Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/13/1980City Council Minutes May 13, 1980 - 7:30 p.m. Page 1 M I N U T E S ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TUESDAY, MAY 13, 1980 - 7:30 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, 990 PALM STREET ' SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA Pledge Roll Call COUNCILMEMBERS Present: Melanie Billig, Alan Bond, Ron Dunin, Gerald Munger and Mayor Lynn R. Cooper Absent: None Present: George Thacher, City Attorney; J.H. Fitzpatrick, City Clerk; Henry Engen, Community Development Director; Richard Minor, Fire Chief; D.F. Romero, Public Services Director 1. Mayor Cooper announced at this time the City Council would hold a tentative hearing on the development possibilities of a 285 -acre parcel on the south side of Los Osos Valley Road west of the city limits and west of Prefumo Canyon Road known as "Irish Hills Hacienda ". He continued that the meeting would be a general discussion of basic issues affecting the project and of different ways it might be developed. The Council would make no commitments or decision on particular proposals. Henry Engen, Community Development Director, reviewed for the City Council the various alternatives submitted by the developer for the development of this tract. He stated that the owner of the 285 acre property lying between the Bear Valley subdivision and the city limits south of Los Osos Valley Road was asking that the Council discuss development alternatives that may be available if this property were to be annexed to the city. He stated that the proposed residential developments ranged from 46 units (1 unit per 6.2 acres) to 198 units (1 unit per 1.4 acres). He continued that the applicant had made application for a rezoning from U (unclassified) to A -1 -5 (agricultural) to R -PD 5 (rural planned development with a five acre overall density to the County and an EIR was prepared for the project. On April 7 the Board of Supervisors denied the project with the majority feeling that this was an urban land use project and as such it would be most appropriate to consider as an annexation to the City of San Luis Obispo. As proposed, the project would have operated off a package sewer treatment plant with water obtained from wells. Subsequently, the applicant had met with staff and had applied for a concept review hearing before the Council. The developers recognize that no decision could be made on the project but it was their intent to review issues, get concerns of individual councilmembers and listen to public testimony so as to provide appropriate direction for any project that may ensue. He continued that the project had not been routed , to each affected department or agency of the city and no firm application had been made for a specific project. However, there was background with respect to the city's position on the project that was submitted to the County as part of the referral process. The formal Council position on this land area was determined in September, 1979 when the Council, responding to the County's Land Use Element Draft stated as follows: "The area southeast of Bear Valley is beyond the city's urban reserve limit. The city's general plan discourages scattered residential developments in this area." It was the staff's recommendation that the area be designated as rural lands. 1 1 1 City Council Minutes May 13, 1980 - 7:30 P.M. Page 2 After review of discussions and meetings with the County staff and County Planning Commission, Henry Engen continued that the project as proposed contained a cluster of some forty, 20,000 sq. ft. lots off Diablo Drive extended. As originally submitted there had been additional residential cluster closer to Bear Valley which the.County Planning.Commission deleted as being inappropriate due to negative visual impacts. Now, the applicant -had submitted four alternative sketches and a summary of the essential characteristics of each. Henry Engen stated that for the purpose of facilitating discussion, that staff would offer.the following list of issues for Council and public consider- ation: . 1) Appropriate Land Uses: Should the residential units be more similar to those in Bear Valley or those within the city limits? Would a general plan amendment similar to the Ferrini Annexation wherein 50 acres for single family'was designated and 150 acres set aside for a large lot open space easement be appropriate. Also, which building types would be appropriate? All single family, detached buildings or a mixture of single family detached and.clustered units, patio homes or should a maximum land useage be consistent with a 20 -40 acre average lot size. 2. Appropriate intensity of use, The number of- residential units being proposed ranged from Alternate C (46 units-which had been approved by the County Planning Commission) to 198 units in" Alternate A. All of these alternatives would require a water tank for service due to the location,of'the'water service limits. Should the number of units 'provided to allow to expand across the whole site or should the number of units bi allowed to'be close related to existing subdivision tracts in''the city?, If the project was premature, should it be limited to the rural''land proposal as originally suggested, that is, 20- 40'acre parcel size average in' the county. Creation of a clean urban edge was a clear requirement of the General Plan. 3.'. Circulation and Access. Should-'the scale of the project be such as to require widening on;Los Osos Valley Road. Should there be any new access to Los Osos Valley Road. Should the large parcel be permitted to be backing up to Prefumo Canyon Road.with no access. Should the road be generally minimum width; hillside standards. 4. Special restrictions. Should the development site be,subject to special restrictions such as an open space easement requirement on a large parcel or agricultural lots to provide a hard, urban edge to the city which was a General Plan condition for minor annexation. Also Architecutral Review Commission approval for dwelling units and the.view sheds. Specific building envelops on.the larger acreage parcels they had permitted. 5. Utilities. Would the city require any waterlines in Los Osos Valley.Road which would set up a growth inducing trend down the Los Osos Valley. Would sewer service require pump stations which require city maintenance and have..energy- costs. 