HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/10/1980City Council Minutes
June 10, 1980 - 7:30 p.m.
Page 1.
M I N U T E.S
ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
TUESDAY, JUNE 10, 1980 - 7:30 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, 990 PALM STREET
Pledge
Roll Call
Councilmembers
Present: Melanie Billig, Alan Bond, Ron Dunin, Gerald Munger and
Mayor Lynn R. Cooper
Absent: None
City Staff
Present: Lee Walton, Administrative Officer; Geoff Grote, Legal
Assistant; J.H. Fitzpatrick, City Clerk; Terry Sanville,
Senior Planner; Wayne Peterson, City Engineer
1. The City Councilmembers of standing subcommittees reported on the activities
of said committee:
A. Area Council.of Governments Councilwoman Billig
B. C.C.C.J.C. Councilman Bond
C. County Water Advisory Board - Mayor Cooper
D. Whale Rock Commission Mayor Cooper
E. Zone 9 Advisory Committee Councilman Dunin
All reports were ordered received and filed.
Mayor-Cooper presented each.Councilmember with a draft copy of a.Memorandum
of Understanding' prepared by the County for an exchange of water between the
Whale Rock Commission and the coastal communities of Nacimiento water. The
matter was continued for discussion to June 17, 1980.
X. Mayor Cooper brought to the Council's attention,.a request for the
City Council to.add to the agenda-the reconsideration of the Kundert appeal
which was a development.on Higuera Street between Suburban Road and Buckley Road.
He stated the.reason.he.was bringing this to the Council's attention, was because
the neighbors in the residential area across the street had contacted him asking
him to ask the Council to reconsider their request that this be developed as
industrial as the.residences felt they would rather have commercial development
across the street to be used a buffer for industrial zones.
Councilwoman Billig stated she was opposed to adding any matter to the agenda
because the.Council had already made a decision at a second-hearing on this
matter and voted submitting this to the Board of Supervisors. She felt it
was up to the Supervisors now to make the decision. She would not support
adding this matter to the agenda.
Councilman Bond.staied he was opposed to adding.this matter to the agenda. He
stated he had received no input'from the.neighbbrhood and felt if.it was to be
considered'it should be put on another agenda through the normal process so
that everyone involved would be aware of what the.Council was to discuss. He
would not support adding this matter.
Councilman Dunin stated he could.support
on the request of the neighborhood. It
feared that. the Council's request for M
neighborhood.
adding this item to the agenda based
was his understanding that the neighbors
zone would be a detriment to their
City Council Minutes
June 10, 1980 - 7:30 p.m.
Page 2
On motion of Councilman Munger, seconded by.Mayor Cooper, that this item be
added as number 6 to the agenda for discussion by the Council on the neighborhood
request.
Motion carried on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilman Munger, Mayor Cooper and Councilman Dunin
NOES: Councilmembers Billig and Bond ,
ABSENT: None
2. The City Council held a public hearing to consider a proposal to use
a federal.grant to rehabilitate the downtown rental housing.
Terry Sanville, Senior Planner, reviewed for the City Council's information,
the provisions of the proposed block grant application. He.stated that the
City had applied for $350,000 to help pay for a downtown rehabilitation program.
He continued that the pre - application had-been approved by HUD and that
the city had been.directed.to now prepare the formal application. He
then proceeded.through the various sections of the grant application high-
lighting the major provisions of the application.
Councilman Dunin asked if there was anyway that the city, as the applicant
for funds, could require that only citizens of the city be allowed to apply
for housing after the buildings had been rehabilitated for.housing. In other
words, how could the council see to it that local people are not relocated
and then let.out -of -town people take over the rehabilitated spaces.
Terry Sanville stated he did not know if this was possible, but..it possibly
could be covered in the management agreement with the Housing Authority.
Mayor Cooper declared the public hearing open.
John MacDonald, Calle Jazmin, stated that he was opposed to the city applying
for grants and-funds from-the federal government. He .urged that if the City
Council wants money-for a.program, let.them do it without federal funds and
bring it to the people of San Luis Obispo. If it is a good program, it would
be supported.
Sophie Taylor,.residenta.of Granada Hotel, hoped the City Council would allow
her to continue to live in the-hotel.
Owens, 1662 Madonna Road, supported the Housing Authorities. She
stated she had lived in Housing Authority property on Madonna Road for five
years. _She felt that more government subsidized housing-was needed in the city.
Mavor Cooper declared the public hearing closed and continued for second hearing
to Tuesday, June 17, 1980 at 7:30 p.m.
