Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/25/1977MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TUESDAY, JANUARY 25, 1977 - 7:30 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL Roll Call PRESENT: Councilmen Graham, Gurnee, Norris, Petterson and Mayor Schwartz ABSENT: None City Staff PRESENT: J.H. Fitzpatrick, City Clerk; Allen Grimes, City Attorney; R.D. Miller, Administrative Officer; Rob Strong, Director of Community Development; Terry Sanville, Planning Associate; and Glen Matteson, Planning Assistant ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Mayor Schwartz announced that the purpose of the meeting and the only business to be-conducted at the meeting would be a public hearing to consider the adoption of the Urban Land Use Element of the 1977 General Plan Revision and to consider the Plan's Environmental Impact. n 7:35 p.m. The City Council adjourned the staff of the Planning Department 8:05 p.m. The City Council reconvened present. to view a slide presentation put on by on a review of the General Plan. into Adjourned Session, all Councilmen Mayor Schwartz opened the public hearing, stating that first the Council would listen to comments on an area -by -area basis, starting with Area No. 1, Laguna Lake Area. ' Don Smith objected to the proposed developments in the Laguna Lake Area, due to the great number of people without a commensurate increase in utilities or other services to take care of this growth. He also objected to removal of agricultural land for development into urban -type structures. Ernest Dalidio, appeared before the City Council on behalf of the property owners at 1033 Madonna Road, stating.that their property was now in rural agricultural development, the surrounding property had.been urbanized, and their property taxes had been substantially increased over the past eight years, placing excessive financial demands on the property. He stated that Meyer, Merriam and Associates were in the process of preparing long -range specific plans with phased development suiting both their needs and those of the City and he would like some direction from the City Council as to the timing and intent of the interim agricultural designation as presently shown on the property. The property owners were interested in annexing a.small portion for appropriate development. Without annexation and without.being allowed to develop to more intensified uses, the property would ultimately be lost by the families who had farmed this since 1919. Andrew Merriam, Consultant /Architect, questioned some of the wording in the General Plan Text regarding 'What..is.meant by annexation, minor annexations, major annexations, etc. ?" ' Arthur Hawthorne, Prefumo Canyon Road, stated he supported the efforts by the majority of the City Council to stop growth and development, not only in the City of San Luis Obispo but particularly in the Laguna Lake Area. Area No. 2: Orcutt - Islay, Edna- Airport.Area No comments from the public. Area No. 3: South Higuera Area Jeff.Jorgensen_opposed the designation of rural industrial in such a large area. He felt that this proposal was no better than the present General Plan. He felt that this area should be shown as interim - agriculture and stick to it. City Council Minutes January 25, 1977 Page 2 Don Smith stated that too much land was shown by the City for future industrial development in this segment of the community. Liz Fisher felt that not allowing the Dalidio's to annex to the City was wrong when the City approved the Los Verdes Park Phase III which would require major creek alignment which was environmentally dangerous and would be very expensive for the City. She felt that this was another example of poor City planning. Area No. 4: Johnson Avenue Area. Murray Warden opposed to the density designation as shown on his family's property low density rather than what existed on the land at this time which was higher density, multiple family uses. He felt.that was particularly detrimental to the property since it was one large parcel of land used for one purpose, with one limited access to and from the major street, and that this limited access was caused by prior action of the City Council. He felt that they were being vindictive against this property owner. Area No. 5: Central Business District. William H. Brown, property owner on the northern half of the block bounded by the freeway, Santa Rosa, Toro and Walnut Streets, asked Council consideration in the General Plan -to allow.them to have higher density which could allow motels as conditional use. The current zoning on the block was predominantly R -4 and he felt that this should not be changed in the new General Plan. Marshall Ellis, Palm and Pepper.Street, opposed the new medium - density residential designation on his property which he had purchased for development of high- density apartment uses. He objected to reduction in densities allowed. Area No. 6: Outer Foothill Area. No comments. Area No. 7: College Area. No comments. General Comments: Mr. Yuke, 530 Cooper Drive, was in general favor of the plan as presented but questioned the so- called interim - agricultural uses for future annexations to the City. He stated that as a new comer to the City, he was opposed to any new annexations which would bring new people to the City which was going to cost more.taxes for each resident of the City, not including the prohibitive cost of bringing additional water to the City to support