Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/13/1981City Council Minutes January 13, 1981 - 7:00 p.m. Page 2 The City Attorney stated that since these were subdivision improvements, the council release was needed. The Certificate of Deposit would be released in the amount of $1374.00 submitted by Kenneth and Teresa San Filippo. The other certificate must be retained. There was no need to execute a new agreement. He recommended the City Council accept the frontage improvements, street trees as being complete for parcels 1 and 2, and release the appropriate Certificate of Deposit guaranteeing the same. Code to provide the Planning Commission shall consist of five members. Seconded by Mayor Cooper; introduced and passed to print on the following roll call vote: ' AYES: Councilmembers Munger, Bond, and Mayor Cooper NOES: Councilmembers Billig and Dunin ABSENT: None A. D.F. Romero, City Engineer /Public Services Director, reviewed for the City Council a partial acceptance of subdivision improvements for Minor Subdivision 80 -43. He stated the project consists of a three - parcel subdivision; parcel 1 was already developed and needed four street trees. Parcel 2 needed curb, gutter, and sidewalk and two street trees. The frontage improvements have been installed except for parcel 3 and the street trees are ordered through the Parks Maintenance Division of the Public Services Department. There was a delay in the shipment; they are now received and are in place by this date. He continued there are two separate Certificates of Deposit on file - one for parcels 1 and 2 and the other for parcel 3. The developer evidently assumes as soon as improvements were installed the release would be automatic. The City Attorney stated that since these were subdivision improvements, the council release was needed. The Certificate of Deposit would be released in the amount of $1374.00 submitted by Kenneth and Teresa San Filippo. The other certificate must be retained. There was no need to execute a new agreement. He recommended the City Council accept the frontage improvements, street trees as being complete for parcels 1 and 2, and release the appropriate Certificate of Deposit guaranteeing the same. On motion of Councilman Dunin, seconded by Councilman Munger, the following resolution was introduced: Resolution No. 4376 (1981 Series), a resolution of the council of the City of San Luis Obispo accepting portions of the off - ' site improvements for Parcel Map 80-43 (290 Foothill Boulevard). Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Dunin, Munger, Billig, Bond, and Mayor Cooper NOES: None ABSENT: None B. At this time the City Council considered a request from the County of San Luis Obispo to permit an encroachment of sidewalk into the parking lane of Monterey Street to accommodate the new Administration Building. Henry Engen, Community Development Director, reviewed for the City Council the fact that the county was utilizing the "fast track" process to design the new Administration Building which would incorporate a portion of the city sidewalk and parking lane into the overall development design by including such things as entry steps and planters in the sidewalk area. Apparently, they proceeded with this design concept on the basis of encouraging comments by ARC members during informal review of the plan which took place last September. Henry Engen stated that during the formative years of the plan the ARC members did endorse the concept as proposed, but that he had warned them at the time that this approach would require council approval and that engineering staff would most likely oppose the concept. Be that as it may, chances now are rather limited in that the county has proceeded to the point where they either have to be allowed to encroach into the parking lane, to.carry out the development as presently designed or the council may refuse the encroachment thus requiring the county to redesign significant portions of the project. This redesign would involve the removal of landscaping with screens, the courthouse, and the handicapped ramps. It would also mean cutting off or redesigning the steps leading to the entry courtyard. Since the building itself is already in place there isn't much that can be done about setting the structure back to provide City Council Minutes January 13, 1981 - 7:00 p.m. Page 3 room for these amenities, and there is no question that this design will degrade the appearance of the building and result in a much less attractive project. D.F. Romero, City Director of Public Works, spoke in opposition to the request of the County of San Luis Obispo stating that the engineering staff has consistently maintained that Monterey Street should not be narrowed to accomodate the county project until completion of the circulation element ' studies. He stated he was not sure that this information has been properly transmitted to the county druing preliminary meetings for development of the courthouse project. He continued that he would seriously doubt the circulation element would recommend the narrowing of this portion of Monterey Street. If the county plan is approved, we would lose a number of public parking spaces as opposed to county parking spaces; and would also lose flexibility to install a bike lane, bus zone, traffic lane or street channelization. He wished to remind the