Minutes 2005-10-11
--~..._-_.,~_. .- .~--.- ~_.- ._->--~_. -~..'''--
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 11, 2005
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 EAST BRANCH STREET
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA
!i
~'
1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Pro Tem Costello called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:10 p.rn.
2. ROLL CALL
City Council: Council Members Dickens, Guthrie, Arnold, and Mayor Pro Tem Costello
were present. Mayor Ferrara was absent.
City Staff Present: City Manager Adams, City Attorney Carmel, Director of Administrative
Services/City Clerk Wetmore, and Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Spagnolo.
3. FLAG SALUTE
Mayor Pro Tern Costello led the Flag Salute (Boy Scout Troop 4B9 was rescheduled to lead the
Flag Salute. on October 25,2005).
4. INVOCATION
Dr. Mayer-Harnish, Bahai Faith, delivered the invocation.
5. SPECIAL PRESENTATION
None.
6. AGENDA REVIEW
6.a. . Resolutions and Ordinances Read in Title Only.
Council Member Guthrie rnoved, Council Member Arnold 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.
7. CITIZENS' INPUT, COMMENTS, AND SUGGESTIONS
None.
8. CONSENT AGENDA
Council Member Dickens requested that Item B.d. be pulled.
Council Member Guthrie moved, and Council Member Arnold seconded the motion to approve
Consent Agenda Items B.a. through B.e., with the exception of Item B.d., with the recommended
courses of action. City Attorney Carmel read the title of the Ordinance in Item B.e. entitled "An
Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande Amending Portions of Title 16 of The
Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (Development Code Amendment 05-006), Revising Land Use
Regulations And Approval Processes To Ensure' Consistency With The Arroyo Grande General
Plan". The motion passed on the following roll-call vote:
AYES: Guthrie, Arnold, Dickens, Costello
NOES: None
ABSENT: Ferrara
!i
._-~. - - -,.,_.-
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
OCTOBER 11, 2005
PAGE 2
S.a. Cash Disbursement Ratification.
Action: Ratified the listing of cash disbursements for the period September 16, 2005
through Septernber 30, 2005. . , .
S.b. Consideration of Approval of Minutes. .
Action: Approved the minutes of the Regular, City Council meeting of August 23, 2005 as
submitted.
S.c. Consideration of Rejection of Claim Against City - D. Crockett.
Action: Rejected claim.
S.e. Consideration of Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Portions of Title .16 of the
Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (Develppment Code Amendment 05-006), Revising
Land Use Regulations and Approval Processes to Ensure Consistency with the
Arroyo Grande General Plan.
Action: Adopted Ordinance No. 573 as follows: "An Ordinance of the City Council of
the City of Arroyo Grande Amending', Portions of Title 16 of The Arroyo Grande
Municipal Code (Development Code, Amendment 05-006), Revising Land Use
Regulations And Approval Processes To Ensure Consistency With The Arroyo
Grande General Plan".
S.d. Consideration to Approve a Revised Water Wheeling Agreement with the Oceano
Community Services District (OCSD) for the Christie Family Subdivision.
Recommended Action: Approve a revised Water Wheeling Agreement with OCSD for
the Christie Family Subdivision and autho'rize the Mayor to execute the Agreement.
Council Member Dickens expressed concerns regarding the overall costs to the City, including
administrative, operational/maintenance, and other costs, that would arise directly or indirectly as
a result of the Council's approval of the Water Wheeling Agreement.
Council Member Arnold also recalled that there' was discussion and general consensus at the
previous meeting regarding the requirement that a fire hydrant be included in this proposal and
indicated this issue was not addressed in the revised Agreement. Discussion ensued and it was
suggested that the item be continued since Fir~ Chief Fibich was not present to respond to
questions regarding fire safety and related issues.
Mayor Pro Tem Costello opened up the item for public comment.
Cvndee Christie, applicant, explained that a fire hydrant is being provided and is part of the
approved subdivision plans; however, she agreed to continue the item in order to have the Fire
Chief present to address the issue.
