Loading...
Minutes 1993-06-22 1"34' '., ~ MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, JUNE 22, 1993 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 EAST BRANCH STREE'!' ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA The City Council of the city of Arroyo Grande met at 7:30 P.M., with Mayor Matthew Peter Gallagher, III, presiding. 1. & 2. FLAG SALUTE AND INVOCATION i Mayor Gallagher led the Pledge of Allegiance to our Flag, and i , the Rev. James Wickstrom of Berean Bible Church delivered the : invocation. -~ 3. ROLL CALL \ , Present were Mayor Gallagher and Council Members Drew Brandy, , Bernard Burke, Gene Moots and James Souza. Staff Members present , were city Manager Chris Christiansen, City Attorney Roger Lyon, city Clerk Nancy Davis, planning Director Doreen Liberto-Blanck, Current Planner Scott Spierling and Public Works Director Van Laurn. 4. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. 5. CONSENT AGENDA It was moved b'{ Brandy/Burke, and the motion passed unanimously to approve Consent Agenda Items 5.a. through 5.f., with i the recommended courses of action. i 5.a. June 3, 1993, Budget study Session Minutes. Approved. 5.b. June 8, 1993, city Council Minutes. Approved. 5.c. June 10, 1993, Budget study Session Minutes. Approved 5.d. Letter of Resignation from Nancy Maynard, Senior Advisory Commissioner. Accepted with regrets. , , ; 5.e. Award of Bid, Landscape Maintenance Contract (Eight city ; Landscape Areas; Two-Year Contract). Awarded to Low Bidder, J.C. Landscaping, 538 Ide street, Arroyo Grande. 5.f. Recommendation From Parks and Recreation Commission Regarding the city's "Five Acres." Mayor directed Staff to send a copy of the recommendation to Fourth District Supervisor Ruth Brackett. 6. REGISTER OF CHECKS It was moved by Burke/Souza, and the motion passed unanimously to approve Cash Disbursements in the amount of $545,839.57, as i listed in the June 16, 1993, Staff Report of Finance Director David Bacon. 7.A. PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL OF REVISED VIEWSHED REVIEW PERMIT NO. ~2-39: SECOND-STORY. 875 SOUARE FOOT ADDITION AND 125 SOUARE FOOT. LQIiER FLOOR ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 1. 442 SOUARE FOOT, SINGLE- fAMILY HOME: MAXIMUM PROPOSED HEIGHT IS 25 FEET. 4 1/2 INCHES: APPELLANT. RUTH BROCKWAY Council Member Burke said he may have a conflict of interest in this matter and left the room. Planning Director Liberto-Blanck read the purpose and intent of the Viewshed Review Permit Process. She said in the Development ! Code it indicates that it is the intent of the City by establishing the Viewshed Review Permit Process to preserve the existing scope and character of established single family neighborhoods and to protect views and esthetics and other property values in such neighborhoods in a manner that is compatible with reasonable 1 .-.------.-.----. " 135 .. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JUNE 22, 1993 expansion on existing developed lots and/or in new developments on existing undeveloped lots. Current Planner Spierling described the project, referring to the Planning Director's staff Report of June 22, 1993. He also referred to plans posted on the wall. He showed photographs of the project and surrounding homes and views to the Council. lie gave the Council a copy of a petition submitted by the applicant. He said the Architectural Advisory Committee had reviewed the project and made design suggestions. He said the Planning Commission had recommended that the appeal be denied and the decision to approve the project by the Planning Commission upheld. In answer to Council Member Souza and Mayor Gallagher, city Attorney Lyon commented on what the courts have recently said about viewshed ordinances. He said the courts have approved ordinances of the type the City of Arroyo Grande has that allows regulation of esthetics including protection of views and also protection of the , I compatibility of the neighborhood. He said it is within the purview of the Council to grant or deny in its discretion the appeal that is before it. He said in a particular neighborhood the more decisions the Council makes the more it will be establishing precedent and it is important to make specific findings for each particular application. lie said the more second stories approved in a neighborhood, the more those approvals will affect the Council's ability to deny future applications. After being assured that the Public Hearing had been duly published and all legal requirements met, Mayor Gallagher declared the publi<': Hearing open and said all persons would be heard regarding the matter. Speakers against the appeal included MARK VASQUEZ, representing the project applicant, and JIM HOXTER, applicant, 213 Fairview Drive. Their arguments included the following: 1. The intent of the viewshed ordinance is to balance the needs of the r~sidents of the neighborhood, allow individual review of two- story additions and make properties compatible in the neighborhood. 