Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/14/1981City Council Minutes December 14, 1981 - 12:10 p.m. Page 2 appreciation to Henry Engen, Community Development Director, for his service to the City and its citizens. Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Dovey, Settle, Dunin, Griffin, and Mayor Billig NOES: None ABSENT: None 1. PRE - APPLICATION CONCEPT REVIEW - ALRITA STREET The City Council held a public hearing to consider a request by MDW, Inc. for Council to make a pre - application concept review of a proposed residential subdivision in a minor expansion area located at the end of Alrita Street outside of city limits within the urban reserve line. Councilwoman Dovey stepped down. A. Scattered rural residential development in the County outside of the urban reserve would be prevented; B._ Existing water service deficiencies in the immediate area would be corrected; and C. Permanent open space preservation of unincorporated portions of the property within the urban reserve, as well as properties outside of the-urban reserve, would be guaranteed-: He felt there were advantages to be gained by the City as trade -offs for allowing this minor expansion area.to be developed. Other sections of the general plan support the concept of development of this minor expansion area: 1) Priority for urban services should be.given to correction of existing deficiencies for developments within the city; 2) priority should be given to providing urban services systems for unincorporated expansion areas within the urban reserve; 3) urban services should not be restrained or deferred, particularly where growth management and land use objectives are achieved as trade -offs; and 4) where the annexation and development will provide a more logical, complete and efficient urban edge. He added that the present water service to the existing Alrita Street did not�meet the city's criteria for reliability because there was only one source of supply. With the Terry Sanville, Senior Planner, stated that owners of the property in the County north and east of Alrita Street were planning a residential subdivision and were asking if the city would prefer direct control of the development of this tract, either by annexing the land or extending services to it without annexation. The property owners had submitted a general plan amendment application to change the text of the Land Use Element to include new policies which would guide the provision of urban services to unincorporated areas. He explained that the three basic issues-to be considered were: 1) Annexation of the subdivision with city services provided, 2) providing city services to the subdivision without annexation, and 3) increasing the water service elevation to serve this site with construction of new city facilities by the applicants. 1 Sandy Merriam, representing MDW, the applicant, stated that originally they had planned to go to the County with their proposal, until they realized that the City had considered this a minor annexation area and wished to know the City's feeling regarding this proposal. He would urge the Council to concentrate on the planning of this subdivision as opposed to the density issue. The applicants were aware that there were several potential impacts, i.e., grading for water tanks, site grading, drainage, densities, traffic, generation, visual; and water and sewer services, however, they felt these impacts could be mitigated to reduce the level of significance without compromising community standards. He did feel, however, the subdivision would achieve the following goals of the land use element: A. Scattered rural residential development in the County outside of the urban reserve would be prevented; B._ Existing water service deficiencies in the immediate area would be corrected; and C. Permanent open space preservation of unincorporated portions of the property within the urban reserve, as well as properties outside of the-urban reserve, would be guaranteed-: He felt there were advantages to be gained by the City as trade -offs for allowing this minor expansion area.to be developed. Other sections of the general plan support the concept of development of this minor expansion area: 1) Priority for urban services should be.given to correction of existing deficiencies for developments within the city; 2) priority should be given to providing urban services systems for unincorporated expansion areas within the urban reserve; 3) urban services should not be restrained or deferred, particularly where growth management and land use objectives are achieved as trade -offs; and 4) where the annexation and development will provide a more logical, complete and efficient urban edge. He added that the present water service to the existing Alrita Street did not�meet the city's criteria for reliability because there was only one source of supply. With the City Council Minutes December 14, 1981 - 12:10 p.m. Page 3 creation of this subdivision, a new water tank would be constructed remedying this deficiency. Of particular concern was the fact that should a residential fire happen,the existing system could not supply enough water to provide a sustained firefighting effort. Mayor Billig opened the meeting for public comment. Paul Jones, 1637 Alrita Street, felt the city needed more time to hear public response. He felt the entire subject matter was premature. With regard to the water issue, he felt that the water uses in this area were already being subsidized by city taxpayers and the cost would be most prohibitive. He stated that if the project went through, the Council should entertain the idea of putting in another