Loading...
Minutes 2006-08-08 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, AUGUST 8, 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 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL City Council: Council Members Jim Dickens, Ed Arnold, Joe Costello, Mayor Pro Tern Jim Guthrie and Mayor Tony Ferrara were present. City Staff Present: City Manager Steve Adams, City Attorney Tim Carmel, City Clerk Kelly Wetmore, Director of Financial Services Angela Kraetsch, Chief of Police Tony Aeilts, Assistant City Engineer Mike Linn, Contract Engineer Craig Campbell, Director of Parks, Recreation and Facilities Dan Hernandez, Associate Planner Kelly Heffernon, and Director of Community Development Rob Strong. 3. FLAG SALUTE Madeline Poulin and Anne McCracken, representing Arroyo Grande Valley Kiwanis Club, led the Flag Salute. 4. INVOCATION Pastor Robert Underwood, First United Methodist Church, delivered the invocation. 5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS None. 6. AGENDA REVIEW 6.a. Ordinances Read in Title Only. Council Member Dickens moved, 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-pe waived. 7. CITIZENS' INPUT, COMMENTS, AND SUGGESTIONS Susan Flores, E. Branch Street, expressed concern regarding the delay of projects going through Planning Commission review. She asked how long it should take for a project to be processed and requested th.at something be done to streamline the development review process. Marsheila DeVan, Alder Street, expressed concern regarding the mass and scale of the proposed expansion of Alder House on Alder Street and its potential negative impact on the residential neighborhood as it relates to parking, traffic, tree removal and other environmental concerns. She stated the project should be scaled down to blend in with the neighborhood. 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. There were no public comments. Minutes: City Council Meeting Tuesday, August e, 2006 Page 2 Council Member Costello moved, and Council Member Dickens seconded the motion to approve Consent Agenda Items 8.a. through 8.h., with the recommended courses of action. The motion passed on the following roll-call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Costello, Dickens, Arnold, Guthrie, Ferrara None None 8.a. Cash Disbursement Ratification. Action: Ratified the listing of cash disbursements for the period July 16, 2006 through July 31,2006. 8.b. Consideration of Approval of Minutes. Action: Approved the minutes of the Special (Closed Session) City Council Meetings of July 11 and 25, 2006, the Regular City Council Meeting of July 11, 2006 and the Regular City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting of July 25, 2006, as submitted. 8.c. Consideration of Authorization to Reject Claim Filed Against the City - Claimant: Plycon Van Lines. Action: Rejected claim. 8.d. Consideration of Authorization to Purchase Parks Division Vehicle - Parks Maintenance. Action: Authorized staff to purchase a new 2006 :y.. ton Ford pick up truck from Mullahey Ford in the amount of $19,576.45. 8.e. Consideration of Authorization to Purchase Parks Division Vehicle - Soto Sports Complex. Action: Authorized staff to purchase a new 2006 Ford Ranger pick up truck from Mullahey Ford in the amount of $13,124.46. 8.f. Consideration of Compensation Adjustments for Part-Time Employees. Action: Adopted Resolution No. 3942 approving a 3% Cost of Living (COLA) adjustment for all part-time employees for FY 2006-07 effective July 28, 2006. 8.g. Consideration of Change in Council Appointments to the San Luis Obispo County Water Resources Advisory Committee (WRAC) and the San Luis Obispo Economic Vitality Corporation (EVC). Action: Approved appointment of Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie to the San Luis Obispo County Water Resources Advisory Committee (WRAC); and the appointment of Council Member J\:rnold to the San Luis Obispo Economic Vitality Corporation (EVC). a.h. Consideration of a Resolution Accepting Public Improvements and Easements for Tract 2506 Located at 325 Alder Street, Constructed by Mal-Hun, LLC. Action: Adopted Resolution No. 3943 accepting the public improvements and easements for Tract 2506 located at 325 Alder Street, constructed by Mal-Hun, LLC. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9.a. Consideration of Vesting Tentative Tract Map Case No. 04-004 & Planned Unit Development Case No. 04-001; Applicant - DB & M Properties, LLC; Location - 415 East Branch Street (Continued from June 14, 2005 Council Meeting). Minutes: City Council Meeting Tuesday, August 8, 2006 Page 3 Associate Planner Heffernon presented the staff report and recommended the Council consider an addendum to a certified EIR and a proposal for a commercial retail, office and residential project located in the Village of Arroyo Grande (Creekside Mixed-Use Center), take tentative action on the project and direct staff to return with a supporting resolution. Associate Planner Heffernon responded to questions from Council regarding the design of the residential units; circulation, parking, and turning radius issues within the project area; location of the loading dock; partial. relinquishment of an access easement along Le Point Street; impervious surfaces on site and impacts to drainage issues; proposed street improvements associated with the project; and whether speed calming devices on Le Point is feasible. Mayor Ferrara opened the public hearing and invited comments from those in the audience who wished to be heard on the matter. Joe Boud, Joseph Boud & Associates, spoke on behalf of the applicant stating that he believed they have incorporated all of the previous comments received into the project. He also responded to questions from Council regarding the design of residential unit Plan A; the proposed density (meets