this additional growth. Ed Martin felt that the General Plan was as good as any the City could get . and should not be torn apart into small pieces. He urged the City Council to adopt the plan and move.on to more important things such as plan implementation and refinement. Melanie Billig questioned the plan for growth to 55,000 people when the Council had not stated..what these people would.use for water or sewer, nor how -much it would .cost and where the City was to get it. She felt the plan depended upon cooperation with the County, Cal Poly, etc. and she wondered wherein the plan this-was stated for accomplishment as she did not see any evidence of cooperation to date. She continued that =Avhlle the plan looked good, the City had not done enough to state the goals and methods of implementa- tion. She also questioned the plan's proposal for major or minor annexation which left the decision to some non- policy, non - objective guidelines. She felt that these decisions would not be made.objectively. Mike DeNeve, Manager of the Building Contractors' Association, hoped that the Council, in adopting the plan, would be vigilant to see that implementa- tion was done fairly and equitably for all the citizens of the City. He hoped that the City Council would do more in cooperating with State and County agencies such as Cal Poly, Cuesta, Men's Colony and County government than 1 1 L_ J City Council Minutes January 25, 1977 Page. 3 had been done in the past. He asked when the zoning would be brought into conformance with the General Plan and, also, questioned whether the Council looked into the economics of the proposed infill policy of the staff prepared General Plan. Jeff Jorgensen questioned whether the Council could legally adopt the plan at this meeting as he understood that it would have to go back to the Planning ' Commission for comment. He also asked what was the growth potential of the plan without any annexation and what this relationship was to present water supply. Herb Miles, Lincoln Street, questioned the City Council's attempt to approve a growth plan without first making a decision on water. H. Friggia, 3860 South Higuera Street, questioned the City's responsibilities under -the proposed General Plan. He felt that the City was growing whether we liked it or not and that plans should be made to handle it now rather than wait for the usual City of San Luis Obispo crisis decision. Vic Montgomery felt the policy dealing with urban reserve lines should be more clearly defined in that it should be very clear what could be done. inside the line and what could be done outside the line. Further, he felt that the General Plan Map showed a civic center in the central business district and that the City should support this concept.and attempt to influence County actions if this plan was to be adopted. Elizabeth Montgomery, 205 Albert Drive, stated that before getting new growth, the water question should be answered as should the question of air quality. Dorothy Connor, League of Women Voters, stated that her organization was in support of the plan as advertised in the Telegram- Tribune. She felt 1 that this plan was an improvement compared to the previous efforts but stated that the League of Women Voters still felt that the water supply, sewage treatment and other City facilities should be resolved by the City Council before actually allowing growth. She also felt that the air quality should be protected and that the Council should protect any prime agricultural land in or outside the City. Mrs. Livingston stated she was in support of the environmental, no- growth,goals to save the air quality and prime agricultural land. She was opposed to pocket- book decisions-by the City as has been done in the past. . Robert Jacobs was opposed to the plan as presented. He felt that the question of water, flood control, sewage, and air quality had not been answered by the plan or by the staff and Council at this evening's-meeting. Don Smith then submitted a lengthy letter to the City Council on the General Plan. He thought that the General Plan effort was a step in the right direction but he felt that the environmental impact report for the Urban Land Use Element was totally inadequate and should be rejected by the City Council. He then reviewed the water resources available to the City and asked why the City Council are opting for a 55,000 population or more when the water is limited "to 42,000. He felt that the public was being fooled about the General Plan by the article in the Saturday paper. As an example, he stated that the article implied that the developer or new residents would pay the cost of new growth and the cost would not be passed onto ' the current residents. He felt that this was a lie, as the cost of growth is approximately $60,000,000 for.'30,000 new residents and he.believed the City Council had no plans to pass this cost on to developers or new residents in any case. He recommended that the City Council.continue .these public hearings for several weeks to allow further study on the water and .growth issue and to- handle the problem of the unsatisfactory environmental impact report. He did not feel that the citizens had had an opportunity to study the land use map as it was not available until it was published in Saturday's paper three days ago. William Alexander felt that the General Plan as presented was excellent. He felt it should be adopted tonight. City Council Minutes January 25, 1977 Page 4 Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing closed. 