Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/07/1980City Council Minutes January 7, 1980 - 7:30 p.m. Page 2 1. The City Council held a public hearing to consider the recommendation of the Planning Commission on a proposal known as "Terrace Hill Development," a planned development subdivision of approximately 40 acres, generally bounded by Ella, Rachel, Fletcher, Bishop Streets and Sierra Way. The City Council considered a recommendation of the Planning Commission in three separate phases: ' A. A public hearing on the final. environmental impact report for the Terrace Hill proposal. B. Public hearing on proposal.to rezone Terrace Hill from R -1 to R -1 -S to R -1 -PD and to consider a preliminary plan to allow 73 (developer had requested 82 units) attached and detached single family condominium units in three cluster areas and 9 lots for houses on approximately 40 acres; Charles French, applicant. C. Consideration of a tentative map for a 13 -lot residential subdivision on approximately 40 acres of Terrace Hil, R -1 -PD zoning pending; Cuesta Valley Properties, applicant. (Continued from December 18, 1979, agenda item no. 7.) Henry Engen, Community Development Director, on Phase I, Environmental Impact Report, stated that the Planning Commission, on a 5:1 vote, recommended the City Council certify the final focused EIR as adequate and prepared in compliance with the city and state EIR guidelines. Phase II, the Planned Development, he stated that the Planning Commission, on a 5:1 vote, recommended the City Council approve the preliminary development plan and rezoning subject to conditions contained in the extract ordinance and pass to print. Phase III, the Tentative Tract Map, he stated that the Planning Commission, ' on a 5:1 vote, recommended the City Council adopt the resolution granting approval of the tentative map for Tract No. 758, subject to findings and conditions in the resolution. Henry Engen concluded that a 604 -A sewer deficiency report was previously submitted to the City Council. -This report identified two segments of sewer line in Islay Street from Santa Rosa to Osos Street and from Chorro to Nimpomo Streets which would serve a portion of this project as operating beyond their theoretical capacity. Actual flow tests of these lines indi- cated that they are not operating beyond their capacity and that this project would not cause overloading of these sewer lines. Following the aborted December 18, 1979 hearing on Terrace Hill, there were several assignments suggested by staff to clarify recommended conditions on the Terrace Hill project. In addition, staff offered several points for clarification. The revised conditions were recommended for Council as follows: Conditions - PD 0644 Ordinance Draft 3. (Page 7 -B -4) Second sentence should be revised to read: "Applicant shall be responsible for controlling erosion on the subject property and shall assume liability for drainage from erosion until such time as homeowners associations assume responsibility and liability." ' Conditions - Tentative Tract Map No. 758 Resolution 10. (Page 7 C -4) Sentence should be added: "A registered soils engineer or geologist shall be available on the site as required to verify conditions as grading progresses to ensure compliance with recommendations in geotechnical analysis." 12. Condition revised to read: "Fletcher Street, between Bushnell and Florence, shall.be improved with curb, gutter and sidewalk adjacent to the development, with City Council Minutes January 7, 1980 - 7:30 p.m. Page 3 32 feet of street paving and an AC berm on the opposite side. Fletcher Street, between Leona Street and Del Campo, shall be improved with full street improvements. Haskin Street shall be improved with 36 feet curb to curb. Bushnell Street, between Fletcher and Haskin Street, shall be fully improved with curb, gutter and sidewalk on the subdivisic side and 32 feet of street paving, with an AC berm on the opposite side. 16. (Page 7 C =5) Revise condition by eliminating last phrase: ' This is an ordinance requirement wherein improvements are included in subdivision agreement and secured by bonds. 17. (Page 7 C -5) Change the map to designate the "proposed park" area to "open space" and amend condition 17, as follows: Subdivider shall grant to the city an open space easement and irrevocable offer of dedication over the area depicted on the tentative map as open space. This easement shall run with the land and shall prohibit without city approval any building, sign, grading and the planting or removal of plantings. The subdivider shall be given partial credit for this dedication of open space in the amount of 25% and shall pay the remaining in =lieu park fees prior to final map approval as determined by the Community Development Director. 