City Council of the shortage of parking in the area. It certainly is- not'in the city's best interest to limit the city flexibility to accomodate private development. He strongly opposed the deviation to the city standards and recommends that the county request be denied. Dwayne P. Leib, Director of General Services for San Luis Obispo County, appeared before the City Council reviewing some of the requests and provisions for the street narrowing. Pat Sullivan, architect, submitted for the council consideration some schematic drawings of the proposed courthouse annex and plaza entrance to the new county annex. On motion of Councilwoman Billig, seconded by Councilman Dunin, the following resolution was introduced: Resolution No. 4377 (1981 Series), a resolution of the council of the City of San Luis Obispo granting the County of San Luis Obispo's request to construct and place a sidewalk in a portion of the parking lane and a landscape planter area as a portion of the sidewalk area on the north side of Monterey Street between Osos Street and Santa Rosa Street. Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Billig, Dunin, Bond, Munger, and Mayor Cooper NOES: None ABSENT: None At this time the City Council held a public hearing on continued General Plan Amendments continued from the December 9, 1980 council meeting. C -1. Amendment No. GP -0877. Henry Engen, Community Development Director, stated that the subject before the City Council was the appeal of a Planning Commission denial of a request to amend the policies of the General Plan Land Use Element to allow additional uses in neighborhood shopping centers. He continued that the application stems from Merriam, Deasy, Whisenant's attempt to develop an approximately nine -acre shopping center including offices and retail sales lease space at Madonna Road and Los Osos Valley Road. They wished to modify some of the language which provides a statement of purpose for additions to neighborhood shopping centers and release the prohibition of offices compared to retail sales and commercial recreational uses. The shopping center proposed would be pursued either under a Planned Development or under the conventional , provisions after the zoning regulations were brought into conformance with their recommended plan. Henry Engen concluded the proposal would be a significant change from present policies, whereas the applicants asserted it would not be a radical departure from what has already established in some of the city's larger neighborhood commercial areas. C -N areas would still serve neighborhood demands but they would also include businesses which clearly depend on trade from the city or City Council Minutes January 13, 1981 - 7:00 p.m. Page 4 county as a whole. Many of the appeals from the other planned amendment concerning new and larger C -N zones are relative to this one as well. To what extent can office and comparison shopping uses be dispersed throughout the community while retaining the convenience and variety which the General Plan advocates for downtown. The present list of allowed uses in the C -N zone is not very consistent. Some specialized sales, i.e. music, radio, and TV are mentioned, while others - shoes, clothing, and books are not. Staff recommendation was that the application should be denied. There was no compelling public interest either expanding or maintaining the present posture on allowed uses. The process abated until the Planning Commission has completed its work on the new zoning regulations including proposals for amending the General Plan, when the question of desired purpose and allowed uses in neighborhood commercial centers can be thoroughly examined. Henry Engen in very minute detail explained and reviewed for the council the changes that must be made in the General Plan to comply with the request of Merriam, Deasy, and Whisenant. Mayor Cooper declared the public hearing open. GlennaDeane Dovey stated she was opposed to amending the General Plan on a piece by piece basis. She felt that if the council or Planning Commission wished to amend the General Plan, it should be done on an overall, comprehensive study basis. Martin Polin supported the amendment to the General Plan as it applies to all C -N zones. He felt it was untenable to allow city staff employees to interpret what General Plan definitions mean. He gave examples of arbitrary interpretations given to the public by city employees, and in many cases which cost the individual property owner quite a bit of money because of the poor interpretation by the staff. He urged that clothing uses be allowed in C -N zones as well as barber shops and beauty shops. Charles Andrews, Planning Commission representative, reviewed the Planning Commission action on this appeal. Ila Harmon, property owner, stated she was in support of the appeal which would allow additional uses in the C -N zones. David Brodie, architect, suggested that the council review each definition of classification in deciding rather than take them as a group. Mr. Whisenant, representing Merriam, Deasy, and Whisenant, reviewed for the City Council the reasons they were requesting changes to be made in the commercial and industrial land use objectives of the General Plan. In urging that the section be amended to allow the predominant uses are in fact those which would clarify and serve primarily nearby