2. The project had been redesigned and trees removed to lessen the impact on the view of neighbors. 3. Only a small part of the appellant's view will be blocked, and trees are already blocking some views. 4. The "neighborhood" inoludes all of Brisco Hill, and this project fits into the scale and character of the neighborhood. 5. The project is a reasonable expansion of the applicant's home and does not unnecessarily interfere with anyone's view. 6. The project is an improvement of the neighborhood. 7. The neighborhood is a safe place for children to play. a. This is the first request for a second story addition in six years. Speaking in favor of the appeal were RUTH BROCKWAY, appellant, 1303 Newport Ave., who read a letter from RONALD GRIDER of 1367 Newport Ave., and VIC BEELER of 1245 Newport Ave. Mrs. Bropkway showed photographs to the Council of her view of the project area and pointed out where the blockage would be. Their arguments included the following: 2 . --- ---- 136' CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JUNE 22, 1993 1. The intent of the ordinance is to prevent any future construction in this area that would diminish anyone's view. 2. "View" can be a major component in the value of real property, and the city may be liable for whatever amount the property values have been deoreased by the approval of this project. 3. A precedent could be set and approval of this project could open the "floodgates" to other applications for second storiEls. 4. Fairview Drive should have a 15 foot height limit instead of 30 foot that is allowed now. , i , 5. There are only 'two two-story homes on Fairview Drive, the one at j 217 Fairview that was the impetus for the passing of the Viewshed Ordinance in 1987 and one at Brighton and Fairview; the others in the area are on streets where there are 15 foot height limits. 6. The City should make special nots of these view-sensitive areas and warn applicants for second stories that they will not be approved. 7. The Supreme Court has ruled that view protection ordinances are constitutional. s. Property owners within 300 feet of the project should be i notified of viewshed applications to the Planning Commission. When no one further came forward to speak, Mayor Gallagher closed the hearing to the floor. Council Member Moots said the intent of the viewshed ordinance is to prevent any conditions, no matter how well designed or well intended, that would block the view that is already there. lie said there could be a chipping away of pieces of the view and pretty soon there could be no pieces left. lie said there are height limits in other nearby areas to protect the views. Council Members Souza and Brandy and Mayor Gallagher agreed with the applicant in the interpretation of the viewshed ordinance, and said the appeal should be denied. Mayor Gallagher said this is a 30-year-old area that is being upgraded. They said the chimney on the proposed project should be built at the lowest height possible. It was moved by Souza/Brandy (3-1-1, souza, Brandy and Gallagher voting aye, Moots voting no and Burke absent) to approve Resolution No. 2991 Upholding the Planning commission's Approval of I Revised Viewshed Review Case No. 92-39, Applied for by Jim and Christy Hoxter, for a Second Story Addi tion to a Single Family Residence, Located at 213 Fairview Drive, and Denying the Appeal of the Above Decisions. council Member Burke returned to the dais. LIL CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC IIEARING - ADOPTION OF GJ:jNERAL ~LAN UPDATE OF TItE HOUSING ELEMENT AND NEQATIVE DECLARATION I CITYWIDE LQQNTINUED FROM COUNCIL MEETINGS OF MAY 11 AND 25 AND JUNE 8. 1993) The Planning Director referred to her June 22, 1993, Staff Report and recommended that the Council approve a resolution adopting the Housing Element of the General Plan including the new policy developed to meet state Ifousing and community Development Department concerns about vacant land oapacity, and other changes discussed with the City Council on May 25, 1993. Ms. Liberto-Blanck said the lIousing Element emphasis is on 3 137 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JUNE 22, 1993 providing incentives to the private market and non-profit groups to build the low-cost housing. She said the City would not be constructing the low-cost housing. She said if the council adopts the element, Staff would put together an executive summary of the element to provide further clarificatiQn for the public, including one in the Spanish language. She said Gloria Ramirez of the South county Coalition for Human ~ervices has offered her time to work on the summary. There were further questions of Staff from the Council. After being assured that the Public Hearing had been duly published and all legal requirements met, Mayor Gallagher declared the Public Hearing open and said all persons would be heard regarding the matter. Ms. Ramirez