Loading...
Minutes 1988-02-23 .J , MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1988 COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 E. BRANCH STREET ARROYO GRANOE, CALIFORNIA The City Council met in regular session with Mayor Howard Mankins presiding. Also present were Council Members Dorace Johnson, Mark M. Millis, Gene Moots and D. G. Porter. FLAG SALUTE AND INVOCATION Mayor Mankins led the Pledge of Allegiance to our Flag, and Council Member Moots gave the invocation. PUBLIC APPEARANCES . MARGARITA JOHNSON of 950 Huasna Road, a representative of the Woman's Club of Arroyo Grande, brought a message from the president: thanked the Council for the fences .installed for their protection, but expressed concern about the dangerous situation created by the work and diminution of their parking lot. Mayor Mankins noted that later in the agenda, this item G.7., would be addressed. JIM SCRIVANI of 201 Whitely Street stated his concern about the growth of the city in relation to the General Plan. Mayor Mankins closed the public appearaoces and then requested monetary support from the community for the Mayors Run-off scheduled February 24th for the Eagle boys' and girls' track teams fund raiser. CONSENT AGENDA Council unanimously approved items C.l., C.2., C.5., C.6., C.8, and C.9. C.3. Council Member Porter requested information regarding the Bruce Jordan claim. Interim City Manager, Chris Christiansen, explained a water main break allegedly caused Mr. Jordan's loss of $800.00 Staff recrnnmendation is to reject the claim at this time, though possibility of future action is not discounted. Moved by Moots/Porter (5-0-0 to accept Staff recolTUTlendation). C.4. Council Member Moots inquired about the item and was advised by the Staff that it is for Information Only and the City is not cOlTUTlitted to anything regarding this Main Street Program/Proposed Budget. C.7. City Manager stated the applicant regarding Lot Split Case No. 87-442, Parcel Map AG 87-35, 579 Camino Mercado, still hasn't paid the $900.00 street tree fee. The Staff recommendation is to approve and record the parcel map subject to receipt of the fee. Moved by Johnson/Moots (5-0-0) and approved. D.1. COUNCIL MEMBER PORTER REQUESTED FIRST READING OF THE ORDINANCE I and Mr. Christiansen read into the minutes. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE REQUIRING APPROVAL BY A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE FDR THE CONSTRUCTION OF ANY NEW OR SUBSTANTIALLY REMODELED CITY HALL WHEREAS, the remodeling, expanding or relocating of the present City Hall would involve the expenditure of substantial sums of City taxpayer money, and could adversely impact the level and availability of City effici- ency and services, as well as these areas of the community surrounding a City Ha 11; and WHEREAS, this Council finds that the public interest would be best served by letting City voters approve or disapprove any proposal to expand, remodel or relocate City Hall. _.- ."--_......_-.-~~- ,~ CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 23, 19B8 ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA PAGE TWO NEW CITY HALL ORDINANCE Continued from Page 1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande as follows: Section 1. The Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding Chapter 5 to Title 1, reading in full as follows: "Chapter 5 - Mandatory Referendums ~ 1-5.01 Mandator y Referendum for Ci ty Ha 11 Remodel i nq, Expans ion , Relocation or Construction. A. Any decision to remodel or expand the present City Hall or to relocate or change the site for City Ha", or to construct a new or different City Hall Building or any portion thereof, shall not become final, binding, or effective until approved by a majority of voters voting at a regular municipal election. B. Any decision to amend the General Plan, the zoning ordinance, or any other pldn, policy or ordinance of the City to authorize or allow City Hall to be in any location other than its present site shall not become final, binding or effective until approved by a rnajority of the voters voting at a regular municipal election. C. Each proposition to be submitted to the voters pursuant to para- graphs A and B above shall be placed on the ballot as a separate and independent measure, after the City Council has adopted an appropriate ordinance or resolution setting forth its decision in full, and after all environmental determinations and anticipated cost figures are available to the voting public. D. For the purposes of this Ordinance, "City Hall" means, without