Loading...
Minutes 2006-05-09 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, MAY 9, 2006 COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 EAST BRANCH STREET ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Ferrara called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL City Council: Council Members Jim Dickens, Joe Costello, Ed Arnold, Mayor Pro Tem Jim Guthrie and Mayor Tony Ferrara were present. City Staff Present: City Manager Steve Adams, City Attorney Tim Carmel, Director of Administrative Services/City Clerk Kelly Wetmore, Chief of Police Tony Aeiitz, Director of Community Development Rob Strong, and Associate Planner Kelly Heffernon. 3. FLAG SALUTE Charles Howell and Aimee Clayton, representing Veterans of Foreign Wars 2829, led the Flag Salute. 4. INVOCATION Pastor George Lepper, Peace Lutheran Church, delivered the invocation. 5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS 5.a. Honorary Proclamation Proclaiming May 2006 as "Bike Month" and May 15 - 19, 2006 as "Bike to Work Week". Mayor Ferrara presented an Honorary Proclamation declaring May 2006 as "Bike Month" and May 15-19, 2006 as "Bike to Work Week". Diane Hendrix, representing San Luis Obispo Regional Rideshare, accepted the Proclamation. 5.b. Honorary Proclamation Proclaiming May 2006 as "Foster Care Month". Mayor Ferrara presented an Honorary Proclamation declaring May 2006 as "Foster Care Month". Rosalinda Rodriguez, representing ASPIRA, accepted the Proclamation. 5.c. Honorary Proclamation Proclaiming May 14-20, 2006 as "National Police Week". Mayor Ferrara presented an Honorary Proclamation declaring May 14-20, 2006 as "National Police Week". Chief of Police Tony Aeiltz, representing Arroyo Grande Police Department, accepted the Proclamation. 6. AGENDA REVIEW 6.a. Ordinances Read in Title Only. Council Member Costello, Council Member Arnold seconded, and the motion passed unanimously that all ordinances presented at the meeting shall be read in title only and all further reading be waived. ,.........-----___u Minutes: City Council Meeting Tuesday, May 9, 2006 Page 2 7. CITIZENS' INPUT. COMMENTS. AND SUGGESTIONS Colleen Martin, Olive Street, thanked the City Council for their service to the City. She also expressed gratitude for the service of the Planning Commission. She acknowledged the number of hours the Planning Commission spends reviewing projects in detail, reading lengthy reports, and making site visits. She noted that the current Planning Commission appears to really care about the City and asked the Council to acknowledge them and continue to support their efforts. Jennifer Schumaker, San Diego, said she is walking over 500 miles from San Diego to San Francisco to try to encourage dialogue that recognizes that people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, and/or transgender, and their families, friends, and allies are fully interconnected. She distributed material to the City Council regarding "A Walk For Togetherness". 8. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Ferrara invited members of the public who wished to comment on any Consent Agenda Item to do so at this time. Patty Welsh, Arroyo Grande, referred to Item 8.f. (Solicitation Ordinance) and spoke in support of the Ordinance prohibiting peddling and soliciting activities. Hearing no further public comments, Mayor Ferrara closed the public comment period. Council Member Arnold moved, and Council Member Costello seconded the motion to approve Consent Agenda Items 8.a. through 8.f., with the recommended courses of action. City Attorney Carmel read the title of the Ordinance in Item 8.f. as follows: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ADDING CHAPTER 5.76 TO THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE, ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR PEDDLING AND SOLICITING ACTIVITIES". The motion carried on the following roll-call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Arnold, Costello, Dickens, Guthrie, Ferrara None None 8.a. Cash Disbursement Ratification. Action: Ratified the listing of cash disbursements for the period April 16, 2006 through April 30, 2006. . 8.b. Consideration of Approval of Minutes. Action: Approved the minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings of April 11, 2006, as submitted. 8.c. Authorization to Reject Claims Against the City. Action: Rejected claims and authorized the City Clerk to send a standard rejection letter to the claimants as recommended by the City's Claims Administrator. 8.d. Consideration of Resolution Accepting Public Improvements for Tract 2532 Located at 1180 Ash Street, Constructed by Mal-Hun, LLC. Action: Adopted Resolution No. 3917 accepting certain improvements for Tract 2532. 8.e. Consideration of Request to Refund Application and Permit Fees to the South County Historical Society for its Efforts to Restore "Ruby's House". Action: Refunded application and permit fees to the South County Historical Society for its efforts to restore "Ruby's House". Minutes: City Council Meeting Tuesday, May 9, 2006 Page 3 8.f. Consideration of Adoption of Ordinance Adding Chapter 5.76 to the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Establishing Regulations for Peddling and Soliciting Activities and Adoption of a Resolution Establishing a Solicitation Permit Application Fee. Action: 1) Adopted Ordinance No. 578 entitled: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande Adding Chapter 5.76 to the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code, Establishing Regulations for Peddling and Soliciting Activities"; and 2) Adopted Resolution No. 3918 establishing the amount of a solicitation permit application fee. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9.a. Appeal of Planning Commission's Denial of Plot Plan Review 05-027 and Viewshed Review 05-020 for the Construction of a Two-Story Single Family Residence Located at 123 Whiteley. Community Development Director Strong presented the staff report and stated the Planning Commission recommended the Council adopt a Resolution to deny the appeal of Plot Plan Review 05-027 and Viewshed Review 05-020 for the construction of a two-story single-family residence located at 123 Whiteley. Mayor Ferrara opened the public hearing and invited comments from those in the audience who wished to be heard on the matter. John Shoals, representing the applicant/appellant (Pace Brothers Construction), gave a prepared presentation (on file in the Administrative Services Department) which reviewed the project history beginning in December 2004; highlighted areas of concern, including General Plan consistency, compliance with performance standards, neighborhood compatibility, creek protection, and viewshed protection; gave a description of the project revised to provide a creek setback from 15 to 22 feet (18 ft. average) with the landowner dedicating a 10 foot easement from top of bank, living area reduced from 2,252 to 2,105 square feet, a reduced footprint area from 1,852 to 1,647 square ft, and the preparation of a biological assessment prepared by Rincon Consultants with mitigation measures and monitoring in place; displayed site plans with three different setbacks; reviewed the Landscape Plan; explained how the project is consistent with the General Plan, specifically Policy C/OS-2-1.3; displayed photographs which demonstrate an existing fence and sewer pipes that would prohibit the installation of a continuous pedestrian trail; explained how the project meets the City's development standards; provided a cost comparison for construction of Lot 4 based on three different sized projects with varying setbacks to demonstrate the need for balancing the functionality of the lot, the protection of the creek, and allowing the applicant to realize his financial goals; and concluded by summarizing the points on why the project should be approved as proposed. Colleen Martin, Olive Street, stated she had attended the Planning Commission meeting and one of the questions she had asked was what is the size of the buildable lot. She said a large portion of the lot is in the creekbed, in the creek, and on the other side of the creekbank. She said the portion she considered a buildable lot would be the portion from the sidewalk to the back fence, and from the fence of the adjacent new house to the 25-foot creek setback. She wanted to know what percentage of the footprint of the 2,100 square foot house plus a 2-car garage was on the buildable lot and asked the Council to take that into consideration. She stated the size of the proposed project is inconsistent with the size of the homes on Whiteley. She noted it was a shame that the first house constructed by the applicant, furthest from the creek, did not use the historic stone wall as an attractive centerpiece and that a lot line adjustment was not utilized. She inquired about consequences for the premature grading of the site including consequences for allowing forbidden drainage into the creek by the two existing homes and the graded lot. She Minutes: City Council Meeting Tuesday, May 9, 2006 Page 4 asked the Council to support the Planning Commission's decision to deny the project and noted that the applicant's costs are irrelevant. John Shoals noted he would defer a response to Ms. Martin's question regarding the usable lot area to the Community Development Director. He responded to issues regarding size of homes in the surrounding neighborhood; issues regarding unpermitted creek grading, for which he acknowledged that mistakes were made and explained methods that were taken to rectify the situation and to provide protection to the creek; and noted that not one neighbor has complained about this project or filed an appeal. Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie referred to the drainage issue and asked if there is still drainage to the creek or what mitigation has taken place. Mr. Shoals responded that they did not see evidence of drainage; however, visqueen (protective covering) and straw bales were put in to try and control drainage into the creek. Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie asked Mr. Merk from Rincon Consultants if the site had already been graded at the time he went to the site to prepare his report. Kevin Merk, Rincon Consultants, responded the site had been graded and they recommended immediate actions on the erosion and sediment control plan and that mitigation measures be put in place to address the drainage issues. Hearing no further public comments, Mayor Ferrara closed the public hearing. Council Member Dickens referred back to his original comments and referred to the history of the project. He referred to the August 23, 2005 meeting where he had expressed concerns and suggested that a biological report and analysis be done. He acknowledged that the applicant complied with that request. He referred to the biological report and spoke about the City's 25' setback policy to address potential resource impacts that a project might have on the environment, and sediment and erosion control into the area. He stated the latter had been identified; however, he did not think the impacts to potential biological resources by having a home so close to the creek had been identified. He referred to and read an excerpt from page 8 of the Biological Resources Assessment under Riparian Habitat Setback, which refer to the ongoing impacts, not necessarily the construction impacts. He expressed concern with the impacts of potential human and domestic animals into this particular area. He asked how a 3' fence/retaining wall provides for that type of protection. He suggested this recommendation be placed in the mitigation measures; however, he thought this mitigation was inadequate and should be closer to four feet. He said when looking at the size and scale of the home in relation to the setback and the surrounding neighborhood, he suggested moving closer to requiring a 25 foot setback by scaling down the size of the house and identify a larger barrier to address the potential impacts of human and domestic animal intrusion into the biological area. He supported upholding the Planning Commission's decision. Council Member Arnold noted that the Code requires a 25-foot setback from top of bank unless it is unreasonable. He said it must be determined whether or not it would be reasonable to expect a smaller home on this lot, and he believed that it was reasonable that a smaller home could be built. He noted a lot line adjustment could have been requested early in the process before the previous two homes were built or the applicant could have tried to build the proposed home on the lot next to the creek first which would have exposed some of these potential problems. He noted that other options for design of the home on the proposed lot, such as a single car garage or a tandem car garage. He responded to discussion about the lot price and noted that was set Minutes: City Council Meeting Tuesday, May 9, 2006 Page 5 by the applicant, not by the City. He supported the Planning Commission's decision to deny the project as proposed. He noted that there was not a lot of open space provided in the proposed project and expressed concern that most of the open space goes into the setback area. He suggested that this would be a great opportunity to bundle this lot with the adjacent home. As proposed, he could not approve the appeal. Council Member Costello concurred with the concerns expressed. He compared the existing houses in the established neighborhood that have been there for years versus the houses that are being built by the applicant now. He stated the proposed house is not really in scale with what exists in the neighborhood; stated a 25-foot setback is preferable here, however, he would be willing to consider a minimum 20-foot setback; suggested that the project come back with a smaller scale; and supported upholding the Planning Commission's decision. Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie noted that he had originally suggested a variable setback. He referred to the biological assessment and noted that he thought the 25-foot creek setback could be achieved. As far as the character of the neighborhood, he referred to the two adjacent new homes that were built next door by the applicant and stated they were the biggest homes on the street; however, they were not the biggest homes in the Village. He said there was a reasonable argument that the proposed project is out of scale to the neighborhood; however, it was not out of scale to the kind of neighborhood that is evolving. He stated he could reluctantly support the proposed project, although he thought there could be a better solution; however, he said it meets the basic criteria that is in place and that requiring a 25 foot setback along the lot would be unreasonable. He further said he could support the project with one exception, and that was that the 18" wall needed to be increased to at least 4 feet to keep people out of the area on top of the creek bank that is being restored. He said with that modification, he could support the project. Mayor Ferrara expressed appreciation regarding the environmental work that was done and noted that the environmental impacts to the creek are of paramount concern. He referred to the original configuration of the three lots and suggested that a reasonable approach would have been to consider a lot line adjustment to address challenges of construction that abuts the creek. He concurred with observations made regarding the environmental work; however, he shared concerns about the impacts of any structures, including an inappropriately sized retaining wall that is a