City standards); parking (no loss of parking; additional parking provided); landscaping improvements; turning radius (meets City standards); impervious surface as it relates to drainage (calculation of area was provided from the Final Environmental Impact Report); noted that to increase the width of Crown Terrace would impact the amount of retaining wall work, length of the driveways accessing the residential development, widening would not be required for fire access, and issues concerning the existing slope of the street; commented on the width of Le Point Street right-of-way as it relates to future extension; addressed the grading plan as it relates to residential building elevation and 1 DO-year flood; addressed employee parking for the commercial development; noted that speed humps on Le Point Street may not be necessary as the Crown Hill/Crown Terrace intersection is proposed to be reconfigured and stop signs installed; noted that condition of approval #82 was requested to be modified to eliminate improvements on the north side of Le Point Street; noted that the easterly access easement from the adjacent property was the biggest concern and noted that an access easement had been acquired which should address ingress and egress issues; noted that a left turn pocket and ADA striping and ramps would be installed at the E. Branch StreeUCrown Hill intersection; confirmed that a 25-foot creek easement has been provided which would be owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association and would have no public access; addressed concerns regarding the scale of the commercial project and displayed design compatibility exhibits; reviewed elements of redesigned project; addressed certain mitigation measures included in the project to address lighting issues; noted that the existing traffic level of service will be unchanged; and commented on tree replacement provisions included in the project. Further discussion ensued regarding the grading plan for the project as it relates to the project being located in a flood zone, and further discussion ensued regarding improvements at the intersection of Crown Terrace and Le Point Street. Winton Tullis, Allen Street resident and Village business owner, expressed concems about any reduction in the retail portion of the project; requested that driveway access and parking during construction be maintained; requested dust mitigation measures during construction; and requested that the waterline crossing the property be maintained during construction. Earl Balqeman, Le Point Street, referred to the proposed project model provided by the applicant and requested a break in order to allow the public to view the model. Minutes: City Council Meeting Tuesday, August 8, 2006 Page 4 Mayor Ferrara called a break at 8:15 p.m. The Council reconvened at 8:25 p.m. Earl Balqeman, Le Point Street, expressed concern about access issues on Crown Terrace; stated that the trees along Crown Terrace should be spared; referred to the intersection at Highway 227 and Crown Terrace arid stated it is dangerous to have four driveways and three parking spaces in this area; favored the installation of speed humps on Le Point Street; expressed concern with design of garages over the residences; stated the project was too dense; and expressed concern with pedestrian safety. . Kristen Barneich, co-chair of the Tree Guild, expressed concern over the proposed removal of 75 trees and noted that trees around the perimeter of the project could be saved to provide a visual buffer between the residential and commercial uses. She asked the Council to preserve the existing, mature trees. Bill McCann, Crown Hill, expressed concern about traffic impacts on E. Branch Street at the corners of Crown Hill and Crown Terrace and requested that the intersection be designed to address issues. He suggested that methods be explored to encourage traffic to enter the project on E. Branch Street. He further expressed concern about backing out of driveways onto Crown Terrace and stated that Crown Terrace should be widened. Camav Arad, Allen Street resident and Village business owner, stated that the proposed project design is not the best for the Village at this time and submitted a petition for the record (on file in the Administrative Services Department) which states that "Any new structures in the Village and specifically the Creekside Project at 415 E. Branch, should enhance the quaint charm of a vintage western town at the turn of the century. Strict architectural review and detailed descriptions of roof lines, landscaping, materials should be cohesive with the local landmarks such as the Barn and the Loomis House." She also addressed issues relating to impervious surfaces, and referred to the proposed model as it relates to ttie scale of the project and expressed concern that the proposed commercial building blocks views of the green Victorian house adjacent to the proposed project. Barbara Freel, Le Point Street, asked that the proposed island not block access to her landscaping. . She also expressed concern about light pollution from the project due to installation of additional streetlights along Crown Terrace and the north side of Le Point Street. Hearing no further public comments, Mayor Ferrara closed the Public Hearing. Joe Boud, Joseph Boud & Associates, responded to public comments regarding the flood zone as it relates Jo the elevation of the building floors; the change in size of the retail area of the existing Loomis 'Barn and existing business would require full compliance with Uniform Building Codes; noted that construction activities are addressed in the mitigation monitoring measures as it relates to noise, hours of operation, and dust control; clarified issues regarding street widths; noted the residential area density calculation was provided by