HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/09/1980City Council Minutes
December 9, 1980 - 7:00 p.m.
Page 2
Director, reviewed for the City- Cbuncil'the proposal to enlarge the Waste
Water Treatment Plant with grants from the Federal and from the State Govern-
ment. Said consideration starting in the spring of 1975 through the current
date. He reviewed the various changes made to the proposal by the environ-
mental protection agency over these years and further the steps attempted
by the city to answer each change made by either the state or federal agencies.
George Thatcher, City Attorney, submitted for the Citv Council's consideration,
his memorandum of opinion No. 80 -18, dated December 8, 1980, dealing with the
Waste Water Treatment Plant grant. The City Attorney reviewed for the Council's
consideration the general plan and the sewer service plan consistency and its
interpretation as to whether either grant violates the city acceptance of the
plan. He felt that one of the key conflicting service requirements in the
USPA conditions of agencies and the state water quality control board's con-
ditions "agencies, persons, and users differ with respect to those who must be
served ". He felt that if agencies only were required to be served the city
would be in a much better position to administer and control the sewer plant's
service. However, if the state language alone includes persons and users the
plan would be tied to broaden the requirement if the state grant is accepted.
He concluded his comments by informing the Council the staff was attempting
to get a firm determination from the state prior to a Council decision.
The City Council then discussed with David Romero, the Public Service Director,
the various conditions established by the State and Federal Government in the
city's application to receive or grant to help with the construction and improve-
ments to the sewer waste water treatment plant. Particularly, the Council was
disturbed with the wording of condition #9, part 3. "THE GRANTEES SHALL OPERATE
THE TREATMENT WORKS AS A COORDINATED REGIONAL FACILITY PROVIDING SERVICE ON'
A FAIR AND EQUITABLE BASIS AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH GUIDELINES AND REGULATIONS OF
THE STATE BOARD, SPECIFICALLY FOR ALL AGENCIES WITHIN THE SERVICE AREA, DESIG-
NATED IN THE GRANTEE'S PROJECT REPORT ". Henry Engen, Community Development
' Director, stated he reviewed the potential growth problems inherent in the grant
for enlargement of the sewer plant and the city's possible requirement to serve
areas presently outside the city with sewer service. He also reviewed the
growth of the city based on the general plan growth strategies. He felt that
grant's contract provisions violate the general plant conditions for waste water
treatment outside the city, and felt that the county service area could be
formed and the city would then have to serve at their cost of the people using
the service.
Lee Walton, Administrative Officer, submitted a relatively lengthy report
reviewing the entire grant for the waste water treatment plant and how the
city had arrived at the current point. He concluded that it appeared that the
city could well accept the grant, upgrade' the sewer plant to meet federal
quality standards accepting the inherent risks that this action might ultimately
serve to encourage growth in the affected areas around the city, or the city
could reject the plan and face the inevitability of.legal action by the state
water quality control board to force the city to upgrade the plant without
federal grants. Considering the fact that the city was still in exclusive
control over the extension of water service, we can use water service a major
growth regulator. He would recommend that the Council accept this grant to
satisfy the minimum requirements of the clean water act for advance secondary
but not for tertiary treatments. In other words, he felt that the city had
an obligation and a duty to comply with the federal clean water act. Not only
because it's the law but because it is right. And there was little doubt in
his mind that the sewer plant improvement would eventually.be made either
voluntarily or by court order. If the Council felt strongly that acceptance
of the federal grant would seriously jeopardize the city's growth management
program, the alternative would be to finance this work with city funds. Unfor-
tunately, if the city gave up the grant funds to seek other sources of
revenue, the city could not be sure that the grant would still be available if
local funds were not available.
Vice -Mayor Dunin opened the public hearing.
City Council Minutes
December 9, 1980 - 7:00 p.m.
Page 3
GlennaDeane Dovey opposed the acceptance of the grant funds. She felt the
Council was being asked to act too hastily. She felt that many questions had
still not been answered, such as service area outside the city, service
agencies, etc.
Bill Hendricks, Hermosa Way, stated he was opposed to state and federal grants
on principle. He did not feel that standards have been established. He
felt that the city has sufficient funds collected from the sewer service
charges to pay their way. He also felt that accepting grants was wrong as
you give up independence and turn it over to another agency. He does not feel
that the city should accept money that would force them to accept funds from
outside the city.
