HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/18/1984City Council Minutes
Tuesday, September 18, 1984 - 7:00 p.m.
Page 2
Agency /State'Agreement 405 -5016 was adopted as recommended. Plans for
"Traffic Signal Modification Project on Higuera Street at Pismo and High
Streets," City Plan No. G -07C; estimated to cost $24,000 were approved
(4 -0 -1).
C -4 PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS - EXPOSITION PARK DEVELOPMENT
Plans and specifications for "Exposition Park Development - Lawn Planting
and Irrigation System," City Plan No. J -20Y; bid estimate $64,500, without
contingencies were approved as recommended and staff authorized to advertise
for bids (4 -0 -1).
C =5 AWARD OF CONTRACT - WATERLINE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (84 -13)
Resolution No. 5471 (1984 Series) awarding a contract for "Waterline
Improvement Project in Corralitos Avenue from Andrews to San Luis Drive,"
City Plan No. H -50P; bid estimate $60,332.50, without contingencies; bids
opened on September 6, 1984, to R. Baker, Inc. in the amount of $57,919 was
adopted as recommended (4 -0 -1).
C -6 APPOINTMENT TO THE B.I.A. (File 4472)
Council confirmed the appointment of Char Webster to the Business Improvement
Association Board of Directors to fill an unexpired term expiring 12/31/84
as recommended (4 -0 -1).
C -7 DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS CITY PROPERTY (File #165)
Resolution No. 5472.(1984 Series) declaring damaged city-vehicle 441482
(1982 AMC Concord) as surplus and authorizing its sale was adopted as
recommended (4 -0 -1).
C -8 PROPOSITION 30 - SENIOR CENTER BOND ACT (File 44332)
1 Resolution No. 5473 (1984 Series) supporting Proposition 30 concerning the
Senior Center Bond Act which will appear on the November General Election
Ballot was adopted as recommended (4 -0 -1).
B U S I N E S S I T E M
1. CREEK DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (File 41592)
Council reviewed request for a cantilevered deck over San Luis Obispo Creek
in conjunction with a development project located at 1240 Pismo Street (R -2
zone); Tom Martin, applicant.
Toby Ross, Community Development Director, reviewed the Council agenda
report, stating that the recommended action was to approve a proposed minor
cantilevering of the deck of the main unit and a portion of the second
stor::of apartment over San Luis Obispo Creek.
Mayor Billig requested public testimony.
Tom Martin, 1606 Santa Rosa Street, spoke in support of his project.
Mayor Billig closed the public portion.
On motion of Councilman Griffin, seconded by Councilwoman Dovey, to approve
the deck as recommended by staff (4 -0 -1).
2. SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS (File #533)
Council held a public hearing to consider a resolution determining that
curb, gutter, sidewalk and driveway ramp improvements be required.on
portions of various streets in the city (continued from 8/21/84).
Dave Romero, Public Works Director, reviewed the Council agenda report,
stating that the recommended action was that the Council modify the list in
response to public presentation and adopt the resolution that would determine
City Council Minutes
Tuesday, September 18, 1984 - 7:00 p.m.
Page 3
the necessity for construction of improvements as outlined in the exhibit,
with direction to staff to proceed with those improvements.
Dick Fredricksen, speaking on behalf of his brother, H.J. Fredricksen,
owner of property at 501 -511 Branch Street, and also on behalf of a neighbor,
Francis Irko an 84 year old property owner who was unable to attend this
evening, spoke against the requirement of these improvements as it would
cause an economical hardship, particularly so with his neighbor, and also
that he did not feel that they were necessary in this area.
Steve Saso, 231 Alaco Way, Los Osos and assistant Vice President for '
Mission College Prep, spoke regarding improvements being required for
property at 682 Palm Street (Catholic school area). He agreed with the
requirement by staff for safety reasons. However, as they had not been
informed of this in advance of budgeting for this fiscal year, it would be
a hardship to pay for this portion of the improvements, which in their case
would amount to in excess of $8,000. They would request an extension of
time, hopefully., in the neighborhood of 2 years.
