HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/19/1971MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
July 19, 1971 - 7:00 P.M.
City Hall .
Pledge
Roll Call
Present: Emmons Blake, John C. Brown, Myron Graham,
T. Keith Gurnee
Absent: Kenneth E. Schwartz
City Staff
Present: R. D. Young, Planning Director; J. H. Fitzpatrick,
City Clerk; W. Flory, Park and Recreation
Supervisor;.H. Johnson, City Attorney; R. D. Miller,
Administrative Officer; E. L. Rodgers, Police Chief;
L. Schlobohm, Fire Chief; E. P. Thompson, Water
Department Director; R. Vosburgh, Senior
Engineering Assistant.
C -1. The City Council authorized payment of claims against the City sub-
ject to the approval of the Administrative Officer.
C -2. The City Council approved the minutes of the following meetings:
June 9, 10, 11, 14, 16, 21 (noon) and 21 (evening), 1971.
' C -3. The City reported orted bids were received for the Center Street
P
Culvert, City Plan 15 -71. (Bids opened July 16, 1971 at 1:30 P.M.)
At the request of Councilman Gurnee, the consideration of the bids was
continued to later in the meeting as there was another item involving the
creeks on the agenda.
C -4. The City Clerk reported the.following bids were received for the
Sewer Siphon Project, City Plan 16 -71. (Bids opened July 16, 1971 at
2:00 P. M.)
Wesley G. Watkins
$22,174.00
Paso Robles
Madonna Construction
$27,150.00
San Luis Obispo
R. Burke Corporation
$29,900.00
San Luis Obispo
West Coast Construction
$480350.00
San Luis Obispo
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE $21,150.00
The City Council accepted the low bid from W. G. Watkins.
C -5. The City Clerk reported the following bids were received for the
Ramona Drive Sewerline, City Plan 17 -71. (Bids opened July 16, 1971 at
2:30 P. M.)
Fred Julien & Assoc'. $ 8,246.60
San Luis Obispo
W. M. Lyles Co. $ 97262.81
San Luis Obispo
City Council Minutes
July 19, 1971
Page 2
West Coast Construction
San Luis Obispo
Jamieson Construction
Santa Maria
Wesley G. Watkins
Paso Robles
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE
$13,260.45
$14,761.80
$15,818.00
$ 6,925.00
The City Council accepted the low bid from Fred Julien $ Associates.
C -6. The Council continued discussion of a communication from
James D. Gates, County Health Department, regarding the regulation of open
burning. The City Clerk was asked to invite Dr. Gates to meet with the
City Council at some future date to discuss the open burning policy
adopted.by the County Air Pollution Control District.
C -7. The City Council approved the following salary step increases
effective August 1, 1971:
Mary Belle Caselman - Stenographer
From Step 2 or $538 to Step 3 or $574
Kenneth G. Kelly - Maintenance Man II
From Step 4 or $674 to Step 5 or $712
Kathleen Michel - Stenographer
From Step 2 or $538 to Step 3 or $574
James W. Ritterbush - Fireman
From Step 1 or $692 to Step 2 or $734
Louis J. Schwiebert II - Police Officer
From Step 1 or $734 to Step 2 or $776'
C -8. R. D. Miller, Administrative Officer, announced the appointment
of Edward R. Martin as Police Officer, effective July 16, 1.971 at Step 1
or $734 per month, subject to a probationary period of one year.
C -9. R. D. Miller, Administrative Officer, announced the appointment
of Steven Dunlap as Groundskeeper effective July 16, 1971 at Step 1 or
$558 per month for a probationary period of one year.
On motion of Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Graham, the consent
items were approved as indicated. Motion carried.
Item A. Helen Baumberger appeared before the City Council requesting
clarification of the use by the City of her property adjacent to Santa
Rosa Park, formerly under lease with the former owner of her property,
but for which she had not received any payment since acquisition by her.
She felt that even though the City.had removed the fence, the:property
was still being used by the City and certain improvements such as the
water fountain and the children's play equipment were still on the
property. She asked that the -lease payments of $1.00 per month be paid
her from the time she acquired the property until 1969 when she asked
the City to remove their fence and that from 1969 to the present, that
she be granted some relief from the City and County taxes on the property
used by the City either by direct payment or by refund to her.