Hearing no further pUblic comment, Mayor Pro Tem Costello closed the public comment period.
Following Council comments and discussion, there was consensus to continue the item in order
to have the Fire Chief present to respond to the concerns raised about the fire safety issue, and
to allow staff to review the administrative fees associated with. preparation of the Agreement.
"
:1
_u"__ _
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
OCTOBER 11, 2005
PAGE 3
Council Member Guthrie moved to continue the item to the next Regular City Council meeting of
October 25, 2005. Council Member Arnold seconded, and the motion passed on the following
roll-call vote:
AYES: " Guthrie, Arnold, Dickens, Costello
NOES: None
ABSENT: Ferrara
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
None.
10. CONTINUED BUSINESS
10.a. Consideration of the Proposed Five ;Cities Center Transportation Improvement
Plan.
Director of Public Works Spagnolo presented the staff report and recommended the Council
review the proposed Five Cities Center Transportation Improvement Plan and provide favorable
direction to the applicant to proceed with the proposed plan as part of Building J and Pad "I"
applications.
Carol Florence. representing Investec. commented that Investec is currently in negotiations with
Chili's Restaurant. PetCo. and Sav-On drug store to locate in Phase 2 of the Five Cities Center:
noted that a dry cleaner business currently in P~ase 1 had negotiated a lease to downsize by
relocating to smaller premises in Phase 2: agreed that there are existing traffic problems round
both phases of the Center; and stated that Investec had attempted to comprehensively address
the Council's comments and concerns by pi'aparing multiple traffic mitigation alternatives for the
Council's consideration. She noted that Investec:s goals and objectives were to develop Pad I,
complete occupancy of Building J, and allow for other routine Center operations by providing
traffic mitigation measures to maintain safe and efficient cross movement between Phases 1 and
2; retain mUltiple turning movements: improve thE! Level of Service along Rancho Parkway; and
improve safety aspects of the roadway. She presented Alternative A (Ingress/Egress to Camino
Mercado as a back entrance), nowever. she noted that the Conditions of Approval for the project
prohibit this Alternative; Alternativc B (Modify ,planters and parking between WalMart and
Albertsons/SavOn); Alternative C (Modify planters and parking near entrance to Rancho
, - - .
Parkway); Alternative D (Modify planters and parking on the north side of movie theater);
Alternative E (Modify entrance from Branch Street near movie theater); Alternative F (Add
Eastbound Right Turn Lane at Rancho Parkway); Alternative G-1 (Modify Rancho Parkway by
narrowing, calming, simplifying and direclir;g); Alternative G-2 (Modify pavement marking and
add signage at intersection of Rancho Parkway, and West Branch); and Alternative H (Adjust
signal timing for both signals on West Brmir,h Street). She concluded by stating that Investec
recommended the implementation of Aaernatives n. E, F, G-1, G-2. and H.'
,
Council questions, comments, and discussion ensued regarding the attributes and constraints of
"
the Alternatives that were presented, as well as balancing the cost versus public benefit of the
I '
Alternatives. .,
"
Council Member Dickens stated hG,\GUld like ,'more detailed information about the possible
inclusion of Alternatives A & C. He s3id he woul~, like to keep these options open and research
,
,
"
-
- .- - - --- --..~ - .. ---..
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
OCTOBER 11, 2005
PAGE 4
the original approval of the Center to see what the original intent was regarding access from
Camino Mercado, He agreed that there was no major benefit to Alternative B, He commented
on Alternative C and stated he would like to revisit this Alternative. He supported Alternatives G-
1 and G-2, He also suggested bringing back the issue of installing a traffic signal on Rancho
Parkway between Phase 1 & 2.
Mayor Pro TemCostello invited comments from those in the audience who wished to be heard
on the matter.
Steve Ross, Arroyo Grande, commented that the City is installing a traffic signal at W. Branch
Street and Camino Mercado; acknowledged that there would be a new senior residential
development on Camino Mercado which will bring more people into the area; and supported the
Alternative to provide another access to the Center from Camino Mercado.
