HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/30/1976MINUTES
ADJOURNED SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 1976 - 7:30 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
Roll Call
PRESENT: Councilmen Graham, Gurnee, Norris, Petterson and
Mayor Schwartz
ABSENT: None
Planning Commission
PRESENT: Commissioners Fonte, Johansen, Schneider and Chairperson
Settle
ABSENT: Commissioners Breska and Donaldson
City Staff
PRESENT: J.H. Fitzpatrick, City Clerk; Allen Grimes, City_Attorney;
Glen Matteson, Planning Assistant; R.D. Miller, Administra-
tive Officer; Terry Sanville, Planning Associate; Rob Strong,
Director of Community Development
1. The Community.Development Staff (Matteson, Sanville, Strong) reviewed
for the City Council and Planning Commission the progress to date of the City
Council's study of the General Plan Update recommended for adoption by the
Planning Commission. Areas reviewed and discussed were:
1. Growth Management Policies and Objectives
A. Growth Rate and Planned 1995 Population Capacity
B. Economic Base and Residential Balance
C. Planning Area and Urban Reserve Policies
1. Coordinate Urban Development with Urban Services
2. Prevent Rural Residential Development
3. Require Specific Plans Prior to Annexation and Expansion
Development
4. Major and Minor Expansion Proposals and Policies
5. Agricultural Conservation
6. Urban Service Priorities
2. Urban Land Use Policies
A. Residential density
B. Commercial land uses
1. Neighborhood
and Proposals
and neighborhood objectives
2. Professional Office
3. Comparison retail
Rob Strong stated that the major areas for discussion between the City Council
and Planning Commission on the General Plan Update was the firming up on under-
standing of the annexation policy and:'definition of what were "major" or "minor"
expansion areas. He continued that.the recent Council discussions implied "a
no annexation" policy unless accompanied by reduction in incorporated area urban
capacity or until supplemental water supply and treatment were adequate for
increased population. The Planning Commission felt that a more refined
annexation':_,policy was needed, one which distinguished between minor and
major expansion. They stated they agreed with Council on "major" expansion
policy but felt that a more lenient "minor" expansion policy should be
developed that would allow logical, complete and more efficient urban develop-
ment. Particularly when a limited number of minor annexations would have no
measurable affect on the city's basic water and sewer facilities. Finally,
the Planning Commission and staff recommended that a expansion policy be
adopted that would allow minor expansion areas to develop subject to acceptable
development pre - planning and concurrent utility improvements, even if it meant
reducing potential urban use in less serviceable areas within the present City
limits.
1
1
City Council Minutes
November 30, 1976
Page Two
The City Council and Planning Commissioners present then discussed
1) Annexation Policy as seen by Council for "major" and ".minor" expansion
areas; 2) Densities in various classifications; 3) Growth Rates; 4) Water
Supply; 5) Supplemental Water Sources; 6) Sewer Capacity; and 6) Other
Municipal Services.
9:20
p.m.
Mayor Schwartz called a
recess.
'
9:30
p.m.
Council reconvendd with
all Councilmen present.
City Councilmen and Planning Commissioners present continued their discussion
of Council action to date on General Plan Update.
One major concern of both the Council members and Planning Commissioners
present was the lack of citizen participation or public input in the General
Plan Update which has been in preparation for over two years. They discussed
ways and means or encouraging some public participation. Some�:sugkestions
were that maybe the lengthy wordy text should be cleaned up and put into more
simple readable and understandable language rather than the technical planning
jargon. A further concern of both groups was how does or how would the County
government implement or cooperate on adoption and control through the City's
General Plan and also whether the County was being made aware of the progress
of the Plan.
Mike DeNeve, Manager, San
with the Council and Plan
lion areas. For example,
within a reasonable time,
be transferred to another
annex.
Luis Obispo County Building Association, discussed
zing Commission the timing of major and minor expan-
if a large parcel in the City does not develop
can the utility services reserved for that parcel
piece of land outside the City ready to develop and
' Felton Ferrini spoke in support of the minor expansion policy as he has been
working with the Planning Staff and Commission for some time to bring into
the City about 200 acres of land of which only about 60 acres could be
developed. The balance would be left in open space. He felt it would be
unfair to hold up small developments because utility services were being
held up for land in City with no plans for development.
Jim Filbin, Realtor and resident of Davenport Creek Road, County area resident;
attacked the City Council and Planning Commission for trying to establish too
high .a standard for development through the General Plan Update. He blamed
the City Council for the lack of jobs in the community, the high prices for
land and housing all caused by the standards proposed that would only allow
the elite and the rich to live in the City. He continued that by the action
of the present Council land prices are escalating to a point that the build-
ings are not being replaced or remodeled with new and modern housing.
Vic Montgomery, Planning Consultant, spoke in support of the Updated General
Plan. He also felt that anything that could be done to make the General Plan
clearer to the public would be a benefit to the community. He hoped the
General Plan would provide for more low and medium income housing.
After closing comments by the City Council and Planning Commissioners, the
meeting adjourned.
Approved: December 21, 1976
itzpatrick, City Clerk