street as Alrita Street was already overcrowded. Ann Brown, resident living at the end of Alrita Street, did not feel that the maps before the Council depicted the topography to include the drainage problem. She would support the city having the building control of this project as she felt the city would be more sensitive and responsive to the problems than the county. George Mack, 1684 Alrita Street, felt that Alrita should not be the primary access for this new subdivision but that another street should be put in to take up the additional traffic flow. Dave Romero, Public Services Director, explained that the city's original master plan had showed Knoll Drive to go through but several years ago, this went before the City Council and was turned down. About two years ago staff recommended that a street be stubbed past the Ken Smee house off Southwood Drive. This, too, had been turned down by the Council. At this time, Alrita Street would be the only through street available. Carl Wolfe, Spring Court, questioned customary notification procedures , by city staff of these sort of subdivisions. Mayor Billig explained that the city need only advertise in a newspaper to meet the legal requirement and that property owners weren't normally specifically notified in pre- tentative concept meetings such as this. This is'only a preliminary look at a concept to involve neighbors and give direction to the owners. John Stuart, 1773 Alrita Street, stated that he was primarily concerned with the water issue and of the possible extension above the 460 ft. elevation level. He felt there has never been a problem with water service except possibly from a fire standpoint. Rod Levin, property owner near the extension of Alrita Street, stated the land owners had approached the neighbors about a year ago about the possibility of a development on the upper portion. He was concerned about this area as he felt it was very unstable. He would prefer to go with a density transfer in a lower area. He would also support Mrs. Brown's idea of city annexation and felt the developer was attempting to develop this property the right way because he could have gone ahead and gone through the county with fewer conditions of improvement. He felt the city would have a better handle on the project. Larry Moore, property owner on Spring Court, felt that the problems of drainage, etc., were dominant on both the lower and higher portions of the hill. Sandy Merriam, responded that he did not feel that density transfer or the issue of drainage problems, etc., should be discussed at this point but rather the question now was simply who should have the prime juris- diction, the city or the county. Cheryl Maas, property owner, stated that she was also concerned with the drainage problems and would like to see the city consider annexation of this area as the city has stricter controls. City Council Minutes December 14, 1981 - 12:10 p.m. Page 4 Bonnie Mead, 3164 Flora Street, also stated her concerns regarding the drainage as she felt the ground was extremely unstable. Marilyn Farmer, Bahia Court, was also concerned about the drainage problems in the area and questioned how this would be corrected. Dave Romero responded that it would have been easier if the city had elected to extend Knoll Drive. However, at this point, he would like to ' take the drainage from that street to the other water shed to the south rather the one through Bahia Court. He stated that the City could drain into the underground system. In his opinion the drain problems for residents along Bahia and Flora Streets would be reduced by City controls which could be applied to this development. George Mack stated he would support a no vote on all three options. Mr. Jones continued that he felt that Alrita had already become a drag strip, and he would be opposed to any additional development in this area. He would also support annexation of the subdivision. Mrs. Brown added that she was also concerned with the sewage problem. She was concerned that the subdivision would have septic and leach lines and was concerned about the contamination prospect. Each home should be forced to be required to have its own line. Gary Deno also stated he could support annexation with the property zoned interim agricultural with nothing to be developed on this prop- erty. He felt this was especially true in lieu of the fact that there was no hillside ordinance and that no subdivision should be put in until the hillside ordinance was adopted. To do otherwise would be contrary to the city's growth ordinance. Councilman Settle remarked that this subdivision had been an unwise one funds to help mitigate the drainage problems. He felt-the water problem could be very serious. He felt that the circulation problem would only be addressed if the project was within the city.'s - control. He felt both engineering and geological studies should:be performed to establish whether or not the development was a viable one and if these problems can be mitigated. since its beginning in the 1890's and regardless of whether the county 1 or the city has controls, it would be an uphill problem. He felt the geological aspect was the #1 concern and although he felt the property owner had a right to develop his property, that the city had to keep in mind the rights of the neighboring property owners. He was.concerned with the water and sewer issue and density as well...He felt the hill- side standard should be applied to this development. He would agree with the density transfer idea, but he was not sure how this could be worked out. He would be sensitive to the neighborhood sentiments; he felt this was not an