HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/25/1963ABSI:i':'! : None
35. On motion of' Ccuncilman 'have:;, seconded b,;- Council= Shipsey the meeting
was adjo.:rned to 7:3C ?. :•I. February 2K, 1953.
Approved phis 11th day of i•iarch, 1953.
ADJOUR'rZD flEE1'INU OF THE CM COUNCIL
February 25, 1963 - 7:30 °. 11.
City Hall
Invocation was riven by Ylayor Clay P. Davidson
Roll Call
Present: Clay P. Davidson, H. L. Graves, Jr., Donald Q. :Miller,
Gerald ':i. Shipsey
Absent: lass i4argaret McAlei 1
City Staff
Present: J. W. Abraha:a, Director of Planning Suilding; J. ii. Fitzpatrick,
City Clerk; W. :-i. Rouser, City Attorney; H. D. :.iillcr, Adanin-
istrative Officer; D. 3o.mero, City Engineer; L. Schl:bohm,
Fire Chief; .4. Schofield, Police Chief.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.. On motion of Councilman Graves, seconded by Councilman 14iller, the follow-
ing salary step increases were approved:
ESHBACH, Diane J., Typist- Clerk, from Step 1 at "295 per month to Step 2 at
"312 per : month, effective April 1, 1963.
i•r?'rCi ?ELL, Tamy L., Stenograr)her, from SteD 1 at ::312 per month to Step 2 at
"330 per month, effective April 1, 1953.
X. On motion of Councilman Xiller, seconded by Councilman Graves, the following
resolution was introduced. Resolution No. 1,065, a resolution endorsing
Senate Sill No. 3111:, as originally proposed.
Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote:
A'i3S:. Clay P. Davidson, R. L. haves, Jr., Donald Q. i•liller,
Gcrald':+. Shipsey
:ICES: Plcne
ABSETJT: Miss i.1ar aret i�cTdeil
2. Communication from the City Chamber of Commerce requesting ermission to
place paper feet in front of each retail merchant's store as part of the pro-
motion of the "Hnow Your Merchant's Week ", approved or_ .otion of Councilman
Graves, seconded by Councilman Shipsey, subject to the removal of these paper
fcot prints by the Chamber.
3. Cumnanitcation from Knuthson- I-Ielns Company reqluest_n:C acceptance of the sub-
division improvements in 'tract No. 2 1, Ann Arbor Estates, was ordered held
over at the request of the City Engineer.
40 On motion of Councilman Shipsey, seconded by Councilman lviller, the follo;•r-
ino resolution was introduced. Resolution No. 108 , a resolution reducing
the various equipment replacement items to reflect unspent portions thereof
and -makin certian inter -fund trasfer to the equipment replacement fund.
Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote:
kYES: Clay P. Davidson, L. Craves, Jr., Donald Q. Miller,
Gerald W. Shipsey
:IDES: P•ione
4 SENT: :'Liss Margaret McNeil
5. Interim audit report from the independent auditiors, Hutcheson, Horn, Johnson
?- say, referred to the City Clerk for report to the City Council.
6. Resol>>tion of the City Planning Commission recommending adoption of the
building setback line for certain portions of i•Ionterey Street. The City
Ccuncil set the Public Hearing for 'March 11, 1963, at 3:00 F. ;.I.
7. _^_t this time .Iavor Clay P. Davidson opened the Public HearinL, on the Planned
Development '- EltiDle ra:ail: District by the Ra;; C. Skinner Corooration.
Mayor Davidson e:;plained t e rules of hog the hearin_. -could be conducted, the
proponents oresentinE their proposals first. Then the report of the Planning
Commission would be read and then statements from the opponents would be
received and considered by the Council.
Say C. Skinner, developer, presented his proposal to develope a planned apart-
ment dwelling including recreational areas for the duellers of the apartments.
iTs. Skinner, using aerial photos of the area, revieV:ed his entire development
to date fcr the Council's information and also outlined his plans which in-
cluded a commercial center, golf course, professional offices and trailer
paSi; .