1
�l
1
City Council Minutes
July 19, 1971
Page 3
H. Johnson, City Attorney, stated that when first contacted by Mrs. Baumberger
in 1969, he had contacted her attorney asking that he send the City a written
proposal as to what Mrs. Baumberger wanted from the City in the.way of a
lease for the use of this property. .
Mrs. Baumberger stated that in 1969, she asked that the City move the fence
back from her property to the property line but that the City removed
the fence entirely and now the property is open to anyone who wishes to
use it. She continued that if the City did not wish to lease the property
or use it, that they remove the water fountain and play equipment from
her property and place a boundary fence between both properties.
W. Flory, Park and Recreati.on Director, stated that the City did maintain
a portion 'of the Baumberger property at.this time and that the Park and
Recreation Commission recommended that the City renew the lease for this
small portion of the Baumberger property so that 'it could be used legally.
Mayor Pro -Tem Blake suggested that Mrs. Baumberger submit a letter to the
City Council as to what her demands were for the City to use the property
and what past payment she expected to date.
Mrs. Baumberger suggested that the matter had been discussed with the City
Attorney and she felt he was aware.of her demands and she felt that he
should prepare the proper documents.
On motion of. Councilman.Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Brown, the matter
was referred to the City Attorney to prepare a lease document for the
property adjacent to Santa Rosa Park from the time purchased by the
Baumbergers. Motion carried.
r
1. Councilman Gurnee nominated Leon Osteyee for a four -year term on the
City Housing Authority effective August 1, 1971. Councilman Brown seconded
the nomination. The Council approved the appointment of Mr. Osteyee for
a term ending August 1, 1975.
2A. The Council received a letter of resignation from Robert Newhart as
member and chairman of the Citizens' Advisory Committee due to his temporary
employment by the City Planning Department and a.City policy.which prohibits
City employees from serving on advisory bodies.
Councilman Gurnee felt it was a shame that Robert Newhart was required to
resign from the Citizens' Advisory Committee at this time as under his
leadership, the Advisory Committee was beginning to get some work done for
the City and under his leadership the attendance at the Committee meetings
was also picking up. He hoped that the City Attorney could look into this
matter and make an exception as far as temporary employment was concerned.
On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Brown, the resig-
nation was deferred until the City Attorney could review the requirements
with the HUD Agency. Motion carried.
2B. . The City Council received a letter of resignation from Lewis Cryer,
1 newly appointed member of the Park and Recreation.Commission, due to a
new position.which required hi.s leaving San Luis.Obispo.
On motion of Councilman Graham, seconded by Councilman Gurnee, the resig-
nation was accepted with regret. Motion carried.
The matter of the vacancy was-referred to the Council subcommittee for the
Park and Recreation Commission.
I
City Council Minutes
July 19, 1971
Page 4
3. The Council received a communication from Miss Henrietta Peterson
offering to convey a portion of her property to the City for street
widening on Johnson Avenue west of Pacific Street under the same con-
ditions granted her neighbor to the west. She stated she would grant
the property subject to the City moving the curb, gutter and sidewalk
and replacing the parking strip trees and reconnection of any and all
utilities affected by the widening.
R. Vosburgh, Senior Engineering Assistant, presented to the City Council
the scope of the proposal of Miss Peterson and explained what improve-
ments would be placed under this proposal.
On motion of Councilman Blake, seconded by Councilman Gurnee, the pro-
posal was continued to the.August 2, 1971 meeting for the preparation
of cost estimates for land acquisition and the cost of placing the
improvemtns. Motion carried.
4. Councilman Gurnee presented to the City Council, a report based on
his research and findings on the San Luis Obispo County implementation of
the Land Conservation Act of 1966.
Councilman Gurnee presented a definition of the Act, the object and in-
tention of the Act and the implementatt.on of the Act by the County of
San Luis Obispo and described the strength and weaknesses of the act.
He then presented eight recommendations for the Council's consideration
to implement and strengthen the open space and preserve policies in
San Luis Obispo County.