Allen Settle opposed to the city accepting any grants from the state and feds
and he felt the city would lose control over their operation.
Robert Stern, County Resident, opposed the developing of larger service through
our treatment.plant as the city would lose local control over their waste.
water problems. He was also opposed to the city accepting any grants from
state and federal governments. He concluded there was no way the city could
control waste water from areas now outside the city.
Ginny Allen, Lunetta Drive, objected the fact that this discussion was not
listed on the agenda for tonight's meeting. She was opposed to grants from
state and federal government.
Tom Schumann of Perkins Lane questioned that he felt that Councilman-Bond
has a conflict of interest due to his former employment of people who owned
land outside the city who would benefit if the sewer plant was expanded.
Chuck Baker, property owner, stated he was in support of the sewer plant
expansion in order to comply with state and federal environmental guidelines.
He felt the sewer enlargement was needed for housing development and not
for manufacturing.
Vic Montgomery, city resident, stated he is in support of the city accepting
federal and state grants funds which would guarantee protection of the
environment and San Luis Creek.
Rose McKeen, property owner and resident, supported the sewer plant expansion.
She felt it is needed by the city and hoped that they would clear up the
pollution in San Luis Creek. She normally would oppose grants in principle,
but she accepts this one as the plant is in need of expansion now.
Vice Mayor Dunin declared the public hearing closed.
City Staff Members D.F. Romero, Henry Engen,.and George Thatcher attempted
to answer questions brought to the council during the public input on this
grant question.
Vice Mayor Dunin called recess at 8:40 p.m.
Vice Mayor Dunin reconvened the meeting at 8:55 p.m. All councilmen present,
Moor Lynn R. Cooper absent.
George Thatcher then commented on charges made by Tom Schuman questioning
Councilman Bond's right to take part in this discussion. He stated that upon
his investigation'and interview of both Mr. Bond and Mr. Schuman, he felt ,
that Councilman Bond had no conflict in this matter.
Councilwoman Billig stated she could not support the resolution which would
accept the grant giving the state control over the existing general plan.
She felt the grant condition would violate the city's general plan policies
and other city ordinances, and she felt that the majority of the citizens of
the city support the general plan, and finally, she did not feel that the
planning commission has realized the implication of the general plan conflict
with the grant conditions. She also felt that the city council had adopted a
sewer service plan which has been completely ignored by state and federal
City Council Minutes
December 9, 1980 - 7:00 p.m.
Page 4
grant agencies. She would also not support the grant until both state and
federal conditions for the grants are the same. She also felt the city does
lose some local control but in this case it may be advantageous to clean air
and water.
Councilman Bond stated he, too, was opposed to the city accepting these grants
funds due to conditions attached to those funds. He feels those conditions
were onerous and he would oppose the acceptance of the grant.
Councilman Munger questioned the need for the city to accept these grant funds.
He felt the city should use their own funds. He felt conditions established
here would be difficult to comply with, although he felt that serving the area
outside the city with adequate sewage treatment was good for our citizens,
and would also protect the air and ground water. All in all he would support
the resolution and accept the grant funds.
Vice Mayor Dunin stated he felt that as the present plant is deficient and the
state is requiring that the plant be updated, he felt the city should accept
the grant funds to update the plant. He felt that the city has sufficient
growth controls so that the waste water treatment plant expansion would not
induce growth as other controls are available. He concluded his comments
that the city does not accept the grant funds and that these improvements would
have to be made from other city funds, either by a bond issue or increasing
the sewer service charges for residents in the city. He does not feel a fear of
residential or industrial growth in areas outside the city. He would support
the application for the grant.
Councilman Bond asked could the council ask the state and federal government
to put wording and compliance dealing with grant condition no. 1 that both
read the same?
Lee Walton, Administrative Officer, reported that the state water quality
control board has not officially received the "City Sewer Service Plan" trans-
mittal letter. City Council stated that they were quite disturbed that the
transmittal letter with the city sewer service plan has not been received or
sent to the state Water Quality Control Board.