' I4r. S'-inner then presentee] sketches and plans showing his proposed apart-
ment development includin, size of apartments, parkin-. recreation areas,
access roads, architecture of units and proposed use of time units.
"r. Skinner then presented what he believed to be the traffic flows from this
development.
He then e:;plained :now he oroposed to control the activities of the students
who gill be boardin and living in the apartments.
He plans to have a resident manaCer, ::ith two (2) assistants, to manage
the boarding house and also a Student Council which would be elected from
each building to hell; handle disciplinary problems in the hoarding house.
411 students ::ill be recnired to file a student resident's agreement which
would be a bindin_; aCreement on the students.
I °?r. Skinner states: he would ur:;e that the Council --rant his reauest for this
apartment development and further ;rant him a use oermit to operate a student
boardin,E house in this development.
J. ';7. Abraham, Director of Planning tc 3uilding, briefly outlined the Plann-
ing Commission's actions as follows:
"Attached herewith for your
Planning Commission meeting
velopmert reeuest o1' IIr, 3a
the Preliminary and Precise
information, is a copy o' the rmimites of the
of February 19, 1963, covering the Planned De-
�kinner for the Laguna Lake area and a copy of
Development Plan.
4s will be noted, the Cc:2rission took action to approve the Preliminary
Development Plan for the entire 18 acres of land area and to aoprove the
Precise Development Plan _or only the first iC units lying west of 4tascedero
Street. If and -when ?•Lr. Skinner pronesed to develrne other portions of th•_ 18
acres, he will be required to suL:-a t a Precise DeveloDment Plan for those units.
It should also be pointed out that the Co:mmission, in actinc, on the Pre -
liminary and Precise Development Plans, eliminated that portion of the re-
ouest haw -n,-: to do ,;ith board.in;_ houses. IIr. Ssinner's proposal has been
to house four, (h) students per unit. Under the City iALnicipal Code, four
00 or more persons in a unit would define the xnits as a boardin house,
Hr. Skinner, with the approval granted . by the Planning Cot'GniSsion, :lay still
house students; hoverer, a maximum of three (3) students would be allowed
per each unit.
J. :i. Fitzcatrick, City Clerk, then read the action of the Plannin, Commission
report dated February 21, 1963:
"The Planr.in. director briefly outlined she area to be considered in the pro-
posal. The proposal is for• 30 units in the first increment and 62 units in
the second, -makin - a total of 10 �:r.its. The proposal is for a PD /° -3 in
the form of detacned 8 unit anert;aents. The buildings are of a dwelling;
Croup, therefore must have approval of a. use permit. r1-o, a use permit would
be required in the PD /P -3 to allow a boardin; :- house. The lot coverage is
well belc,•r maximum allowed. The bui ldin • he ,;ht is :within the maxi:nurn limits
c�: the apartments and the aci:Li_nistrationv::uilding. The street setbacks
are all ri ht for the a?artr:ients. The par,-.in--'- area wculd have to be de-
teriained uoon the side setback on Loyal `:lay. The parkinG along Oceanaire
is in the same position. except -that, it doesn't show a 10 foot setback.
The parkin- adjacent to Los Oses is all right. The setbacks for the carrnorts
are all riCht, ho��rever, the carports do net come out. correctly in net size
androust provide the minium of 2L feet between. They don't scale off correct
Mu
There is plenty of room, however, because of the scale. It is quite
difficult to scale oat accurately. There is sufficient number of spaces
for all units proposed in the first increment. The carports are over and a-
bove recuired par ir._. The density for the area under the Preliminary De-
velopment Plans comes c,it to approximately 12 units per acre, which is con-
siderably below the requirements, as they could go up to 15 ,nits per acre."
R. C. Skinner stated that he was appealing the decision of the PlanninC
Commission in denying him a use oer,nit to overate a student boardini house,
thereby allo:•:ing him four (�) studonts per apartment.
i °Ir•. Abraham. Plannin- Director, read for the City Council's information the
Planned Development Ordinance listir_- action that could be taken by the City
Council.