3. City Council heard.a public presentation on the development possibilities
on 180.acres of property, including and on both sides of South Street Hill
between Broad Street and Margarita Avenue and south of Exposition Park.
Henry Engen, Community Development Director, reviewed the pretentative project
conceptual review for Cheapskate Hill. He stated that the owner of a 180 -acre
property lying south-of-Exposition Park below.Lawrence Drive west of Broad
Street and northeast.of Margarita Avenue is requesting City Council review
and discussion of the issues -and development alternatives that may be
available on this property. Some 7.3 acres.are presently within the city
limits east of South Street Hill, and the remaining area lies outside the
city limits and within both an area designated as a minor annexation area and
one area (Margarita) designated as.a major expansion area on the city's general
plan. The proposal is to ultimately.create some 224 lots plus 8 condominium
units on 67.5 acres, with the remaining 112.5 acres devoted to open space.
City Council Minutes
June 10, 100 - 7:30 p.m.
Page 3
Henry Engen continued that.after.review of the proposal and consideration of
public testomonies the council - should comment and identify issues without
making a commitment to any subsequent project approval.
Further, Mr. Engen stated that this - matter had been before the council
on June 12, 1979 and.a determination was made at that time not to pursue a
street connection. to Lawrence,Drive, but to rely.on Rockview Place.and Broad
Street for access for the eastern portion of the project. Development of the
overall area would require staging in that some of the property is in.the
city at present, some of it is invited to.become part.of the-city as a minor
annexation; and -the area to the west of the hill is within the Margarita
expansion area. in the.latter case, the.applicant is proposing initial break-
down into some.15 three -acre lots to be developed as a county project.
Theoretically, at some future date, the area could be annexed and broken down
into smaller, urban- density lots.
Finally; he stated that under the procedures for the pre- tentative review, .
the project.had - not been .routed to various departments and agencies to obtain
conditions of approval. The applicant had submitted a letter indicating areas
of concern-for council discussion and staff had prepared a summation of the
project as proposed. He felt.that the following were some of the issues that
should be addressed by the council as the meeting was to proceed.
1) City Phase I: Development of property within ihe.city at this time..
2) City Phase II: Annexation of the area that would be developed into 46 lots.
.3) County Phase I; and finally,
4) Annexation Issues.
Vic Montgomery.,.Engineer - and Project Manager for the developer, reviewed
for the City.Council and public how they were proposing to develop the
180 acres of land and in what stages.
In City Phase I, he discussed.lot size, architectural implementation,.parkland
dedication and.drainage.. In City Phase II he discussed the drainage and open
space dedication and easements. In County Phase I.he discussed lot'size,
utilities, drainage, open space easements and.parkland dedication: In
County Phase II he discussed.timing,.utility services and parkland dedication.
Mayor Cooper declared.a recess at 9:10 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:25 p.m.
with all councilmembers present.
John King,.property owner,.stated..that he was available to answer -any questions
they council may have had on this proposed development.
Mayor Cooper then opened the meeting.to .the public.
669.Lawrence.Drive, would .like the.proposed.land to
stay as open space as she felt it was interesting to look out her backdoor and
see the pretty hills. But, she felt the.developmeni was inevitable. Her major
concern was that the city or county protect the-present propertyowners from
the drainage problems. She felt -this had always been a problem in.adding
buildings, and-with this development, it would enlarge the problem. She
was also disturbed..over the loss of backyard property due to the new development
with two -story residences adjacent to their property.
Mr. Beckwith,.641 Lawrence Drive, was worried .primari -ly.about.water.and -
drainage from.this new development and also he.was.concerned about the loss
of privacy from this operation.
Tom Schuman, questioned- .the'right.of.two councilmembers to even consider this
development.due to possible conflict..of interest, either through friendship
with developer or business benefits. Finally, he felt that the development
should be rejected from consideration due to the heavy inciease'iri' traffic
on Broad Street and the increase in population.
Geoff Grote, Asst. City Attornev,.defined at the request.of.the City Council,
"Conflict of Interest? as outlined in the :state law.
City Council Minutes
June 10,1980 - 7:30 p.m.
Page 4
Don Smith defined "Conflict of Interest" in.the._ethical.concept; not the
legal concept.`
John MacDonald, 3170 Calle Jazmin, objected to the development of County Phase I
due to.the.increase in traffic, drainage problems, etc. He felt the density
was..too high;.that - lower density might be acceptable. He also was disturbed
about the additional traffic on Margarita Avenue.
R.A. Hanff,-569.Lawrence Drive, warned-the Council of exisiting.drainage problems
in this area and that the additional development would only increase drainage
on the adjacent property. He urged that lots be made larger and not smaller
in order to handle more water.