limitation, any building or structure designed, constructed or intended for regular use for anyone or more of the following purposes: (1) City Counc il chambers (2~ City Council offices (3 City Manager offices (4) City Clerk ofHc:es (5) City Attorney offices (6) Finance offices (7) Any other central administrative offices not providing direct services to or for the public. E. Exemptions. The mandatory referendum requirements in this section shall not apply to any of the following: (1) City Hall remodeling and/or expansion plan~.or projects approved by the City Council prior to the effective date of this Ordinance. (2) Emergency repair or reconstruction of City Hall on its present site resulting from fire, flood, earthquakes or other similar disaster, provided that such repair or reconstruction is approved by a four-fifths vote of the City Council. (3) Normal maintenance and repair of the present City l1all. Section 2. This Ordinance shall be in full force and affect thirty (30) days after its passage; and within fifteen (15) days after its passage it shall be published once, together with the names of Council Members voting thereon, in a newspaper published and circulated in said City. On motion of Council Member , seconded by Council Member and on the following roll call vote, to wit: , - ---------- -..-.- -"'."'. CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 23, 1988 ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA PAGE THREE NEW CITY HALL ORDINANCE Continued from Page 2 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoin9 Ordinance was passed and adopted this day of 1987. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK Moved by Porter/Johnson to adopt the Ordinance. Mayor Mankins requested City Attorney Art Shaw read a proposed 'Sunset Clause" to be inserted into the proposed Ordinance, Section 2, by the City Clerk. PROPOSED ORDINANCE RE MANDATORY REFERENDUM FOR CITY HALL PROJECTS (1) Proposed "Sunset Clause" (2) "Regular" Elections 1. Proposed "Sunset Clause" Mr. ~haw said .., that to avoid an obsolete ordInance on the books whIch mIght hInder City Councils many years in the future, he had been asked to suggest wording for a "sunset clause" to the referenced ordinance being presented to the City Council tonight. He recommended the addition of a new "Section 2" reading in full as follows: "Section 2. Sunset Clause Municipal Code Section 1-5.01 and all subsections thereof adopted in Section 1 of this ordinance shall expire and be of no further force or effect ten (10) years after the effective date of this ordinance. The City Clerk shall make appropriate notes in the Municipal Code referring to this expiration provision." (Note: The original Section 2 of the proposed ordinance concerning effectivity and publication will become Section 3 if the "Sunset Clause" is added to the ordinance.) 2. "Re~lar" Elections- Mr. Shaw . sal tnat concern has been expressed that thp. two references in the proposed ordinance to "voting at a regular municipal election" would limit the voting to every two years at Council election time only. Below is a copy of California Election Code Section 2500 which provides that there are three regular municipal election dates each year for general law cities such as Arroyo Grande. He said the ordinance was written witn tnat State law in mind, and if the City Council feels that State law does not give enough election opportunities, the words "or a special" could be inserted near the end of Paragraphs A and B, immediately after the word "regular". 2500. Regular election dates __,_... ._" ___..,_.____._u _.. - -~_.._.._.._.._...~~ ". C!TY COUNC I L FEBRUARY 23, 1988 ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA PAGE FOUR NEW CITY HALL ORDINANCE Continued from Paqe Three Three regular election dates shall be established in each year as follows: (1 ) The * * * second Tuesday * * * of April of each even-numbered year. (2 ) The * * * first Tuesday * * * after the first Monday in March (3) of each odd-numbered year. The first Tuesday after the first Monday in June of * * * each year. (4 ) The first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of each year. Mayor Mankins then opened discussion to the City Council and Staff. . Coun:il Member ~illis expressed a desire to reach the highest voter partIcIpatIon by specIfying "the" election, rather than calling a special election. Mayor Mankins said he felt two (2) years is too infrequent and binding on the Council to provide a timely, and meaningful specific election date. Discussion ensued amongst the Council and Staff as to whether