said she was with some members of the Mexican- Amerioan oommunity of Arroyo Grande who were requesting that the Housing Element not be adopted until they had more written information in spanish about what was transpiring so they could participate. Mayor Gallagher said when a developer comes to the City for permits to build homes, he will be allowed more density if he agrees to include low-cost, low-income housing in the project. The Mayor said that when the development comes before the Planning commission or Council then will be the opportunity to provide public input. He said the Housing Element allows the developer to initiate the process. He said the element allows persons interested in building low-cost housing in the city to apply for granter also. He said the executive summary could explain the element in full for the public. The Planning Director said she would be happy to meet with any individuals or groups to explain the Housing Element. when no one further came forward to speak, Mayor Gallagher closed the hearing to the floor. council Members decided to go ahead and approve the Resolution adopting the Housing Element and then to wait for the State IICD response within 120 days. Moved by Moots/Brandy (5-0-0, Moots, Brandy, Burke, Souza and Gallagher voting aye) to approve Resolution No. 2992 Adopting the Housing Element of the General Plan; Adopting a Negative Declaration and Instructing the city Clerk to File a Notice of Determination. 7.C, PUBLIC HEARING - ApPEAL OF PLANNING CO~ISSION APPROVAL OF-A \( NEGATIVE DECLARATION WITH MITIGATION MEASUR~S. CONDITIONAL IJSE P~RMIT CASE 92-504. ,LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT CASE 92-506. V~RIANCE CASE ~2-l70. PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM CASE 92-107. ANIl..YARIANCE CASE 93-174: LQCATED AT THE CORNER OF B,.RNETT STREE'P AND GRAND AVENUE: ARCO PRODUCTS Ms. J.iberto-Blanck said the appellant wanted the Council' to consider the two mitigation measures that were part of the Planning Commission approval of the project. She said the measures objected to were traffic mitigation fees and logging the number of vehicles that come into the station. She said the appellant had asked that the hearing be continued because Staff is trying to reevaluate and resolve the issue of mitigation fees. After being assured that the Publio Hearing had been duly published and all legal requirements met, Mayor Gallagher declared the PUblic Hearing open and said all persons would be heard 4 138' 1 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JUNE 22, 1993 regarding the matter. No one came forward to speak. It was moved by Moots/Brandy, and the motion passed unanimously to continue the Public IIearing on the appeal to August 24, 1993. L.D. PUBLIC HEARING - RECONSIDERATION OF DRAINAGE IMPROVEHEN'f CONDITIONS: WALNUT VIEW ESTATES: LOT SPLIT CASE NO. 85-408, PARCEL MAP AG 85-015: LOCATED SOUTH OF EAST CHERRY AVENUE BE'fWEEN LOS OLIVOS LANE AND BRANCH MILL ROAD: VICK PACE/COKER ELLSWORTH city Attorney Lyon referred to his June 16, 1993, memorandum outlining the history of this matter, and provided a summary and ~\ ' recommendation. He said the hearing was a court-ordered re-hearing : concerning only the drainage conditions relating to a four-way lot ~ split. lie said the pUblic hearing had been advertising and mailed I notices provided to more than 80 nearby property owners and i interested parties. He recommended that the hearing be opened and testimony allowed concerning the drainage conditions and then the hearing be continued until the neKt Council meeting in July (July 13, 1993). He said the reason for not having a longer continuance, which was requested by the applicant, was that there is a court order and a stipulation that was entered into that provided a window period when this was supposed to be heard. He said that time period ends in mid-July. He said there was also an issue raised by the applicants concerning interim damages they claim are occurring because of the delay in approving the project without , drainage conditions that they feel are appropriate. He said the : stipulations that have expired had a waiver of damages while this i continuation occurred and there was currently no waiver of a claim for damages during this period. He recommended that absent that waiver the Council should proceed expeditiously with the hearings on this matter. He requested that the Publio Works Director review the six drainage conditions that were imposed on the parcel map. ! lie said the Court of Appeal found that the findings supporting imposition of the drainage conditions were adequate but determined that there was not substantial evidence in the record before the city Council previously to support imposition of those conditions. lie said the council should be determining at the public hearings ; whether or not there was substantial evidence in the record to support the drainage conditions. Hr. Laurn used the overhead