residents and which will not create a significant shopping attraction to residents of other neighborhoods in the community. The expansion would have access from arterial streets and expansion areas will reduce the area used by or designated for offices or service commercial uses and not areas designated for or used by residences. He also asked that in neighborhood convenience centers the majority of the designated area could be used by those businesses which provide convenient shopping goods and personal services for nearby residents. Professional office, comparison retail commercial and recreation entertainment commercial uses may be allowed but should be of a limited size and type. The combination of uses in a neighborhood center should not be such as to create a city -wide shopping for entertainment attraction. He concluded by saying that they indicated they would like to change in the text of the General Plan to be amended to allow the Planning Commission to have the discretion to develop standards in the zoning ordinance to deal with those uses which are now totally excluded in the C -N zone. Retail commercial uses, office uses, or commercial recreational uses should be part of a recreational center. He concluded by asking for a more liberal interpretation of the uses allowed in the General Plan for neighborhood commercial areas. GlennaDeane Dovey stated she was opposed to amending the General Plan on a piece by piece basis. She felt that if the council or Planning Commission wished to amend the General Plan, it should be done on an overall, comprehensive study basis. Martin Polin supported the amendment to the General Plan as it applies to all C -N zones. He felt it was untenable to allow city staff employees to interpret what General Plan definitions mean. He gave examples of arbitrary interpretations given to the public by city employees, and in many cases which cost the individual property owner quite a bit of money because of the poor interpretation by the staff. He urged that clothing uses be allowed in C -N zones as well as barber shops and beauty shops. Charles Andrews, Planning Commission representative, reviewed the Planning Commission action on this appeal. Ila Harmon, property owner, stated she was in support of the appeal which would allow additional uses in the C -N zones. David Brodie, architect, suggested that the council review each definition of classification in deciding rather than take them as a group. City Council Minutes January 13, 1981 - 7:00 p.m. Page 5 Allen Settle felt that the Laguna Lake commercial area was too close to Madonna Road Plaza to allow additional uses. Sally Lee, Laguna Lake resident, opposed to development of a large shopping center for neighborhood centers. She was opposed to shopping centers. Marcel Cote, BIA Chairman, stated that: 1) The BIA supports the general plan as written in regards to C -N zones; 2) One developer wants to change the genera plan to suit his own purposes. If he is successful this will change the entire retail character of San Luis Obispo by allowing downtown type stores in all present and future C -N zones; 3) This will weaken our three present C -R zones which are: Downtown, Madonna Plaza and Foothill Plaza; 4) We can see expanding the present C -R zones to.accommodate new developments but we can't support the concept of having a sprawl of eleven potential commercial retail centers; 5) This would have the impact of decentralizing our retail areas which would be detrimental to the entire community. Sandra Gillespie, representing the BIA, stated she supported the General Plan, urged no expansion in neighborhood centers in order to support expansion of the downtown business area. She said any expansion in the neighborhood areas would be detrimental to the downtown business people. Don Smith opposed to changing the conditions of the General Plan without more study. Mr. Whisenant again reviewed what his clients for an amendment in the General Plan to allow additional uses in the C -N zones. He could not see how these small convenient shops would hurt the downtown business people. Mayor Cooper declared the public hearing closed. Councilman Dunin stated he would support an interim zone between the C -N uses and the C -R zones. He felt that some other zone delineation for con- venient shopping should be inaugurated. He would oppose the change in definition in uses. Councilwoman Billig stated she could not support the appeal. She.would support the.-Planning'Commission, action. Being asked.to correct owners.mistakes.was wrong and would have areal effect on other C -N areas.- She felt the appeal made -the C -N so elastic as to-have no meaning. -:She felt that the entire area did not have to be developed :a_s fully as proposed. She would support a neighborhood convenience center with such additional uses such as beauty shops, barbershops arid_ recreational uses`.of- =the C =R uses. She would support the general plan. Councilman.Bond stated he•would.support the appeal. Councilman Munger stated he would support the appeal and allow a limited increase in C -N uses in the C -N zones. On motion of Councilwoman Billig, seconded by Councilman Dunin, that the City Council deny the appeal and support the conditions established by the Planning Commission. Motion lost on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Billig and Dunin NOES: Councilmembers Bond, Munger, and Mayor Cooper ABSENT: None I On motion of Councilman Munger, seconded by Councilman Bond, that the City Council uphold the appeal, support the appellant. Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Munger, Bond, and Mayor Cooper NOES: Councilmembers Billig and Dunin ABSENT: None City Council Minutes January 13, 1981 - 7:00 p.m. Page 6 Councilwoman Billig felt that this motion was granting a special privilege to one property owner and she would still continue to oppose it. Sets a bad precedent. C -2. General Plan No. 0868 Charles Andrews, Planning Commission representative, again reviewed for the City Council the action taken by the Planning Commission on'this matter and recommend that the City Council deny the appeal in the interest of preserving residential units in the city. Henry Engen, Community Development Director, stated that this was an appeal to the City Council of a Planning Commission denial of a request to.change the General Plan Land Use Element Map from high density residential to tourist commercial in the general area of the 1100 block of Walnut Street and the 600 block on Toro Street. He stated that the property owners of the property have asked the city to designate about two areas for businesses oriented primarily to tourists. Henry continued that the commission was resistant to changing residential areas to office and commercial designation because of: 1) policies in the Housing Element, 2) realization that the voters of the community are not receptive to residential annexations, making existing housing supply even more important, and 3) the effects such changes have on surrounding residential areas. The present commission has proposed increasing residential densities, not lowering them. They were lowered somewhat in 1977, in comparison with prior zoning maximums, recognizing that the city's water supplies would not provide for maximum allowable development of all areas within the city. Tourist commercial development would probably use more water supply and treatment and sewage treatment capacity than residential uses. He continued that before 1977, the R -4 zone did allow motels with use permit approval. Removal of that use was a deliberate choice. Also when the city was considering a lower residential density for this property, the current owners appeared at the hearing and made a case for its continued designation as high- density residential siting its appropriateness for that use. Without a contractual development agreement there is no guarantee that amending the plan would lead to a certain project. No matter what the motives of the current owners in this or any other planned zone change, once the change is completed the property can change hands and the new owners can build according to the zoning entitlement. He urged the City Council to support the Planning Commission. Mayor Cooper declared the public hearing open. Rob Strong, Planning Consultant for the property owner, stated that he felt the .map change was consistent.with the General Plan pertaining to tourist commercial since the property is part of an existing tourist area. The immediate surrounding land uses are offices, high density residential, and public facilities. He felt the policy which promotes tourist commercial development could not be better exemplified than by this property. He noted that there was.an adjacent tourist.commercial facility and the 101 interchange separates the blocks in the residential community. He felt the area was very conducive to tourist commercial, the proposal is an appropriate inter - pretation of the General Plan. He also indicated that the map change would ultimately involve a zoning change. He continued by saying that tourist commercial development should be located in areas which have direct access to the regional circulation system and are in close proximity to the cultural, recreational, and entertainment facilities of San Luis Obispo (see policies, page 16, 1977 General Plan). He continued by saying the proposed change in land use designation and the consistent rezoning would make existing 7 -unit E1 Toro Motel a conforming use rather than a non - conforming use,'and conversely the 10 older residential units within the block would become non - conforming. Five of these are contained on the property owned by applicants and would be removed to create a .9 -acre motel site. Eventually the five remaining residential units involving a duplex and one lot and three small houses each ' on separate lots could be combined or converted to conforming uses. While the traffic and freeway exposure discourage improvement or intensification of these residential uses causing some.obvious decay, these factors are beneficial to the proposed tourist commercial development. Charles Andrews, Planning Commission representative, again reviewed for the City Council the action taken by the Planning Commission on'this matter and recommend that the City Council deny the appeal in the interest of preserving residential units in the city. City Council Minutes January 13, 1981 - 7:00 p.m. Page 7 Russ Johnson, property owner, objected to the philosophy in the City Housing Element which states the city policy is to discourage development of enter- tainment, cultural, industrial, and businesses in the city. He felt it was wrong not to allow a property owner