easy land to develop; he was concerned with the water getting to this height, above the 460 ft. elevation; and he would lean in favor of the city handling this application for possible annex- ation; but the ultimate decision would be the voters. Councilman Dunin stated he would like to see the CAO and Police Depart- ment report on the dredging of Alrita Street as a drag strip. He would suggest the Council instruct the staff to start treating the hillside development ordinance as a priority as more and more developments are occurring on the periphery of the city and all of these properties are hillside lands. He felt this must be addressed first as the same problems continue to come up. He would also support the annexation possibility. He felt the city could then zone it as interim-agriculture which would mean that the development would occur but according to a specific plan. In the mean time, he would urge the consultant, devel- oper, and neighborhood to meet and discuss several of the specific issues. He questioned whether the developer would be willing to insti- ' tute an engineering study addressing the matter of slippage and the drainage problem, not only to remedy but preventative methods as well. Ac n;,cctinnaA nicn tha nncaihility of the city coming uD with matching funds to help mitigate the drainage problems. He felt-the water problem could be very serious. He felt that the circulation problem would only be addressed if the project was within the city.'s - control. He felt both engineering and geological studies should:be performed to establish whether or not the development was a viable one and if these problems can be mitigated. City Council Minutes December 14, 1981 - 12:10 p.m. Page 5 Councilman Griffin complimented both the review process. He stated he was solve the problems caused by the coup to serving areas outside of the city He would look towards gaining as much through the annexation process. He u for a hillside development ordinance. the developer and the neighbors in tired.of.the city always having to ty. He was fundamentally opposed limits with water and sewer services. control of this project'as.possible ould also support a high priority Mayor Billig agreed that the public input was extremely helpful to the City and developer and-if people waited until the development stage, it made it much more difficult for staff and the developer to respond to their concerns. For these reasons, City Council has established this process. She also felt,that this project would be appropriate to be developed within the city with the people having the ultimate say. She felt the applicant had been very cooperative by coming to the city first. She felt it was premature to discuss density transfers, drainage and.other such problems now. Given the tract record of the city and comparing other agencies, she felt it far better for the city to be dealing.with this project. She felt the city would.consider the prob- lems in this neighborhood, and the city could do a far better job by putting this to the vote of the people. She could not support.cit.y services to a subdivision without annexation. After brief discussion and upon general consensus, the Council opted to go with option "a" to support annexation of the subdivision with city services provided. (5 -0) Councilwoman Dovey returned to her seat. 1:40 p.m. Mayor Billig declared a recess. reconvened, Councilman Griffin absent. 2. HIGUERA COMMERCE PARK 1:50 p.m. City.Council. City Council held a public hearing to consider three recommendations by the Planning Commission regarding Higuera Commerce Park: A. Rezone approximately 30 acres east of South Higuera Street and north of Tank Farm Road from C /OS -20 to M -SP; Robert Hibschman, applicant. B. Amend the Higuera Commerce "Park Specific Plan to provide sub- division, land -use and property development standards for the southern 30 acres. C. Amend the Higuera Commerce Park Specific Plan to allowed uses, to delete certain use.permit requirements and to make technical changes. Henry Engen, Community Development Director, explained that the Planning Commission voted 5 -0 to recommend approval.of.the rezoning.. -He added that the Council recently had amended the general plan land -use element to change this area from interim conservation /open space to service commercial /light industrial. Additionally, on a unanimous vote the Planning Commission recommended approval of the amendments to the Higuera Commerce Park Specific Plan to provide the subdivision, land -use and property development standards for the 30 acres. Major features included: a) Subdivision layout with five parcels, the smallest being about four acres; b) an intent to establish regional administrative offices, research and development firms, and precision manufacturing; and c) widening South Higuera Street and Tank Farm Road along the properties frontages. Further, Planning Commission voted 3 -2 to recom- mend approval of amendments to the Specific Plan concerning allowed uses in the northern 50 acres. Those major features included the following: a) Lessening the differences between the sub areas (home improvement in general and special service commercial areas), b) eliminating the requirement for establishments with more than 20 employees to obtain use permit approval, and c) allowing regional administrative officers, except in the home improvement center. 