. He supported keeping the parcel classified as Agriculture and retaining the current zoning. He stated if changed, it would produce a domino effect for change. He asked the Council to revisit and change its mind with regard to the zoning on the Vanderveen property. He further read a letter into the record from B'Ann Smith in support of preserving Agricultural lands in the City. William Beeman, 1275 Branch Mill Road, expressed concerns about development of the parcel next to Greenwood Manor. He gave a brief history of the area and said to let one parcel be rezoned would be to let all surrounding parcels be rezoned. He supported preservation of prime agricultural land. Heather Jensen, 569 May Street, referred to traffic issues related to the recent construction and road improvements conducted on E. Branch Street and 227. She referred to the thousands of cars that travel through the Village on 227 and stated that the City should keep in mind an alternative route to the freeway. John Farnsworth, 407 E. Cherry, referred to the parcel on E. Cherry and supported proposed development of the property; however, he did not support the Mixed Use classification. He expressed concerns with regard to traffic, other agricultural uses, and smaller lot sizes. He requested the Council reconsider that the 10-acres be zorred to have equal size residential lots as those existing on E. Cherry Avenue. Pat Cusack, 1080 Newsom Springs Road, reiterated comments he made at the October 3rd rneeting. He acknowledged the work of the Council and the community on the General Plan Update. He stated that there were countless opportunities for residents to give input during the process and thanked the Council for those opportunities. He stated there are times when it is important to grow within the community and there are times when it makes sense for conversions and/or give opportunities for growth. He stated that agricultural and residential uses integrate well within the City. He stated that he believed the Vanderveen project would not have any negative impact on his property and it would not take away any of the prime agricultural land. He said that even though there is a desire to preserve some agricultural areas, a majority of people also want to CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 9, 2001 PAGE 4 have good decision making behind planning issues. He supported the Council's decision on the rezoning of the Vanderveen property. Richard DeBlauw, spoke regarding the five-acre parcel next to Greenwood Manor. He supported development of one-acre parcels on this property. He also referred to the 10- acres off of E. Cherry Avenue and supported residential development on the parcel. Matt Gallagher, 520 Leanna, spoke in opposition to breaking up the 5-acre parcel on Branch Mill Road. He said the property to the west is prime agricultural land that is being farmed. He spoke of the need for a buffer between single family residential and farming and said he was not in favor of rezoning the property into smaller parcels. Mike Greenelsh, 453 Tanner Lane, spoke about traffic issues in the area and the condition of the road going out to Greenwood Manor. He was not in favor of breaking the five-acre parcel into smaller one-acre parcels for the development of more houses. Lorraine Vanderveen, 509 Aloma Lane, referred to their request that will add a few homes to a City that already has thousands. She referred to testimony that all of Arroyo Grande was once considered farmland. She explained that when Bruce Vanderveen purchased the five-acre parcel, he asked to be able to drill a well; however, a well was not allowed. She said that discussions at that time with the City, it was determined that a change from agricultural to residential was a reasonable request. She appealed to the Council's common sense and logic as it considers Bruce Vanderveen's request and allow him to make a beautiful transition on his parcel. Don McHaney, 140 Ruth Ann Way, spoke regarding the E. Cherry Lane and Vanderveen properties. He supported the creation of one-acre parcels on the Vanderveen property. As for the E. Cherry property, he said it was in the City, surrounded by residential and commercial property and it is not rural agriculture. He supported the conversion of both properties to residential. Ed Dorfman, stated that on August 16th a majority of the Council agreed to a conversion of the E. Cherry property from Agriculture to Residential. He said the property was described as in-fill, is surrounded by other urban uses and contains the required utilities to serve the property. He stated the development of the property is a win-win situation for the City to address the problems of the unsafe, narrow street, the area drainage problem, stopping the use of pesticides in such close proximity to residential uses, and to help unlock the value of the Japanese Welfare Association land whose sales proceeds would be donated to the City to begin the campaign for the development of a new Recreation Center. He spoke about organic farming applications and stated that designating part of the property as residential and part as agricultural was a new concept to him. He stated he had not had time to study the Mixed Use idea; however, he was willing to work with staff to see what could be done with the property. Gene Blanchard, 419 Greenwood, spoke about the need to improve Branch Mill Road. He stated a one-inch overlay would not last and he was against further development of any kind in this area until the street was improved. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 9, 2001 PAGE 5 S. CONSENT AGENDA Council Member Lubin moved and Council Member Runels seconded the motion to approve Consent Agenda Items 8.a. through 8.d., with the recommended courses of action. S.a. Cash Disbursement Ratification. Action: Approved the listing of cash disbursements for the period September 16, 2001 through September 30, 2001. S.b. Statement of Investment Deposits. Action: Received and filed the report of current investment deposits as of September 30, 2001. S.c. Cash Flow Analysis/Approval of Interfund Advance from the Water Facility Fund. Action: Received and filed August 2001 Cash Report and approved the interfund advance from the Water Facility Fund to cover cash deficits in other funds at 8/30/01. S.d. Rejection of Claims Against City. Action: Rejected claims submitted by K. Kraft and Gospel Lighthouse Church. AYES: Lubin, Runels, Dickens, Ferrara, Lady NOES: None ABSENT: None There being 5 AYES and 0 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed. 9. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: 9.a. Consideration of the 2001 General Plan Update Policy Documents and Elements and Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). Consultant Rob Strong presented the staff report. Staff recommended the adoption of three Resolutions which are the culmination of public hearings held on July 31, August 16, August 23, August 28, September 4, September 6, and October 3, 2001. He said Council discussions have provided direction for policy clarification of all the Elements of the 2001 General Plan Update and provided for decisions on land use areas that were considered by and recommended by the Planning Commission. He referred to five maps which are an integral part of the 2001 General Plan Update Policy Documents and displayed the Urban Land Use Element Map which reflects the changes directed by Council at the October 3'd hearing. Council Member Runels referred to Land Use Area 7E - E. Cherry and Myrtle, and asked for clarification about previous comments that if the City left the zoning as recommended by the Planning Commission, that other surrounding properties would have to also be rezoned. He said he did not think that was correct. Consultant Strong replied that the current General Plan and land use zoning on the property includes one- acre lots and many of the existing lots are in excess of one acre. He said the proposed land use designation in the General Plan would be Single Family Residential Medium CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 9, 2001 PAGE 6 Density with a required Neighborhood Plan. He said the Neighborhood Plan would be a prerequisite to any subdivision or parcel map. Under the General Plan, he said there would be future consideration of Development Code/Zoning Amendments that would enable Single Family Medium Density development. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara asked for clarification on procedure. He asked if the Council would be coming back to the Land Use Map after subsequent discussion on the individual Elements. Mayor Lady said the intent was to allow the Council to ask questions of staff, accept public hearing testimony, and then bring it back to Council for final consideration. Mayor Lady opened the Public Hearing and invited comments from those in the audience who wished to be heard on the matter. Colleen Martin, 855 Olive, also spoke on behalf of Mike Titus, 404 Lierly Lane, regarding Land Area 7E, opposing the recommended land use classification which could result in a maximum density of 60-80 units. She said there are currently less than 12 units at this location. She stated she did not support rezoning this area at a higher density. She indicated that they and many of the residents on Lierly Lane support Mr. Dorfman's plan to build on E. Cherry primarily because the road is so unsafe and his project would be the conduit to getting the road developed. She concluded by requesting the Council convert the property located in Area 7E back to one per acre. Wayne King thanked the Council for its consideration regarding the Vanderveen property. Hearing no further public comments, Mayor Lady closed the Public Hearing. Council Member Dickens stated he had several concerns; however, he stated that the General Plan Update as a whole has resulted in quite a bit of public process and input, and the City has a document, for the most part, to be proud of. He said the City has done a gallant job in its participation and it's been a long, tedious process. He stated that, for the most part, he was in favor of moving forward with adoption of the Resolutions; however, he had two minor issues that he thought needed to be addressed and taken seriously. He said he was concerned thaUhe decision by a majority of the Council regarding the Vanderveen property upzone lacked the same public notification and review given the twelve sub-areas identified throughout these proceedings. He said unlike the twelve sub-areas specifically called out for clarification by the Council, the Planning Commission did not review the Vanderveen request nor did they make a recommendation to the Council. In addition, he stated the public was not notified that this rezoning request would receive specific consideration. He requested staff to address his concerns regarding the inconsistencies between the twelve sub-areas and the Vanderveen parcel and explain why the Planning Commission was advised not to consider nor make recommendations to the Council on the Vanderveen request. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 9, 2001 PAGE 7 Consultant Strong replied that the Planning Commission did receive a presentation from Mr. King at the time the Land Use Map that had been distributed on May 21, 2001 for public review and comment showed the property as Agriculture and Mr. King had requested Single Family Residential Medium Density. He explained that the Planning Commission maintained the Agriculture designation on the Map. He said it was not proposed as a Land Use Study Area with the previously identified twelve areas; however, it did receive all legal notice required by law for the purpose of General Plan Amendment. Council Member Dickens asked Consultant Strong if it was his understanding that the Planning Commission's unanimous recommendation was to keep that particular parcel in Agriculture. Consultant Strong replied yes. Council Member Dickens referred to Exhibit A in the Statement of Significant Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures where the twelve sub-areas have been identified as areas of potential significance with project mitigation measures. He asked if the majority Council feels they want to move forward with the recommendation on the Vanderveen property, would that need to be added to this particular document in relation to Ag Element Policy Ag1-4 which states that significant criteria will be established and applied for CEQA analysis as provided by CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.7 that considers loss of prime soils as a significant adverse environmental impact. Consultant Strong stated he had addressed that at a previous meeting and explained that because the current General Plan does not contain that policy, that is a proposed policy that would be adopted concurrent with the new Land Use Element and it would not be a mandatory interpretation. Council Member Dickens asked if it was the desire for this Council majority to upzone the Vanderveen property from Agricultural, with a Design Overlay to restrict further subdivision, to Low Density Single Family Residential, what was to become of the City Ordinance currently restricting those seven parcels. He asked if it was recommended that the existing Ordinance be modified to exclude the Vanderveen property or to eliminate the Ordinance altogether on these 35 acres of agriculture. . Consultant Strong replied that State law requires within a reasonable amount of time after adoption of a General Plan that the City must zone consistently. He explained the zoning/public hearing process for a subsequent Development Code Amendment that would determine the specifics and would require its own individual environmental determination. Council Member Dickens asked if Consultant Strong was suggesting that the actual proposal that comes forth would then be subject to environmental review or would it actually be a future Council decision regarding the Ordinance that would be subject to environmental review. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 9, 2001 PAGE 8 Consultant Strong replied that each change, whether it is a Development Code change initiated by the City or a subdivision and zoning change initiated by a property owner, would be subject to CEQA so there would be repeated opportunities to revisit specifically any significant effects of any proposed project. Council Member Dickens stated it was his understanding that the EIR that is being considered tonight is the document that would cover any decisions that reflect the Land Use Map being adopted. He asked if the issue of the Ordinance and the upzone of the Vanderveen property would or would not be dealt with in a separate environmental review process. Consultant Strong replied that the Integrated Program EIR, which is a part of the General Plan Update, discusses in broad terms the cumulative effect of development of the City over the 20-year planning period. He stated that in almost all instances, any significant projects are specifically identified in the EIR as requiring a Project EIR when the property is considered for development. He said the Vanderveen property was not specifically addressed; however, it would still be subject to CEQA, an Initial Study would have to be presented, and if there were any potential effects, those issues could require further analysis. Council Member Dickens addressed the Council stating it was his understanding that the purpose of the General Plan Update was to provide a basis for rational civic decision-making. He asked on what grounds does the Vanderveen rezone constitute a benefit to the public. He asked would the decision not articulate the intentions and expectations of the City to look favorably upon additional requests, which seek to rezone small agricultural parcels to single family residential. He asked the Council to keep in mind that there are only 39 agricultural parcels within the City of Arroyo Grande, 30 parcels of which are 10 acres or less and 25 parcels are five acres or less. He said the majority of those 25 parcels are within the Greenwood area. He said that the decision to look at this individual property owner's request is magnified by the land use surrounding this particular decision and complicated with the design overlay and ordinance the City currently has in effect. He said he found it ironic that four of the Council Members ran on a ticket in regard to protection of prime ag land and yet a majority of the Council is willing to undo an ag mitigation 25-years old that has stood the test of time. He requested the Council to address what the benefit to the public would be for this particular decision in regards to future agricultural use and the intentions and expectations that this message is sending to the other 25 property owners in this general area. Mayor Lady responded that he could not speak for his other colleagues on the Council; however, he respectfully stated that he was elected to represent a constituency in Arroyo Grande. He said he had been elected three times and he was proud of the support the community had shown him. He gave assurance that he takes this responsibility very seriously, and that while he respected Council Member Dickens, he did not feel an obligation to answer his question because he does not answer to another Council Member, he answers to the citizens of Arroyo Grande. He concluded by stating he stood by his decision. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 9, 2001 PAGE 9 Council Member Dickens asked City Attorney Carmel if the decision to relone the Vanderveen property is approved by Council majority, does the public have any recourse to amend this decision. City Attorney Carmel responded yes, and explained that one way was through the traditional legislative process, explaining that General Plan Amendments can legally occur at least four times per year. He explained that the other two ways are the powers reserved to the people under the California and Federal Constitutions, the referendum and initiative processes. Council Member Dickens asked if the public chose to do a Referendum, would they need to look at the specific issue or would they have to look at the General Plan in its totality. City Attorney Carmel responded he was hesitant to give advice on this particular issue, since the City would essentially be the defendant; however, he thought with respect to this issue because it sits within a General Plan that is going to be adopted as an integrated whole with the Policies, Elements, and Maps, he would speculate that they would be required to refer the entire document. He commented that through the Initiative process, that may be different. Council Member Dickens referred to the Ag Element, Objective Ag1 where