electorate consideration should be in a special or regular councilmanic election. Mayor Mankins opened the public portion of the Hearing. ANDREW DAVID, attorney, 227 E. Branch Street, expressed greatest respect for Council Member O. G. Porter and his intent through this ordinance to bring this ordinance before the people. He said he was very concerned there was no Councilor public input regarding the Lackey contract and the November 24th Board of Supervisors meeting finalizing the contract. Mr. David recommended they bend the ordinance to demand public input and provide choices. Council Member Porter said he did have legal council in drawing up this ordinance, also to ensure environmental process for any site for a City Hall was followed to the letter of the law. Lengthy discussion ensued by Council Member Porter, Mr. D~vid, Mr. Zimmerman, Mr. Shaw and Council Member Millis regarding the contents of the proposed ordinance, as it relates to environmental factors and timing of elections. Council Member Porter said he had inquired of legal council, the County Planning Dept. and the County Engineers as to their definition of the phrase "Municipal Offices Only", and was advised it is a common phrase to protect their right to their property or they can redeem it. . MIKE ZIMMERMAN, 227 E. Branch Street, said he believes the phrase/ restriction does not need to be there and he believes 3 supervisors will agree with him and will remove it. MADELE INE STEELE, 1598 Hill crest Dri ve ,i nqui red about the need for a "Sunset Clause". BILL HART of 207 Bridge Street supported the ord i nance. He referred to Mayor Mankins'first proposal to the Village Merchants Assoc. regarding the relocation of City Hall among other items. He questioned how does this fit in with the General Plan. Mayor Mankins closed the discussion to the floor. After further discussion by the Council and Mr. Shaw, the City Attorney recommended inserting the words at line 4, Paragraph C. . .after the City Council "has held a public hearing and has adopted an appropriate ordinance or resolution" to guarantee a public hearing. He stated an environmental determination has to be made, depending on what is presented, though it wouldn't be an exemption. It may~e a mitigated negative declaration, a focused E.I.R. project or a full E.I.R. There is a city procedure according to State law regarding E.I.R. C!TY COUNC I L FEBRUARY 23, 1988 ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA PAGE FIVE NEW CITY HALL ORDINANCE Continued from Page Four The additional phrase was approved to be included in the original motion. Also approved was the inclusion of a new Section 2 in the "Sunset Clause", moving the original section 2 to section 3 as well as the phrase "in 10 years" which provides that the ordinance would become null and void. Council discussion regarding Council Member Millis'concern as to which election would be specified resulted in the agreement to add "the elections held in June and November in the even-numbered years" to the end of paragraphs A and B. Original motion by Porter/Johnson (5-0-0, Council Members Porter, Johnson, Millis, Moots and Mayor Mankins voting aye). Motion carried and was adopted. E.l.a. PUBLIC HEARING RE: CONFORMANCE WITH GENERAL PLAN OF MUNICIPAL OFFICE USES, RE: FIVE ACRE PARCEL FROM ROYAL OAKS DEVEOPERS. Mayor Mankins issued an opening statenlent describing how he had suggested forming a committee of City and Village merchants with the purpose of revital- izing, expanding the Village, increase the city's revenues, expand shops on both sides of the creek, move the bridge on Bridge Street to enhance the area as San Luis has done. All these would benefit the entire community, not just special interest groups at minimal cost to the City. He proposes to use the "free 5 acres" for municipal offices, freeing valuable Branch Street for merchants. Planning Director Doreen Liberto-Blanck referred to the City Council's Resolution 2189 regarding the comformity of office use with the General Plan. On January 19th, the Planning Commission reviewed this item and determined that this item is not inconsistent with the General Plan. Council Member Moots stated he may have a possible conflict of interest and would abstain from the discussion and voting and left the Council Chambers. Council discussion resulted in the determination to keep items A. and B. separate. Counc i1 Member Porter restated defi ni t i on of the phrase, "Munic ipa 1 Office Only" interpretation and saw no problem of conformity to the General Plan. Mayor Mankins opened the Public Hearing to