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.