man made structure that could have impacts in and of itself. He expressed concern about the compatibility with the existing neighborhood issue and stated his original observation was that the two adjacent homes built by the applicant are incompatible with adjacent neighborhood structures. He stated that the proposed structure, based on size and scale, would result in inconsistency with the adjacent homes. He agreed with Council Member Arnold's suggestion about bundling this small lot with the adjacent home to add more property and increase its value. He supported upholding the Planning Commission's decision. John Shoals referred to Alternative #3 in the staff report and inquired if staff could clarify its intent. Director Strong responded that if the Council felt an appropriate action would be to uphold the appeal, it could be done in a conditional manner, such as requiring a reduced house size and increased setback. He also suggested additional direction could be to require an increase in the fence height along the creek. Council Member Dickens moved to take tentative action to deny the appeal, and the project applications, as recommended by the Planning Commission, and direct staff to return with a supporting resolution. Council Member Arnold seconded the motion. City Attorney Carmel asked Minutes: City Council Meeting Tuesday, May 9, 2006 Page 6 for clarification on whether that would be without prejudice to return with a modified project. Council Member Dickens said yes and amended his motion to deny the appeal without prejudice. Council Member Arnold seconded, and the motion carried on the following roll-call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Dickens, Arnold, Costello, Ferrara Guthrie None 9.b. Continued Public Hearing - Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 04-006, Planned Unit Development No. 04-005 and Minor Exception Case No. 05-015 to Subdivide a 1.8- Acre Site into Nineteen (19) Lots Resulting in 24 Density Equivalent Town Homes and Condominiums as a Mixed Use with Existing Fitness Club and Medical Offices; Applied for by Russ Sheppel for Property Located on Oak Park Blvd. and James Way (Oak Park Professional Plaza). Associate Planner Heffernon presented the staff report and recommended the Council adopt a Resolution approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 04-006, Planned Unit Development No. 04-005 and Minor Exception No. 05-015. Council questions and discussion ensued regarding the driveway access alternative designs and drainage issues. Mayor Ferrara opened the public hearing and invited comments from those in the audience who wished to be heard on the matter. Kim Hatch, architect representing the applicant, noted that the proposed project had been redesigned to lessen the mass of the condominium building; and commented on traffic circulation, grading, and drainage issues. Brent Weaver, representing Kennedy Club Fitness, asked if any parking spaces would be lost with the proposed configuration (staff responded no); and expressed concern about moving the driveway entrance/exit closer to the pool of the Health Club as it could back up onto James Way and through the parking lot; and aside from that concern he spoke in favor of the proposed project. Steve Ross, Traffic Commissioner, noted that the Traffic Commission had reviewed the project and expressed concern that an upper driveway could potentially cause some pedestrian safety issues. Steve Orosz, traffic engineer, clarified issues relating to parking, traffic counts, traffic circulation, and pedestrian safety as it relates to the preferred driveway access alternative. Kim Hatch, architect, clarified that Option 3 was the applicant's preferred driveway access alternative, which would provide safety for the people in the residential area and separate the commercial traffic from the residential component. Hearing no further public comments, Mayor Ferrara closed the public hearing. Council Member Costello provided the following comments: - Original concerns about traffic circulation around the project; - Kids will live in the development as the market will dictate affordability; ~ Likes concept of Option 3 for driveway access; - Impressed with redesign to soften and minimize mass of project; - Would like to have seen a little more reduction in density by eliminating one building; Minutes: City Council Meeting Tuesday, May 9, 2006 Page 7 - Does not object with density to deny the project; could reluctantly support project with driveway access Option 3 as presented. Council Member Dickens provided the following comments: - Likes project; acknowledged design improvements and efforts to address pervious concerns expressed; Noted that the proposed occupancy of these types of residential units were not very kid friendly or kid oriented; however, he acknowledged that any potential safety issues should be addressed if these units were occupied by individuals with children; Acknowledged need to weigh the circulation patterns with health and safety concerns, and how it can work successfully with the various uses; Supports this type of mixed use project; believes this project will provide for a portion of unmet housing needs in the City; Likes redesign of the