it says "Avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate loss of prime soils...". He said that he would have a difficult time looking at this document based on the fact that in reality what we're doing is minimizing the impacts out at Greenwood with this decision on the Vanderveen parcel and he did not think that was appropriate. He stated he believed that the individuals and his constituents have made it clear that they do not want to piecemeal the City's agriculture, that poor planning has taken place in the past and we don't want to duplicate poor planning, but we want to honor and be creative with the land uses that we currently have. He asked the Council to look again at the wording and eliminate the word "minimize" to avoid any loss of prime ag land. He said that if avoidance is inevitable, then he thought it would be appropriate to mitigate it, not minimize it. He concluded by saying those were the areas that he had concerns with in the document and he could not move forward and properly represent the people who elect&! him without those two changes. Council Member Lubin thanked the citizens of Arroyo Grande for their input, ideas, and thoughts. He said it was extremely important to the Council to be able to represent the City as a whole and that can't be done without hearing all sides of an issue. He also thanked staff who had done an outstanding job in trying to present a document that we can feel comfortable about and move forward with, including all the changes that were made during deliberations. He referred to the Vanderveen property and stated he had given a lot of thought to the entire process and to this property. He said he had a lot of different reasons to do a lot of different things, such as leave it as it is, change it to High Density, and he had problems with both sides. He addressed the comment regarding four of the Council Members who were voted in based on a "preserve Ag" basis. He explained that there was something to look at in terms of preserving ag and what we, as CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 9, 2001 PAGE 10 individuals, deem as prime farmable agricultural land. He said that was one of his concerns and he stood by his original thoughts and would continue to support a very rural environment of one unit per acre. He supported the General Plan Update as written; supported the projects that have been proposed in zone changes; and he believed that he was protecting prime agriculture; however, he was also looking at areas that have not been farmed, that have not been changed, and there is a position that can be taken to move gradually into a rural environment maintaining the character of Arroyo Grande. He then referred to Land Use Area 7E and stated that it was a tough decision because there were property owners in that area on both sides of the question. He said in his discussions with several of the property owners, it appeared that the majority of the land would not be redeveloped and it would stay as it is today. He stated he was comfortable with the designation as it stands. He referred to E. Cherry and stated he believed that it is infill and that it should be residential. He said he believed it was surrounded, the road condition was a significant issue, and it should be changed to residential. He said if there was not a majority to do that, then he would support the Mixed Use concept; however, he would not support a clear definition at this time without seeing any project information to assign a percentage to one use or the other. He concluded by supporting the General Plan Update. Council Member Runels stated that being in the agriculture business, he had a different view and opinion of what farmland and prime farmland is and what is economically viable to farm. He said a lot of these small parcels have been mixed into areas where they are farmed together by one individual who can make it work because they have the water supply that is required. He referred to the Vanderveen property and stated he did not have any problem with changing the land use designation. He said he believed once a piece of land is converted it should be to the highest possible density so the land is not wasted; however, he acknowledged this as a transition area in a rural area and he could support one unit per acre on the parcel. He then referred to Land Use Area 7E and stated he had held discussions with individuals in the area about how to get hooked up to City services and receive street improvements. He supported the existing designation. With regard to E. Cherry, he had no problem with the land use conversion; however, he was not sure about the Mixed Use designation. He concluded by supporting the General Plan as written and moving forward. - Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara proposed some text changes in Exhibit A, Statement of Significant Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures, and Exhibit 8, Statement of Overriding Considerations. He requested that the Council agree to additions in Exhibit A, under General Plan Policy Mitigation, to include references to the following principal documents: Circulation Element, Land Use Element, Agricultural and Open Space/Conservation Element, Clean Air Plan (CAP), Drainage Master Plan, and Water Master Plan. Following discussion, the Council unanimously concurred with Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara's suggestion. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara referred to Exhibit 8 and said in looking at the context of each of the findings for the Statement of Overriding Consideration, he found one that he believed was out of context and perhaps unnecessary for this particular document. He requested that Finding #6 be omitted. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 9, 2001 PAGE 11 Council Member Lubin asked if the content of #6 came out of the City's Economic Development Plan. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara responded he was referring to a reference in this particular document of inequitability, unreasonable restriction, and legal action against the City and stated he did not believe that language was suitable for this document. Consultant Strong stated he did not feel it was essential that Finding #6 be made; he said it could remain either within the Resolution or within the text of the Introduction, page 13, entitled Constitutional Compliance. Mayor Lady asked for an opinion from legal counsel. City Attorney Carmel stated he thought they dealt with different issues. He said the Constitutional Compliance section, which is geared for one particular scenario, and then Finding #6 was a finding that was written for the Statement of Overriding Considerations. He explained that it could be eliminated without effecting the overall defensibility or integrity of the document; however, it states something that was not stated in any other of the Overriding Consideration Findings. He also commented that it was the only finding that deals with economic issues. Following further Council and staff discussion, the Council unanimously concurred to amending Finding #6 as follows: "The 2001 General Plan Update provides for planned development of useable but vacant.. undeveloped or underdeveloped parcels within the established subdivision pattern. If thoso p3r-cols wore I3roc;luded from developmont, it would l3erpetu3to inefficieAt utiliz3tion of existing iAfr3structUr-9. If planned development was not on3blea, the 3ffoc;tea f)riv3te I3roperty G'ovnor.s coula cl3im inequit3ble or unre3sonable restriction of use of property 'NhicA 'lIould likely FOsLllt in protmcted 3nd oxpensi'le leg31 3ction 3g3inst the City. Planned development will provide opportunities for construction and new business employment and contribute to increased revenue from additional property and sales taxes, a positive economic impact on the fiscal health of the City compared to negative impacts of significant expense for denial of reasonable use. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara stated that this had been a long, arduous process that the City could not have come close to completing with any degree of success had it not be"8n for the overwhelming involvement and support of the community. He acknowledged and thanked the community and staff. He stated he would address the other issues that were discussed tonight. With regard to the E. Cherry property and an overview of past discussions with Mr. Dorfman regarding the property, he stated he believed that a compromise was reached with the Mixed Use classification of the property. He said that the Council has not paid attention to look at other alternatives to be more creative in the use of smaller parcels. He emphasized a statement made earlier during public comment that "our rural character and our agriculture are the heart and soul of this community" and stated that it has been this way for a long time. He said when this project was discussed at the previous meeting, percentages were not assigned for land use and that was done intentionally so that there could be a unique project that still has an agricultural feel but yet satisfies all of the parties involved. He said he would actually like to see it remain in agriculture, but that was the reality of compromise. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 9, 2001 PAGE 12 Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara referred to Land Use Area 7E and recalled one of the property owners who requested the Council reconsider a lower density. He said he was hoping that there was a higher turnout of people from other concerned parties who would like to see the density remain as is. He stated that it was not too late to reduce the density. He stated that his position on 7E was that he was not comfortable leaving it Medium Density at the last meeting and he was still not comfortable with that designation. He said he would like to see a lower density in that particular area and that it be consistent. He believed there was a lot of validity to the notion that it is a transitional area, it abuts an ag conservancy, and from what he had heard previously and through testimony tonight, he was led to believe that the majority of land owners out there do not want Medium Density, they would rather maintain the lower density. He said he would support a lower density. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara referred to the Vanderveen property and referred to the Land Use Map depicting the field of green with a patch of yellow. He said there has been a lot of discussion about the precedent setting effect of this particular decision and he concurred with that. He said he recalled this issue coming up along with several proposals for the development of small ag parcels. He said one of the first significant votes this Council took when he first joined the Council was to review what had come forth from the original Long Range Planning Committee, when Council Member Steve Tolley was on the Council and chaired that effort. He said throughout that process, a number of things occurred; the surveys, the workshops, and community-based activity. He recalled back then that when it came time to give direction as a Council, former Council Member Tolley said something to the effect that after reviewing the surveys, chairing the Long Range Planning Committee and being as involved, there is no way that he was voting to convert prime ago He said that the Council, with the exception of Council Member Runels, said essentially the same thing. He said he believed that was key because he believed that the direction Council gave at that time was one of the reasons why this particular piece of property was not one of the planning areas that became part of the review process. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara also wanted to raise the issue of clarifying for the record the difference between consensus versus a numerical majority. He said the Council has moved through the more controversial pieces and there have been many statements that there has been consensus of the Council. He said. consensus to him means a collective opinion, general agreement or accord. He said on some of the issues, we do not have consensus, what we have is a simple 3-2 majority and that is what it comes down to on this issue. He stated that he did not concur nor does he give his consensus to the rezoning of the Vanderveen property. Mayor Pro Tem said the last issue he wanted to raise is similar to the wording suggested by Council Member Dickens of Ag1. He said he was not pleased with this wording at the last meeting and his views have not changed. He said he believed if you look at the way Ag1 now reads, it has been changed from "No net loss of prime farmland soils..." to "Avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate loss of prime farmland soils..." He stated that in his view, minimize can be interpreted a number of different ways. He said it could be interpreted easily to apply to minimal parcels, perhaps five-acre parcels, and CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 9, 2001 PAGE 13 he did not support that. He said he could accept "Avoid and mitigate loss of prime farmlands...", but not minimize. He stated as long as that wording stays in place, he could not stand in favor of Ag1. To summarize, Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara said with the changes made tonight, he could support the EIR and all other General Plan Elements with the exception of the wording in Ag1, which if it remains, he could not support the Agricultural Element in its entirety. He did not support the Land Use Element as long as it contains a map that has this particular parcel in yellow. He said if it was "all or nothing", he could not support the General Plan nor the EIR at this time. Mayor Lady commented that this had been a long process. He said through the process we have learned a lot about our community and there have been some tremendous benefits that have come as a result of this process. He said it should never be expected that as a community of 16,000 residents, there will be agreement on each and every item in a General Plan Update because it is a very extensive document. He stated this was a document that the community should be very proud of; there have been a tremendous amount of public hearings, public comments, and public participation. He stated that he was proud of being part of a team that had the opportunity to participate in creating this document. He said he was hopeful for a five member Council approval of the document. He thanked staff and members of the community and stated he felt comfortable with the decisions he had made. In conclusion, Mayor Lady stated that after four years of hard work and dedication by the community, staff, and the Council, he was hoping for complete Council approval of the document. He noted that the City had spent a tremendous amount of financial resources on this Update. Council Member Lubin moved to adopt a Resolution certifying the completion of and making findings as to the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the 2001 General Plan Update. Council Member Runels seconded the motion. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara asked City Attorney Carmel that if he were to move ahead with approval of this Resolution as it relates to the EIR only, is there a connection between that and the General Plan Elements. City Attorney Carmel responded there would not be a direct connection. . On the following roll-call vote, to wit: AYES: Lubin, Runels, Dickens, Ferrara, Lady NOES: None ABSENT: None There being 5 AYES and 0 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed. Council Member Lubin moved to adopt a Resolution making certain findings regarding the Environmental Impacts of the 2001 General Plan Update, and adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations, as amended. City Attorney specified the amendments which were included in Exhibit A, page 1, to the General Plan Policy Mitigation, where Circulation Element, Land Use Element, Agricultural and Open Space/Conservation CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 9, 2001 PAGE 14 Element, Clean Air Plan, Drainage Master Plan, and Water Master Plan were added; and the modification to the Statement of Overriding Consideration findings presented by Council Member Lubin. Council Member Runels seconded the motion, and on the following roll-call vote, to wit: AYES: Lubin, Runels, Dickens, Ferrara, Lady NOES: None ABSENT: None There being 5 AYES and 0 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed. Council Member Lubin moved to adopt a Resolution adopting the 2001 General Plan Update including Land Use; Agriculture and Open Space/Conservation; Circulation; Housing; Noise; Safety; Economic Development; and Parks and Recreation Elements; future consideration of Zoning/Development Code Revisions; LAFCO; Sphere of Influence and Annexations; Development and Capital Projects; Public Facility and Service Improvements and Technical Studies. Council Member Runels seconded the motion, and on the following roll-call vote, to wit: AYES: Lubin, Runels, Lady NOES: Dickens, Ferrara ABSENT: None There being 3 AYES and 2 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed. Mayor Lady called for a break at 10:00 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:12 p.m. 10. CONTINUED BUSINESS 10.a. Broadcasting City Council Meetings on Cable Television. City Manager Adams presented the staff report. He explained that the pilot telecasts of City Council meetings on cable television have now been completed and staff was seeking direction from the Council on whether to proceed to obtain proposals for ongoing broadcasting of City Council meetings on cable television. If directed to proceed, staff recommended the Council direct staff to issue a Request for Proposals and designate one member of the City Council to participate on a selection panel. Council Member Lubin asked if staff had an estimate of the PEG funds that would be established during the first year. City Manager Adams responded it was estimated to be in the range of $25,000. Council Member Lubin asked if the PEG fund would be ongoing whether or not the Council decided to proceed. City Manager Adams replied it would. Council Member Runels asked for clarification that it this was not considered a utility tax. City Manager Adams responded it was not; it is a special fee that is established in CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 9, 2001 PAGE 15 the Federal Cable Act enabling cable operators to assess a fee specifically for the purposes of providing public education and government access. He also indicated that the fee is authorized within the City's Franchise