projector and explained the six drainage conditions that are shown on Tentative Parcel Map AG 85- 015 attached to a November 4, 1986, Memo to the city council by the Director of Public Works. After being assured that the Public Hearing had" been duly published and all legal requirel\lents met, Mayor Gallagher declared I the Public Hearing open and said all persons would be heard regarding the I\latter. Residents of the area speaking to the Council were MIKE LEES of 610 Myrtle, GRACE STILLWELL of 734 Myrtle, JIM DICKENS of 769 Branch Hill Road, DON GULLICKSON of 513 E. Cherry, D. G. PORTER of 541 Ide, AURORA KUREK of 603 Cherry and LARRY TURNER of 323 Noguera. Their comments included the following: 1. The city's drainage conditions also may cause flooding of homes in the area. 2. Drainage channels may not be adequately maintained. 3. There would be a reduction of farmable acreage if large drainage channels are constructed. 5 ------~- ---.-_..~-~-----_...._--_._--- . -~ 139 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JUNE 22, 1993 4. It is taking too long to co~e to a resolution of this proposed project. 5. There would be flooding if the new homes are constructed in an elevated manner one foot above the flood plain. 6. One drainage solution would be to underground all drainage to the creek. Also speaking to the Council were the project applicant, COKER ELLSWORTH of 129 Bridge Street, and the project engineer, FRED SCIIOT'r. Mr. Ellsworth asked that all his prior submissions, letters and court'documents be incorporated into the record. He gave $"history of the project since 1979, when the property was purchased. He asked for a continuance of the Public Hearing beyond ,Tuly 13, 1993, because he said his attorney is in London and will be back by the end of July. He said he would agree to the damages waiver discussed by the city Attorney. Mr. Lyon recommended that the Council stay with the continuance to July 13, 1993. tie said in the interim period he would talk with Mr. Ellsworth's attorney and, if a modification of the stipulation and waiver of damage issue that was covered in the prior stlpulation could be worked out, he would recommend a continuance of another two weeks. Mr. Sbhott said he had been working on this project for 13 years. He referred to a drawing on the board and described the entire drainage area. He listed the engineering solutions he had designed for the project. He said the drainage solutions developed by the former city Engineer would cost approximately one-half million dollars. He said the Ellsworth property is less than one and one-half percent of the total drainage area. No one further came forward to speak, and it was moved by souza/Brandy, and the motion passed unanimously to continue the Public Hearing to July 13, 1993. a.A. REAPPOINTMENTS TO VARIOUS COMMISSIONS AND BOARDS (N~W TERMS TO EXPIRE JUNE 30. 1996) Planning commission - John Soto and Robert Carr Parks and Recreation Commission - Tracy Thomas and Dennis Keihn Traffic commission - Richard Franks and Derril pilkington Senior Advisory Commission - Edward Garnett Downtown Parking Advisory Board - Jim Silva and J. Ira Hughes Architectural Advisory Committee - Tony Orefice and Warren lIoag It was moved by Gallagher/Brandy, and the motion passed unanimously to approve the appointments. 8.B. ~"'POINTMeNT OF STEVEN KEPHART TO TtlE PARKS A~D RECREATION COMMIS~ON. EFFECTIVE JULY L 1993: TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 1996 LREI?LACING DOUG IIITCHEN. WHO CHOSE NOT TO BE REAPPOINTED) It was moved by Gallagher/Souza, and the motion paBsed unanimously to appoint Steven Kephart to the Parks and Recreation. 6 - -.,.-.-- 140" , CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JUNE 22, 1993 8.C. RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 1993-94 8UDGET It was moved by Moots/Souza (5-0-0, Moots, Souza, Burke, Brandy and Gallagher vo'ting aye) to approve Resolution No. 2993 Adopting the 1993-1994 Proposed Budget, as Amended by the c.i ty Council. 8. D. REI,J;NOUISHHENT BY OTTSE OF OPTION AND GRANT OF RIGijT OF FIRST REFUSAL FOR 4.13 ACRES, LOT 1~6, TRACT 1132. RELAT~NG TO AGREEMENT FDR SALE AND PURG~ASij OF REAl. PROPERTY. DATED OCTOBER 2ij. 1986, AS AMENDED JANUARY 30. 1992 Mr. Christiansen reoommended that the Council approve this agreement. He said OTTSE's relinquishment of the option concerning ~\ the 4.73 acres of the park site would remove the corporation from ! any involvement in the park site. He said if the city were to i decide to sell the 4.73 acres in the future, then OTTSE would have first right of refusal after the property is offered to a public entity in accordanCe with Government Code. B~E. REOQEST OF OTTSE FOR T~E GRANTING OF T~REE ()\ QNE-YEAR TI~E EXTENSJONS PURSQANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66452.6(e} FOR I VESTING TENTATIVE MAPS 1834. 