Councilman Gurnee made the following concuusions:
"We must encourage the preservation of open space as an element necessary
to human welfare and happiness, and to prevent the conversion of such
open space to more intensive uses as a result of economic pressure caused
by the assessment of land at a rate or level incompatible with the prac-
tical use of such land for farming or even open space.
The credibility of the Act is in serious jeopardy.. This Act must succeed
for the sake of the land and the people. A new breath of Life, initiated
by urban and conservation concerns, is its only hope. It is our duty as
a City Council representing the largest City in the County to assert our
views, whatever they may be."
Mayor Pro -Tem Blake and the entire Council thanked Councilman Gurnee for
his excellent report and his conclusions. He hoped that the report.would
be made available to other Agencies as it was an excellent analysis of
the Act and its implementation by the County of San Luis Obispo.
The Council felt that before the conclusions could be met, the City of
San Luis Obispo must get the support of the other cities in San Luis
Obispo County.
On motion of Mayor Pro -Tem Blake, seconded by Councilman Brown, that a
copy of the Gurnee Open Space Report be sent to each City Council in the
County for their information and that Mayor Schwartz.should be asked to
include this for discussion at a future meeting of the Mayors' Associ-
ation and also that copies.should-be sent to the County Board of..
Supervisors and the County Planning Commission. Motion carried.
5. Communication from Robert L. Swett, architect for remodeling of the
Fire Station #1, answering the items found in the plan check to be not
in conformance with existing City codes and /or. policies.
1
�J
F�
City Council Mintues
July 19, 1971
Page 5
Mr. Swett answered each item of the plan check document stating what would
be done to comply with each recommendation.
J. Kellerman, Chief Building Inspector, reported to the City Council that
the Fire Station remodeling.was considered a separate use for dormitory,
working, eating,' fuel storage, etc, and.this was the reason for the three-
' hour separation required in the main station.
L. Schlobohm, Fire Chief, stated that he felt this was a special purpose
building manned and operated by specially trained personnel and that the
three -hour separation was not needed as what was needed was rapid access
from the dormitory area to the equipment floor for emergency call out.
The City Council discussed the comments of the Building Inspector and the
Fire Chief and felt that this was a special purpose facility and should
be considered for. its basic use which was the storage of fire fighting
equipment and the necessary personnel to man it.
On motion of Councilman Graham, seconded by Councilman Gurnee, that the
City Council determine that a one -hour wall separation was all that was
needed in this instance based on the type of facility and the use in-
volved. Motion carried.
6. James Duenow, Attorney representing the San Luis Obispo Police Officers'
Association, appeared before the City Council on behalf of the Association
regarding the matter of the current negotiations for police officers'
salary and fringe benefits which have not been resolved. He presented
several questions which had not been answered.
First, the Police Officers' Association wished clarification of Section 8
' of the City's employer - employee relations resolution regarding specific
written notice of any act taken by the City Council affecting salaries or
conditions of employment. Secondly, with regard to negotiations, the
Association felt that little had been resolved to date.
Mr. Duenow continued that the Police Officers' Association did not feel it
had received proper notification that the City Council was to take action
on police officers' salaries and working conditions at the June 21, 1971
budget hearing. Nor did the Police Officers' Association feel that the
impasse proceedings were particularly logical as the impasse hearing must
be held with the employee relations officer who was the same person who
conducted the initial negotiations.
Mr. Duenow felt it would be
to again meet with the City
that any negotiations could
the City Council appoint an
Officers' Association in an
the Association. They hope
to hold the impasse session
futile for the Police Officers' Association
Administrative Officer as they did not feel
be meaningful. Therefore, they requested that
independent person to meet with the Police
impasse session to resolve the requests of
J that an impartial mediator would be appointed
rather than meet before the City Council.
He then presented to the City Council the June 8, 1971 request of the City
Police Officers' Association which they felt had.not been resolved as far
as salary and working conditions were concerned.