Diane Waddell, 1721 Nipomo Street and speaking on behalf of seven other
property owners in that neighborhood, was most critical of the time element
given to complete improvements, stating that the staff would not commit to
an exact amount as to what these improvements would cost, so that the
property owners were in a poor position to go out to bid. They would
prefer to go to bid putting all seven parcels together. She did not feel
this could be done and still meet the January deadline.
Lyle Porter, Administrator for Mission College Prep., restated the concerns
of budget constraints that Mr. Saso had spoken to earlier and urged for a
time extension.
Mayor Billig declared the public hearing closed.
Dave Romero, Public Works Director, responded to the need for the various
improvements that were being requested, stating that these.improvements
follow a priority list as adopted by the City Council.
Councilman Griffin he did not feel some areas of town actually required
sidewalks, some of the older areas in particular.
Mayor Billig agreed.
Councilman Dunin stated that he had been opposed to the policy to begin
with, and would not be supportive of it this evening either.
Councilwoman Dovey suggested that those areas having incomplete sidewalks
be finished up, however, she would be willing to defer the Mission School
area for a time.
After brief discussion it was moved by Councilman Griffin, seconded by
Mayor Billig, to adopt Resolution No. 5474 (1984 Series) to delete all
properties except 682 Palm Street, with those improvements being deferred
until the Fall of 1985. A task force of Mayor Billig, Councilman Dunin and
Dave Romero would be formed to review the policy and report back by the end
of next year. Resolution adopted (4 -0 -1).
3. UNION OIL FRANCHISE (File X1145)
On motion of Councilwoman Dovey, seconded by Councilman Dunin, the public
hearing for consideration of an ordinance to grant a franchise to the Union
Oil Company (continued from 8/21/84) was continued to date certain
October 2, 1984, at request of Union Oil Company (4 -0 -1).
8:20 p.m., Mayor Billig declared a recess.
8:35 p.m., City Council reconvened, Vice -Mayor Settle absent.
4. TERRACE HILL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (File #410- 926/1034/1064)
Council held public hearings to consider Planning Commission recommendations
City Council Minutes
Tuesday, September 18, 1984 - 7:00 p.m.
Page 4
for adoption of resolutions which would grant 12 -month time extensions to
file the final maps for Tract 926, Tract 1034 and Tract 1064. Tract 926
would create a 27 -unit residential planned development condominium complex
at 2030 -2031 Binns Court. Tract 1034 would create a 40 -unit residential
planned development condominium complex at 2200 Florence Avenue, and Tract
1064 would create a 9 =lot residential subdivision at 1300 Bishop Street;
Cuesta Valley Properties subdividers.
Toby Ross, Community Development Director, reviewed the Council agenda
1 report, stating that the recommended action was for adoption of the 3
resolutions to grant time extensions as recommended.
Mayor Billig declared the public hearing open.
Chuck French, Cuesta Valley Properties, stated that he was available for
questions.
Enrico Bongio; 2075 Sierra Way, urged that this project commence immediately,
and would hope that no further time extensions would be considered.
Mayor Billig declared the public hearing closed.
On motion of-Mayor Billig, seconded -by Councilman Dunin, Resolution Nos.
5475, 5476 and 5477 (1984 Series) be adopted as recommended (4 -0 -1).
5. ZONING REGULATIONS AMENDMENT (C -C ZONE) CR 1167 (File #463)
Council held a public hearing to consider an ordinance which would revise
the Zoning Regulations regarding parking requirements in the Central- Commercial
(C -C) zone.
Toby Ross, Community Development Director, briefly reviewed the Council
agenda report, stating that the recommended action was introduction of the
ordinance which would approve a negative declaration of environmental
impact and would amend the Zoning Regulations to extend by one year the
time within which downtown businesses may meet the parking requirement by
participating in a district, and to allow payment of in -lieu fees to meet
parking requirements, whether or not a district is established. Further,
staff be directed to return with an in -lieu fee proposal.