Will Kent, 377 Calle Lupita, warned about additional traffic through his area
from County Phase I.. He felt they needed more protection for the children
in the area.
P.S. Gordon,..461 Lawrence.Drive, was disturbed about the existing..drainage
problems and he.asked the Council that they please make sure that the new
developer handles the additional water being developed through his construction.
Larry Wright, 515 Lawrence-Drive, stated that drainage was bad at this time and
felt that the Council should be aware of existing water and drainage problems
in the area. He gave a brief.history of.some of these problems.
R. Martindale, 3125 Calle Jazmin, objected to extending Calle Jazmin to County
Phase I due to the increased traffic and possible damage to the existing residences.
He was also disturbed.about possible drainage problems. He asked how about
having the developer get direct access to Higuera Street, not through.their tract.
Bonnie Sotto, 370 Calle Lupita, was worried about existing drainage in this area
prior to the.proposed development; also about the potential increase in traffic
through their development.
L. Jones, 546 Lawrence Drive, opposed the development due to potential.. increase
in run -off caused by proposed construction. "He_ listed examples of flood..
problems in the past.
R..Ciocchi, 551 Lawrence Drive, explained the long history of poor.drainage and
water handling in this Lawrence Drive area.
Susan Warren,.resident.on Lawrence Drive, worried .primarily.about...the.drainage
which is a hazard and.had been on her property for a number of years.
Mayor Cooper closed the public hearing.
Councilman Bond-stated that .after hearing public input and the :developer's proposal,
that his major concerns.were: 1) Siting of the buildings to:protect neighborhood
privacy; 2) Drainage problems must-be answered adequately; 3) the density was
adequate; and.4)..traffic off of Margarita was a concern. "
Councilman Munger stated.his-.major.concerns were: 1) Public.service to the
overall area;.2) drainage and flood problems must be answered; and 3) adjacent
properties must be protected by proper siting and design of the buildings.
Councilman.Dunin stated his concerns were: 1) drainage;..2)_privacy _ of adjacent
properties;.3).traffic circulation on the Margarita site; 4) public services to
the overall development; 5) fire response time must be answered; 6) what will
the impact of this development be on all the downhill properties, particularly
as.to drainage and.potential flooding; 7) he wished further information.on'the
proposed densities. on.the.various.alternatives; 8) he felt the developer should
hold-some neighborhood meeting to..clear questions they may have; and 9) he would
like to see a time schedule for phasing of the developments.
Councilwoman.Billig_stated her concerns were: 1) drainage;-2) circulation in and
out of the proposed..development; 3) lot size in -.the planned development-to be con-
sidered if drainage is properly handled; 4)-felt that that this entire parcel
City Council Minutes
June 10, 1980 - 7:30 p.m.
Page 5
and adjacent property should be master planned prior to annexation election
for full exposure to the voters for the potential of the development; 5) felt
the developer should be aware of the sensitive nature of this hilly area he is
developing; 6) felt the ultimate density plan should be submitted to the Council
at one time; 7) annexation timing was critical. She felt that this was not
the time for all phases of the development; 8) this development should look
to all development on line at this time in order to comply with the general
plan growth limits; 9) water and sewer must be considered.
Mayor Cooper stated his main concerns were: 1) drainage; 2) phasing of the
development; 3) the ARC should approve the project in order to protect adjacent
properties; and 4) developer should consider possible access to Higuera Street
rather than through Margarita Drive.
John King asked would the Council object if certain phases could be developed
under County Phase I requirements; for example, larger lots, less density, etc.
Councilman Bond stated he would prefer that the entire development be within
the city but he did not feel a vote on the annexation would be supported.
Councilman Munger agreed that the development should be under city standards
and city development rules.
Councilman Dunin this should be developed in the city, particularly for the
sewer and water problems. He felt without annexation, there would be no sewer
and water.
Councilwoman Billig felt that the general plan for this area was in the city,
but that this development was premature at the time. She felt that some day
it would be annexed for development, but she did not approve of piece -meal
development under county regulations. It should either be annexed to the city
and developed, or not developed at all.
Mayor Cooper felt annexation was questionable, would accept the county development
if under planned development, including open space control.
Council took no action on the proposal other than.their comments and concerns.
4. City Council held a public pre- tentative discussion on the development
possibilities on 30 acres of land lying east of the termination of Margarita
Avenue and north of Prado Road adjacent to the city limits called, "Sierra Gardens
Retirement Community."