James'Murphv referred to the entrance from W, Branch, Street near the movie theater and
suggested implementing measures to stop lraffic from cutting through the area. He stated he
would like to see a one-way entrance into the driveway from Rancho Parkway and no egress, He
noted that the traffic problems are really centered, around the Brisco Road intersection,
Hearing no further public comments, Mayor Pro Tem Costello closed the public comment period.
Council Member Guthrie inquired whether temporary traffic delineators could be set up and
monitored for their effectiveness. Director Spagnolo responded that this was possible with
regard to some of the Alternatives.
Council Member Guthrie supported including Alternative A and noted that there is already one
access driveway from Camino Mercado that lines up with the future senior residential housing
project. He supported including Alternative C to improve traffic flow. He liked the Alternatives
presented near the movie theater and suggested that in the future the left hand turn entrance
from W. Branch Street be eliminated. He expressed 'concerns about implementing the proposed
measures on Rancho Parkway and supported 'installation of temporary barriers in order to
monitor the traffic behavior. He also encouraged extensive public education about the proposed
changes.
Council Member Arnold agreed that there was no value to Alternative B. He supported including
Alternative A since more traffic is expected on Camino Mercado with the future development of
the hotel and senior residential project. He referred to Alternative C and felt this option should
be included. He supported Alternative D, although suggested that railing may be required to
discourage pedestrians from crossing over at certain points, He supported Alternative E and
suggested the installation of speed humps to slow traffic. He supported Alternative F, He
referred to Alternative G-1 and suggested removing the southbound left hand turn into Phase 2
from Rancho Parkway; and opposed the suggestion for installation of a traffic signal on Rancho
Parkway between Phases 1 & 2, He supported Alternative G-2; and supported Alternative Hand
suggested adding a left turn arrow at the signal.
Council Member Dickens asked what discretion the City has to require the applicanl to make the
proposed internal improvements. City Attorney Carmel stated that the Alternatives presented
were voluntary since there was no project currently before the Council. He noled that when a
project application is submitted for Pad I. the Council would have some discretion when
addressing traffic mitigation measures. He stated that the applicant was proposing these
~-
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
OCTOBER 11, 2005
PAGE 5
Alternatives voluntarily in anticipation of submitting an application for an amendment to the
Conditional Use Permit for modifications to Pad I.
Council Member Dickens asked if the City woul.d have the ability in the future after the Center is
built out to require signalization on Rancho Parkway: City Attorney Carmel noted that the City
, ,
would not be able to require the applicant to pay for the signal once the project is complete,
except with regard to future discretionary projects. Council Member Dickens stated he would like
additional information on why a traffic signal is not warranted at this location at this time, He also
noted that there was some disagreement regarding the second left hand turn lane into Phase 2
and commented that the City has discretion to modify the roadway. He concluded by stating that
he would like to take a closer look at Alternatives A & C.
,
Mayor Pro Tem Costello agreed that Alternative A may be a reasonable option to provide
another access; agreed that there was no value to Alternative B; supported the inclusion of
Alternative C which would provide an opportunity to fix a design flaw and change access to
improve traffic flow; supported Alternative D; supported Alternative E in order to discourage,
through traffic, to ensure pedestrian safety and ,try to discourage the use of the driveway as a
main entrance into the Center; supported Alternative F; however, he suggested eliminating the
right turn only lane going into the Center, but supported the right turn only lane coming out of
Phase 1, with a middle lane going straight or turning left. He referred to Alternatives G-1 and G-
2 and said he was not convinced of the need for multiple islands. He acknowledged that it was
important to maintain access straight across from Phase 1 to Phase 2, He referred to Alternative
H and expressed concern about having two left turn lanes from Rancho Parkway onto W, Branch
Street and said the proposal needs further review and discussion.
City Manager Adams stated that staff could work with the applicant to install temporary traffic
mitigation measures to test some of the Alternatives on a pilot basis.
Following discussion, there was consensus from the Council to request trat the applicanl include
all of the Alternatives presented, with the exception of Alternative B, when proceeding with a
proposed plan as part of the further development of Building J and the proposed reconfiguration
of Pad I.