Mayor Billig declared the public hearing open.
Alan Burkett, 680 Higuera Street, stated he signed an agreement in -lieu of
the 22 parking spaces he needed to provide. He felt it was like a blank
check as far as the City was concerned because the city has been unable to
identify what these requirements will eventually be.
Patrick Gerety, representing the Planning Commission requested clarification
as to the recommended action. He did not remember discussion regarding
comments made under citizen participation in the staff report that the.
Planning Commission said the city should provide additional parking and
that downtown businesses, existing-or new, should not have to pay for it.
He did not feel that that was an accurate statement.
Joseph Silvaggio, 699 Higuera Street, asked that staff work on establishing
a policy not only for parking requirements of new businesses but of any
businesses that would have an effect on parking.
Dennis Moresco, representing the property owner at the corner of Nipomo and
Higuera Streets, felt the parking problem should be shared by all of the
downtown, not by only•a selected few.
Terry Simons, also felt that something should be done in order to alleviate
the need to provide on -site parking. He would be supportive of an assessment
program; or some similar type of policy statement.
Mayor Billig declared the public hearing closed.
Councilwoman Dovey moved the recommended action. Motion failed for lack of
a second.
City Council Minutes
Tuesday, September 18, 1984 - 7:00 p.m.
Page 5
Councilman Griffin felt that the in -lieu
He did agree that something needed to be
partnership effect, he would like to see
fee component might be feasible.
done, but in order to have -a
something more.
After discussion Councilman Griffin made recommendation that the Council
introduce the ordinance to print with an amendment to the ordinance under
item #5 to read: "Participating in an In -lieu Fee Program as may be establi
by the Citv Council: or Pkif ii U411ii W9 ii iH -410ii U i t Hifii
After brief discussion it was moved by Councilwoman Dovey, seconded by Council-
man Griffin, to introduce Ordinance No. 1023 (1984 Series), as amended by
Councilman Griffin, with staff directed to return with an in -lieu fee
proposal. Ordinance introduced to print (4 -0 -1).
6. APPEAL OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW DECISION (File #407)
Upon general consensus the public hearing
and Norma J. Davenport, LeRoy and Beverly
and Robert A. Hotaling, and Warren E. and
tural Review Commission decision granting
apartment complex at 573 Highland Drive w
appellants (4 -0 -1). .
to consider an appeal by Gary M.
A. Hansen, Vicki Carter Hotaling
Mary Eleanor Hansen of an Architec-
final approval of a 7 -unit
as withdrawn as requested by the
7. HILLSIDE PLANNING PROGRAM, PHASE II (File #467)
Council held public hearing to consider Planning Commission recommendations
on amending the Land Use Element map and text and the zoning map to change
the location of the urban reserve line, land use designations, and zoning
boundaries and designations affecting the following hillside study areas
(continued from 8/14/84 and 9/4/84):
A. GP /R 1156 (CR 1157) - STONERIDGE
B. GP /R 1158 (CR 1159) - _MARGARITA STREET AREA
C. GP 1160 IRISH HILLS EXPANSION AREA
Toby Ross, Community Development Director, stated that he would step down
on the first two items in order to avoid a possible conflict of interest.
Councilman Griffin requested that all letters that were sent in after the
agenda close and including this evening be inserted as a part of the record
(record so shows).
Terry Sanville, Principal Planner, took each item separately, giving a
brief slide presentation on each and then giving the recommended action,
both of the Planning Commission as well as staff's.