It was moved by Vice Mayor Dunin that the consideration of the wastewater
treatment plant grant be continued to the December 16, 1980 Council meeting,
to be the first item on the agenda. Vote was lost for lack of a second.
A motion by Councilman Bond, seconded by Councilwoman Billig, that the city
council reject the grant offer due to the state's apparent lack of concern
over the city's sewer service plan. Motion lost in the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Bond and Billig
NOES: Councilmembers Munger and Dunin
ABSENT: Mayor Lynn R. Cooper
A motion by Councilman Munger, seconded by Vice Mayor Dunin, that the city
accept the resolution and accept the grant funds and that condition no. 9
of the grant funds be modified to use the same definition for agencies as
does the federal government. Motion lost on the following vote:
AYES:
Councilmembers
Munger
and
Dunin
NOES:
Councilmembers
Billig
and
Bond
ABSENT: Mayor Lynn R. Cooper
On motion of Councilman Bond, seconded by Councilman Dunin, that the city
council not accept the federal and state grant from EPA and further request
City Council Minutes
December 9, 1980 - 7:00 p.m.
Page S
that the state Water Quality Control Board review the city sewer service
plan prior to further council consideration and ask that wording and state
conditions on "service" be modified to conform with U.S.P.A. wording for
conditions of "service ". Motion carried on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Bond, Dunin, and Billig
NOES: Councilmember Munger '
ABSENT: Mayor Lynn R. Cooper
2. At this time, the City Council continued their public hearing to
consider proposed amendments to the general plan of the city of San Luis
Obispo, continued from the November 25, 1980 Council meeting.
1. On appeal of the Planning Commission denial to request a change
in the general plan land use element, conservation, agriculture to low density
residential and to relocate the urban reserve line, (Rela - 0816).
Henry Engen stated that MDW, representing C.R. and V.J. Maino, have proposed
changes to the city's plan which would lead to low density residential develop-
ment on the lower flanks of the San Luis Mountain, north of the Marsh Street
interchange. After public hearing on October 1, 1980, the Planning Commission
voted 3 - 2 (with 2 absent) to deny the proposal. The commission's action has
been appealed to the City Council. The Planning Commission determined that the
EIR for the commission initiated amendment for this area was adequate for
this application. He continued that the EIR evaluates the amendments once
proposed by the Planning Commission not the ones proposed by the applicant
which covers a larger area with steeper which would establish no prerequisites
for urbanization. While the commission studied proposals required the inter-
mediate step of changing the plan and zoning in conjunction with a specific
development proposal. The applicant's proposed plan change would result in
the larger area being zoned R -1. On behalf of the staff, he recommends that
the application be denied because it is a major map change unrelated to a
statement of development objectives and some of the area proposed for residences
is unsuitable considering the criteria endorsed by the Planning Commission.
If the Council wished to indicate some development potential for this area,
the plans should be amended to 1) relocate the urban reserve line, to follow
the top of the first ravine north of Marsh Street interchange, where slopes
exceed 30% and the 320 ft. elevation westerly to the city limits then the
city limits as indicated in the recommendation for the Madonna property;
2) change the designation of the area within the relocated urban reserve line
from conservation, agriculture to interim agriculture, (requiring a development
plan prior to its eventual change to a low density residential); 3) establish
as a prerequisite for its conversion to urban use prior to development of more
than four residences, to Marsh Street interchange west of the highway to be
reworked to provide adequate safe access.
Tom Maples, MDW, representing property owner, stated that in their appeal to
the Planning Commission's denial, they felt that the Planning Commission had
failed to address policies in the urban land use element which defined how
and where the urban reserve lines should be located. Most of these policies
favor placing much of the property within the urban reserve line; 2) the
urban land use element precludes the provision of city servicing of land outside
of the urban reserve line. As existing land use element, places all of the
Maino property outside the urban reserve line it must be assumed that the Planning
Commission's recommendation that the property be used as open space or as '
agricultural land, and no city services could be extended to even one house or
business on the entire property according to the land use element. Since
the land is not in any sense agriculturally productive, they must assume that
the primary intent of the urban reserve line on the Planning Commission decision
is preserve the entire property as a visual open space amenity for community
benefit. However, this issue or any other related to the city's intentions
for the property are not clearly defined by the Planning Commission; 3) charac-
teristics of the property meet most of the city's criteria for urban land use.