an electronic calculation from their civil engineers and believes it is accurate; addressed mitigation measures for tree protection, removal, and screening; referred to traffic on Crown Hill and noted that traffic counts are not based on an event, the level of service is based on hourly traffic counts in a 24-hour day; noted that the parking area is a Class 2 base and is considered an impervious surface; stated that the design of the commercial building was made clear through pre-application meetings with the ARC, the community, the Chamber of Commerce, the downtown merchants, the Planning Commission and the Council and the applicant was directed to utilize an agrarian form of architecture; noted that further commercial development on the site was restricted due to existing buildings on the property; Minutes: City Council Meeting Tuesday, August 8, 2006 P.age 5 addressed landscaping issues; and noted that the street lights were required by the City's Development Code and agreed to reduce the number of street lights if the City would allow it. Council Member Arnold provided the following comments: - Applicant has met most of concerns, especially regarding connection between the existing use and the proposed uses; Expressed concern with the size and scale of the proposed commercial use and noted that he had requested story poles be placed to determine visual impacts; Thought this was an appropriate project for the site; however, scale and traffic flow are key issues; Would not want to see the existing business impacted during construction; Left hand turn from Crown Hill into site may need some restrictions; Speed humps are needed on Le Point Street to discourage cut-through traffic; Need clarification regarding street lighting on Crown Terrace to ensure lighting is contained to the street; Explore possibility of transplanting existing trees to save mature trees, or consider 48"-60" box trees instead of 24" box trees. Council Member Costello provided the following comments: - Clarified that width of Crown Terracewould consist of two 12' travel lanes and a 5' sidewalk; - Agreed that some trees should be saved if possible; 70 is too many to remove; - Lighting should not be intrusive to the existing residential areas; - Cannot support restriction of the available retail space in the existing structure; can support converting the existing residential structures to commercial use; - Noted that the final design is subject to ARC approval. Council Member Dickens provided the following comments: - Not enough information about impervious surfaces provided: had many unanswered questions regarding impervious surfaces and related drainage impacts on the site; Flooding issue still a concern which has not been resolved; Too many outstanding issues with proposed project; preferred original commercial project and did not support the larger residential in this area; does not support this project as proposed for this.site; Project location is not downtown urban core; property is in Historic Village; Objected to size and scale of the three story commercial building which dwarfs the existing barn; should be two-story; There are land use conflicts between commercial and residential uses, and residential and open space; Concerned about lack of fencing; Access to private property needs to be addressed; Concerned about removal of 70+ mature trees; Does not support project as proposed. Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie provided the following comments: - Asked for clarification regarding restriction on existing retail use; Minutes: City Council Meeting Tuesday, August 8, 2006 Page 6 - Commented on the impervious surfaces: asked what is there now versus what is proposed and whether staff had reviewed the issue; - Recognized that Le Point Street is residential in nature and thinks that the street should not be widened; - Existing trees were placed to shield an industrial use; would support saving some of the trees, however, would not need to save all the trees as it would create a visual block between the two residential neighborhoods; - Asked questions about liability issues as it relates to potential flooding; - Noted that commercial uses generate far more traffic intensity than residential uses; believes that the residential component provides a transitional area into the single family residential area; - Supported the proposed layout of the project; - Noted th"at access from E. Branch is a key element of the project; - Proposed traffic improvements will mitigate some of the existing traffic issues; - Concerned about the size of the proposed commercial building; suggested reducing the height or changing the fac;;ade of the building; - The Class 2 impervious surface issue is critical; needs to be further reviewed; - Favored more specific lighting standards. Mayor Ferrara provided the following comments: - Referred to previous concerns expressed from 2005 public hearing regarding the size, scale, and intensity of the commercial building; the need to soften the look of the commercial building, and to provide a more horizontal structure rather than vertical; Acknowledged that the need for western access to the site had been fulfilled; Acknowledged that the creek setback requirement had been fulfilled; Noted that the drainage issue (impe~ious surface) needs to be further studied; Commented on the appropriateness of the proposed agrarian architectural style; Observed that live/work units do not fLinction well in this type of area; Residential units would help reduce traffic because of project's close proximity to Village services; Tree issue is large concern; does not favor tree removal; Traffic circulation issues need to be addressed; speed humps and/or signage are important to prevent cut-through traffic at Le Point and Crown Terrace; Left-!urn pocket at Crown Hill is