A. STONERIDGE: the recommended action by the Planning Commission would_
make the boundary between Interim Conservation /Open Space and Conservation -
Open Space south of Lawrence Drive, (Stoneridge II) would be.the.320 ft.
elevation. This is the same as staff's recommendation. All of semi - graded
pad at the west end of Lawrence Drive would be designated low- density
residential, other parts of South Street Hill including land south of
Exposition Park outside the City limits would be designated as Conservation -
Open Space. This was a change from the staff's recommendation which
designated only half of the semi - graded pad adjoining Lawrence Drive as a
low- density housing area. The boundary between Conservation /Open Space and
industrial areas would follow existing zone boundaries west of Exposition
Park, this was also the same as the staff recommendation. The small area
at the south end of Rockview Place outside the city limits would be changed
from medium - density housing to Interim Conservation /Open Space and considered
a minor expansion area. This was also as recommended by staff. No changes
were proposed to the General.Plan text, staff agreed. The COS -40 and R -2 -S
zone boundary west of the Rockview neighborhood would not change. There
would be a minor adjustment to the line to include land in the R -2 -S zone
southwest of the end of Perkins Lane and to the rear of property at 2405
Rockview Place where slopes were less than 15% (staff recommendation the
same). The R -1 zone area west of the end of Lawrence Drive would be
fl
City Council Minutes
Tuesday, September 18, 1984 - 7:00 p.m.
Page 6
reduced. Land both, uphill and downhill from the semi - graded pad would be
rezoned COS -40: The pad would retain its R -1 designation. This differs
with staff's recommendation which would be to retain the R -1 designation
for only the eastern half of the pad area. Other zone boundaries and
designations west of Lawrence Drive neighborhood would not be changed,
staff concurred.
B. MARGARITA STREET AREA: the Planning Commission recommendation placed
the boundary between urban and open space land use designations to be
precisely - established. Beginning at Higuera Street, the boundary would
extend along the end of the proposed office project (north of Dennis
Transfer) along the north edge of Villa Fontana, along the 200 and 225 ft.
elevations east of the city to intersect with a drainage channel, then
southward to intersect with the east end of Prado Road (staff concurs). A
separated housing area would be identified on the upper elevations of South
Street Hill. That area is called the South Hill Saddle, -located approximately
between the 325 and 345 ft. elevations. This would be designated Interim -
Conservation Open Space. This is a change from staff recommendation which
limits future housing areas to land contiguous to the existing Margarita
neighborhood. No changes or additions to the General Plan text, however,
some minor rewording would be needed to be precisely consistent with the
Commission's recommendation to include the South Hill Saddle as a future
housing area. The zone boundaries inside the city would be made coterminous
with the proposed development limit line. No new zoning designation would
be created. City zoning actions would not affect unincorporated areas.
Before any County area was considered for annexation, it would need to be
prezoned. This would follow the adoption of the Margarita Area Specific
Plan and be• consistent with the,plan (staff - concurs).
Mayor Billig declared the public hearing open.
David Slade, 303 Lawrence Drive-, was not supportive of having the additional
area segregated. He felt this was viable housing'area and would prefer to
see a loop with Lawrence Drive: He is the property owner closest to this
development or where the proposed development would be, and would, therefore,
be the most affected and..he would urge Council's retention of the R -1 zone.
Roger Lyon,'1104 Palm Street and attorney representing Mr. & Mrs. Stone,
hand delivered a letter dated September 17; 1984 for the record as follows:
"This office represents Ellwood M: Stone and Frances B. Stone.
Mr. and Mrs. Stone jointly own'two separate -parcels.at the West
end of Lawrence Drive shown in red on Attachment A (a portion of
Lot 8 and all of Lot 9 of the.Caudill Tract). In addition, Mrs.
Stone separately owns an.adjacent.third parcel measuring 150' x
50' which is outlined in blue-on Attachment A. These three
parcels together consist.of. approximately 3.5 acres and will be
referred to collectively in this letter as 'the property.'
The Stones have owned the property for approximately 18 years.
During this entire time (and for decades before that) the property
has been zoned R -1 (low density residential). The property is
wholly within the City limits and Urban Reserve Lines the western
and southerly property boundaries being on the city limit line.