1 1 City Council Minutes December 14, 1981 - 12:10 p.m. Page 6 Rob Strong, representing the applicant, Mr. Hibschman, briefly reviewed the history of the project. He wished to introduce R. Howard Strasbaugh as one of the new property owners mentioned in the last meeting. There are now essentially two separate land owners involved in the Higuera .. Commerce Park: Robert Hibschman & Associates, which owns the northern 50 acres, and R. Howard Strasbaugh, who owns the southern 30 acres. The ! southern 30 acres was the subject of a general plan amendment for service commercial /light industrial and is now essentially recommended by the Planning Commission by a unanimous vote for a special industrial classification which would be a high- intensity research and development park comprised of five parcels in the 30 acres. The other application which the Council had before them from Higuera Commerce Park - 50 acre subdivision,.attempted to do essentially three things by requesting an amendment: 1) Incorporate the changes which the city had made within their 1981 zoning regulations and original plan was adopted-in 1978 -79. Some of the uses which were permitted in the normal service commercial/ - light industrial district were being precluded in the only planned industrial park in the city, and it is already hired to include those. 2) Probably the most critical concern was that engineering offices were waiting which could go in any conventional service commercial district but which wanted to go-in Higuera Commerce Park. They weren't being allowed even -though the Council and staff generally concurred that this use was appropriate and desirable. 3) One other objective was-to try to simplify the plan wording. There had been a separation of priority permitted uses two years ago when the plan was adopted. It allowed for a 2 -year period before there was these two categories but became essen- tially one, and they thought it would be appropriate to collapse those categories while they were amending the land -use into an allowed use category. There were some other lighter technical refinements and some policy concerns staff had identified within those two basic objectives. One dealt with regional administrative offices and whether or not to accomplish that and that was a third aspect of the northern 50 acre development. He stated that the staff memo of December 1 had a high- ' lighting of the Commission's action and focused on some of the issues, which should.normally be important to the Council, would be accessible to the discussion outline; and they were prepared to respond in whatever fashion the Council prefers. Councilman Dunin stated that before Councilman Griffin had left the meeting, he had asked Mr. Dunin to relay his sentiments regarding the proposed project and that basically he could support all of the staff recommendations as presently presented. The City Council held a lengthy discussion on the three items and upon general consensus, took the following actions on the three items: A. Rezoning the 30 acres east of south Higuera Street and north of Tank Farm Road Continued to a January meeting pending discussion of the Specific Plan amendment. B &C. To amend..the Higuera Commerce Park Specific Plan to provide subdivision land -use and property development standards for the southern 30 acres and to amend the Specific Plan to allowed uses. Continued their discussion with direction to staff to bring back the revised draft reflecting the Council consensus that the ' Planning Commission recommendations be accepted as presented by Mr. Engen except for the following items: 1) Development of the southern 30 acres to be phased so the entire area could not develop sooner than five years from the rezoning and to be phased over -time. 2) regional administrative offices not to be allowed in the Commerce Park; 3) the "special" and "general" service commercial categories to be merged with uses to be listed as they are in the CS zone; (to be City Council Minutes December 14, 1981 - 12:10 p.m. Page 7 treated like all similarily zoned properties in the city. 4) "home improvement" uses would be allowed only in the home improvement center subject to a 2 -year review; 5) Developer to recommend a contribution to the Los Osos Valley Road extension; and 6) On motion of Mayor Billig, seconded by Councilman Settle, the following resolution was introduced: Resolution No. 4692 (1981 Series), a resolution of the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo amending the Higuera Commerce Park Specific Plan to allow engineering and industrial design offices in the general service commercial subarea. Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote: AYES: Mayor Billig, Councilmembers Settle, Dovey, and Dunin NOES: None ABSENT: Councilman Griffin 3:15 p.m. Mayor Billig adjourned the Council to Closed Session.. 4:55 p.m. City Council reconvened, all Councilmembers present. There being no further business to come before the City Council Mayor Billig adjourned the meeting. Pamela Voges, C� y Jerk APPROVED BY COUNCIL: 1/5/82 ., 1 M I N U T E S REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TUESDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1981 - 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, 990 PALM STREET SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INVOCATION: Rabbi Harry Manhoff - Congregation Beth David ROLL CALL Councilmembers Present: GlennaDeane Dovey, Ron Dunin, Robert Griffin, Allen Settle, and Mayor Melanie C. Billig Absent: None , City Staff Present: Bill Hanley, Interim Administrative Officer; George Thacher, City Attorney;.Pamela Voges, City Clerk; Henry Engen, Community Development Director; Rudy Muravez, Finance Director; Steve Smith, Acting Fire Chief; Geoff Grote, Legal Assistant; Dave Romero, Public Services Director; Jim Stockton, Recreation Director; Terry Sanv ille, Senior Planner; Bob Mote, Utility Superintendent