HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/02/1979M I N U T E S
SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
AND
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, MAY 2; 1979 - 6:00 P.M.
MOTEL INN BANQUET ROOM, SAN LUIS OBISPO
Roll Call
COUNCILMEMBERS
1 Present: Melanie Billig, Alan Bond, Ron Dunin, Jeff Jorgensen-and
Mayor Lynn R. Cooper
Absent: None
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
Present: Richard Breska, Mike DeNeve, Vince'Fonte, Dean Miller,
LaVerne Schneider and Chairperson Charles Andrews
Absent: None (one vacant seat on Planning Commission)
CITY 'STAFF
Present: Henry Engen, Community Development Director; George Thacher,
City Attorney; Lillian Armitage, Recording Secretary
PROCEDURAL ISSUES'
Council Referrals "to Commission
The Planning Commission would-like to have more specific direction from
Council. Councilman Jorgensen suggested the way to do that would be_by
including within the motion the action the Council would have taken without
the referral, so the Planning Commission knows what the intent was.
Mayor Cooper thought there might be some merit in having Planning Commission
representation at the Council meeting regarding a matter heard at Commission
and then at Council level. Perhaps a Commission member would carry the message
forward better than staff. Councilman Jorgensen didn't feel the individual
Commission members could do any better than staff at presenting an unbiased
report. Councilwoman Billig pointed out that the report to City Council is
in fact a Planning Commission recommendation. If the issue is a controversial
one, there are usually three or four Commission members present to speak, anyway.
Mr. Engen said frequently people will show up at'Council meetings who did not
attend the Planning Commission hearing on the same subject. Next year it is
planned to highlight items with a large ad in the Telegram - Tribune for Planning
Commission meetings, similar to City Council ads. As a result, we anticipate
more attendance at meetings when an issue first comes forth. The next meeting
regarding General Plan matters will be May 9, 1979.
ERC Review Process
It has been agreed to abolish the Environmental.Review Committee, but the
procedures have to be formalized and reviewed by the City Attorney. Staff is
in the process of writing guidelines. Agendas will double in "length.
Commr. Breska felt that there should be a clarification of the definition of
full -blown versus focused EIR. Councilman Jorgensen stated that one purpose
of'an EIR is to permit public review and comment.. Therefore, it isn't a matter
of whether an individual commissioner has enough-information available but will
the project have a significant impact on the environment? Terrace Hill is an
example of how you garner information not available to the public, change the"
project (also not available to the public), and then the public has to respond
to each new revision.
City Council Minutes
May 2, 1979 - 6:00 p.m.
Page 2
Councilwoman Billig pointed out that we are working with delicate pieces
of property, and it would have been much better to have had public input
at the beginning. If the information is there and the public is involved,
we won't have the negative reaction in the community. Mayor Cooper agreed,
and said the majority of developers prefer to be told right away when an EIR
is required.
Councilman Jorgensen stressed that if the ERC is abolished, the Planning
Commission and City Council still have the responsibility of reviewing
technical decisions on projects which have been delegated to staff.
Commr. Breska said the new process will put more burden on Mr. Engen,
to decide which projects will projects will create controversy.
Mr. Thacher said even a body such as Planning Commission which has just an
advisory role must consider a negative declaration call. If you make a
determination based on the public comment, you can still send it back for
an EIR.
Councilman Dunin said the repetitious EIR worries him. There is a state
law that permits the seven parts of the EIR be applied to several projects.
In the new approach the concentration should be on the focused EIR. When
there is a complete EIR, the developer should be informed that there are
available sources for historical, seismic; or whatever.
Regarding_; a definition or standard, Mr. Thacher said there is a definition
in the city guidelines, but it doesn't mean much as it is a subjective decision.
For a long time there was no basis for parameters.
Councilman Jorgensen said the standard is one that every individual uses in
their everyday life; whether there is .a reasonable doubt that it may have a
significant effect. You can't go by the quantity or quality of reams of the
EIR. Normally an EIR should be prepared when there is a substantial body of
public controversy concerning the environmental impacts of the project. ,
Commr. DeNeve said perhaps the sequence should be considered, because many
people who give testimony don't address EIR concerns. Mr. Thacher said if
that happens, it's the Chairman's problem. Nevertheless, Commr. DeNeve
continued, people are there and have concerns. The basic concept comes forward
and then you have public input.
Mayor Cooper said this exemplifies the duties of Planning Commission and City
Council - -to determine what portion of the input is directed at the EIR orltheir
emotional and financial aspects.
Mr. Engen stressed the importance of the Council being consistent to policy
that is very clear so that the Commission's direction can evolve logically.
Councilman Dunin said he doesn't think the policy can be rigid and consistent.
We are not building the city from scratch; we are trying to redo a city that
is over 100 years old. Commr. DeNeve said inconsistencies exist; for example,
between ARC and Engineering.
Councilman Dunin added that staff has to be consistent first before Council is.
There have been several situations where extension of time was required and
staff added requirements. Mr. Engen said in the case of a tentative map, the
applicant risks change of policy or correction of any oversights. Councilwoman
Billig said a classic example is Mr. Blaser's project, where the Planning
Commission thought they would go with a smaller size street. If there were
no fluctuations, what would be the purpose of the Planning Commission?
Commr. Breska said existing zoning ordinance and subdivision ordinance are
set for flat rate but when you look at what's been developed, nothing is left
but the difficult property. You have to look back at the General Plan. We
are dealing with a half of one percent and we should allow recommendations
that are somewhat different from ordinance. A variance is for an unusal condition
and all property isn't the same. We sometimes spend an hour on an item that
should take 15 minutes and another poor guy stays until 1:00 in the morning.