problematic; suggested a "keep clear" lane and additional street markings; Light pollution is a concern; acknowledged that new street lighting points down and does not project into residential windows; requested clarification regarding authority for placement; Flooding issue needs to be further researched through FEMA guidelines; Suggested that the applicant/architect research similar style condominiums with garage above living area built on hillside in Pismo Beach as it relates to leaking, water damage, etc.; Need to reach balance point; spoke of goal to preserve existing structures and appreciates efforts to develop a project; Housing will be an asset to the City; Can make adjustments to create a project to compliment the City. Minutes: City Council Meeting Tuesday, August 8, 2006 Page 7 Mr. Boud commented on the Class 2 base (impervious surface) issue and stated it only relates back to whether or not the pervious surface or an impervious surface area would demand the need for a drainage retention basin. He noted that because the property is in the flood zone, it is somewhat irrelevant whether it is pervious or impervious. Council Member Arnold clarified that there appeared to be some ability to transplant some of the trees and suggested that a tree survey be completed in order to determine the status of the trees and to include the Tree Guild in that process. He also referred to the proposed height of the retail building and suggested that the applicant consider an alternative design that steps the top floors back from the street. Mayor Ferrara suggested directing staff to facilitate the issue concerning the impervious surfaces, along with the applicant, and also that staff facilitate the involvement of the Tree Guild concerning the issue of the trees. Council Member Arnold moved to continue the item to a date uncertain, Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll-call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Arnold, Guthrie, Costello; Ferrara Dickens None 9.b. Consideration of the 2006 Drainage Master Plan Update. Assistant City Engineer Linn presented an overview of the 2006 Drainage Master Plan Update, noting that the Drainage Master Plan was originally approved on November 9, 1999, it assesses adequacy of existing infrastructure, provides a financial tool for funding current and future improvements, and determines a schedule for maintenance projects. He noted the Plan includes major components, such as a review of the area drainage patterns, a review of the City's major creeks and flood plain management programs, identifies drainage policy zones, drainage basin policies, best management practices for improvement of storm water quality, identification of drainage problems in the City, and proposed projects to correct City drainage problems. He then introduced Contract Engineer Campbell to presenfthe Newsom Springs project. - Council-Member Dickens declared a conflict of interest due to his indirect interest in the Dixson Ranch, as it relates to the Newsom Springs project, and said he would need to recuse himself. He expressed concern with due process as it relates to proper notification, inadequate information presented to the Council and the public, and significant material that was not provided to the Council and the public in a timely fashion. He stated that staff was recommending that information be presented specifically with regard to Newsom Springs and that the public notice only referred to a public hearing concerning the Drainage Master Plan. He noted that the Planning Commission had specifically requested that staff notify all individuals that are affected by the Newsom Springs project, and that had not been done. He stated it was inappropriate to move forward and discuss anything regarding Newsom Springs until proper notification is made. Minutes: City Council Meeting Tuesday, August 8, 2006 Page 8 Council Member Dickens moved that the City Council direct staff to bring back a specific public hearing regarding the Newsom Springs Drainage project as a separate item and notify the public. Discussion ensued regarding the timing of the motion as it relates to accepting public comment on the Drainage Master Plan, which includes the Newsom Springs project as a component of the Master Plan. Clarification was also provided that the recommendation for the Drainage Master Plan was to approve distribution ofthe document for a 60-day review period. Council Member Dickens clarified that it was his intent to recommend moving forward with staff recommendations A & B (to authorize the distribution of the draft 2006 Drainage Master Plan Update for 60-day public review period and authorize staff to perform environmental review of the draft 2006 Master Plan Update in accordance with CEQA) but to exclude recommendation C (authorize staff to perform an environmental review of the Newsom Springs drainage project in accordance with CEQA). Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll-call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Dickens, Guthrie, Costello, Ferrara Amold None Council Member Dickens recused himself and stepped down from the dais. Mayor Ferrara invited public comments on the Newsom Springs Drainage project. Nanci Parker, Vard Loomis Lane, stated she could hold her comments until a specific public hearing is scheduled for the Newsom Springs Drainage project. Hearing no further public comments, Mayor Ferrara closed the public comment period. Council Member Dickens retumed to the dais. Contract Engineer Campbell presented the staff report on the 2006 Drainage Master Plan Update and gave an overview of Drainage Zones A, B, and C in the City, drainage policies, projects completed, new projects that have been identified, and recommended the Council authorize the distribution of the draft 2006 Drainage Master Plan Update for 