My clients object to the proposal to change the current zoning
and General Plan and request that the current R -1 zoning and low
density residential General Plan designation be left intact. The
staff proposal would rezone the entire area of Mrs. Stone's
separate .'parcel, as well- as the entire area.of Parcel 9, as
permanent conservation /open space. Under the staff recommended
General-Plan, both of these separate parcels would be entirely
outside the City's urban reserve and development limit line. In
addition, the majority of Lot 8 is also proposed for rezoning to
open space-and would be - outside the City's development limit
line.
The effect-of both.the Planning Commission and staff recommenda-
tions on this.property would-be to leave.no economically viable
use.for the property. Even assuming that the city recognized
City Council Minutes
Tuesday, September 18, 1984 - 7:00.p.m.
Page 7
Mrs. Stone's separate parcel and Parcel 9 as legal nonconforming
lots, and allowed one house on each such parcel, and allowed R -1
density on the small bench area of Parcel 8, it is submitted that
the off -site and on -site improvement costs imposed by City
requirements would most likely exceed the vastly reduced market
value of the parcels to a point where there would be no economically
viable use remaining for the entire property. The cost for
extending such services would be prohibitive for such a low
density, large lot development where the City, most likely, would
require the same on -site and off -site type of improvements as
would be required of a normal R -1 density.development.
While my clients agree with the Planning Commission's recommendation
to leave the entire "bench" area in R -1,. we have difficulty in
finding any factual basis for either the staff recommendation or
Planning Commission recommendation to rezone the entire.area _.
below the "bench" as open space. The following.is a discussion.
of the staff report pertaining to the.property, particularly the
area below the bench and an analysis of how other land in the
immediate vicinity is being treated in an inconsistent manner:
THERE IS NO FACTUAL BASIS FOR THE RECOMMENDATION
FOR OPEN SPACE BELOW THE BENCH
The only basis articulated by staff for rezoning the area below
the bench is stated at page 50 of the Staff Report:
'Building houses on sloping areas below the graded
pad...would have a significant visual effect and could
effect slope stability.'
Staff presents no evidence whatsoever for the conclusion that
building houses below the bench could affect slope stability.
The area below the bench is less that 20% cross slope and the
natural slope flows gently to the property line where it blends
into the property currently being developed at R -1 densities by ..
Gann Investments. The 1982 Hillside Planning Maps prepared by
staff do not designate any of the Stone property as being a
'landslide risk.' The mitigation measures recommended in the
staff report would require submittal of an engineering soils and
geology study prior to subdivision or development of housing.
With no evidence of soil instability before the Council and the
inclusion of the above mitigation measures, there is.no basis
whatsoever for affirmatively downzoning the property based upon
totally unsubstantiated statements concerning soil stability.
Absent such evidence, analysis concerning slope stability is more
appropriately deferred until specific subdivision and /or development
review.
This leaves visual effect as the sole stated basis for the staff
recommendation for open space below the bench. Again, there.is
no factual support for the conclusion that building houses below
the bench would have a 'significant visual effect.' The only
references in the staff report to potential visual impact from
building houses in the area below the bench is that it 'would
have a'significant visual effect' (page 50) and in the Supplementary
Environmental Review Section, prepared after the Planning Commission
hearing, where it is stated:
'There may be minor concerns for 'overlook' problems
but the proposed open space between the potential home
sites and the Gann development to the north should
provide a sufficient buffer.'
My clients are distressed that the sole stated visual impact
rationale is the minor concern for 'overlook' problems.. Are the
Stones, who have owned their R -1 property for over 18 years,
expected to dedicate the majority of their property to open space
to protect against 'overlook' onto the Gann development? Was the
same 'overlook' concern expressed when the Gann subdivision was
City Council Minutes
Tuesday, September 18, 1984 - 7:00 p.m.
Page 8
approved with no requirement of an open space dedication on the
Gann property below the stone property? It is ironic that the
very lots in the Gann development which are being proposed for
protection from 'overlook' by this rezoning, are themselves being
advertised as 'spectacular view lots' which in turn overlook the
other lots in the same development! In addition, there is no
mention in the staff report that there is already a 30' buffer
between the Gann project and the Stone property, being the street
right -of -way providing access to the northerly portion of the
Stone property. This buffer is marked in yellow on Attachment A.