18. (Page 7 C -5) Change "park dedication area" to "open space area." 19. (Page 7 C -5) Change sentence as follows: Final map shall dedicate access rights to the city along both sides of Bishop Street extension except for private streets to areas 3 and 4 of approved development plan (PD 0644) and existing lots of record. I 21. Condition added as follows: Subdivider shall install all public improvements and provide all off -site improvements with Phase 1 of this tract. Mayor Cooper declared the public hearing open stating that in the interest of saving time, when a person came forward to speak, they could speak to all three issues. 1. The EIR. 2. The rezoning and plan development. 3. The tentative map. Bob Vesseley, M.D.W., stated that the E.I.R. spoke for itself and had answered all of the objections of the neighbors. He felt that after 30 months on the project, that the proposal before the council now and as recommended by the Planning Commission is more than an adequate answer to all prior objections. He felt that property owner and the property owner's consultants had agreed to all conditions of the Planning Commission, including amendments made by staff this evening. He urged the council to approve the EIR, the zoning, and the tentative map. ' Betty O'Conner, presented a letter from Bert E. Forbes urging that the City Council deny the proposal for the Terrace Hill development. Elizabeth Stockton, Sylvia Court, questioned several determinations on the EIR and the adendum of public comments and responses. Page 30, No. 12, which involved the invoidable and adverse effect that five years of dirt, dust and noise, coupled with prevailing winds, would do to the neighborhood, particularly with the extensive grading activities specified. City Council Minutes January 7, 1980 - 7:30 p.m. Page 4 Page 32, No. 19, stated that the project was implemented with drainage flow through and upon private property. The response in general was that once a storm drain system is constructed, it is dedicated to the city for maintenance. The solution for storm drainage is to replace inadequate storm drains and to have erosion control. This would be'derrived during the cost of project approval. Her question was, who would enforce the mitigating measures and installation of controls during the project's development. Page 34, No. 21, was is there any way to mitigate noise during the construction. The response was that a feasible way of reducing construction noise are: 1) enclosing generators and compressors; 2) keeping hours of work from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., five days a week; and 3) requiring high quality mufflers on all construction equipment. Again, her question was, while mitigating measures are listed, who would enforce this, and when. Page 34, No. 22. She was concerned about transit from the Southern Pacific Railroad right -a -way ... would it be safer to construct a path at the top of the hill in a spot away from the railroad. The answer was no such path is presently proposed as part of the project. She stated she wondered who would police open space to project citizens from attack, etc. Page 34, No. 23. She questioned transportation traffic, tables B, page 52 and D, page 56. She objected to the statement on mitigation as untrue as all residents out of necessity use Augusta Street to go shopping, to go to school and to take part in the recreational facilities. In conclusion, she felt the entire EIR was inadequate as it does not answer questions properly. For example, the water supply not only serves domestic service, but also for fire protection. She felt that this development was poorly conceived and that the history of this developer is a poor one. Elton Simpson, 1253 San Mateo Drive, did not feel that these reports have adequately answered the question of drainage from this development. He listed past problems of mud slides and water in the immediate neighborhood. ' Any development should be minimum, single family developments - not apartments or condominimums. Glenna Dovey, League of Women Voters, stated on behalf of of the League of Women Voters, that the League's position on long -range planning emphasizes high standards of esthetic and environmental quality where development does occur. Vital to the effective implementation of goals within the General Plan is prior consideration of effects of proposed projects on the surrounding area. We are concerned that the City Council maintain an awareness of the cumulative impact for adjacent areas involved when making your decision. The League questioned whether the present proposal resolves the issues of concern as presented by-the neighboring citizens. Ed Sweeney, Sierra Way, felt that this project was a serious one for the surrounding neighbors and he hoped the city would take special steps to protect downstream neighbors from the floods and mud slides of the past few years since the grading started on Terrace Hill. He felt that the proposal