' H. Johnson, City Attorney, explained the City's interpretation as far as
the notice was concerned. He said since all employee organizations were
well aware that the City Council annually adopts a budget by July 1st
and that the adopted budget would include provision for salaries and..wages
of employees and since more than.12 days prior to the effective date of
the new budget and at least ten days prior to the Council's approval of
the budget and salary resolutions, the Administrative Officer had delivered
a proposed draft of a memorandum of understanding covering all of the major
issues which had been discussed during the negotiations with representa-
tives of the Police Officers' Association, the City feels that there was
substantial compliance with the Council's own policy resolution. The
City Council Minutes
July 19, 1971
Page 6
failure of the Association to even reply to the City's last offer until
the day after the budget was scheduled to be adopted appears to have
constituted a far more serious obstacle to resolving the remaining issues
which were in dispute than any action by the City. After all, represen-
tatives of the City and the various employee organizations had been
meeting regularly and exchanging written summaries of their respective
positions right up until the delivery of the City's proposed memorandum 1
of understanding which itself would have recognized that an impasse
existed on two items. There would still have been adequate time to
invoke the impasse procedures and permit the representatives of the
Police Officers' Association to appear before the legislative body to
argue its position before the budget was adopted but the Association,
for its own reasons, elected not to do so. If the advance notice re-
quirement proves to be a bone of contention between the parties, or
otherwise seems to be impractical., the City Council may wish to consider
an amendment to Section 8 of the Employee Relations Resolution. However,
I would hope that, as both parties work under the language of the present
policy for a while, each will become more familiar with the points which
the other considers most significant and can adapt their procedures
accordingly. I believe both parties would agree that the resolution
should be liberally construed to carry out its objectives. .
James Duenow stated he was not particularly worried about what happened
in the past but would like to prepare now for further discussions on
this issue as he felt the City had a large group of unhappy and dis-
gruntled employees working as police officers for the City. He again
requested that the City Council employ an outside mediator either from
the State mediation service or from Cal Poly who could meet with both
the City representatives or City Council and the Police Officers'
Association representatives and make a recommendation to the City
Council. He continued that he realized that by law the City Council
would not be bound by the mediator's recommendation or findings, but ,
felt that the mediator would put pressure on the City Council to grant
his recommendations.
Mayor Pro -Tem Blake disagreed -lwith the comments of James Duenow and
stated that the City Council's action on June 21, 1971 in presenting a
salary and fringe benefit package to the police officers was a good .
action. He agreed that not everything the Police Officers' Association
had requested was granted, but he.was sure that Mr.. Duenow realized that
the City could not turn the treasury over to the City employees. He
stated that the City's negotiating team had kept the City Council informed
along each step of the negotiations with the Police Officers' Association
and that the Council negotiating team kept open minds on all requests
which were made by the-Police Officers' Association during the
negotiations.
Councilman Graham stated that he felt the City's negotiating team was fair
and attempted to negotiate in good faith and did not go into the negotia-
tions with the Police Officers' Association with prior instructions from
the City Council as to the limits or the areas of discussion.
James Duenow stated that something must be wrong with the City's
negotiating system when this City had a great many unhappy and disgruntled
police officers working for them which-he felt was bad for the community.
He continued that wages were not the main issue with the Police Officers'
Association but that other items such as. conversion of.unused sick leave
and additional educational benefits were of more importance.
R. D. Miller, Administrative Officer, commented on the negotiations as
follows: It was up to the Council, but if the services of a mediation
were enlisted, the Council should probably be prepared to grant further
benefits. Likewise, if mediation were anticipated,. the Council would
probably not have made as liberal an offer to begin with, as the present
settlement would tend to represent a floor for the mediator to consider
as far as the City's position was concerned.
City Council Minutes
July 19, 1971
Page 7
James Duenow again stated that as far as he was concerned, he was asking
for a' mediator to be appointed to review the original entire Police Officers'
Association package dated June 8, 1971 to include salaries, overtime pay,
sick leave, educational benefits, health insurance, vacations, stand -by
pay, holidays, uniform allowances and range pay.
Councilman Brown felt that the impasse procedure presented at this time
was too late and also felt it was too late for a mediator as the budget
had been approved and the money allocated for this year.
Councilman Graham felt that the City Council took action with the best
information they had at that time and that the request this evening was
not timely for further discussion.