But these criteria were not adequately discussed nor utilized by the Planning
Commission in their decision making.
City Council Minutes
December 9, 1980 - 7:00 p.m.
Page 6
a. Much of the property lies below the water limit line (320 feet).
b. Slopes over large area of the property average 15 percent.
c. Adequate access is available or can be provided to the property
without problems.
d. There is no flood hazard on the property.
e. Noise is not excessive on most of the property.
f. Land fire hazard is low enough to permit development.
g. Much of the property is highly visible from Highway 101 and other
areas of the city.
That the urban reserve line be to the 320 foot elevation line and
that the property be changed to interim agriculture so the property owners
would have some direction from the Council to proceed.
Henry Engen reminded the City Council that the original application from the
property owners before the Planning Commission was to move the urban reserve
land to the 320 foot elevation and the land use to low density residential.
Upon question, Henry Engen explained that "interim agriculture" means that
before any development took place or any zoning was made, the property would
have to submit a master plan for the Council and Planning Commission consideration.
Mike Maino, representing the property owners, explained the conditions under
which his family's property was established during the 1975 General Plan as a
conservation agriculture and that what they would like to see would be to have
this land put back into R -1 1977 with the S designation which will require
a precise plan before any development was approved and all land in the city
would be developed under the complete development regulations of the city.
He added that this land in the city be put in interim agricultural use and
that land outside can be in the conservation agricultural zone.
Assistant City Attorney Jeff Grote stated if the Council approved the appeal
it must be sent back to the Planning Commission for their review, as the item
before the Planning Commission was for one R -1 -S, not interim agriculture which
they must consider.
Paul Allen felt that the Maino parcel was too .beautiful and should not be
allowed to develop. He felt the city should require to stay in open space so
that travellers going through this portion of the city would see this
beautiful landscape.
Allen Settle urged the city to leave the urban reserve line where it is, not
to change it as was a beautiful area and that no one should be allowed to
develop this property.
Russ Johnson stated he objects to the City Council denying the property owners
the right to develop their property unless the city purchased these rights.
Vice Mayor Dunin closed the public hearing.
Henry Engen reminded the City Council that the property is now zoned R -1 S,
CHS and R -4. He stated the issue before the City Council was:
1) To relocate the urban reserve line, and
2) Change the zoning on the land use map to "interim agriculture ".
Councilman Bond stated that he could support the change of the urban reserve
line and leave the zoning as it personally exists R -1 S. He felt that this
designation, the city is protected through the development process.
City Council Minutes
December 9, 1980 - 7:00 p.m.
Page 7
Councilman Munger stated that he agreed with Councilman Bond's comments
and felt the land should be under city standards.
Councilwoman Billig could not support the R -1 S, felt that some development
was proper, but until she sees a master plan, she could not consider any zone
other than the agricultural conservation zone to see that all development
problems have been mitigated.
Councilman Dunin stated he felt that some development should be allowed this
property. He would support changing of the urban reserve line to the 320
elevation but leave the zoning as it is until the development plans are
considered by the city.
On motion of Councilman Dunin, seconded by Councilman Bond, that the City
Council uphold the appeal and change the urban reserve line to the 320 foot
elevation. Motion carried:
AYES: Councilmembers Bond, Dunin, Billig, and Munger
NOES: None
ABSENT: Mayor Lynn Cooper
A motion by Councilman Dunin, seconded by Councilwoman Billig, that the general
plan.land use map be amended to interim agriculture and ask the developer for
a master plan with a specific plan or a plan development approach desired.
Motion lost on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Dunin and Billig
NOES: Councilmembers Bond and Munger
ABSENT: Mayor Lynn Cooper
Councilman Munger stated he could not support the motion as he felt this
property owner had waited too long in trying to get the land designation
straightened out as it is.
Councilman Bond said he could not support the motion, which would require
another property owner to go through another general plan amendment at a later
time, a hearing, etc. He felt that the city has enough roadblocks to developers
in the city without requiring a general plan hearing.