Henry Engen, Community Development Director, presented the information to the
City Council stating that the owner of a 30 acre parcel lying adjacent to the
city limits, east of the terminus of Margarita Avenue had obtain from
the county for an 89- person residential care facility. He requested that the
city consider this proposal for annexation to permit doubling this facility
to some 178 units together with an additional 168 retirement residential units.
He continued that no subdivision was being proposed. He stated that the staff
urged the council after considertion of public testimony at the meeting to
comment and identify issues without making a commitment of any subsequent project
approval.
As with other conceptual review projects being considered, this particular
one had not been routed to any affected department or agency. Also, there
was no formal application pending for annexation. The applicant had submitted
an extensive summary report on the project, together with a letter requesting
consideration. He stated that some of the issues to be discussed to be discussed
by the council would be: 1) Appropriate land use in this area; 2) circulation
and access; 3) utilities; 4) general plan determinations; and 5) annexation policy.
Mr. Engen completed his comments by saying that the applicant had recently
received approval by the county for an 89 -unit residential care facility. He
had also approached the city for consideration for tying into city water lines
for fire protection pressure but was being denied due to a general plan policy
prohibiting such connections outside the city. The application was instigating
annexation to the city and connecting to city water and sewer thus allowing
an earlier full development of the property.
City Council Minutes
June 10, 1980 - 7:30 p.m.
Page 6
Mayor Cooper declared the public hearing opening.
Robert Kitamura, architect, reviewed the project for the council's consideration
explaining the proposal for the development of the entire parcel. He stated
that the proposal is planned to be implemented in four phases, each phase
corresponding to a quadrant of the property. Phase I would be the development
of the 89 -unit residential care facility in the northeast corner of the
development already approved by the county in 1969. Phase II would be the
development in the northwest corner. This would be 40 retirement units which woul
adjoin the existing single - family neighborhood on Margarita Avenue. Also within
this phase would the fellowship hall which would include multi - purpose room and
kitchen. The third phase development would be in the southeast quadrant which
would contain an additional 64 residential units. The southern edge of this
quadrant would be developed into many storage buildings situated to buffer the
residential development from both existing and proposed industrial uses south
of Prado Road. Phase 4 located in the southwest quadrant would intially be
developed as a sewage treatment disposal and agricultural area of no connection
to the city sewer system. At that time, 48 additional units of residential
retirements housing and mini- stores complex would be developed.
When completed, the project would contain 346 units and would accommodate
470 -500 population including approximately 30 staff members. He then reviewed
what he felt were service needs involving water and sewer and also reviewed
what he felt were the impacts on the neighborhood and the impact of supplying
thier own sewer and water with annexation to the city.
The proposal also involved circulation which would be through this tract to
Prado Road. There would be no access except possibly for emergency vehicles
from Margarita. All traffic in or out would come from Prado Road.
He concluded that Phases I, II and III could be developed as proposed within
the county without annexation to the city as they would be supplying their own
sewer and water supply. Phase IV could only be developed if the entire parcel
was brought into the city as the area would be used for the sewer plant until
that time.
Robert Strong, Planning Consultant to Sierra Gardens, reviewed the entire project
from a planning standpoint and again stated that Phase I will be developed in
the county. He then reviewed in detail the master plan for the overall development
of Sierra Gardens. He then questions certain assumptions involved in the 1974
general plan and its effect on this proposed development.
Mayor Cooper declared the public hearing open.
Richard Askew, 3135 Calle Jazmin, stated that this new proposal would be acceptable
to him and his neighbors as long as Margarita Avenue was not used for access.
John MacDonald, Calle Jazmin, felt it was a good development as long as they
would not drive through their tract for access and only use Prado Road.
There being no further comments, Mayor Cooper closed the meeting to public
input.
Councilman Dunin felt it was a well planned development. He could see no problems.
His only concern was the possible creation of a satallite community in this
section of the city.
Councilwoman Billig stated her concerns were: 1) would like the entire area,
including Sierra Development and Cheapskate Hill, to be developed in a master
plan and not just be self- contained units of 30 acres; 2) felt that this developmen
and its inhabitants would be isoloated from the balance of the community the way
it was currently designed; 3) she would not be interested in any cross connection
of the well with the city water system; and 4) she felt that the developer
should comply with the city's adopted general plan.
Councilman Bond stated he felt that this was a good development and was needed
in the community to serve the city's elderly. However, he would rather it
have been developed in the city and developed to city standards than to
the looser county regulations.
City Council Minutes
June 10, 1980 - 7:30 p.m.