would drastically change the neighborhood, and hoped the City would demand good development to protect present residents. Lester Kowalki, Bishop Street, opposed the development due to the lack of suitable traffic controls on Augusta Street. ' Enrico Bongio, 2075 Sierra Way, opposed the development. He felt the EIR was too technical and possibly correct, but it was impractical as all objections were analized. He felt that the density was still too high for the topography of the area. He felt that the plan development was the right approach, but he was afraid enough controls were not being considered to protect the neighborhood. He felt less density would allow less problems. Jess Treanor, 2290 Augusta Street, questioned the need of this project. He felt that this density was too high and that studies by developer and city were inadequate as all problems in questions were not corrected or mitigated. He felt that the drainage problems had not been considered and he gave examples of mud slides down Augusta Street each time it rains. He felt the present proposals for drainage were inadequate and objected to the proposed development if these are not mitigated. City Council Minutes January 7, 1980 - 7:30 p.m. Page 5 Mrs. Smith objected to the EIR. She did not feel that it adequately answered the problems or mitigated them to enhance the area. She was opposed to this development to plan development and it should stay as R -1. Ed Graves, Sylvia Court, did not feel the EIR was adequately mitigated to the topography problems of the hill, nor of the drainage problems of water and mud. He explained past problems with drainage under the wall put in by Utah Construction Company east of Bishop Street extension. He ' also felt the visual impact on the City had not been adequately answered. Don O'Conner, Rich Court, stated many points he wanted to make had been covered by others. In the EIR and response to comments the question of pollution has been treated rather lightly, as has noise pollution and air pollution. He said he was concerned about area 3 as it seems that a good half of the city can see this area quite well. Also, the whole area has had a long history of geologic instability. He urged carful study of the project, particularly problems posed by area 3 and the Bishop Street extension. He felt that the density was too high, that area 3 should be eliminated and that the Bishop Street extension as proposed be eliminated and reduce the density of areas of 1 and 4. Diane Jefferson, C.A.C., reiterated the recommendation of the Citizens' Advisory Committee for the Council to carefully study each facet of this proposal and attempt to mitigate the various objections. Pete Evans, Rachel Street; opposed to the development due to traffic through their residential area. He felt the densities were high. He did not feel the drainage had been adequately handled and would no doubt cost the city taxpayers many dollars in the future to correct these problems. He did not feel the questions had been answered in the EIR. He felt that before approving this development, that the developer should correct the drainage he has already done to the area} He urged the Council.to support the present I neighbors and property owners. At 9:00 p.m. Mayor Cooper declared a recess. At 9:15 p.m. the meeting reconvened. Hazel McNutt, Sierra Way, objected to additional traffic that would be routed to Sierra Way as she felt that Sierra Way could not handle the traffic at the present time due to curves and narrowness. She also objected to construction machinery being started prior to 8:00 a.m. as was done on the original grading of the tract. James Lopes objected to the density.- He felt that the density also included land area being given as open space. But, he felt that the density was too high for the development. He felt that the portions shown as park on the general plan should not be allowed to be counted for density benefits. Mrs. Garcia, 1301 Cecelia Court, agreed that some development should be allowed, but she felt that such problems as drainage, noise and traffic and mud slides must first be corrected. 2360 Bushnell, did not oppose the plan development concept, but objected to the imposition of traffic in that neighborhood. He also felt that noise pollution problems have not been answered. He felt that the density was too high. I Julie Fredericks, Del Campo Way, was very worried about the water and mud from this development on her street. She stated that there have been many problems with drainage in this neighborhood and that the opening up of more ground was not going to solve the problem. Jeanette Campino, 1307 , was opposed to density as she felt this was a poor environment for children and families. She felt that this compact development was poor family environment. She hoped the City Council would preserve this hill for future generations. City Council