A motion by Councilman Bond, seconded by Councilman Munger, that the City
Council uphold the appeal to R -1 S with a specific plan submitted including a
predevelopment hearing with the Council and Planning Commission. Motion
approved by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers•Bond and Dunin
NOES: Councilmember Billig
ABSENT: Mayor Lynn Cooper
2. GP 0878.. Amend the General Plan land use element from high density
residential to office.
Henry Engen, Community Development Director, stated that this amendment was ,
initiated by the City Council and have treated it as if it were an appeal to
the Planning Commission's denials. The property is located on even side of
Foothill Blvd., between 1025 and 1045. Henry reviewed the problem stating
that the Commission originally recommended to the Council the area be shown on
the land use map as high density residential rather than office. The Council
agreed and amended the plan, and initiated rezoning from PO to R -4. When
considering the rezoning, the Commission voted 3 - 1 to leave the area P0.
The Council, upon hearing
develop offices on part o
the land use element from
the Commission considered
voted 5 - 0, 2 absent, to
residential.
City Council Minutes
December 9, 1980 - 7:00 p.m.
Page 8
a neighboring property owner's desire to possibly
E the area, decided to leave the zoning PO and change
high density residential back to office. When
this most recent planned amendment, the Commission
deny the amendment and keep the area in the city
Vice Mayor Dunin declared the public hearing open.
No one appeared before the City Council for or against the proposed land use
change.
Vice Mayor Dunin declared the public hearing closed.
On motion of Councilwoman Billig, seconded by Vice Mayor Dunin, that the
land use element map be changed to high density residential. Passed and adopted
on the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Billig and Dunin
NOES: Councilmembers "Bond and Munger
ABSENT: Mayor Lynn Cooper
On motion of Councilman Bond, seconded by Councilman Munger, that the area be
zoned to P0. Motion lost on roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Bond and Munger
NOES: Councilmembers Billig and Dunin
ABSENT: Mayor Lynn Cooper
' Therefore, neither motion having received the majority, the area land use map
will stay high density residential.
3. General Plan 0868. An appeal of the Planning Commission denial
requests change to General Plan land use element from high density residential
to tourist /commercial. Also a request from the property owner, Paul Neal,
asks to defer action on this item to a later date due to the illness of his partner
and the fact that he will be out of the city.
On motion of Councilman Bond, seconded by Councilman Dunin, City Council
consider continue consideration of General Plan 0868 amendment to
January 13, 1981.
4. General Plan Amendment 0876. This is an appeal of a Planning
Commission denial of an application to the General Plan to allow new and
larger neighborhood commercial centers, in particular one that the Broad
Street /Orchid Road intersection.
Henry Engen stated that Mary Williams applied for a change in the land use
element which would allow the establishment of a new neighborhood shopping
center. Development of 10 acres rather than 5, and for a map change from service
commercial to light industrial to neighborhood commercial on the site of the
San Luis Brick Co. was previously denied by the Council. After a public
hearing on October 1, 1980, .the Planning Commission voted 5 - 0, 2 absent, to
deny the policy change. Commission voted 4 - 1 with 2 absent to deny the
map change. The applicant has appealed both these decisions to the City Council.
Staff is that the amendment as proposed should be denied as.new neighborhood
centers should not exceed 5 acres, and further, the San Luis Brick C.o. site
is not preferrable to using existing zones. Henry Engen continued that if the
Council wished to open up the possibility of new neighborhood shopping centers,
City Council Minutes
December 9, 1980 - 7:00 p.m.
Page 9
plan amendments to accommodate them should be specific development proposals.
Such proposals need not be presented in architectural detail, but should
include a statement of the area to be occupied by various uses and a general
layout showing points of access. If new centers are allowed, the City could
take another serious look at reducing some of the CN zoning which is now
residences nonconforming service commercial uses or which are vacant. If
the Council desires to change the current policies, it should set a definite
direction and come back with resolutions containing specific wording.
Vice Mayor Dunin called a recess at 10:50 p.m. The City Council reconvened
at 11:00 p.m., all Councilmembers present, Mayor Cooper absent.
Jay R. Whisenant, representing MDW, asked the City Council for a consideration
of this matter as Mr. Merril Williams, who had waited all evening could not
wait any longer and had to get home, and they would like to have a continuance
so that he would be there to defend the matter. The Citv Council denied the
request and ordered the hearing continued as they were prepared to proceed.