Hr. Skinner then as ;ed that the City Council aonrove hi._ Planned Devclrefer the bgardin_ hCUse use permit b,:'.t to the Planninc
ment proposal and ref
Ccmmissicn.
J. Knoll objected to the student housinC development in this fine re-
siaentia district due to the increase in traffic i,:hich will be Generated' by
the students - !oin,? to and f'ro:z school and just raclnG around.
J. 13. Taylor, Council candidaue, stated that he -;;as o:)posed to this :.:e-
ve opment as ne is Ve_r`7 un h —Tacev •,•rith the soe-i a.l trea.ument riven to the sub-
dividers ?;y the Ci ty- Of'fi cials and believed that this was a poor development
_`or this area as student hous'inE would _er.erate .nany problems as child mol-
estinG and excess- traffic and he urcrcd the City Council that this proposal
be denied for r2 -3 and P -4 developments.
aver Fine objected to this pro'?erty development due to the hazard' of many
i.rresoonsiole youn people driving throuch a residential area. He cited the
example of the 'traffic problem :in the do,.ntoz•;n area cn Thursday nights and
L'_TZed the city CCUP.CiI t dents this re-Cnl_ ^.; as t^c' :iormto-vm traffic problem
is caused .mostly bu Cal Poly and hig v
h school students and the ceeleprznEnt
,could encoura ~e more of the sane 1n a residential neishberhood.
Jim',IcLain objected to accusinG Cal Poly students of all vicious crimes in
the community and stated that as a student he believed that the trouble
makers, if any, were small in number and that the majority of students were
gentlemen, �ood.neiGhbors and good citizens of the cor:^iunity and further
that the cc=..ur:ity stated they Trish Cal Poly to be here, 'out everyone objects
when a student :�rishes to live in their nei;;hborhood and urCed the people
to be more considerate cf the ,vote;`° men and women of Cal Poly.
:Salo Solomon objected to this hoardinE; house dovcloonent as he does not
believe that the stuge ^.t hcusln. is compatible with t:,e slnGle fa:;l''l re-
sidential area.
Per. Tom 3owles, County Planner, objected to this student ho'wsin proposal
and state:.' that a bo.rdin.G house• in this area is incompatible ,.ith residen-
7I� �
�___J
tial uses ore -_�ntly in the area.
=Use, due to this location, the traffic :could be intolerable and a definite
hazard to residents in this area and requested that this request be denied.
Neil Vreeland read a portion of a letter from the mana -ers of the He:,rson
:'.ouse rear �n disciplinar;; probleras in lar c boarding houses and also the
fact that there is presently more boardinE house space available than there
are students to board.
I•lilliam r'. Loy objected to this type of development and urged that the City
Counci eny „his rezoning.
Mrs. D. Striker urCed that the City Council support the Plannin.g Commaission's
decision in aenyino a boardinS house use in this proposed apartment develcu-
ment as this large number of unseoervised :gale students ;•could create a de-_
finite traffic hazard to the community and particularly to the adjacent high -
class residential area. She 'believed that placinr a boarding, house in a re-
sidential area is an e:•:ample of poor City planning. She continued that there
is no question that the residents of the boarding house would not be re-
sponsible to'the co-nunity and would be a cefinito hazard when driving to
the college.
Margaret Varney objected to student housing'of male students in this area
as sne ;as t•;o 2) teen -ale daughters and would fear for their safety.
Harreaond stated that he was opposed to this type of use in this area
an urge tat the City Council turn this request do,:ai cold.
Charles Pal stated that he was for this student housing development as he
be ievea gat it would be an asset not only to this area but to the entire
City.
J. J. F. Sullivan objected to this development in this area.
' ?'•Ir. Sunderland stated that he was for this development as he believed that
it wc) T7 Teor the good of the area and further, the City -,.,ill always have
traffic and that you can't keep pusl,in.0 Cal Poly students out of town to live.
Mrs. Clay stated that she was neither for or against this proposal, but that
i it allov:ed, it should be with controls.