the floor. MIKE ZIMMERMAN spoke in response to Mayor Mankin's opening summary as to the (1) impact of proposed shopping centers in the Village and (2) a recommendation for the possible rerouting of Highway 227 as traffic and parking on 227 is controlled by the State. Mr. Zimmerman asked Mr. Shaw if there was a deadline for this General Plan decision. . Mr. Shaw replied that the Council has approved a preliminary concept; appeal has been filed in relation to the lot split and this issue must be taken care of before that appeal can be finalized. He d i dn ' t know what those dates are. Mr. Zimmerman asked Mr. Shaw if the Conformance to the General Plan must be settled before the lot split. To which Mr. Shaw said his opinion is yes, because one of the lots being split refers to this item. Mr. Zimmerman asked Council Member Porter about the comment made earlier that he, Mr. Porter, could go back to the County and possibly have the restric- tion clarified or altered. Discussion by Council Member Porter and Mr. Shaw as to a regional performing arts center being a problem in the "Municipal Office Use Only" context, but Mr. Shaw felt if any reasonable public facility was proposed, that the County would be reasonable. Mr. Zimmerman made the following statement: The County could not decide unilaterally because it has agreed in an exchange contract with Mr. Lackey that "Municipal Offices Only" is what is going to be put on the property. Both parties agreed. --~~_._--------- ---- - CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 23, 1988 ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA PAGE SIX FIVE ACRE PARCEL Continued from Page Five Mr. Shaw said there are several steps between now and then that the City will take so that won't be a problem. DON MC HANEY of 140 Ruth Ann Way, as a partner in the Royal Oaks Develop- ment, referred to insight from past county actions of which Supervisor Jim Johnson was gracious in being able to award this free property to the City of Arroyo Grande. He said it was costly to the developer and the county. He also saw no reason why Council Member Moots should step down as Mr. McHaney is his broker, not a partner. Council Member Moots is an independent contractor. Mr. McHaney recommended the Council give the majority of the City of Arroyo Grande 10 years to make this determination as to the location of City Hall. Additional co~nents from the following gentlemen, with mayoral comment on access and easements as a matter of public record. ANDREW DAVID referred to Bill Lackey's control and authority in this regard and reconvnended the Counci 1 (1) get contract amended reI "Municipal Office Only" phrase; and (2) don't give approval to this General Plan item, buthdve W. Shawwork with the county and Mr. Lackey. ORRIN COCKS of 1450 Deer Canyon said the Kiwanians appreciated the Mayor's openness at their meeting. JIM MC GILLIS of 133 Bridge Street. said, addressing the General Plan it is a growth tool and as such it should be flexible. Approve it or don't, but stick to the agenda, he said. JIM SCRIVANI invited the Mayor to speak to interested citizens about the General Plan. Mayor Mankins said he is available. Said he was recorded by Clark Moore when he spoke to the Kiwanis and Rotary organizations. The Mayor closed the public portion of the hearing to the floor. Council discussion referred to the City's Public Buildings Element portion of the General Plan, citing documentS of 1976, page 8, and 1978. Definition of "a gift/donation" as something given with nothing.expected in return. Council Member Millis said it is a landswap as the street that connects to the WOffiilns' Club and drainage concessions to Royal Oaks have a dollar value, and pages 4 and 5 of the Public Buildings Element list various offices under a "Municipal Office" classification until 1990. Council Member Johnson said at the time of Council and Staff discussion with Mr. Lackey and after he had done the grading and fill, the Council tried to reach an equitable point with a Council consensus as to what was fair to expect of Mr. Lackey. '. Moved by Johnson/Porter to accept Staff recommendations and find that it is conformance. Mr. Shaw then read Planning Director Doreen Liberto-Blanck's alternate resolution: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE FINDING THAT MUNICIPAL OFFICE SPACE USES ON SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL CENTER PROPERTY ARE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN. WHEREAS, on the 23rd day of February 1988, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande, at a regular meeting, did consider Municipal Office Space Uses, and WHEREAS, after review of the General Plan Element, entitled "Public Buildings"; and -. -, C!TY COUNC I L FEBRUARY 23, 1988 ARROYO GRANOE, CALIFORNIA PAGE SEVEN FIVE ACRE PARCEL Continued from Page Six WHEREAS, after consideration, the City Council did determine that said uses are not consistent with and not in conformance with the designations presently outlined in the South County Regional Center in the General Plan of the City of Arroyo Grande. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVEO that the City Council hereby finds that Municipal Office Space Uses on South County Regional Property are in confor- mance with the General Plan. On motion by Council Member Johnson, seconded by Council Member Porter, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Johnson, Porter, and Mankins NOES: Millis ABSTAIN: 1400ts the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 23rd day of February 1988. MAYOR ATTEST: CI I Y CLERK E.l.b. PUBLIC HEARING RE: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF A REQUESTED MINOR SUBDIVISION (LOT SPLIT) FILED BY DON MC HANEY. Ms. Liberto-Blanck further explained the proposed details of the lot split, describing the 3 parcels which would be of 5 to 14 acre size. The January 19th Planning Commission meeting determined this item could not be approved as sufficient information had not been provided to justify the lot split and that the project was inconsistent with the General Plan which had gray areas in the General Plan Document entitled "Public Buildings." Exchanges between Council Member Millis and Mr. Shaw regarding the filing dates of the appeal, with Mr. Shaw stating the filing by an agent of the property owner was in time. Council Member Porter stated from the Soils Conservation Service Map, none of the soil is classified as prime agricultural and therefore the minimum parcel size permitted by City policy is 1~ acres. The parcels all exceed the 5 acres and therefore meet general zoning for agriculture. The Mayor opened the Public Hearing to the floor. WILLIAM LACKEY, developer of Royal Oaks, 575 Easy Street, said the drainage basin worked in the County's favor. From the original sale to the County, he said he had the right to a 3.2 acre drainage Dasin, but put it on his property and not the County's. An access to the Woman's Club from Oak Park Road was never a City Council requirement although the Staff recommendation by Mr. Karp was that we plan that access but not build it. He said they spent a lot of money improving the property because it was for the City. He mentioned various uses the County has vision to see for that 3rd parcel that the City Planning Commission failed to see. MIKE ZIMMERMAN, questioned the appeal application and was in disagree- ment with Mr. Shaw's opinion; why the February 3rd application filed with the City Clerk was signed by Howard Mankins, and why the rush with the lot split. Council Member Porter, Mayor Mankins and Mr. Zimmerman further discussed the questions. ALBERT ST. PETER of 350 Sunri se Dri ve said he I'oOUld appreciate discussicns limited to the facts. MILTON HAYES of 102 Bridge Street, said, as a businessman, he urges the Council to keep options open and accept the property. FLETA LACKEY of 575 Easy Street, stated the landswap was between Royal Oaks and the County, but the donation was to Arroyo Grande and they would 1 i"~ tn cop ; t """,,"'11.1 . .._._-_._-~ .- ." C!TY COUNC I L FEBRUARY 23, 1988 ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA PAGE EIGHT LOT SPLIT Continued from Page Seven MADELEINE STEELE questioned why the County wants the third parcel and wondered if it is for a future time if the 5 cities are ever unified. FOURTH DISTRICT SUPERVISOR JIM JOHNSON addressed the assemblage and said he was open for any questions. Mr. Scrivani was concerned about traffic if the County services are brought to the area. Mr. Johnson replied that the County's long-range plans are for our benefit and convenience. They would include a Municipal Court, a court reporter, Sheriff's station, Engineering and Planning Departments. DORIS OLSEN of 573 Via La Barranca asked why the Supervisors and City officials were in closed session in this regard. Mr. Johnson said it is common when contracts are being worked out. Mrs. Steele asked about disclosure of all these proposed changes to the public. The Mayor and Mr. Johnson said they are in the 1976 planning documents and the Supervisors delivered the complete agenda for the meeting to the local County Library one month before the hearing