6. Annexation Policy. If the City Council decided on one of the four alternatives'as appropriate, would it comply with the city's minor annexation policy, i.e., would it meet open space requirement of the city's policy by forming a more permanent edge to the city or a logical city boundary. Would the project improve sewer systems Area. In summary, are there community benefits. These issues for the project to be consistent with the city's General These policies and city filings were required filings b y more in the need to be resolved Plan Annexation Policies. the Planning Commission, and City Council for the Ferrini and Foothill Annexations. City Council Minutes May 13, 1980 - 7:30 p.m. Page 3 Mitch Walker, Planner, representing the.land.owner /developer, briefed for the Council's information four alternatives as mentioned by Henry Engen. Alternate A with 198 total residential units, Alternate B - 113 residential units, Alternate C - 46 residential units and Alternate D - 77 residential units. He reviewed each alternate involving.road..improvements, water service problems, sewer service problems, access, open space, grading and things of this nature. He stated that the alternatives presented to the City Council were alternatives based on studies that were brought out by the project EIR. He then also presented for Council's discussion and consideration, Alternate E. which would place 318 residential units on the property which would include single family type homes, multi - family units and patio -type units. He concluded his comments by stating that the County Planning Commission and staff had approved Alternate C but that it was ultimately turned down by the County Board of Supervisors at the request of the San Luis Obispo Planning Department. Leonard.Blaser, owner /developer, hoped for Council direction and guidance as to how he can put this property to its highest and best use. He also felt that housing was needed in the community and that this development would supply much needed housing depending on the-number of units allowed by the city. The number of units, of course, would set.the cost and the unit per lot density. He felt that in order to make the project viable, density must be considered in order to keep the prices down. The.City Council members then discussed with the property owner /developer and designer various aspects of the five alternates presented for discussion purposes at this meeting. D.F. Romero, Public Services Director,.explained for the-Council, the city's water system .,in..the Los Osos - Laguna ..area..since.its. original . design and future incremental expansion. He then.explained..what steps this .developer must take in order to supply this development with water and to supplement the fire flows in this entire area of the city. He explained that the proposed-tank could be placed behind a small hill on.the development site and therefore'would not be.visible to most of the Los Osos Valley. Finally, he urged the Council, if there was any possibiliiy..of.ever annexing this property -at some future. date,.that it be annexed at this time and developed to city standards so as to avoid the terrible.public. works problems involved in attempting to upgrade improvements which might be installed under county standards. Per Matteson, property owner. in Bear Valley, agreed with the extension of sewer and water along this area of Los Osos Valley Road but felt that Plan E was unacceptable due.to the extreme density. He urged no development on Los Osos Valley Road.and to allow no access to Los -Osos Valley Road:. Don-Smith asked why the city supported the County approval of 47 units on entire property. Leonard Blaser stated that the County development standards did not require curb, gutter.and sidewalk,-widen streets,.underground utilities and its high fire flows. He.said that these were higher standards under the city rules and in order to.pay for improvements to put these in, higher density-was required. Don Smith then.submitted.a.list of questions for the Council's consideration dealing with this development: 1) General Plan policy; 2) sewer and water extension policy; and 3).annexation policy particularly Proposition G. He.urged.the City Council look at all other contemplated annexations in order to set some kind of priority for the people's review and also-a priority on sewer and water extension. Henry,Engen again stated that.-.the Council should.consider the six points brought.up earlier in.the meeting for guidance of the developer and city staff. Councilman Dunin stated that with the little information he had-received this evening, he would hope if the property were to be developed it would 1 1 City Council Minutes May 13, 1980 Page 3 be in the city-and not in.the county so.that the properties could be developed to the-higher city standards. He felt that the densities in Plan B or D would be satisfactory to him. Councilwoman Billig stated she was opposed to.this development. She felt the density was too high, she-felt it was contrary to the General Plan Annexation Policy and that .according to the General Plan there was insufficient water to serve this area. She felt this particular parcel had a low priority for annexation. She felt.the.development.was premature and inappropriate at. this time. She.felt -this land should be kept as open space as a boundary of the city. She would not support any extension of the water main. Councilman Bond stated.he..felt. the development, if-it goes.-should be in the city in.order to.meet city standards. He felt Los Osos Valley Road should be improved. He ,felt he could support Plans A or B but he felt that a vote of the people should be required before it went too far into the development stage. Councilman Munger felt the.property.should be .developed in the city to city standards. He felt he could support Alternate B. He felt the area should be protected tor site distances..:. :He felt. the. open space.•woiuhd; be acceptable as a border line to the city and he felt that additional housing was needed and this might be one way to provide it. Mayor Cooper stated he felt the development was needed, should be in the city and developed to-city standards if its to.be.developed even though he recognized that city development would cost extra. He felt that Alternate B or D were preferred alternate with 68 acre open space for agricultural uses along the boundary..line of Bear Valley tract. He felt that all comments were subject to.the vote -on the annexation by the people. Henry Engen.then.reviewed a, tentative schedule for development.which.would include the annexation starting with amendments to the General Plan, on through to the annexation election and the'follow -up of that action. Leonard Blaser's.final.comment was.that the public would be better served if all urban development were done within the city-limits to city'standard in order to get the highest development standards possible. Mayor Cooper thanked.everyone who participated, felt that much information, had been presented that.had not been submitted prior tol'this time. 2. On motion of..Councilman Bond,. seconded.by Mayor Cooper, the request of La.Fiesta.to close a portion of Palm Street adjacent to'the Veteran's Building on Grand Avenue from Grand Avenue to the Veterans' Building was approved. Motion carried. A:•• Mr. Trevor, representing the City:of Tenby, Wales, Rugby Team . -. presented the Mayor.of San.Luis'Obispo a!:placque.from the Town Council of Tenby and a scroll describing the Town of Tenby as a token of friendship. Mayor Cooper reciprocated by giving Mr: Trevor a City of.San Luis Obispo commemorative coin. There being no further business to come before -.the Council; Mayor Cooper adjourned the meeting to 4:00 p.m., Tuesday, May 20, 1980. APPROVED.BY COUNCIL ON: 6/3/80 Fitzpatrick,-City Clerk