1994 AND 1997 i Mr. Christiansen said the three one-year time extensions on I Tentative Maps 1834, 1994 and 1997 are recommended in accordance with Government code. ~REQUEST OF OTTSE FOR ~XECUTION OF LETTER OF AGREEH~ijT BETWEEN I Q'l'TSE AND CITY OF ARRQYO GijANDE PROVIOING FOR GRANT. UPQN I APPLICANT'S REOUE~T O~ TIME EXTENSION BY CITY FOR TRACT 1998 FOR A PERIOD OF T~REE (3} YEARS PROM DATE OF EXPIRATJON OF TENTATIVE MAP APPROVAL OR UNTIL NOVEHQER 21, 1998. WHICHEVER OCCURS FIRST. SUBJECT TO CITY'S ABILITY TO CONDITION/DENY S~ID EXTENS~ON PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CASE SECTION 66498.1 Mr. Christiansen recommended approval of like time extensions at which time the maps are processed and conditioned pursuant to the Government Code. ~.A.. It was~by aurke/Moots, and the motion passed unanimously to approve the City Manager's recommendations on Agenda Items 8.0., B.E. and 8.F. !i..s.a. REOUEST TO GRADE AN AREA QF LO~ 226 (368 MERCED~S LANE} IN QRDER TO INSTALl. A GOLF-PU\YIN~ AREA (ROYAL OAKS SUBDIVISION); l\LBERT GRINTER Mr. Christiansen said one of the conditions of the Royal Oaks SUbdivision was that several lots, including Lot 226, prohibit grading. He said Mr. Grinter had been, told of this. lie recommended that the applicant be referred to the Planning commission to apply either 'for a variance to the condition, or request removal of the condition from the ordinance regarding grading of the parcel. It was moved by Moots/Brandy, and the motion passed unanimously to approve the recommendation of the city Manager. II. II. REOUEST BY COUNCII, MEt!BER JAMES SOUZA CONCERNING NAMING RAtlCHO GRANDE PARK "Mf\~K M. MILLIS PARK" It was moved by James Souza, and the motion passed unanimously to recommend to the Parks and Recreation Commission that it consider naming Rancho Grande Park "Mark M. Millis Park." 8.~. APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT WITH COUNTY FOR RECYCLING BINS Mr. Christianeen recommended that the agreement' with the county for recycling bins be approved. lie said some time ago, the County applied, vis the state, for a grant to pay for the nine bins that the city will be receiving. 7 '. > 141 . CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JUNE 22, 1993 It was moved by Burke/Moots, and the motion passed unanimously to approve the San Luis Obispo County Parks Reoyoling Projedt City and County Grant Agreement for Reoycling Bins. 8.J. RESOLUTION OPPOSING $2.6 BILLION R8vENUE TRANSFER It was moved by Burke/Souza (5-0-0, Burke, Souza, Moots, Brandy and Gallagher voting are) to approve ~esolution No. 2994 Formally Opposing Further sh ft of Property Taxes from Local Governments to the state of California. B. K. REPORTS BY COUNCIL MEMBERS CONCERNING COMMITTEES ON WHIP" TilEY: SERVE 1. South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District Mayor Gallagher said the district has an agreement with the city of Pismo Beach concerning the monitoring of shell fish at the Sanitation District outfall 1ine1 the city of Grover Beach is pursuing its interest in beooming a member of the Sanitation Distriot Board, and a budget is in the frooess of being adopted. lie said a point of interest for the cit zens of Arroyo Grande is that the sewer rate of $6.50 is the lowest in the County and generally the lowest in the area. 2. South County Area Transit (SCAT) Council Member Moots said there have been no meetings since his last report. 3. Council of Governments Council Member Moots said the Council discussed Route 14 to Santa Maria and its ramifications. lie said that was also the topio for the Transit Authority. 4. Long Range Plan Update committee counoil Member Moots said there was not a meeting since his last report. 5. Sond Waste Task Force Committee Council Member Burke said for the second month in a row the meeting was postponed. fie referred to the Joint Powers Agreement letter and said he would distribute copies to the Council Members. 6. Zone 3 Water Advisory Committee Counoil Member Brandy said there have been no meetings since his last report. 7. county Water Advisory Board Council Member Brandy said there have been no meetings since his last report. B. Chamber of Commerce Economio Development committee Council Member Souza said the group will be holding a two-day strategic planning meeting June 25 and 26, 1993. 9. Coordinated Agriculture Support Program Council Member Souza said the State Coastal Conservancy has lowered prime agriculture land on its liat of priorities, and this could jeopardize the city' a program. He said he would be meeting with David Hayes, state program director, and the city'a planning Direotor on June 25, 1993, to discuss the matter. 9. WRITTEN COM~NICATIONS i I None. lQ. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. B ---.- 14;2 .. --. .' -", CITY COUNCI~ M~<<VTES JUNE 22, 1993 11, CLO~ED SES$ION None. j ! 12. A1;>JOU~NMENT i It was moved by Moots/Brandy, and the motion passed unanimously to adjo n at l;;:~ MATTHEW PET~R GALLAGH , --'"'\ .1 ATTEST: I i I i ! I I I I , I , I i I i I I ! , I I 00 ! -~ , !