60-day public review period, and authorize staff to perform environmental review of the draft 2006 Drainage Master Plan Update in accordance with the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Staff responded to questions from CQuncil. Mayor Ferrara opened the public hearing, and upon hearing no public comments, he closed the public hearing. Council Member Dickens acknowledged the Drainage Master Plan (Plan) as an outstanding planning tool to identify projects throughout the City. He referred to page 45 in the Plan where it discusses the Pacific Coast Christian School earth ditch and noted there was a reference to Arroyo Linda Crossroads. He inquired whether the solution to this particular drainage problem deals with upstream development within Arroyo Linda Crossroads; and inquired whether this was still a viable proposal that would be considered in the near future. He suggested renaming the area. He also referred to a photo on page 41 and noted the drainage ditch was incorrectly identified. He Minutes: City Council Meeting Tuesday, August 8, 2006 Page 9 suggested that the document be further reviewed to be brought up to date and supported distributing the Plan for a 60-day public review period. Council Member Costello referred to Site 27 in the Plan and asked questions of staff concerning liability issues related. to flooding. Council Member Costello supported moving forward and distributing the Plan for a 60-day public review period. Council Member Arnold pointed out that the Plan demonstrates the need for drainage improvements and justifies the ballot measure requesting a sales tax increase to provide funding mechanisms to accomplish these types of projects. Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie supported the recommendation to distribute the Plan for a 60-day public review period. Mayor Ferrara stated that with corrections that were noted earlier regarding the photographs, he could support distributing the Plan for public review. He commented that the Plan was easy to read as it provided pictures, descriptions, solutions, and funding mechanisms required for each project. Council Member Costello moved to authorize the distribution of the draft 2006 Drainage Master Plan Update for 60-day public review period; and authorize staff to perform environmental review of the draft 2006 Drainage Master Plan Update in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Council Member Dickens seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll-call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Costello, Dickens, Costello, Guthrie, Ferrara None None 10. CONTINUED BUSINESS None. 11. NEW BUSINESS None. 12. CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ITEMS a) Request to place consideration of Development Code Amendment 04-007, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 04-002, Planned Unit Development 04-002, and Neighborhood Plan 04-001 (Cherry Creek project) on a future City Council agenda for consideration along with consideration of the Planning Commission's recommendation regarding the environmental determination (GUTHRIE/ARNOLD) Council Member Arnold noted he and Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie had met with the developers of the project to better understand the status of the project and had agreed that it would be worthwhile for this item to be brought forth to the Council for discussion. He explained his understanding that the Planning Commission had basically recommended denial of the project by requiring an EIR for the project. He noted that if the Council reviews the project and determines that an EIR is not required, Minutes: City Council Meeting Tuesday, August 8, 2006 Page 10 then it would not make sense to send it back to the Planning Commission. He noted that the project would come forth to the Council at some point, so for the sake of timing and workload, he recommended the project be scheduled on a future Council meeting agenda. Following brief discussion, the Council unanimously concurred to bring this item forward to the City Council for consideration. 13. CITY MANAGER ITEMS None. 14. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS None. 15. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS None. 16. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS Colleen Martin, Olive Street, stated she was seeking clarification and a decision on the intent for .Agenda Item 12.a., whether the Council is proposing an Agenda item deciding the environmental tool or the entire Cherry Creek project review. She referred to the minutes of the March 15, 2005 Planning Commission meeting where they approved a motion recommending that a full environmental impact report (EIR) be done on the project. She stated that sixteen months passed and the project was placed on the Planning Commission agenda on July 18, 2006 to rehash the environmental review. She expressed concern as to why the March 2005 EIR recommendation was not forwarded to the Council at that time. She said that now it appears that the applicant is using the time length the proposed project has been in the development pipeline as an excuse to expedite the project. She noted that the applicant has delayed the project, and the Planning Commission has not yet reviewed any project details. She concluded by stating the Planning Commission has voted twice to recommend an EIR and also to have the project returned to them for review, including the Neighborhood Plan, the geology and soils, and development standards, and requested that the Council continue to follow the development review process and send the project back to the Planning Commission once it has determined how it will proceed with environmental review. 17. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Eerrara adjourned Tony Ferrar ATTEST: (Approved at CC MIg q~/'Z~2ock)