Councilman Jorgensen said a variance is a very narrow legal procedure. There
are specific findings that must be made, for specific reasons. Councilman
Jorgensen is opposed to granting variances or recommending changes to the law
or individual applications; we shouldn't abuse the variance laws.
City Council Minutes
May 2, 1979 - 6:00 p.m.
Page 3
Commr. Breska said this is a unique community and we are regimented. Councilman
Dunin also said this has been his concern for some time. The city at this
point in its history is in a quandry regarding housing and the availability
of land. We are very inconsistent because one day we say we need offices, and
the next day housing; having land use strictly applied and in the meantime down-
town zoning a particular portion. If the variance is not flexible - enough, we
should create a tool the Planning Commission can use to help people. Government
' should make life easier and protect people from one another. We should try to
help those who want to improve or develop and not always say "you can't do it."
Commr. Breska gave the example of the Little Theatre dance studio; here is someone
who wants to improve the community. The City should be somewhat responsive.
Councilman Jorgensen said his concern was the idea of second - guessing or lack
of communication with the City Council. He feels the Planning Commission duty
is to call it the best way they can. Commr. Andrews said when the City Council
calls it differently, it would be desirable to know why. Councilwoman Billig
recommended that Mr. Engen be very specific and give reasons. Commission respon-
sibility is to give their best advice.
MAJOR PENDING PROJECTS
Orcutt Heiehts Subdivision
There was some discussion regarding pending projects and Council indicated they
would like any revised project that is proposed to be brought to them at a study
session for a conceptional discussion and possible direction prior to the pro-
ject going to another approval body.
San Luis Mall
Mr. Engen indicated that the applicant was willing to apply for a PD which gives
us desirable controls on a project. If the Council rezoned it to CR, we would
see a building permit come in and that's all. There would be no public improve-
, ment benefits as a result of the project.
Commr. DeNeve claimed that the City's planning policies on the San Luis Mall
property are in error. The property is designated retail commercial; one of
the findings was inconsistent with the General PLAN. Reason was we didn't like
the particular occupant of a store. Can we have zoning A/C and call it interim?
Zoning should be consistent with the general plan designation and A/C isn't. We
are skating on thin ice. There never has been an action for entitlement. We
have no standards for A /C; in one space we are using it for open space, another
for agriculture, making a workhorse out of it. It is bordering on fraud.
Edna -Islay Specific Plan
Mr. Engen said this will be before the Planning Commission on a density inter-
pretation on May 9, 1979.
Terrace Hill
Staff is coordinating an EIR for Terrace Hill.
POLICY ISSUES
Consistency between general plans
Regarding South Higuera, staff felt that the land use question had been con-
, sidered. There is a need to recognize inconsistency before plans, because
you wind up in a no -win situation. There is a natural conflict of goals
between certain plan elements; e.g., conservation and housing.
Urban service policy
Mr. Engen said we have had a running battle with Water Control Board. Commr.
Andrews said we have a lack of a definitive agreement regarding the new sewer
plant as to services we would have to extend outside of the city. Before the
CIP is approved, Commr. Andrews said he hoped the Council would have this
agreement as to which areas are to be served. Mr. Engen stated our position
is that we are planning to be a regional entity serving two areas beyond city
limits— .Cal. Poly.and.by the:Airport.. It would be feasible to serve other
specific areas provided they are annexed to the city, subject to the conditions
we have in the General Plan. The local Water Quality Control Board has said
City Council Minutes
May 2, 1979 -'6:00 p.m.
Page 4
we are out of line, but the State hasn't. There are some existing problems
and there may be some corrective measures we can take.
There was discussion regarding zoning designations and consistency with the
general plan, A/C designation which can be a holding device and the fact that
the public should be aware of the conditions of A /C. Councilman Dunin suggested
adding a time designation to A /C; for example, to say that this "property cannot
be developed for five years. Mr. Engen said such areas could be shown as staged
growth areas of the city with criteria outlined in the general plan. Mr.
Thacher said it could be done in a zoning ordinance mechanism context.
Planning Commission composition and duties
Mayor Cooper said this had been discussed at a previous Council meeting where
it was decided to leave the number of members at seven. The Commissioners were
polled and all concurred with leaving it at seven, as there is more diverse
public input than there would be with only five members.
Mayor Cooper advised that due to the lateness of the hour, the.meeting would
be adjourned and the planning priorities agenda item would not be discussed at
this time.
The City Council then adjourned its meeting to May 7; 1979 at 12:10 -p.m., in
the Hearing Room, City Hall, 990 Palm Street.
By: Lillian Armitage, Recording.Secretary
Approved by Council on 7/3/79
itzpatrick, City Clerk
------------------------------------
M I N U T E S
ADJOURNED MEETING OF'THE.CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
MONDAY, May 7, 1979 12:10 P.M..
COUNCIL HEARING ROOM, CITY.HALL, 990 PALM STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO.- CALIFORNIA.
STUDY'SESSION
Roil Call
Councilmembers
PRESENT: Melanie:Billig, Alan.Bond, Ron Dunin, Jeff Jorgensen,
and Mayor Lynn Cooper
ABSENT: None
City Staff
PRESENT: Leland Walton, City Administrative. Officer.;.George.Thacher,
City Attorney; Henry - Engen, Community.Development Director;
Glen Matteson, Assistant Planner; Roger. Neuman, Police Chief.
Others Present
Rich Chubon,.Executive Secretary..of.the Housing Authority;
Ruth Wirshup, member of-the Housing Authority_
X. On motion of Councilman: Jorgensen, seconded.by Councilman Dunin, the
following.resolution was introduced: Resolution No. 3839 (1979 Series), a'
Resolution.of Appreciation expressing the City's. gratitude and appreciation
to Patricia J. Clark for her long and dedicated .services to the City and
its citizens.
1
1