11. NEW BUSINESS
11.a. Consideration of the Draft Integrated Regional Water Management Plan.
Director of Public Works Spagnolo presented the staff report and recommended the Council
review the Draft Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (the "Plan") and provide
comments.
Frank Honeycutt, County Public Works Department, presented the Integrated Regional Water
Management (IRWM) Plan for the San Luis Region and requested the Council.'s endorsement of
the Plan. The San Luis Region IRWM Plan included a Vision Statement, an overview, of
Proposition 50 which provides funds for integrated regional water management; an overview of
,how the San Luis Region IRWM Plan is bei,ng developed; an overview of grant funding
opportunities and the status of the grant applications for the Flood Managemenl Plan. the
Regional Permitting Plan, the Groundwater Banking Plan, and the Data Enhancement Plan. Mr
Honeycutt also reported on the status of the Im'Plementation Grant Process, He reviewed the
-
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
OCTOBER 11, 2005
PAGE 6
IRWM update process and noted that the San Luis Obispo County Integrated Regional Water
Management Plan is located online at www.slocountywater.org.
Mr. Honeycutt responded to questions from Council regarding the grants; whether changes to
the document could be proposed, such as expanding the list of projects Arroyo Grande has
proposed to expand its water supply (page 15 of the Plan); clarifying the funding status of the
Lopez Treatment Plant project; and clarifying that the Plan will updated over a five year period,
Mayor Pro Tem Costello invited comments from those in the audience who wished to be heard
'on the matter, and upon hearing no public comments he closed the public comment period,
Council comments included acknowledgement that this is an excellent reference document for
the City; acknowledgment that the Plan is onlineiand encouragement to the public to review and
comment on the document; a request to add all of the Arroyo Grande water projects to Page 15
of the document; an emphasis on water reuse (Section B, Page 4 of the Plan) and the need to
focus more attention on using reclaimed water; and overall support for the draft Plan,
There was consensus of the Council to support the Plan and to direct staff to continue working
with representatives from the County on measures to address Zone 1/1A drainage and creek
sedimentation maintenance issues.
12. CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ITEMS
Mayor Pro Tem Costello reported that there was another traffic accident at Oak Park and
Meadowlark and requested staff to bring this issye back to the Council to determine if there are
any traffic mitigation measures that can be taken to prevent future accidents,
13. CITY MANAGER ITEMS
a) Request for direction from City Council regarding potential Municipal Code changes
to allow the sale of wine, on a restricted basis, for certain special events at the Nelson
Green,
City Manager Adams gave a brief report and requested direction from the Council regarding the
amendment of the Municipal Code to allow the sale of wine, on a restricted basis, for certain
special events at the Nelson Green,
Council comments included the fact that there were many pros and cons to this proposal and it
was emphasized that the matter would need to include significant public notification and input.
Upon consensus of the Council that the matter warranted public discussion, staff was directed to
place on a future agenda consideration of allowing the sale of wine for certain restricted events
at the Nelson Green and to provide adequate notice to the neighborhood prior to the meeting,
14. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
15. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
City Manager Adams announced that the City of Pismo Beach would be hosting a workshop on
November 16, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. to present findings from the Joint Fire Services Study.
---.---.-----
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
OCTOBER 11, 2005
PAGE 7
16. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS
Steve Ross, Arroyo Grande, commented on the:IPlanning Commission's rejection of apartments
proposed above a medical office located on Station Way,
James Murohv, Arroyo Grande, commented further on the traffic issues at the Five Cities Center
and suggested blocking off the W. Branch Street entrance near the movie theater. He also
referred to the issue regarding the Nelson Green and stated allowing wine at Special Events is a
good opportunity to promote the Village as a gateway to the County's wine country,
17. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the City Council. Mayor Pro Tem Costello
adjourned the meeting at 0 p.rn. '
/~
ATTEST:
~!U..--
, City Clerk
(Approved at CC Mtg 11/22/2005)
:1