Agreement with the cable operator. Mayor Lady invited comments from those in the audience who wished to be heard on the matter. Chuck Fellows stated it was a good idea. He also wanted to take the opportunity to thank the Council for the process it just completed. Hearing no further public comments, Mayor Lady brought the item back to Council for consideration. Council Members Dickens said he was a supporter of methods to involve a greater number of the City's population in the public process and he believed that televising the meetings goes a long way toward achieving that goal. He supported moving forward. Council Member Runels reported that the majority of people he talked to were not interested. He indicated that they understood the reason behind televising meetings on special occasions, such as for the General Plan hearings. Council Member Lubin stated that he was originally against this process because he did not want to spend the. money; however, he has since changed his mind as he had received very positive feedback on the televising of the General Plan Update. He expressed support with moving forward with the process. Council Member Lubin also offered to serve on the committee as the Council Member representative. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara said he was supportive of continuing this process to keep the community informed. Mayor Lady stated at the beginning he did not have strong feelings one-way or the other; however, he has received tremendous feedback from the community. He supported moving forward. . Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara moved to proceed to obtain proposals for ongoing broadcasting of City Council meetings on cable television and further direct staff to issue the Request for Proposals and designate one member of the Council to participate on a selection. He further moved that the Council representative be Council Member Lubin. Council Member Dickens seconded the motion, and on the following roll-call vote, to wit: AYES: Ferrara, Dickens, Lubin, Lady NOES: Runels ABSENT: None There being 4 AYES and 1 NO, the motion is hereby declared to be passed. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 9, 2001 PAGE 16 10.b. Status of South County Community Recreation Center Subcommittee. Director of Parks, Recreation, and Facilities Hernandez presented the staff report. It was the recommendation of the Community Recreation Center Subcommittee that the City Council provide direction in proceeding with exploring the feasibility of a Recreation Center on the site adjacent to the Woman's Club Community Center. Additionally, the Community Recreation Center Subcommittee recommended the City Council designate the site adjacent to the Woman's Club Community Center as the location for a Recreation/Community Center. The Subcommittee further recommended allocating $8,000 annually from the General Fund for a full-time position to solicit funds and work as community liaison for the Center. Director Hernandez stated that additional funding for this position would be requested of the cities of Grover Beach, Pismo Beach, Lucia Mar Unified School District and the County of San Luis Obispo. Council Member Dickens stated that there has been quite a bit of effort, research, and time spent on moving this project forward and identifying what the unmet needs are in this community. He said the Subcommittee has done a wonderful job in coming to a consensus in looking at the amenities and coming up with the recreational needs that this Five Cities area is looking at. He clarified that the project is conceptual in nature and explained that they tried to gain from the Cal Poly students whether or not this particular five-acre parcel owned by the City could accommodate in a feasible manner the types and number of amenities that the South County is lacking. He said the model illustrates that this particular parcel has the ability to meet a wide variety of needs in a multi-use facility area. He said it was important to recognize that the Subcommittee was not necessarily endorsing the architectural rendering being presented; however, it was being used as a tool to initiate discussion and refinement. Mayor Lady invited comments from those in the audience who wished to be heard on the matter. Andy Starkie, 1080 Maple, stated he was involved on the Subcommittee for about a year and he represents the swimming pool portion of the project. He said he was originally involved with a non-profit that was formed called the Oceano Pool Foundation and gave an overview of its efforts and the need for a swimming pool in the South County. He stated there was a new Board for the Foundation and they supported a cooperative effort to get a pool built at a multi-use facility in the South County. He indicated the Foundation was willing to donate the first $1,000 to get started and move forward. Council Member Runels asked how the Foundation would go about paying for the maintenance, operation, and repair costs on the pool. Mr. Starkie replied that he had done some research and did not have information of exact costs on hand. He stated that the pool portion of the Community Center would not make money for the community. He said it was proposed to form a Board similar to the Clark Center to run the operation of the pool, and they were not asking for the City of Arroyo Grande to run it. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 9, 2001 PAGE 17 Director Hernandez explained that in his experience managing pools in other jurisdictions, 30% is what the normal subsidy would be for the operation of a pool run by a City. Pat Lansbury stated he currently has three kids on a swim team and he was very interested in this project and would like to see it move forward in this location. Carie Randolph stated she would support a Community Center and pool in the South County. Hearing no further public comments, Mayor Lady brought the item back to the Council for discussion. Council Member Runels commented that there was no doubt that this facility is needed; however, he asked if any of the other communities come up with any funding sources. Council Member Dickens acknowledged the construction costs, maintenance, and operation costs for a facility of this magnitude. He stated that the Subcommittee addressed these issues in regards to what funding mechanisms are available and came up with a list that includes State grants and community participation. He indicated there was a good chance for future funding due to the regional need. .Council Member Runels referred to the property's neighbors and what the potential impacts would be with regard to issues such as noise. Council Member Lubin referred to the proposal for a full-time position and asked if this would be for an on-going basis or for one year. Director Hernandez said it would probably be on an on-going basis. Council Member Lubin referred to his tenure on the YMCA Board and that the lack of potential funding was the reason the YMCA did not construct a facility in the South County on this site. He felt an incremental project might be more feasible and he could support that concept. He referred to the years dedicated to the Clark Center project which had a major stakeholder and stated this could be a very long-term project. . Additionally, he stated he could support hiring a fund raiser on an annual basis with an annual review at budget time for continuing the position. He complimented Council Member Dickens and the Subcommittee getting the project to this point. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara commented he was not enamored with the architecture on the model. He stated the proposed location was a good area for the type of use that is being proposed. He commented that a hoped for outcome would be to have a comprehensive facility that addresses all of the needs that the Committee has explored. He said he liked the mixed-use approach and that nice meeting room space is desperately needed. He said this could generate maintenance revenues for the City. He concurred with Council Member Lubin's statement regarding the State budget and energy contracts and how there is not a lot money left over for appropriations. He stated that when funding does become available he would suggest that senior centers CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 9, 2001 PAGE 18 and youth centers be a high priority. As far as funding for the fundraiser position, Mayor Pro Tem asked if there was any indication that other agencies are interested. Director Hernandez stated not at this time; this was the first step and presentations would be made to other agencies should the Council direct staff to move forward. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara referred to a Fundraising Consultant position versus a full-time position and asked if that had been explored. Director Hernandez responded the use of a consultant had not been explored. Following discussion, Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara supported the allocation of $8,000 to partially fund the position. Mayor Lady made comments in support of the concept and moving forward. Following further discussion, Council Member Dickens moved to designate the site adjacent to the Woman's Club Community Center as the future site of the Community Center and in addition, continue working with the South County community to explore the feasibility of this project by Allocating $8,000 from the General Fund for a full-time position that will work as community liaison for this project as well as solicit project funds; and request matching funds from the cities of Grover Beach, Pismo Beach, Lucia Mar Unified School District and the County of San Luis Obispo for funding of the liaison position. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara seconded the motion. Council Member Lubin asked if the motion maker would be willing to amend the motion to ask for an annual review of the full-time position. Council Member Dickens agreed to include that in the original motion. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara seconded the motion as amended, and on the following roll-call vote, to wit: AYES: Dickens, Ferrara, Runels, Lubin, Lady NOES: None ABSENT: None There being 5 AYES and 0 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed. 11. NEW BUSINESS . 11.a. Ten Year Financial Plan, Phase 1. City Manager Adams made introductory comments regarding the process and the purpose of the Plan. Director of Financial Services Snodgrass gave a presentation which included a summary of forecast findings; the Plan's purpose; reviewed assumptions and projections for a 10-year Plan; reviewed financial trends; reviewed General Fund sources and General Fund uses; and reviewed the three-phase plan for implementation. She presented three operating program scenarios and requested direction from the Council. Staff recommended the City Council receive Phase 1 Base Projections of the Ten Year Financial Plan; Approve the use of a 4% operating growth factor within the Plan (Scenario 2); Authorize the drafting of Phases II and III; and . CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 9, 2001 PAGE 19 Approve the inclusion of costs associated with maintaining the City's current financial and physical state in Phase II. Councif asked questions of staff regarding the City's debt service obligations and projected growth factors. Councif Members expressed support of the information presented and requested the item be continued in order to allow more time to review the information. City Manager Adams indicated that the only time constraint was to be able to move ahead with Phase " to utilize with the preparation of the annual budget. He suggested the Councif address the structural budget issues identified in the Phase II process and provide direc!ion so that staff may proceed. Following discussion, the Council unanimously concurred with staffs recommendations in order to move forward on Phase II and bringing back the item at a future meeting for further discussion. 12. CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ITEMS None. 13. CITY MANAGER ITEMS None. 14. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS. Council Member Lubin reported he would be absent for the October 23, 2001 City Councif meeting. 15. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS None. 16. ADJOURNMENT Mayor LacJy_~djourned the meeting at 11 :39 p.m. M;Ch"~A.la&~ . ATTEST~ f / ~tU.OIL<- Kelly W tmrj"e, Director of Administrative Servicesl Deputy City Clerk