Jim HcLain, Cal Poly student, stated that while he was not a resident of the
�guna area, e was or ne student housing development and further, object-
ed to the assertion of many of the people accusing the Poly students of being
child ;molesters and being irresponsible and further, he did not believe that
tae City as a whole, and this community in particular, ,:-as being
students. flair to Poly
Ray C. Skinner stated that the Poly students are -ood citizens and would :cake
good neio.aoors in this area and urged that the rezoning of the Planned De-
velopment be granted and further, that the use permit for student housing be
granted on a year to year basis subject to Council review and recision if anv
of the original requirements were not carried out.
Mal or Davidson declared the Public Hearin closed.
Councilman.i�iller stated that he has discussed this proposal :,r_th many of
' t.e residents in the Laguna area and ,•;ith the R. C. Skinner Corporation de-
veloper, and after his d-iscussions, would like to :make the fc•llowin statement:
"::hen I visited your home~ askinc you your views on 1-Ir. S::inner's proposed
student housing, each of you were courteous. This I appreciated. You ex-
plained your reasons - as you have here tonight - wh%, you were opposed to
student housing.
?Ian I ask, are nct these students from homes like your o:•:n? Do not you in-
struct your children to respect the rights of others? Dc not you instill in
your youngsters the qualities of la,; abiding citizens: Certainly you do. Sc
do the parents of these students who attend Cal Poly.
Your basis of concern is the fear of student :dsbehavior. In answer, let us
loo's at the record. Cal Poly students have always been law a'. siding citizens.
I challange the claim of some that these students if housed in. supervised
apartments will- create a dire co:amunity problem.
Past ex:Derience has sho-em that in the few instances where students have trans-
gressed the college has been swift in corrective action.
I•iow there are several specific items worth . :.enticning. I can understand the
opponents confusion with regards to location. ;.'h,r you ask, "did the Planning
Commission deny student hcusinC adjacent to the campus yet approve si!ailar
housing four riles from the campus?" My position then as now is the Commission
erred. However, there is another problem worth considering. Appropriate
suoervised student housing is in short supply in our conLaunicy• If this
Council continues to deny this type of development through private capital,
then the SLate will be forced to develope these facilities.
?,Ie the taxpayer, lose two ;ays: first your tax money will be used to cor.-
Struct on- co:npus student housin;;; second, hi.-.-hl,r asses: ed propertyr will not
be on the tac rolls.
"i•Iany cf you who purchased your homes in the La:-Una Tract, cneti•r at the time of
purchase the land in question was to be used for inultiple residential. Student
housin•,; hanpens to be :multiple use.
Lastly, traffic, a concern of many. The de-II-En of IIr. Sld.nner's development
pro,.-ides two streets opening directly onto Los Osos `toad. It is my opinion most
traffic will use this access; instead of th:; circuitous route throucrh the tract.
To conclude, the housin_ V of students in a supervised project as this is better
for the student and the co.r_:iuni ty. The ?resent problem is, many students
live off campus in residential areas throughout our city. i,In iy of these areas
do not have sufficient off - street parking. But, more important, :many of these
students live in houses where there is no supervision, By such projects as Hr.
Skinner's, we can foster an orderly growth of our City."
Council_-man i-Liller :moved that the Planned Development proposal be approved
and the Planning Comm scion be requested to approve a use permit allcurin5 a
boarding house use of foru (1r) students to eacl, apartment.
i.r. Gross stated that fie cbjectad to having his property val::es depreciated
by havinif the student hcusinr,; in the area.
Councilman Lraves aGreed ti-at the R -3 zoning is the correct, zoninE„ for this
area and is well planned in the area wherein it lies. 'urther, LhaL the de-
velopment as presented by time Sinner Corporation is in-accordance with the
Planned Development Ordinance and further, he does not :relieve that Co]-mcil
has the right to tell a person hour he can use his property. r'urther, as an
instructor at Cal Poly, he believed that the students have been :maligned
this evening, as his contact with the students he has found that they are
fine, upstanding men and wcmen and that they would be a fine asset to the
area and neighborhood.