9:25 p.m. Mayor Schwartz declared a recess. 9:45 p.m. The meeting reconvened with all Councilmen present. Mayor Schwartz again opened the public hearing and asked the Planning Depart- ment Staff to review the comments and questions brought out by the public during the public hearing. ' 1. Rob Strong stated that the matter of the Dalidio annexationscould - be referred to the Planning. Commission for clarification of major /minor annexation policy, but generally major annexations include the potential for several hundred units each and-should be dependent upon supplemental water as well as_more specific planning while minor additions to the City to complete a logical urban limit should be individually considered. 2. On the question of the amount of rural- industrial area designated in the plan it was true that an excessive area was allocated to industrial use. The plan attempted to reduce this by allowing service commercial use in the light industrial district and by proposing a low intensity "rural industrial" designation to unincorporated manufacturing areas already committed. The plan was designed as a compromise which should be more acceptable to the County as well as more realistic than the 19.72 plan. 3. On the Murray Warden problem, this should also be referred back to the Planning Commission for delineation and clarification of the land use as an amendment to the recommended plan if the Council so desired. 4. On the Brown property at Walnut and Toro Streets, he felt that this could be referred back to the Planning Commission for determination and clarifi- cation but staff agreed that this north half of this block should be high density { density (not tourist commercial) or motel use. 5. With regard to the Marshall Ellis question dealing with density at Palm & .Pepper the staff felt the high density residential reduction from 44 to 24 du /ac should be retained and the Palm and Pepper area should not be designated more than medium or medium -high density residential. 6. On the question of limits to the annexations in the Foothill Area, particularly the Ferrini Parcel, this would be considered as the largest "minor annexation with prezoning for planned development which would provide a large portion of the land retained as open space ". 7. Regarding development costs..the - policy implies that the costs of public onsite improvements would be borne by..the developer, as at present, the plan implies that the City would pursue further cost - benefit evaluations of future proposals, to obtain a greater proportion of total "public costs" be paid by the developer or new resident. 8. He stated that a minor annexation policy had been recommended by the staff, approved by the.Planni_ng Commission is now being considered conceptually by the Countil. Only with further evaluation of specific proposals could the staff evaluate the cost and impacts implied by each proposal. 9.. Zoning consistent with the Generla Plan would be a'priority concern starting with plan adoption and hopefully completed by December, 1977. 10. The housing element of the General Plan would answer many of the economic questions . dealing with infill policy and density proposal of the General Plan and the Planning Commission and Council had considered some of these issues in Study Session and preliminary hearings. 11. He felt the General Plan adequately answered most policy questions regarding the .urban reserve line and the treatment of land use inside or outside the urban reserve. 12. He stated that one purpose of the General Plan to slow down and control growth by limiting employment and school enrollment expansion. Housing was to be encouraged to give citizens who were now living outside the City but who worked in the City an opportunity to live here. City Council Minutes January 25, 1977 Page 5 13. He agreed that the matter of water supply must be answered by the Council and citizens before growth should be allowed and building permits or sub- - divisions approved, but that the-plan had to recognize a problem and propose a solution before the City developed without "a Plan ". 14. He stated that the plan made no absolute provisions to protect all prime agricultural lands; but that annexation policies considered agricultural lands and urban potential among conservation concerns. Allen Grimes, City Attorney, upon question stated that the Council could adopt the plan after referring any significant changes to the Planning Commission for report and recommendation. Rob Strong reported that as of December, 1976, all matters changed by the Council in the General Plan had been considered and commented on by the Planning Commission except: 1) the Chorro Street Area adjacent to the freeway and 2) the revisions requested by public input tonight. He did not feel 'that the questions brought up by the public this evening were substantial or significant changes and felt the Council could adopt the plan without further report from the Commission if they so desired. Councilman Petterson suggested the following should be referred to the Planning Commission:. 