to develop his property within existing laws. David Brodie objected to continued use of the property along Highway 1 to residential uses. He felt it should be converted to business uses, motels, etc. Charles Jones, 1130 Walnut Street, felt the proposal to rezone would down- grade the residential property across the street from the property in question. He felt this would lead to tourist commercial on that side of the street would set a precedence for the next block. He had no objection to the owners using their property as zoned - R -3 or R -4 and would hope the zoning of the property would remain as it is. He felt the building could be controlled by zoning which would upgrade the values of the property. He noted that during the summer months the traffic congestion was unbearable due to the tourist commercial facilities in the area. He urged the City Council to support the denial of the Planning Commission. Alan Cooper, 777 Mill Street, stated that both these properties are one or two blocks from the land that he owns and not far from the proposed site. He felt it was inappropriate to have high density residential locations this close to the freeway because of the noise factor and felt this request was a step in the right direction. He thought a modest sized motel or recrea- tional facility will have less of a traffic impact than a residential use. He stated he supported the application. Jess Norris stated he was opposed to the area of changing the Land Use Element of the General Plan and later a rezoning. He felt this change would result in the demolition of needed housing and that a tourist commercial zone is not needed at this site. He felt this proposal was in conflict with the general plan and the housing element. He thought a motel would have an adverse effect on the neighborhood and would increase traffic con- gestion. He also felt that the existing tourist commercial land should be used up first and that the residential area should remain. He urged the City Council to recognize that this proposal was in conflict with the goals of the general plan and to deny the requested change. Paul Neel, property owner representing other property owners Brown, Shaeffer, and Neel, urged the council to approve the appeal in order to put this under - utilized land in the city to better use. He stated the housing referenced to are quite old and are in need of updating. He felt that the change would allow an upgrading of their property and would start a possible redevelopment of the entire neighborhood. He felt there was a need for a tourist orientation at the off -ramp from the freeway. Mayor Cooper declared the public hearing closed. Councilman Munger stated he would support the appeal, felt the property along the freeway should be for businesses, not single - family units. Councilman Dunin stated he would support the Planning Commission denial, felt poor location for motel uses. He felt to preserve the housing in the area over any other uses in the city. Councilwoman Billig stated she would support the Planning Commission on the general plan and deny the appeal primarily to preserve a residential area and it should be protected for the future. The city cannot afford to lose R -3 and R -4 zoned property in favor of commercial uses. She felt the tourist business should be kept together at the entrances to the community, and existing C -T areas should be intensified. Mayor Cooper stated that he would support the appeal subject to the "S" designation for more sensitive controls. City Council Minutes January 13, 1981 - 7:00 p.m. Page 8 On motion of Councilwoman Billig, seconded by Councilman Dunin, that the City Council deny the appeal and support the Planning Commission. Motion lost on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Billig and Dunin NOES: Councilmembers Bond, Munger, and Mayor Cooper ABSENT: None On motion of Councilman Munger, seconded by Councilman Bond, that the City Council uphold the appeal and order the zoning to be changed with an "S" designation. Motion carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Munger, Bond, and Mayor Cooper NOES: Councilmembers Billig and Dunin ABSENT: None Mayor Cooper declared a.recess at 9:30 p.m. The City Council reconvened at 9:40 p.m. with all council members present. C -3. Amendment No. GP 0872 Henry Engen, Community Development Director, explained that this was an application for a general plan amendment, a change in the land use element map from interim agriculture to low density residential. He continued that at the hearing on November 5, 1980 the Planning Commission voted 6 - 0 to recommend approval. The commission also determined a mitigated negative declaration could be granted meaning the project had been revised to satisfactorily reduce potential environmental impacts and no further environmental study would be required. At the same time the commission also rejected a development proposal for the portion of the project inside the city. Such "minor annexation" proposals as that covered by the plan amendment request must be tied to specific development proposals according to the city policies. Henry reviewed the conditions studied. the Planning:Commission:, 1)-Environmental Determination, -2) General Plan Amendment, 3) Prezoning and Rezoning of Land, 4) Annexation, 5) Public Vote, and 6) Subdivision Maps. Mayor Cooper declared the public hearing open. T. Keith Gurnee, representing the property owner John King, stated that the proposed amendment would change the general plan map designation of the subject property from interim agriculture to low density residential (single - family houses). 