A brief review of what is currently being constructed, as well as
what is being proposed, in the immediate area is also in order.
The Stoneridge I development is now proceeding with construction
of numerous R -1 density residential units on a ridge directly
'overlooking' the long existing Lawrence.Drive neighborhood.
However, there is no 30' buffer, as there is on the Stone property,
between the Stoneridge I development and the long existing
Lawrence Drive residences. Regarding visibility, the approved_
Stoneridge I development is at a higher elevation than the area
of the Stone property below the bench now proposed for open
space.
The Stoneridge II property is; unlike my clients' property,
outside the City limits. However, it is proposed in the Hillside
Plan to be included inside the City's urban reserve and development
line. It is located in very close proximity to my clients'
property and would allow ultimate development to an elevation of
325', which is 20' higher than the bench on the Stone property
and.substantially higher in elevation that the area below the
bench.
on-still another project in the immediate vicinity, construction
is now proceeding on a 20 -unit medium density (R -2) residential
development on Rockview Place at an elevation of 275', again
higher in elevation than the area located below the bench on the
stone property.
There is also a significant inconsistency in the staff's previous
visual impact analysis and its current characterization of the
area below the bench as having.a 'significant visual effect.' No
reference is made in the staff report to the 1982 Hillside
Planning Study Scenic Value Maps. These maps were prepared by
your staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission and your
Council. The maps rate all Hillside Planning areas and subareas
as having 'Low,' 'Moderate,' or 'High' scenic value. Sheet #21
designates the Stoneridge Planning Area, including the entire
Stone property, as having a "Low' scenic value. To cover all the
bases, the current staff report indicates that the entire Stoneridge
planning area has a 'Moderate' scenic value! (Staff Report, page
44.)
There does not appear to be any factual support based upon.visual
impacts for the drastic downzoning proposal below the bench on
the stone property. With development, as recommended by the
Planning Commission, allowed on the bench, there will be development
east, south and north of the area below the bench. Thus, designation
of the area below the bench as open space would result in that
area being a small packet of open space or park land surrounded
' almost entirely by residential development. The only area that
would not force a complete envelopment of the area below the
bench would be the area to the west which is outside the City
limits and beyond the City's zoning jurisdiction.
THERE ARE NO OTHER DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS
JUSTIFYING DOWNZONING FROM R -1
The Hillside Planning Study considers some other development
factors, none of which is identified as a constraint on development
of the Stone property:
City Council Minutes
Tuesday, September 18, 1984 - 7:00 p.m.
Page 9
1. Water Service: The bench area and that below.the bench are
within acceptable water service elevations and therefore water
services are not a constraint to R -1 development. The Stones,
when they constructed their residence adjoining the property now
in question, were required to pay for installation of waterlines
to the end of Lawrence Drive of adequate size to service not only
their residence, but also R -1 density development on the site of
the property now proposed for downzoning.
2. Fire Response: The staff report indicates the site is within
the required four minute fire response time. (Page 44.)
3. Wildland Fire Hazard: The staff report (page 44) indicates
the entire area is rated "Moderate" regarding wildland fire.
hazard. However, this is inconsistent with staff's wildland fire
hazard maps which show the entire site as having a "Low" wildland
fire hazard.
The Minutes of the June 27, 1984, Planning Commission meeting
state that there was a "consensus" to allow R -1 zoning to remain
just in the area of the "bench." 'However', this should be clarified
to reflect that this was a narrowly split vote, with the minority
voters on the Commission seeking to also retain the area below
the bench as R -1. It should also be noted that at the.Planning
Commission, there was no motion entertained to support the staff
recommendation.
The Council is respectfully requested to retain the R -1 zoning
for the property, with the exception of the rock outcropping
above the bench which my clients agree should not be developed.