Councilman Gurnee was willing to continue listening to any presentation
from the attorney or from the Police Officers" Association this evening.
Mayor Pro -Tem Blake did not feel the request was timely. Further, he did
not support the retaining of a mediator and he felt that the system used
by the City of San Luis Obispo was fair and that the communications had
been open both to and from the Police Officers' Association.
Sgt. Carmack, Police Officers' Association, stated that the City Council
and the management team were aware of the Police Officers' Association's
feelings on various itmes in their request and he also wished the City
Council to know that it was the Administrative Officer and not the
Association who first brought up the matter of impasse. He also felt
that had the Police Officers' Association known that the City Council was
going to take action on their salaries and working conditions at the
June 21 budget hearing, he was sure that the Association would have been
well represented and would have made their feelings known to the Council.
' Mayor Pro -Tem Blake stated that in reviewing the request of the Police
Officers' Association that the two items not approved by the City Council
were: (1) the request to convert unused sick leave to cash upon retire-
ment, death or resignation, up to 50% of the days unused. He felt that
the sick leave was not a salary benefit but a compassionate benefit granted
by the employer to the employees in time of illness. (2) the request for
additional educational incentive benefits and a salary increase to those
obtaining a POST certificate in the intermediate and advanced classifi-
cations. He stated it was the Council's feeling that this was a new
program and they would rather go along with the formal education as in-
centive to increased pay for the police officers. He continued that he
felt the City had again this year moved the salaries and working conditions
for all employees ahead and had granted a good package. He was sure that
greater strides would be made in this area in the future.
R. D. Miller, Administrative Officer, commented on the proposed final
memorandum of agreement sent to Sgt. Carmack:
It provided a tabulation of salaries and benefits tentatively agreed upon
as well as a statement recognizing an impasse on the terms of liberalized
sick leave conditions and the new educational incentive program.
For the record, Mayor Pro -Tem Blake then read the salaries and benefits
granted by the City Council to the police department employees although
not signed by the Police Officers' Association., He then listed the present
salary ranges for each classification in the police organization.
Police Captain - $1024 to $1278
Police Lieutenant - $ 918 to $1146
Police Sergeant - $ 824 to $1024
Police Officer - $ 734 to $ 918
City Council Minutes
July 19, 1971
Page 8
Mayor Pro -Tem Blake concluded that he felt the City had been fair, had
attempted to keep the employees of the Police Department in a good re-
lationship to other cities not only in the County but in the surrounding
counties and he felt that the advances made were fair and equitable.
James Duenow stated that if the statements made by the Vice Mayor were
true and if as he stated, the City was so good to the employees, why not
hire a third party to mediate and show the employees how well they were
treated.
Mayor Pro -Tem Blake felt it was too late to re -open the negotiations at
this time as the budget had been adopted and adequate time had been
given for negotiation.
H. Johnson, City Attorney, explained the function of the June 11, 1971
letter as follows: It constituted both a summary of the negotiations
between the parties to that date and a proposed memorandum of understanding,
but in addition it was delivered to the City Council and the Police Officers'
Association also as official notice of the statis of the salary and working
conditions package for the Police Association as of the meeting when the
budget would have to be adopted. In contrast to the like memo for the
SLO Employees Association, it was explained to the City Council when the
matter was discussed that the Police Officers! Association had not
executed the budget.
James Duenow felt that as no memorandum of agreement was signed by the
City and the Police Officers' Association, that the Police Department did
not wish to accept any gift granted by the City Council without concurrence
of the Association and he felt that the only answer to this problem was to
refer the whole police request to a third party mediator for final decision.
Mayor Pro -Tem Blake, felt that he could not understand how a mediator
would be fair in this matter as he would look at the existing salary and
working conditions as negotiated and Council approved, and compare them
with the original request. This would artificially create top and bottom
for the negotiations. This was why he felt the time was too late once
the decision had been made.
On motion of Mayor Pro -Tem Blake, seconded by Councilman Brown, that the
City not enter into mediation procedures and that the City continued to
operate under the 1971/72 Budget.