2) The proposed amendment would enable implementation.of a plan which: a) defines an urban area to be open space easements, b) promotes compact urban configuration, and c) is serviceable by existing infrastructure improvement. 3) No basic policy changes requested. 4) Impacts upon resource will be minimum: =.5) This amendment will implement policies contained in the general plan and reinforce these policies by showing what the goals of the general plan related to trade -offs can be achieved. Roy Hanff was opposed to the proposed amendment to the general plan. He felt that no one has properly answered the drainage problems from this property; he felt that the developer's engineers and the city's engineers have worked together and have come up with a plan which he feels is impractical and not workable. Paul Gordon, Lawrence Drive, opposed this proposed development outside the city. He felt no one feels that they have anyone listening to them by the people at city Ball. Ila Harmon supported the project and stated that housing was needed. Mayor Cooper declared the public hearing closed. Councilman Dunin stated that he would support the development of housing for the city and would support the Planning Commission's recommendation. City Council Minutes January 13, 1981 - 7:00 p.m. Page 9 Councilwoman Billig stated she too would support the Planning Commission's recommendation. On motion of Councilman Munger, seconded by.Councilman Bond, that the City Council approve the Environmental Impact Report and accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission in amending the general plan on this item. Motion carried, all ayes. 4. An amendment.to the land use element to delete the reference to "appropriate public hearings" at the city for development applications received and referred by the county. This to be reported to the City Council at the January 20 council meeting. 5. At this time the City Council would review the draft changes to the land use and open space element as directed by the council November 25, 1980. 5 -1. Exceptions to water and sewer service outside the city limits. The council discussed exceptions to the general policy of not allowing water or sewer service outside the city limits. Councilman Dunin suggested adding wording which would allow service to be provided to such uses as Wood's Animal Shelter. Options include: a) add public or semi - public humanitarian organizations to the exceptions, b) add Wood's Animal Shelter to the exceptions. City plans and regulations usually avoid mentioning individual establishments by name, for this option unlike the others would not create a problem of interpretation. c) add an exception for "existing facilities providing a unique public service which could not continue if city facilities were not made available and when relocation of a facility to an area where the city service is not feasible ". On motion of Councilman Bond, seconded by Councilwoman Billig, that all three alternatives be rejected. Motion lost on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Bond and Billig NOES: Councilmembers Dunin, Munger, and Mayor Cooper ABSENT: None On motion of Councilman Dunin, seconded by Councilman Munger, that the city approve Alternate A "Public or Semi - public Humanitarian Organizations" be added to the exemptions. Motion carried. AYES: Councilmembers Dunin, Munger, and Mayor Cooper NOES: Councilmembers Billig and Bond ABSENT: None 5 -2. The council reached a consensus that water and sewer service be made available outside the city limits to all those parties with some valid prior commitment and that the policy on pages 1 -5 and 1 -6 should be written to make this more clear. Suggested text: "The city shall not provide water or sewer service outside the city limit." The exception to this policy are: "1) the few customers who have executed agreements for service whether or not it has actually been provided, and 2) contracting parties such as Cal Poly and the County Airport." On motion of Councilwoman Billig, seconded by Councilman Dunin, that this suggested wording text be approved. Motion carried, all ayes. 5 -3. Rural Industrial Standards. The council discussed ways of describing the types of uses which would be encouraged or discouraged in the rural industrial area in the vicinity of the.county airport. A consensus was reached to ask for a list of uses which would be substituted for the employee - density standard. A wider range of parcel sizes was discussed. Various council members also wanted to emphasize City Council Minutes January 13, 1981 - 7:00 p.m. Page 10 the importance of the employment characteristics of potential industries, whether it would attract employees from outside the area or employ local residents entering the labor force. Council members also agreed that the reference.to residential uses in rural, industrial areas should not be construed to disallow caretaker quarters. On motion of Councilman Bond, seconded by Councilman Dunin, the following 1 wording was approved: "Rural industrial activity shall: '1) be situated on parcels of not less than 21z to 