Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/17/1980City Council Minutes March 17, 1980 - 12:10 p.m. Page 1 M I N U T E S ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO MONDAY, MARCH 17, 1980 - 12:10 P.M. HEARING ROOM, CITY HALL, 990 PALM STREET SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA Roll Call , Councilmembers Present: Melanie Billig, Alan Bond, Ron Dunin and Mayor Lynn Cooper Absent: None.(One Vacancy) City Staff Present: Lee Walton, Administrative Officer; George Thacher, City Attorney; J.H. Fitzpatrick, City Clerk; Henry Engen, Community Development Director Architectural Review Commission Present: Jerry Reiss, Don Kahn, Pierre Rademaker, Tom Priest Planning Commission Present: Charles Andrews, Mike DeNeve, Sylvia Drucker, Rob Rossi, Allen Settle and Sid Findley Design Review Board Present: Wes Connor, William Parker, Jane Lily ' 1. The City Council continued to review the duties and responsibilities of the various boards, commissions and committees for possible reorganization or consolidation: A) Planning Commission; B) Architectural Review Commission; C) Design Review Board. Lee Walton, Administrative Officer, again reviewed his report dealing with the various boards and commissions under consideration at this time. He reviewed the Planning Commission, ARC'and DRB and areas in which certain overlap which maybe taking place. He concluded his brief comments by stating that he still felt that the Planning Commission was the most overworked commission and that something should be done to support their workload. Mike DeNeve, Chairman of the Planning Commission, made the following statement on behalf of the Planning Commission outlining their goals, objectives and activities: "Since the current Planning Commission was appointed last June, numerous private projects and public documents have come before the Commission for review and action. In light of the workload, the Commission has been meeting on a weekly basis during the past few months in order to fulfill its obligations. The Commission has attempted to make the best possible decisions on numerous issues which deal with the community's quality of life. We have attempted to take a balanced approach allowing the necessary time for review and discussion while, at the same time, implementing the various plans as exped- itiously as feasible. We believe the Commission is demonstratign a strong commitment in dealing with land use issues and getting the job done without losing sight of the community values. City Council Minutes March 17, 1980 - 12:10 p.m. Page 2 We are seeking to make the General Plan a responsive document with flexibility to allow for land use innovation while at the same time protecting the city service capacity, intergovenmental relations and community standards. This report to the Council reflects our current activities and concerns and asks for Council support and input toward expediting the process and helping in policy guidance noting the following points for your information. ' We have recognized that San Luis Obispo is a dynamic, changing community. Some of the factors which we have outlined as percipitating change are our energy concerns, infrastructural constraints and the quality of life which, we believe, the residents would like to achieve and /or maintain. We've attempted to follow the General Plan as our guideline for the development of the community in the near future. Planning is an intermediate process. The community's goals and objectives are implemented resulting in the building environment. It is necessary to be timely in the implementation of the various plans. However, it is crucial that we''re sensitive to the impacts that these plans may have on our environme Zoning Ordinance: We have spent several meetings reviewing this ordinance. We have agreed on certain changes and recommendations which we believe will result in improvements in clarity as well as development guidelines. The Commission has not yet completed its review. However, we plan to do so withic the next month. Several key components have been discussed which, we feel will have significant positive impacts on the community. It is the Commission's perception that the ordinance outlines the typical standards to control average development but does not allow or encourage - creative development which can increase community vitality. Currently under discussion are major changes in the planned development process to encourage unique solutions to community demands. In an effort to encourage the use of the PD as a means to achieve better quality development, we believe it necesm ' to incorporate a workable incentive program which will be beneficial for a developer to undertake. Also being considered are techniques to provide for flexibility in dealing with certain unique properties (i.e., Railroad Square) and neighborhoods (i.e., Old Town) to encourage preservation and upgrading aimed at increased urban vitality. The Open Space Element: The Open Space Element has been reviewed by the Commission since last summer.and deals with several difficult issues. Two primary issues have delayes the Commission in its efforts at finalizing the element for public review. They include: arriving at the limits for future development of the community, and what open space amenities are of value and should be retained in perpetuity for the community. The Commission has attempted to rewrite the goals and objectives for the Open Space Element, emphasizing the areas which should be retained as permanent open space. By clearly defining what should happen to areas slated for current and future development, we hope to reduce the turmoil generated every time hillsides, etc. are proposed for development. One area of the community which has continued to be of great concern is that along Edna Road. The General Plan called for this area to be held as industr: and agricultural uses, although the area is entirely within the County. The development of this area has a great impact on the City since two of the main entries, namely, Highway 101 to the south and Highway 227, go through this ari upon entering the city. The County is allowing continued development of this area in what appears to be a haphazard fashion. The Commission believes that the City should take an active role in participating with the County in estab- lishing the guidelines for development in this area as well as the review pro( for implementing these developments. The Commission believes that the City mi take the point of view that this area will develop and be an active participai in what happened. Also being considered is the idea of rural cluster develop- ment at the edge of the city to provide open space and reasonable development potential. City Council Minutes March 17, 1980 - 12:10 P.M. Page 3 Circulation Element: The Commission initially reviewed the Circulation Element and returned it to staff for rewriting of the goals and objectives. Reemphasis on alternate modes of transportation is our primary concern. The Commission recognizes that the car is here to stay for a considerable time in the future, but also believes that the City could take an advocacy role in encouraging alternate means of transportation. Hopefully, we