Councilman Gurnee felt that the City had done an excellent job in evolving
a sound budget. They had set precedents, for our City at least, in the
areas of sick leave and educational incentives. He felt we could not jump
full force into a new, untried policy. The Council had been judge, jury
and executioner and he had willingly participated in these actions. This,
he stated, is the duty of the City Coucil. He felt there seemed to be
inequities here ..... the police have a right to impasse proceedings, but
the Council says it is too late. It also appeared that such impasse
proceedings would inevitibly result in the same answers on the part of
the.City and the same dissatisfactions - on.the part of the police. He
felt the Council must continue to seek the truth. The Police and the City
both felt that the truth was on their side. If an impartial mediator,
whose decision would not in any way be binding to the City, could help
find the truth, we should follow such a path. He stated that in his
opinion, it could be far more:disasterous for the police than for the
City. In any event he felt the Council must retain the final say as to
the expenditure of taxpayers' monies. But if a mediator can, in any way,
help shed light on the truth, then the Council should enlist such advise.
The motion carried on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Emmons Blake, John C. Brown, Myron Graham
NOES: T. Keith Gurnee
ABSENT: Kenneth E. Schwartz
City Council Minutes
July 19, 1971
Page 9
James Duenow then asked what could now be done to clear up the existing
impasse between the City and the Police Officers' Association.
H. Johnson, City Attorney, replied: "As I understand the action of the
City Council, they have resolved the impasse "for the 1971/72 .fiscal year
by rejecting the Association s -, request for mediation and determining that
' the adopted 1971/72 budget, with its related salary.package, shall stand
and not be further modified. However; in no way does this prevent the
Association from submitting the same benefit proposals at this time for .
consideration in connection with next year's employee relations negotia-
tions. Needless to say, it would be up to the City Council when it would
like to hear a formal presentation from the Association on items which
the Association wished to have included in the 1972/73 budget."
10:10 P.M. Mayor Pro -Tem Blake called a recess
10:20 P.M. the meeting reconvened with the same Council members present
7. The matter of the renewal of the annual contract with Woods Animal
Shelter at increased rates for the 1971/72 fiscal year; the report and
recommendation for animal control services for San Luis Obispo County
and its cities prepared by the Assistant County Administrative Officer;
and the recommendation from the County Grand Jury concerning the
operation of Woods Animal Shelter and animal control problems in the
County was continued to the August 2 meeting.
8. Communication from the Planning Commission recommending that the City
Council purchase the property offered by Ronald Benzer (Lynn Development)
which was adjacent to the City Sewer Farm for future expansion of the
' sewer farm and for future development as a recreational area.
Councilman Gurnee asked what protection would be granted to the creek
with the proposal.
R. D. Young, Planning Director, stated that Ron Benzer would grant the
City all the creek area in hi.s ownership at the time of development so
that the City could have whatever control they wished.
Councilman Brown agreed with the City purchasing the land offered for
expansion of the sewer farm fields but he wished it understood that .
there was no commitment by the City for future rezoning or .creek re-
alignment.
Councilman Graham asked what was the cost of the acquisition.
The City Clerk replied that Ron Benzer was asking $7,000 per acre for the
6.4 acres under consideration which would cost $44,800 with approximately
five acres of this area being usable for the sewer. plant.
Councilman Brown suggested the City have the land appraised to see if the
price were within reason and if so, make the purchase. He felt the City
could justify the acreage on the existing and future needs of the City
sewer plant.
On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Brown, that the
City have an independent appraisal made of the property and, if agreeable
to the buyer and seller, the City would purchase the land. Motion
carried.
Ron Benzer stated to the City Council that there was some need of haste
in the City making a decision on this purchase as he had other buyers
but at the request of the City Engineer, he wished to give the City first
right of refusal and he hoped that the City could move ahead as soon as
possible.
City Council Minutes
July 19, 1971
Page 10
9. . R. Vosburgh, Senior Engineering Assistant, presented for the Council's
information.the plans and specifications for the drainage channel improve=
ments in the Foothill area. He explained the scope of the improvement to
be placed, the method of placement and the type of construction. He stated
that the estimated cost at this time was $51,000.