and the contract was included. Mr. Zimmerman inquired why the exchange contract which had been signed by the Council had a 3D-day approval time for conceptual approval. He said he bought a copy from the Clerk's office and the original signed contract filed with the Clerk did not have that provision. Mr. Johnson said Gee Gee Soto brought it to his attention and he checked with the Clerk the next day and they showed him it was there. In further discussion, Mr. Johnson stated it is expedient to split all the parcels at one time. Mrs. Johnson asked that they ultimately let the people speak through their vote so the majority rules. The Mayor closed the public hearing to the floor and opened it to Council and Staff discussion. Council Member Millis continued his earlier statement regarding the illegality of the filing of the appeal. Mr. Shaw. said it was all right because E.a.A., which filed this ,worked for both the County and Mr. Don McHaney. It was justified because the filer was the same. Mr. Millis said that on February 3rd E.D.A. filed for Howard Mankins and he does not believe they are the Mayor's agent. Mayor Mankins responded that E.D.A. is not his agent and he didn't believe E.D.A. was aware that the City Clerk had called him so that any Council member could file affording the public the right to hear. '. The Mayor stated the proposed lot split exceeds the minimum requirements of the City Subdivisionoroin~e, the Agriculture Zone and the map is consistent with the General Plan. Staff memo to the Council, paragraph 3,confirms this so the Council can move ahead and approve the lot split, he said. Planning Director Liberto-Blanck said the four standard findinqs to approve a subdivision are: that it is consistent with (1) the General Plan; (2) the Zoning Ordinance; (3) a negative declaration of the California Environmental Quality Act; and (4) the site is physically suitable for this type of density. She then passed a copy of the conditions to each member of the Council. Council and Staff discussion regarding the definition of "Subdivision" and conditions imposed on a subdivision such as: underground utilities, in- cluding water, sewer and comnunicationsj rights of way for widening of Branch street, and street lights. The Mayor said it is not the same as a residential subdivision and believes the conditions are out of line and he can't support them, but believes we should take the property. --. -.- - . C!TY COUNC I L FEBRUARY 23, 1988 ARROYO GRANOE, CALIFORNIA PAGE NINE LOT SPLIT Continued from Page Eight Moved by Johnson/Porter to accept the minor subdivision but not require recommended improvements in light of the proposal of the County to designate Parcel 1 as a parcel of land to be ultimately transferred to the City of Arroyo Grande. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING LOT SPLIT NO. 87-451 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande has considered Lot Split 87-451 in accordance with Chapter 3 of the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Arroyo Grande; and WHEREAS, the CitY.Counci1 has found that this project is consistent with the General Plan and the Environmental Documents associated therewith, and a Negative Declaration has been declared under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and WHEREAS, the City Council has further found that this project is consis- tent with the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan of the City of Arroyo Grande; and WHEREAS, this site is physically suitable for the proposed type and density of development because all yards, open spaces, setbacks, fences and walls, parking areas and other features can be accommodated; and WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision design is not likely to cause substantial and considerable damage to the natural environment, including fish, wildlife or their habitat; and WHEREAS, said Lot Split was referred to various City Departments and the Staff Advisory Committee for recommendation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby approves said Lot Split No. 87-451. On motion by Council Member Johnson, seconded by Council Member Porter and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Johnson, Porter, and Mankins NOES: Mill is ABSENT: Moots the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 23rd day of February, 1988. MAYOR . ATTEST: C!TY CLERK Mayor Mankins asked for approval of a joint effort by the Chief of Police, the City Manager and himself to bring a consensus in a report in a couple of meetings regarding feasibility of a joint City and