can be instrumental in reducing the dependency on the automobile for San Luis Obispo inter -city travel. This reemphasis will probably lead to a substantial ' reduction in the amount of street widening projects suggested in the original draft of the Circulation Element. We believe that these widening projects could have a significant impact on the individual neighborhoods which would substantially affect the quality of life in several areas throughout the community. The Commission has concurred that certain circulation hardships which may be created by not undertaking these street widening projects are a better price to pay. Growth Management: The Commission reviewed the draft Growth Management Ordinance and recognized substantial inadequacies in its rational. This led the Commission to question whether a Growth Management Ordinance was necessary given the projected growth in the foreseeable future. The Commission believes that the General Plan prescribes in adequate detail how the community will grow for the next 20 years.based on the various resource constraints. The Growth Management Plan would appear to only over regulate the General Plan. The growth rate in the City during the last five years has been radically less than that forecasted prior to the General Plan hearings. There is no reason to believe that in the future the growth rate will be in excess of what is anticipated under the General Plan. Therefore the whole idea of Growth Management Plan seems unnecessary. Furthermore, the Growth Management Plan as originally drafted seems to be slanted toward a housing management plan rather than a growth management device. If we are indeed going to focus on growth, then it might be a better idea to regulate the government and private sector from an employment standpoint which is probably the largest contributor to community growth. Controlling only the housing stock will probably only increase the cost of housing creating an artificial limited supply and, therefore, eliminating a certain segment from the potential of owning within this community. We respectfully request the Council go on record as supporting the Planning Commission on these issues as recommended by the Commission. One final comment- -the Commission during the past several months has been the recipient of a certain amount of negative controversy because of our decision to eliminate the staff from making recommendations on Commission staff reports. At the League of California's Cities Planning Conference held in San Diego in February, several speakers commented on the roles of the Commission and staff in the planning process. It appeared that the consensus of opinion by conference speakers supports the idea of the staff not making recommendations. The Commission itself should establish the goals and policies and give concrete direction to the staff. This is commensurate with the practice of the Planning Commission during the past several months. The Commission has actually generated or restablished the goals and objectives for each planning document previously discussed. Furthermore, speakers at the conference emphasized that the staff should be focused on quality, unbiased information relating to the facts. One speaker emphasized ' that the planning staff should restrict their judgments to the interpretation of the appropriate rules and regulations relating to a specific item and refrain from making overall recommendations as to the disposition of the issue. The Planning Commission and City Council are responsible for these decisions, and it puts the staff in a difficult and unnecessary position of having to make judgment calls based on planning and political criteria. The planning staff has ample opportunity to use their best professional judgment in the handling of each project without having to make a final conclusion. We would appreciate the Council supporting the Commission in this area since we believe in the long run it will improve the planning process within the City." City Council Minutes March 17, 1980 Page 4 After discussion, it was common consent of the City Council that the membership of the Planning Commission would remain at seven (7) members. Henry Engen, Community Development Director, again reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendation to streamline development review processes in the city. ' The Commission recommends that existing ordinances be amended to provide for the delegation of the following determinations to staff: A) Use permits; B) variances; C) precise plan developments; 4) minor subdivisions - final. The Planning Commission also recommended that the staff determination on these matters would appealable without fee to the Planning Commission whose determination would be final. Don Rahn, Chairman of the ARC, stated he felt the ARC needed seven members to do a good job as there is occasionally one or so members who are unable to attend a specific meeting. He also felt that the ARC was moving along on a fairly even keel, that there workload was being handled more rapidly and that the only trouble sometime was that the applicant was uncooperative with staff which meant that the ARC had to make the final decisions on design. The matter of the Planning Commission and the ARC was referred to the City Administrative Officer for review of existing ordinances on goals, guide- lines, etc. and to prepare resolutions dealing with procedures, length of tenure, etc. Design Review Board: City Administrative Officer Walton reviewed the passed actions of the Design Review Board, the history of having many duties removed to develop the ARC, and the limited amount of work presently being handled by the DRB on an on -call basis. He felt that this committee could be a technical committee serving under the Administrative Officer to advise both the Community Development Department and the Administrative Department in activities in their area. Although, he would not object to having it continued as a council advisory board. Jane Lily, Chairperson of the Design Review Board, spoke in support of continuing the activities of the Design Review Board, even if it is on a limited, on -call basis. She felt she would prefer continuing as a council appointed board than a technical committee to the Administration as Council appointments have more prestiege then strictly a staff advisory group. She also felt that seven members would be more helpful as very seldom do the full quorum attend due to the fact that the meetings are an on -call basis and not a scheduled meeting basis. The City Council accepted the recommendations of the Administrative Officer and Chairperson Lily to continue the Design Review Board as proposed but that the City Administrative Officer develop a resolution or ordinance enabling the group to continue defining the role, guidelines, length of office, tenure, etc. 2. Council discussed methods of implementing pre- tentative meetings with developers was continued due to lack of time. There being no further business to come before the City Council, Mayor Cooper adjourned the meeting at 2:10 p.m., to 4:00 p.m., Tuesday, April 18, 1980. COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES: 4/15/80 - J zpatrick, City Clerk