Minutes January 7, 1980 - 7:30 p.m. Page 6 Andrew Merriam, architect for Charles French, developer, stated that most of the objections and questions brought before the council this evening had been answered and adequately covered in the original project proposal and subsequently by the focused EIR . He stated that he and his staff were very aware of the drainage problems and have adequately corrected them by improvements proposed in the project. He also stated that the density was based on the entire property, including the area shown as park or ' open space. He continued that he has attempted to meet every condition of state and city laws to develop a decent subdivision on this land. He also had attempted to meet as many objections of the neighbors and neighborhood and still have a viable project. He urged that the council find, as did the Planning Commission, that this is a reasonable development for the land. Peter Guy, 1336 Cecilia Court, stated that most people that he has contacted over the weekend, were not opposed to any project but they objected to the size and scope of the project being proposed with no mitigation of traffic problems, drainage problems, etc. Herb Miles, 670 Lincoln Street, felt that the problem before the Council is not only Terrace Hill, but all the hills in the community. If the Council would approve this density, then some development would start on all the hills. He suggested that the City Council put a tax override issue on the next ballot to raise the City taxes on the public, which would allow the City Council to buy the hills and open space for future generations. Sandra Peavy, Chorro Street, urged no development of Terrace Hill. She felt it should be saved for posterity. Mrs Stockton, Sylvia Court, again appeared before the City Council objecting ' to the plan development due to the excessive grading required. Also, she did not feel that this development was in accordance with the city's general plan. She also questioned the proposed Bishop Street extension from Johnson Avenue to Broad Street, which would go through the area being considered for development, a 96 foot wide major street that would carry heavy traffic to Johnson Avenue. She felt that not only should this residential project be studied, but also the specifications for Bishop Street extension as both proposals are intertwined and would effect the surrounding neighborhood. Yet, at no time has a full EIR been prepared on the effect this new project would have on the neighborhood. There being no further public input, Mayor Cooper closed the public hearing at 10:00 p.m. _Dan Smith, Associate Planner, reviewed for the council and answered the objections and questions raised by the public during the public portion of the hearing, such as: a) dust, b) traffic, c) noise, d) open space conditions, e) utilities, (domestic water and fire flows), f) archaeological artifacts, g) drainage, h) erosion, i) compliance with city regulations, j) Bishop Street extension, k) general plan compliance, and 1) grading conditions. Councilman Jorgensen stated he felt the EIR had pointed out to the council the problems presented by the public this evening, and he felt the EIR was adequate and complied with state and city regulations. Councilman Bond agreed that the EIR was adequate. Councilman Dunin stated he could accept the EIR on this project as adequate. Councilwoman Billig also stated that she felt the EIR was adequate. On motion of Councilman Bond, seconded by Councilwoman Billi , the following Resolution was introduced: Resolution No. 4071 (1980 Series), a resolution of the City of San Luis Obispo City Council certifying the projected Environ- mental Impact Report for Tentative Tract Map No. 758 and Planned Development rezoning PD 0644. Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote: City Council Minutes January 7, 1980 - 7:30 p.m. Page 7 AYES: Councilmembers Bond, Billig, Dunin, Jorgensen and Mayor Cooper. NOES: None ABSENT: None City Council discussed Phase II, the rezoning and preliminary plan development. Councilman Dunin felt that the neighborhood would be better off overall , if the project was approved as many of the problems, such as drainage, traffic, etc., would be mitigated by this project. He agreed with some of the comments that the density might be too high for the area, but he felt that it was the city who required the clustering of these developments, not the developer. He would not support the park development but would accept the land for open space only. He would support the rezoning ordinance. Councilwoman Billig stated that she would support the R1 -PD which she felt would protect the neighborhood, but she felt that certain conditions first must be amended: 1. The maximum number of sites would be 76. This density would be reduced by eliminating area 3. 