Sheriff's station facility. Chief of Police Clark said that after a letter of invitation from the Sheriff, he drafted the following ideas for a shared facility: joint lobby, parking, restrooms, sin91e dispatch clerk, conference room, maintenance, kitchen facilities for holding cells, transportation of prisoners, shared record information, 24-hour South County jail manned by Sheriff's personnel, training and an emergency center. He welcomed the opportunity for discussion. Supervisor Jim Johnson said he proposed this shared-facility concept with Ed Williams who now also sees a lot of advantages. However, because of all the abuse directed at the Supervisors in the current lot split issue, he said he would have a difficult time supporting another unless he was assured of a consensus of the City of Arroyo Grande. His goal has been to improve the rnllnt\l'C: ...ol~t;nnC'h;" ~P'I lot..........;...... ....;."" ."'... ,.,:..... ,- C!TY COUNC I L FEBRUARY 23, 1988 ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA PAGE TEN LOT SPLIT Continued from Page Nine Mayor Mankins spoke on behalf of the City in apology to Supervisor Johnson for any inconvenience he has suffered and indicated Mr. Johnson certainly did not deserve the personal attacks during his efforts for the City's benefit. The Mayor said he hopes all those who oppose any issue will in.t~e future, do so in a professional manner, granting a fair exchange of ' op1n1ons. F.1. NEW FEE SCHEDULE FOR AGENDA PACKETS AND RELATED DOCUMENTS. Mr. Christiansen said this is the first reading of the resolution after it was approved in concept last meeting. Moved by JOhnson/Porter to dispense with further reading of the Resolution and so moved unanimous ly. The Mayor opened the discussion to the floor. Mr. Zimmerman stated his disagreement in charging the public for agenda packets. He said he didn't know the Council could discuss non-agenda items referring to Police Chief Clark's proposal as a possible violation of the Brown Act. Further discussion ensued by the City Attorney and Mayor Mankins. Moved bv Johnson/Porter (5-0-Q, John~on, Porter, Millis, M~ots and Mankins voting to adopt 11 Resolutioo Jluthorizil1J Fees for Jlijendas and Related IXx:lJ1EI1ts MJnicipal Code Sec. 2-10.01) F.2. ORDINANCE RELATED TO NEW FEE SCHEDULE FOR PLANNING PERMITS AND PROCESSING. City Manager read this second reading of the Ordinance after it was approved in concept last meeting. Moved by Johnson/Moots to read by title only (5-0-0 passed). Moved by Johnson/Moots (5-0-0, Johnson, Moots, Porter, Millis, Mankins voting aye) to have the first read~ 00 an {Hinance Arending the M.micipal Code by rEtennining That Certain Pqenda Fees Shall be Provi For by City Cou1cil Resolutioo. G.l. ~HANGE ORDER FOR SO TO PARK COMPLEX AND STORM WATER RECLAMATION PROJECT, PHASE 11. Public Works Director Paul Karp referred to his memo of February 17, 1988, and reported that upon completion, the City will be able to utilize 90-100 acre feet of water for purposes other than the sports complex, thereby. bringing the City halfway to its conservation goal as adopted by the Conservatlon Plan. A~ funding monies from the Parks Department are short, they recommend supplement1ng the funding from Water Fund 32, saying it was appropriate to use funds from the Water Department. Parks and Recreation Director John Kiesler showed by illustrative drawings the pump locations and sump basins 1 and 2 which would use storm run:off to wa~er turf in addition to regular pumping of non-potable water, resulting 1n the sav1ngs to the City. Staff discussion regarding the need for a second p~mp at the Elm Street Park to prep softball fields and use Water Depart~ent mon1es to fund the project. Further Council discussion urged strong consideration because of dry years. MO~f:dt&' Jo~nson/~orte~-R-OthetoauthoriZe exP.91diture of an unb\Jdgeted arount not to exceed 2, to urd a c ange or referenced prtiJect fran unbudgeted water revenues. 