1) The Palm Street, Morro to Broad; 2) the County facilities on Johnson Avenue; 3) the downtown County facilities; 4) the proposed Marsh Street County facility; and 5) expansion.of the Madonna Road Shopping Center vs. downtown expansion.. Councilman Graham asked whether the General Plan had any possibility of being approved by the County and whether City approval should be continued until the County had stated it would concur with the urban reserve line. Rob Strong responded that the City should adopt the Plan before transmitting it to the County, but if the County desired changes these would be returned to the City as amendments. Councilman Gurnee stated that this General Plan was better than no General Plan at all but suggested that the Council.consider the following amendments to the proposed General Plan. He felt that the quality of the plan did not represent the time and money spent in its preparation. He felt that areas not covered were 1) growth ceiling with a. water supply limit of 44,000 and a plan of 55,000; 2) he felt that the plan did not honestly face such problems as. _the effect of sewers, schools, police, fire departments, etc. He recommended that the 1995 population ceiling of 55,000 be amended to 44,000 and then allow the people of San Luis Obispo to vote and say whether they wished more growth, more water, or what;. 3) He urged that the City Council sponsor a referendum by the public on water supply for the City, whether it be the State, Naciemento, or some other project for water supply; 4) He also felt that the annexation policy should be amended to recognize the water supply shortage; and 5) in order to make the General Plan viable, arrangements should be made on the growth of Cal Poly and Cuesta in light of the water shortages to those areas. Councilman Norris stated that he was in support of the growth projected in the General Plan of 55,000 plus. He felt that the City needed growth and felt that the General Plan would add quality to the life of the City. He did not feel that the utility problems were very important and could be solved. He would adopt the General Plan as presented and any changes could be made at the annual review -of the plan. He felt that the plan was.fine and should be adopted ' tonight. Councilman Petterson felt that the plan did not meet the expectations that were generated when the plan was first discussed and authorized. He felt that this plan did not fully meet the.desires of the citizens of San Luis Obispo. He felt that this plan is one of moderation both in growth and approach. He felt with lowered expectations this plan would be acceptable.and would support the quality of life in the City and County adjacent to the City. He would support adoption of the plan tonight in order to start some review proceedings after all this .time. City Council Minutes January 25, 1977 Page 6 Councilman Graham stated that as he was retiring from the Council, he would hope to adopt the plan before he left the Council he felt that all the questions had not been answered but he would go along with this plan as presented in order to get some plan adopted for the citizens of San Luis Obispo. Mayor Schwartz reviewed for -the public the theory of General Plans for communities and their implications to the public. He then reviewed the history of General Plan's adopted by the City of San Luis Obispo over the years and noted that each subsequent General Plan had been better -than the previous one. He then reviewed the history of water supply for the City and its effect on growth and configuration of City limits. He felt the City Council had a commitment to adopt the General Plan due to the hard work and time spent in developing it. He would support the General Plan as presented, felt that all points had been covered, felt the Council should adopt the plan tonight as changes suggested were of a minor and not very substantial nature. Rob Strong, Director of Community Development, stated the Council must first accept the environmental impact evaluation report, Part II of the General Plan Report, and certify that the evaluation is satisfactory to meet State CEQA requirements. The City Council then took action on several of the individual changes suggested during tihe public hearing: 1. On the matter of Warden, Johnson Avenue from medium density to medium -high density, on motion of Councilman Norris, seconded by Councilman Petterson, that the request be denied and that the designation stay as presented (medium density) in the General Plan. Motion carried, all ayes. 2. Brown Property, Toro /Walnut from medium to high density. On motion of Councilman Norris, seconded by Councilman Petterson, that the amendment be made. Motion carried, Councilmen Norris, Petterson and-Mayor Schwartz ayes; Councilmen Gurnee and Graham noes. 3. Marshall Ellis request,.Pepper /Palm from medium to high density. On motion of Councilman Graham, seconded by Mayor Schwartz, no change. Motion carried, all ayes. Mayor Schwartz stated that the two minor revisions (Walnut /Toro and Chorro /Freeway) made by the City Council were not of a substantial nature and that the Council did not feel they significantly changed the Plan as recommended by the Planning Commission. On motion of Mayor Schwartz, seconded by Councilman Graham, the following resolution was introduced: Resolution No. 3238 (1977 Series), a resolution of the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo adopting the Urban Land Use Element of -the General Plan. Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote: AYES: Mayor Schwartz,.Councilmen Graham, Norris and Petterson NOES: Councilman Gurnee ABSENT: None There being no further business to come before the meeting, the meeting adjourned. 1 APPROVED: May 3, 1977 i zpatrick, City Clerk