condominiums; Supports driveway access Option 3; Supports project as proposed. Council Member Arnold provided the following comments: - Asked staff whether it would be worthwhile to require the developer to move the fire hydrant if a right turn lane was to be added later (staff responded that it would not be necessary due to the way the area is currently designed); Asked if the landscape plan would go back to th.e Architectural Review Committee for final review (staff responded yes, that it was a condition of approval); Likes project; original concerns were with traffic flow, circulation and height of the condominium building; Pleased with addition of the trellis and removal of part of the parapet wall; Supports project; Requested that the project be conditioned to install 36" box trees for those trees located between the commercial (hotel) and residential areas, and suggested Brisbane box trees; Requested that staff review and determine whether a right turn pocket lane turning into the development would add value to the project. Mayor Pro Tern Guthrie provided the following comments: - Agreed that the redesigned project is an improvement over the previous design; Acknowledged the separation of uses (residential and commercial) and favored moving the driveway to the westerly end of the project; Acknowledged that the relocation of the condominium building, the additional trellis and the planter area will enhance the separation of uses; Expressed concerns about easterly stacking of traffic; key to access is the turning radius and the proposed driveway design appears to address this issue; Supports the project as proposed. Mayor Ferrara provided the following comments: - Acknowledged that the design visuals provided were very helpful; however, stressed the importance of staff following up to ensure that the changes in the architectural detail are implemented in the project; - Pleased with the traffic configuration; however, expressed concerns about some corridors in the residential component that will be exposed to through traffic; - Stated that signage must be a part of the plan; Minutes: City Council Meeting Tuesday, May 9, 2006 Page 8 - Suggested further definition of how turns are going to be negotiated within the project, particularly for delivery vehicles and buses as it relates to turning radius, room to maneuver, potential circulation hazards, and how is traffic going to be controlled. Suggested further review of circulation to ensure accommodation of turning movement; Due to circulation, parking issues, and potential traffic impacts on James Way, expressed concern that the proposed density may be too ambitious for the area; - Expressed concern about the three-story configuration; - Expressed concern that the project is too large in scale for the available area; if buildings were smaller, the traffic circulation would not be an issue and there would be room to accommodate some additional open space; - Cannot support project as proposed. Council Member Arnold moved to adopt a Resolution as follows: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CASE NO. 04-006, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 04-005 AND MINOR EXCEPTION CASE NO. 05-015, APPLIED FOR BY RUSS SHEPPEL FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON OAK PARK BLVD. AND JAMES WAY (OAK PARK PROFESSIONAL PLAZA)" with the following conditions: 1) Approval of Driveway Access Option 3; 2) That the impact trees identified be a minimum of 36" box trees; 3) That staff determine whether or not a right turn pocket is needed or not, 4) That staff investigate the turning radius' between the lower and upper areas; 5) That the height exception be one (1) foot, instead of two (2); and 6) That speed humps be installed between the hotel gate and the third townhome. Council Member Dickens seconded. City Attorney Carmel requested clarification of the motion as it relates to the condition that has been delegated to staff. Following brief discussion with the Council as well as with the applicant, City Attorney suggested adding the following two conditions: . "The applicant shall prepare a plan for a right pocket turn lane within the public right of way for review and approval by the Public Works Director if a right pocket turn lane is determined to be a substantial public safety enhancement within a five (5) year timeframe based on traffic projections.", and . "The applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director that the turning radius' within the project site can accommodate a range of vehicles from large trucks and buses, to cars, or the project shall return to the City Council for additional review and modification.", and Modifying Condition #5 as follows: . "The applicant shall agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless at his/her sole expense any action. claim or proceedinq brought against the City, its present or former agents, officers, or employees within the time period provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37 because of the issuance of said approval, or in anyway relating to the implementation thereof, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The Citv shall promptlv notify the applicant of anv claim, action or proceedinq and shall cooperate fullv in its defense. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his/her obligations under this condition. This condition is imposed pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9. Minutes: City Council Meeting Tuesday, May 9, 2006 Page 9 Council Member Arnold accepted the clarifications to the motion, Council Member Dickens' second held, and the motion carried on the following roll-call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Arnold, Dickens, Costello, Guthrie Ferrara None 10. CONTINUED BUSINESS ITEMS 10.a. Consideration of Ballot Measure for a Local Sales Tax Override. City Manager Adams presented the staff report and recommended the Council: 1) Direct staff to prepare a final resolution and ordinance for City Council consideration at the June 27, 2006 meeting to place a Y:. cent local sales tax override measure and four advisory measures on the November 2006 ballot; and 2) Comment on the draft language of the resolution, ordinance and ballot arguments. Mayor Ferrara invited comments from those in the audience who wished to be heard on the matter. Ira Huqhes, Arroyo Grande property and business owner, stated he had attended the recent Town Hall meeting and noted that most of the attendees were not in favor of the proposed ballot measure. He spoke of the proposed measure's effect on the increase in the price of gas; that property owners are already paying a y.. percent tax to Lucia Mar; that the cities included in the Benchmark Study are not comparable to the Five Cities; that Arroyo Grande is the highest per capita in the Five Cities as it relates to services; stated that as a business person, he has been asked by consumers what the sales tax base is and noted that people who want to save a Y:. cent will shop somewhere else; stated that a sales tax increase in this City is a poor venture; noted that the City of San Luis Obispo spent $125,000 to do a sales tax study; noted that the City is realizing a huge increase in property tax due to the number of homes sold in the last 12 months; and concluded by opposing the proposed ballot measure. Steve Ross, representing the Arroyo Grande Chamber of Commerce, stated the Chamber of Commerce has published a position paper on taxes. He said the Chamber does not support a general tax; however it would support a special tax for a specific use if it were demonstrated that it was needed. He said the Chamber would consider supporting a proposed measure if it was a special tax. He noted that the Chamber Board voted to support the Cuesta College bond measure specifically because the bond measure is coming forward as a tax that would be restricted for a certain group of items and not a general fund tax. Upon hearing no further public comments, Mayor Ferrara closed the public comment period. Council comments ensued which included support for the proposed ballot measure; acknowledgment that the City is looking at its long-term needs for which funding is needed; a preference to pursue a general tax versus a special tax, without a sunset clause, as it would be used as a funding mechanism for long-term major projects, including transportation improvements, infrastructure, and public safety projects; support for the proposed advisory measures which will provide guidance to the City on how the funds should be spent; support that a public hearing and review by the City Council be required every five years to determine if the sales tax is still necessary; support that an annual report be provided to every household outlining how the funds have been expended in the prior year and proposed to be expended Minutes: City Council Meeting Tuesday, May 9, 2006 Page 10 during the upcoming fiscal year; and support for giving the people the ability to vote on the measure. 11. NEW BUSINESS ITEMS 11.a. Consideration of Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Arroyo Grande, Lucia Mar Unified School District, J.H. Land Partnership and John Taylor, Trustee Regarding Land Acquisition and Extension of Castillo Del Mar to Valley Road. City Manager Adams presented the staff report and recommended the Council approve and authorize the Mayor to execute the MOU between the City of Arroyo Grande, Lucia Mar Unified School District, J.H. Land Partnership and John Taylor, Trustee. Mayor Ferrara 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 Member Arnold moved to approve and authorize the Mayor to execute the proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Arroyo Grande, Lucia Mar Unified School District, J.H. Land Partnership and John Taylor, Trustee. Council Member Costello seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Arnold, Costello, Dickens, Guthrie, Ferrara None None 12. CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ITEMS None. 13. CITY MANAGER ITEMS None. 14. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS None. 15. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS None. 16. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS None. 17. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Ferrara adjourned the meeting at 11 :02 p.m. Minutes: City Council Meeting Page 11 Tuesday, May 9, 2006 TO"';F.,,~;AA L ATTEST: (Approved at CC Mtg (0 ~ 13-20014)