The City has sufficient development review at the subdivision and
building stages to ensure that any development will be sensitive
to both the needs of the public and to the property owner. The
property owners and I will be at your Council meeting to answer
any questions your Council or staff may have."
In addition to this letter, Mr. Lyon made additional.comments (please see
tape for this date).
T. Keith Gurnee, representing John King owner -of 160 acres of that area
know as Stoneridge II, requested that Council support the plan as his
client had proposed: 1) that the Stoneridge II area be designated single
family residential in that it is a minor annexation and to require a
general plan amendment again over and above the prezoning and annexation
requirement; 2) would ask that the development limit line reflect the
Planning Commission's action showing it at the base of the foothills as
well as encompassing the saddle area; 3) approve the notion of transferring
development rights to allow the South Hill Saddle to be used and; 4) give
some credit in the parks -in -lieu program or massive dedications of open
space which currently derive no credit under the program and.consider
either bonuses or park -in -lieu fees.
Richard Stephens, 309 Lawrence Drive, stated.he had not received notification,
however, he would urge Council be supportive of the.Stone property being
left R -1.
Roy Hanff, 569 Lawrence, spoke in support of R -1 for this area,.however, he
was not supportive of any property being made.available for massive dedication
of open space.
Terry Simons, representing the Damon /Garcia family (Brudelle Ranch), spoke
in support of placing flatter portions of the Ranch within the proposed
development limit line. He showed several slides of the subject property
in an effort to show that this property, although part of the Hillside
Planning Program, was certainly not hillside in characteristics, and
should, therefore, not be included.
Clell Welchell, 2885 South Higuera, was concerned with the .property located
north of the Dennis Transfer warehouse. He feels that at this point it is
creating an eyesore, should be developed, in that it is currently a grounds
1
J
�u
City Council Minutes
Tuesday, September 18, 1984 - 7:00 p.m.'
Page 10
for dumping of trash. He would not be supportive of it as conservation /open
space, and would urge.Council against that.
Linda Johnson, representing the Stimson property at a previous hillside
hearing would add to those comments that many of these hillsides are brown
most of the time, not green. She felt that many of these areas would be
greatly enhanced with development as landscaping would be required as a
part of any development. She would like to see some justice given to the
rights of the property owners.
Mayor Billig declared the public hearing closed.
10:35 p.m. Mayor Billig declared a recess.
10:50 p.m. City Council reconvened, Vice- Mayor.Settle absent.
After discussion Council took each area separately reaching consensus as
follows: Area Vs 4.& 5, the boundary between the urban and open space
land use designation failed on a 2 -2 vote. With regard to a separated
housing area being identified on the upper elevation of South Street Hill,
Councilman Dunin would be supportive of this as being a minor expansion
area: Councilman Griffin supported staff recommendation. This also failed
to go forward on a 3 -1 consensus.
Mayor Billig declared the public hearing open.
Alva Duvall submitted a letter for the record as follows:
"With regard to the Irish Hills Expansion (G.P. 1160) in response
to the notice received, requesting our comments we respond as
follows:
1. We agree to be included in the City (urban line)
2. We are opposes to line adjustment, which would deprive us of
' that property, which we now own. We like the line where it is
set by title and ownership. Any adjustment along the back of our
property, without compensation to us we oppose."
Rob Strong spoke in support of not excluding the 30 acres as shown on the
current General Plan Map.
John Guillard, Adobe Realty representing Mr. DuVall's property interest,
stated there were several reasons why this should also be included as a
part of the Hillside Program. He stated that in 1967 a study showed that
250 homes could be developed in this area, that water was sufficient, and
fire was not a real hazard.
