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