20 acres as noted on the planned map, 2) be adequately served by private on -site water and sewer systems, 3) be situated on parcels with at least 300 feet of subject frontage on existing county road, 4) make use of the local labor force, and 5) not include labor intensive uses." Motion carried, Billig voting no. 5 -4. Conservation /Agriculture Development Criteria. among the purposes of City review of residences within areas designated conservation /agriculture. Suggested text: "Conditions to be imposed will be determined by these objectives: to minimize drainage and erosion problems; to minimize grazing. On motion of Councilwoman Billig, seconded by Councilman Munger, that this wording change be approved. Motion carried, all ayes. 5 -5. Floodway Definition. Council members agreed that floodways on major creeks which would not be counted toward net area for determining densities should be specified. Suggested text: "However, the area required for the 100 -year floodway on the following stream segments will not be used in determining maximum allowable density; 1) San Luis Obispo Creek, from the southerly city limits to the under -city culvert; 2) Stenner Creek from San Luis Creek to the confluence with the old Garden Creek." Wording approved on motion of Councilwoman Billig, seconded by Councilman Dunin, all ayes. 5 -6. Interim Agriculture Area - West of Los Verdes After discussing prerequisites for development of certain interim agricultural areas, the council decided to delete one =condition from the area west of Los Verdes; extension of Los Osos Valley Road. Text would read: "Other areas reserved for urban use include: an area between San Luis Obispo Creek and the Los Verdes development which may eventually be used for low density residential development when the flood hazard is removed." Wording approved on motion of Councilman Munger, seconded by Councilman Dunin. Motion carried, Councilwoman Billig voting no. 5 -7. Water Supply and Planned City Capacity. The council discussed changing the plan in response to new information on water use. They are presently preparing a separate information item on that subject. Henry Engen, Community Development Director, stated that this finished this quarter's general plan amendments and that with City Council approval of an overall motion approving all the actions taken, the staff would prepare the individual documents and return them for council consideration at the February 3, 1981 council meeting. On motion of Mayor Cooper, seconded by Councilman Munger, that the City Council approve all the general plan amendments listing the various changes and the various council determinations on each one. Motion carried, all ayes. City Council Minutes January 13, 1981 - 7:00 p.m. Page 11 There being no further business to come before the City Council, Mayor Cooper adjourned the meeting at 10:40 p.m. to Tuesday, January 20, 1981 at 4 p.m. APPROVED BY COUNCIL ON: 2/3/81 H. Fi patrick City Clerk ' -----------------------------------------------------'------------------------ M I N U T E S ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TUESDAY, JANUARY 20, 1981 - 7:30 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, 990 PALM STREET Pledge Roll Call Councilmembers Present: Melanie Billig, Ron Dunin, and Mayor Lynn Cooper Absent: Alan Bond, Gerald Munger City Staff Present: Lee Walton, Administrative Officer; Geoff Grote, Legal Assistant; J.H. Fitzpatrick, City Clerk; Henry Engen, Community Development Director; Roger Neuman, Police Chief; D.F. Romero, Public Services Director 1. At this time the City Council held a public hearing on the appeal of Gene Haraldsen of a Planning Commission decision to deny a request to amend precise development plan to allow a kitchen addition to a con- dominium unit within the project located at 1426 Prefumo Canyon Road; R -1 -PD. Henry Engen, Community Development Director, stated that the Reverend Haraldsen sought to amend the precise development plan for Windsong Estates, an R -1 -PD project on Prefumo Canyon Road to add a kitchen to his con- dominium unit. Henry Engen continued that the Planning Commission at their meeting of December 17, 1980 failed on a 2 - 3 vote to approve a 3 -foot extension to the side of the unit. At-their meeting of January 14, 1981, the commission formally adopted the resolution reciting specific reasons for denial of the appeal. Essentially, the commission was concerned that there should not be individually motivated refinements to approved plan developments. Planned developments are generally allowed to have-spec ial_ relaxation of standard requirements to enable as an end product, a planned development. Once individual owners start requesting changes to that planned development, there is a potential for such developments to become overcrowded, and, in effect, unplanned. He stated the city staff recommended that the City Council support the Planning Commission recommendation and deny the appeal. Henry Engen also added.that the staff recommended that the Planning Commission approv the request for a. minimum five yard interior yard setback required instead of a 3 -foot interior yard setback requested. Mayor Cooper declared the public hearing open. Gene Haraldsen, appellant, appeared before the City Council stating that the application was for an addition to the kitchen was denied based upon a