Jay Whisenant then stated that the first issue to be considered by the Council
was an amendment to the General Plan text which would allow neighborhood
shopping centers on a 10 acre lot rather than the existing required 5 acres.
He felt the text should be amended with conditions that a master plan or
specific plan be required for all neighborhood shopping center development.
GlennaDeane Dovey stated he is opposed to a change in the General Plan text
to allow neighborhood shopping centers on more than 5 acres. She felt it is
wrong. She also felt that she would oppose the requested land use from
service commercial /light industrial to neighborhood commercial.
Allen Settle stated he is opposed to any change to both text and to land use
designations.
Sandra Gillespie, BIA, was opposed to a text change and the land use desig-
nation which would allow commercial development in the city, which she said
was in direct competition with downtown merchants who might be hurt by this
expansion.
Maxwell Cote, BIA,.stated he was opposed to text change and land use desig-
nation as direct competition to downtown merchants and he felt that 10 acres
is too large and would be too competitive.
Bob Corcoran, BIA Administrative Officer, stated he was opposed to text change
and land use designation change. He felt that additional neighborhood shopping
centers would have a detrimental effect on downtown stores and merchants. He
urged the Council to support the downtown business interests and not allow a
new shopping center.
Russ Johnson, stated he supported the text change and land use designations.
He felt that this development should be an advantage to citizens living in
the area surrounding the location. He also felt that competition would be good
for the downtown merchants, they had had it too easy for too long.
Catherine Anderson, Tanglewood Drive, opposed the text change and land use
designation and would support the downtown merchants.
Jay R. Whisenant, MDW, spoke in support of the change in the land use desig-
nation from service commercial /light industrial to neighborhood commercial.
He stated they were only planning one major market and a major drugstore ,
without a long list of small satellite shops. He stated their studies show that
both the market and drugstore would be used and needed by the public, both in
the area and passing by on Broad Street. He urged the Council to uphold the
appeal, make the text and land use map designation changes.
1
1
City Council Minutes
December 9, 1980 - 7:00 p.m.
Page 10
Rose McKeen, Lora Lane, marked opposed to further development of a shopping
center in this -area of the city. She felt that there were sufficient market
space to serve the public. She urged the Council to deny the appeal.
Vice Mavor Dunin closed the public hearing.
Councilwoman Billig stated she would not support the change in text or the land
use designation. She felt that there are more than enough shopping centers in
the city now. She felt the existing city centers should be forced to intensify
and not scatter them throughout the city.
Councilman Bond would not support either the text change or the land use
designation. He felt the traffic problems were insurmountable. He would
deny the appeal.
Councilman Munger stated he does not feel that this development of this
shopping center would destroy the downtown shopping area. He felt competition
was good for business and he felt that this enterprise was needed by the
residents. He would support the appeal.
Vice Mayor Dunin stated that everything had been said by the Council and /or
the public. A motion by Councilwoman Billig, seconded by Councilman Dunin,
that the City Council deny the appeal on the text change.
AYES: Councilmembers Billig and Dunin
NOES: Councilmembers Bond and Munger
ABSENT: Mayor Cooper
Due to the lateness of the evening, Vice Mayor Dunin stated that items 5, 6,
and 7, and item 3 which was continued, would be heard by the Council at the
Council meeting on January 13, 1981.
There being no further business to come before the Council, Vice Mayor Dunin
adjourned the meeting at 11:45 p.m.
APPROVED BY COUNCIL ON: new
7.
1/20/81 J. Fitzpatrick, City Clerk
MINUTES OF THE
ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
MONDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1980 - 12:10 P.M.
COUNCIL HEARING ROOM, CITY HALL, 990 PALM STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
Roll Call
Councilmembers
Present: Melanie Billig, Gerald Munger, and Mayor Lynn R. Cooper
Absent: Alan Bond, Ron Dunin
City Staff
Present: Lee Walton, Administrative Officer; J.H. Fitzpatrick,
City Clerk; D.F. Romero, Public Services Director;
Wayne Peterson, City Engineer
554 1. The City Council continued their consideration of the development of