IRISH HILLS EXPANSION AREA
Terry Sanville, Principal Planner, again gave a slide presentation and
showed Planning Commission recommendations, including staff recommendations
as follows: The urban reserve line would extend southward along the 150
ft. elevation and then connect with Calle Joaquin in the existing Urban
Reserve Line on the south: The precise location of this connection was not
specified by the Planning Commission. No recommendation was made for
changing the boundaries of the Irish Hills Expansion Area or changing the
land use designation for areas between the expansion area and the newly
proposed Urban Reserve Line. This differed from staff's recommendation
since additional territory would be included within.the Urban Reserve Line
south of the Irish Hills Expansion Area. Also, including land within the
"U" or "L" permanent open space is different strategy recommended by the
Hillside Planning Program. Neither Planning Commission nor staff was
proposing additions to the General Plan text. There was supplementary
environmental review that the Planning Commission recommended inclusion of
an additional area south of the Irish.Hills Expansion Area because of it's
similar slope characteristics being flat and because flooding is not a
sufficient reason for exclusion. Planning Commission felt that the area
south of the Irish Hills Expansion Area had some future urban potential and
should not be excluded from the possibility of future annexation and
development. If the Council decided to support Planning Commission's
recommendation, a policy could be included within the land use element text
which specifies the city's intent with this area.
Mayor Billig declared the public hearing open.
Alva Duvall submitted a letter for the record as follows:
"With regard to the Irish Hills Expansion (G.P. 1160) in response
to the notice received, requesting our comments we respond as
follows:
1. We agree to be included in the City (urban line)
2. We are opposes to line adjustment, which would deprive us of
' that property, which we now own. We like the line where it is
set by title and ownership. Any adjustment along the back of our
property, without compensation to us we oppose."
Rob Strong spoke in support of not excluding the 30 acres as shown on the
current General Plan Map.
John Guillard, Adobe Realty representing Mr. DuVall's property interest,
stated there were several reasons why this should also be included as a
part of the Hillside Program. He stated that in 1967 a study showed that
250 homes could be developed in this area, that water was sufficient, and
fire was not a real hazard.
City Council Minutes
Tuesday, September 18, 1984 - 7:00 p.m:
Page 11
Terry Simons stated that he would like to see that.the Council strive for
consistency between the recommendations of this with those areas previously
reviewed.
Mayor Billig declared the public hearing closed.
After brief discussion and upon Council consensus, Council again was unable
to go forward with the Planning Commission's recommendation on a 2 -2 vote.
9:55 p.m. petition received from Ellwood and Francis Stone signed by 26
individuals (see file X1467).
8. NOISE REGULATIONS (File #738)
Council reviewed a draft ordinance that would develop new alternatives to
control unnecessary noise.
Don Englert, Police�Captain representing the Police Dept., gave a brief
report..
Steve Seybold, Crime Prevention Officer, then reviewed the ordinance in its
entirety, including the recommendation that after review Council suggest
any amendments or enhancements with direction to staff to return with a
final draft ordinance for introduction of its passage at the next Council
meeting.
Councilman Griffin stated that he would like to see more of a policy as a
part'of this ordinance rather than just the effectuation of additional
regulations without a policy in place. He would be interested in-a program
which would be more preventative, in an effort to educate the public. He
would like to have staff make recommendation for an overall program or
policy to include implementation and an educational program for the noise
ordinance regulations.
Councilwoman Dovey reviewed various sections where she had minor amendments
to make.
After Council's review, this item was continued to October 2, 1984 for
additional review by Council (4 -0 -1).
C O M M U N I C A T I O N S
C -1 Council requested to submit any additional comments on League resolutions
to the Mayor.
C -2 Mayor Billig confirmed that 450 additional inmates would be housed at
the CMC.
C -3 The Mozarteum Orchestra is confirmed for March 16, 1985. Music and
Arts Youth Group may participate in fund raising activities. Mayor will be
meeting with the Mozart Festival Association on Thursday concerning the
extent of their involvement with report back to Councilmon the progress.
12:45 a.m. City Council convened in closed session. 1:20 a.m. City Council
reconvened in open session, Councilman Settle absent.
There being no further business to come before the City Council, Mayor
Billig adjourned the meeting to.Monday, October 1, 1984 at 12:00 p.m.
Tela Voges ity 6lerk
APPROVED BY COUNCIL: 12/4/84
1
1
r
L