6.2. REQUEST TO CLOSE LINDA DRIVE. Residents requested a continuance for two weeks. G.3. REQUEST TO INSTALL FOUR ANTENNAS NEAR RESERVOIR SITE ON HILLCREST DRIVE, GTE. Mr. Karp said this is a preliminary reading and he will get a proposal if the Council wants to proceed at which time he recommends it be done under a use permit procedure and additional information on the proposal could be collected for the City policy makers. Council and Staff discussion revealed that Sonic Cable TV wouldn't know until after installation of the antennas whether they would cause interference with television reception in the area and Mr. Christiansen recommended they deny the request as 75-100 foot antennas in a residential area as inappropriate. -"- C!TY COUNC I L FEBRUARY 23, 1988 ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA PAGE ELEVEN REQUEST TO INSTALL ANTENNAS Continued from Page Ten Mayor Mankins stepped down and handed the gavel to Council Member Johnson, Mayor Pro Tern, as he is an adjacent property owner with easement already granted the City for ingress and egress to service the tank. He wonders how the City would get to the antennas for maintenance. Moved by Porter/Millis (4-0-1, Porter, Millis, Moots, Johnson voted aye, Mankins abstained, to deny the request). Mayor Pro Tem Johnson returned the gavel to Mayor Mankins. G.4. RESOLUTION ESTAB .ISHING A "30 MINUTE" PARKING ZONE ON A PORTION OF EAST BRANCH STR 0 . BRAN H . There was a brief discussion regarding the exact location of the zone. Mov:S-~fr ~~nsoll/~ots (5-~~, J.rns()1, tIoots, Millis Porter and Mankins voti!)9 a~) to Establish a nu afl(H1g one 00 a 100 of East Brarih Street (101 E. Braoch Street - 2 Pan<1ng Spaces). G.5. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A "NO PARKING"lONE ON A PORTION OF EAST BRANCH STREET (101 E. BRANCH STREET). f'bved ~S()1~ts (!I-O-O, Jmsoo, MJots, (Porter, Millis and ~ins voting aje) to Establish a No-Parking ()1 a ortioo of East Branch Street 101 E. Braoch Street. G.6. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A "30 MINUTE" PARKING ZONE ON A PORTION OF JUNIPE N A . N V NU . Bne lscussion as to t e corner location, and the zone would make it available for patrons and free up the corner. Moved ~Jo~ns~~por~er ~-oP&zt.;blmsr~P~rters Milli(1 rtrts and Mankins votin~)~) to Estab lSti a lnu e 11 log one a 1011 0 n per treet 27 Grand Avenue-4 space . G.7. DISCUSSION REGARDING PARKING LOT AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER (WOMAN'S CLUB. Mayor Mankins said the entire Council has discussed this issue with Mr. Karp whose proposal, after meeting with John Kiesler and Civil Engineer Mark Bell was hindered by lack of funding in the past but now felt $165,000 would cover engineering, staking, soils, inspections, construction and striping of the upper lot and restriping of the lower lot. Mr. Lackey had been asked to put up a temporary barricade, but he chose to install permanent fencing. Mrs. Johnson said they would write and thank him. Mrs. Johnson was concerned about safety because it is difficult for seniors to rnanuever. JENNY HOWELLS was in support, having previously sent the City a letter to that effect. Council and Staff discussion revealed their concern also. Coune i I Member Johnson said it is not safe, a great liability, consistent with the General Plan, and we should correct the condition the City created. Moved by Johnson/Millis. Mr. Christiansen, in discussion regarding source of funding, said there was a construction fund of $600,000 originally for City Hall, but is wide open for other expenditures. Council Member Millis can justify the need for additional and safe parking, still he seconded the motion with the understand- ing it was for temporary bulldozing at a cost of approximately $2,000, not $165,000. Further discussion by Council Member Porter revealed it would be impossible to begin grading immediately because of the Grading Ordinance which doesn't permit grading until after April 15th of each year. Mr. Karp said that $4,000 would pay for the design package revisioo and specifications to put the project together, and $10,OCOhas been budgeted for this item. Then he would come back to the Council and present it for appropriation to do whatever is determined feasible. ~,_.~-_._._----- .~- CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 23, 1988 ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA PAGE TWELVE COMMUNITY CENTER PARKING LOT Continued from Page Eleven - .. - 1 Maved bY&J~hn~on/Mhllis.(5-0-0) 10 approve Mr.. Karp's recommendation. to emp oy arlng ay or, ssoclates to prepare the bld package. Mayor Mankins appointed Council Member Johnson as liason with the Woman's Club. H.1. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 306 C.S. AND TITLE 3, CHAPTER 6 OF THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE, CALIFORNIA SCHOOL FACILITIES ACT. Moved by Porter/Moots to dispense with the reading of the Ordinance, so moved. Moved by Moots/Johnson (5-0-0, Moots, Johnson, Porter, Millis, Mankins voting aye) to "adopt the Ordinance Repealing Ordinance No. 306 C.S., Title 3, Chapter 6 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code. ADJOURNMENT OF THE MEETING: 11:00 p.m. MAYOR ATTEST: . . .