2. Section 2, sub - paragraph ld, having design plans suitable for final approval by the city Architectural Review Commission must be clarified to protect the adjacent properties. The Tract Map must be amended to include area 3 as part of dedicated or open space. Area designated for park should be open space - natural greenbelt.- She felt that whatever is allowed to be developed on this property should be developed with the highest degree of sensitivity. She felt that erosion and drainage are most important commitments. She also urged that each lot prior to building must be the subject of a geological study and be engineered to , satisfy the drainage and erosion of each lot. Area 4 must specifically be controlled on grading and drainage. Special provisions must be made by the city to oversee the grading by full -time inspectors at the time grading is being done. Bishop Street should be reduced to a 24 -26 foot wide, 2 -way traffic, local street, but the city could accept dedication of the required 64 feet for ultimate development sometime in the future but 24 -26" which would satisfy neighbors and to protect the neighborhood's feelings. Councilman Jorgensen stated he agreed in general with Councilwoman Billig's comments. He would support the elimination of area 3 completely. He would support placing area 3 in the open space dedication to the city. He agreed with no Bishop Street construction at this time to the 64' width, but he would support dedication to the city for future development if South Street is ever extended. Further, conditions of approval would be to correct all erosions existing on the property at this time, no run -off onto adjacent properties, conditions established to protect Sierra Way's privacy, visual, landscaping, color and minimum grading in area 4. Councilman Bond stated he supported the plan development and would also support the deletion of area 3 and include this with the open space. He woud support Councilmembers Billig and Jorgensen's amendments in principals. Mayor Cooper stated that he would support the plan development in principal with emphasis on correction of erosion and drainage problems. On motion of Councilman Jorgensen, seconded by Councilman Bond, Ordinance No. 83 (1980 Series), was introduced, an ordinance of the City of San Luis Obispo amending the official zone map of the city to rezone property known as Terrace Hill from R1 and R1 specific plan to R1 plan development modified as follows: 1. Area 3 eliminated. 2. Total number of units to 76. 3. Building design plans suitable for final approval by the city ARC consistent with conditions approved on sub - division for Tract 758. City Council Minutes January 7, 1980 - 7:30 p.m. Page 8 4. Applicant shall be responsible for controlling erosion on the subject property and shall assume liability for damage from erosion. 5. Applicant shall dedicate to the city the area designated on the submitted cite plan as proposed park /open space together with area 3. It is the intent of the City Council to maintain the area as a passive, natural open space area. Ordinance adopted and passed to print on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Jorgensen, Bond, Billig, Dunin and Mayor Cooper. NOES: None ABSENT: None On motion of Councilman Jorgensen, seconded by Councilwoman Billig, a consideration of tentative map for a 13 -lot residential sub - division on approximately 40 acres of Terrace Hill was continued to January 15, 1980. Motion carried. The City Council then discussed with staff guidance what was desired on the Bishop Street extension through the tract. It was general consenus of the council that the city would accept the dedication of 64' minimum street right -of -way, but that improvements would only be placed for local street traffic whatever the normal width would be for a local street. There being no further business to come before the City Council, Mayor Cooper adjourned the meeting at 11:40 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Tuesday, January 15, 1980. ' MINUTES APPROVED BY COUNCIL ON: 3/18/80 . _ Fi zpatrick, City Clerk M I N U T E S ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TUESDAY, JANUARY 15, 1980 - 4:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, 990 PALM STREET Roll Call Councilmembers PRESENT: Melanie Billig, Ron Dunin, Jeff Jorgensen, and Mayor Lynn R. Cooper. ABSENT: Alan Borid City Staff PRESENT: Lee Walton, Chief Administrative Officer; George Thacher, City Attorney; J.H. Fitzpatrick, City Clerk; Henry Engen, Director of Community Development; Rudy Muravez, Director of Finance; Dave Romero, Director of Public Services E -1. An emergency item requested by the downtown Business Improvement Area, notifying the City Council that Director Charles Bove has resigned as a member of the Board of Directors, and has stated that the executive board has recommended that Rick Floyd replace Mr. Bove for the period ending December 30, 1980.