Councilman Graves seccnded Councilman tiller's :notion with the reservation
on instructing the Planning Commission to approve a boarding house permit.
On motion of Councilman :filler, seconded .c y Councilman ;rages, the original
motion was a :enaec as S G1
-Lows: That the Plannin Lon be recuested to
reconsider the number of students to be allo:red in the apart:aent develooment
of the :•:inner Corporation.
Councilman Shipsey s ated that he disagreed t-rith several statements of pron-
er y aeva ua ion wnen this has not been proved in the past. He also disagreed
with the statements of the irresponsiGility of the Poly students. Further, he
agreedi -Lth the Planning Co: mission's findin;;s regardin;; traffic problems, but
still he believed this was a good development for the City, no da,ger to time
G. L. Smith School an; was in favor of the Planned Development project as
approved b;;• the Planning Comidssicn.
i-Iaycr Davidson stated :.hat he :ras in favor of any housin,; for Cal Polir and
would do all he could to acquire housin;;, but he believed that the land in
the vicinity of the Cal Poly campus should be developed for multiole boarding
house uses and that the present proposed development is in the wrong area
i
I I
1
and he would be against development at this time.
Preliminary plan £cr the Planned Development 'estricted `h ltiple gamily Dis-
trict -as approved on the following roll call vole:
AY3S: Donald Q. :.Liller, i ?. L. Gravcs, Jr., Gerald Shipsey
N,0ES: Clay P. Davidson
`?3SEENT: Liss r,Iargaret I•IcNei l
I7b. At this time the City Council held s hearing on ;,he Precise Plan for the Plann-
ed Development "estricted 1•1ultiple Family District, as per publication.
D. F. Romero, City Engineer, reported that he had "been informed that a property
owner might Ii.Le an inj77c ion i.t 14r. ST;inner atLe:apted to divert Perfumo
Canyon Creek. If this injunction were upheld, this would mean that i'•'L•. Skinner
could nct develope access reads to Los Osos Hoad as sho:•rn on the Planned De-
velopment proposal., taus all traffic ;.:ould route through the Laguna Park
Homes subdivisions.
Jr . Romero suggested that approval of the Precise Development Plan 'ce subject
to.�Fe co`nditicn that no oc-u?ancy of the 'Linits would be permitted until the
develoaer Iliad completed access roads to Los Osos Road as shown.
R. C. S_irner stated he'guara-teed that all the conditions regardin; diver -
sion o' eer_u.-no Creek and proper vehicle access to the road rust be completed
before occuoanyc :;ill be allowed in thestructures.
On Notion of Councilman 'Graves, succnded by Council:aan "•Tiller, the precise
clan for the annec Deveionmunt Restricted f-mitipi 0 Tani district was
approved subject to the conditions aforementioned, on the followin;; roll call
vote:
' AYES: Donald Q. -- iller, Gerald W. Shipsey, R. L. „raves, Jr.
I�ICZS: Clay P • Davidson
ASS T: _�Ii.�s tlargaret McNeil
3. Copies of communications :nailed out and received b: the San Luis Obispo County
Pure hater Association regarding recreational use of drin.cin� •rater reservoirs,
were ordered received and filed. -
9. Co:inunlcatlon fre'^ the San Luis Obispo Ccunt':' :iistorical �oclety t:lank.ing
the City Council for their donation to the Daii1det Adobe, :as ordered re-
ceived and riled.
10. Notice of Chamber of Commerce Economic Development meetin- for :March 1, 1;063,
at 12:00 Moon, ;ias oraerec eceive an Ti e .
11. The City Council set ..ednesday, Iarch..16, 1;;63, at 12:30 ?.'I. for an official
inspection c_' the se;-rage plant enlargement project.
12. City Council set Ilionday, 1.1arch 25, 1963, for the report b y the City En-ineer
on Lhe 'Uity's street deficiencies.
13. On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Shipsey, the meeting
was adjourned to C.ednesday, February 27, 1963 at :3O_'.i.
' A7D2'OVed this 20L.-: Gay of ADr11, 19`3.
/yi /� 11 -