Page 7
Councilman Munger stated he though it was a good.development, it was needed,
and that it was-well-planned. However, he questioned .the.use of Prado Road
as an access. He felt that -this would.- isolate -this development from the
neighborhood and felt.that a more integrated design was needed..in order to
make the elderly feel they belong to a community rather than an isolated
community.
Mayor Cooper stated.the area should be.developed in-the city for -city control
and that the general-plan-must be complied-with as,to this property also.
' Robert Newby, owner stated that.upon questioning the majority.of.Sierra
Garden tenants, the majority would be coming from within..the 'county "of
San Luis Obisp although they have received some increase from all over the
United States.
Council concluded the.public:discussion taking no action other than the
comments for guidance of the developers.
5.. On motion.of Councilman - Dunin, seconded by'Councilman Borid -, the..following
resolution was introduced: Resolution No. 4182 (1980 Series) a resolution
approving an agreement between the City and Ernst & Whinney for auditing
services for:Fiscal Year 1979 -80 for the City and Central Coast Cities
Self- Insurance Fund, a Joint Powers Agency.
Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Dunin, Bond,.Billig;'Munger.and Mayor Cooper.
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
6. City. Council .considered.the.added.item,.a request.to.reconsider
the prior council's action on the Kundert Development on Higuera Street
between Suburban:Road and Buckley Road., for the development of a furniture
store and bakery. The City'Council's prior action was that the county adhered
to the city's general plan and zoned the area to industrial.
Mayor Cooper introduced the subject stating.that.a number of the.residents in
the general area had contacted.him and -asked that -the City Council.reconsider
their prior action as they felt that commercial would be less objectionable
than for industrial use. Also the commercial use would.hide the industrial
development .directly..behind.this parcel.. In view of public.support, he asked
the council to.reconsider.its appeal to the county on this.development.
Don Smith objected to the.request. He felt that the City Council should leave
Ile matter as previously decided after public discussion.
Councilman Bond could.not see..any reason to.continue the prior_.council.action.
He.felt-that: the City Council should let :the . appeal stand. This matter -had
been discussed and no.input.came_ from ..the. - neighborhood.... _
Councilwoman Billig agreed that the council appeal.should stand. She has always
opposed the. hodgepodge - development _ on - Higuera Street and..that.the city -- continues
to expand its error in this area.-- SheJelt that.the. service.commercial. zoning
was wrong and -the council should.stick with.their.prior decision and zone this
area to industrial as shown.on the general plan.
Councilman Dunin, stated ,he felt he,could..support the.service commercial land use
in this.area rither_ than industrial use. He felt that the_service.commercial
use would be more compatible to..residential..uses..across_ the street rather than
any industrial development...
After�'discussion, on motion of Councilman Bond, seconded by Councilwoman Billig,
that the City Council..let their.prior action stand.and..that their appeals be
presented to the Board of Supervisors in-the action taken. on Apri1.15,.1980.
Motion carried on the following roll call vote:
City Council Minutes
June 10, 1980 - 7:30 p.m.
Page 8
AYES: Councilmembers Bond, Billig, Dunin and Munger.
NOES: Mayor Cooper.
ABSENT: None
Mayor Cooper adjourned the meeting until 4:00 p.m., Tuesday, June 17, 1980.
COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES ON:7/15/80
J. itzpatrick, City Clerk
M I N U T E S
ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
TUESDAY, JUNE 17, 1980 - 4:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, 990 PALM STREET
Pledge
Roll Call
Councilmembers ,
PRESENT: Melanie Billig, Alan Bond, Ron Dunin, Gerry Munger, and
Mayor Cooper
ABSENT: None
Cia Stiff
PRESENT: George Thacher, City Attorney; J.H. Fitzpatrick, City Clerk;
Henry Engen, Community Development Director; Captain Don
Englert, Police Department; and D.F. Romero, Director of
Public Services
J.H. Fitzpatrick, City Clerk, brought to the council's attention a communication
received by the Community Development from Merrill Williams requesting that
the City Council consider their appeal scheduled for 7:40 p.m. that evening,
Agenda Item No. 12, to be contined to the next available council meeting.
Merrill Williams stated that this extra time would allow him time to develop
additional data relative to his presentation.
Councilwoman Billig stated she was opposed to a continuation. She felt that
normally council should proceed with the public hearing schedule. She
felt she was ready to proceed on this issue. She felt that these continuations
confused and stacked up items on the agende and make for extra staff work.
She would not approve the request.
Mayor Cooper stated he felt that Mr. Williams should have his day in court,
particularly now that he has retained additional professional help.
Councilwoman Billig stated the appeal was on a general plan call, not on