R. D. Mil.ler, Administrative Officer, stated that this project was item 15 1
and 16 in the 1970/71 Capital Improvement Program budget. It was carried
in the current budget as a project to be completed this year.
Councilman Brown felt the City should go ahead, approve the plans and
specifications and call for bids as this was not a natural stream or
creek but was manufactured over the years by various developers and before
that by the rancher in order to drain portions of his fields.
Councilman Graham agreed that the Council should approve plans and
specifications and move ahead on the project and continue the drainage
improvements in the two channels as had been promised the residents of
the area for many years.
Councilman Gurnee felt that the Council should change their plans for en-
closing these channels in concrete as the Council acted in good faith
encouraging the evolution of a creek plan that would seek to save our
creek system as an invaluable scenic resource. He asked why the Council
continued the policy of encasing the creek banks in concrete. We continue
to alter the natural streams to take care of problems caused by indis-
criminate upstream development. The increased runoff problems, compounded
by channelization, will only be transferred to points downstream where
further remedial measures would be requested.
He felt that creeks were the barometers of the City, that the yreflected
its health. If they are ugly, polluted, and robbed of their biotic
balances, the City is in trouble. He stated that we must preserve the
aesthetic and ecological integrity of our creeks as an element necessary.
to our welfare and happiness. We must prevent the conversion of our
creek banks into concrete troughs. We must cease flogging nature for
our past mistakes. We must cease making justifications for such septic:
solutions to a problem we have created.
He felt the sole problem of each of these situations was the size of the
culverts which were too.small, caught large.bits of debris, thereby
causing stoppages and subsequent flood. He asked why use concrete troughs
when the solution doesn't demand them.
Mayor Pro -Tem Blake stated that this stream was not a natural creek but
was manufactured by the farmer who developed this method of moving rain
water from his farm lands and that subsequent residential development
continued to move these drainage channels through the area and that those
ditches were really only unpaved drainage culverts. He agreed with
Councilman Gurnee that if these channels were natural creeks, he too would
endeavor to keep them in their natural state but he did not feel that the
channels met this category and the improvements must be placed in order
to protect residents adjacent to the creek.
Councilman Gurnee again stated he felt that this proposed construction
would continue to cause further problems downstream by .pushing more water
faster through those channels which would make problems where the channels '
were not as clear.. Also, he felt that the concreting of those channels
did not allow for absorption of rain water into the adjacent banks. He
did agree that if the culverts were too small and caused flooding-problems
then the culverts should be enlarged.
Councilman Gurnee.moved that the City abandon the proposed project for
these drainage channel improvements. The motion died for.lack of a second.
City Council Minutes
July 19, 1971
Page 11
On motion of Mayor Pro -Tem Blake, seconded by Councilman Brown, the City
Council approved the plans and specifications as presented and the
the call for bids. Motion carried with Councilman Gurnee voting no.
C -3. The City Clerk reported the following bids had been received for the
Center Street Culvert, City Plan 15 -71. (Bids opened July 16, 1971 at
1:30 P. M.)
0 K Industries $29,457.30
Santa Barbara
Walter Bros. Const. $31,576.25
San Luis Obispo
Wesley G. Watkins $31,631.70
Paso Robles
R. Burke Corp. $37,722.50
San Luis Obispo
Madonna Construction $38,684.80
San Luis Obispo
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE $36,204.40
Councilman Gurnee objected to the .proposed construction up= stream and
down= stream from the new culvert as he felt that the culvert was the item
that was causing the flooding and not the banks to each side and he felt
that this proposed project should be re- analyzed in light of this suggestion.
' On motion of Mayor Pro -Tem Blake, seconded by Councilman Brown, the contract
was awarded to the low bidder, 0 K Industries. Motion carried with
Councilman Gurnee voting no.
10. R. Vosburgh, Senior Engineering Assistant, presented for the Council's
consideration the final map and subdivision agreement for TRACT NO. 412.
He continued that the map was technically correct and could be approved by
the Council. He then listed the following special subdivision conditions
for the Council's consideration:
1. Lot width, area and frontage exceptions are granted on lots 15 thru 20,
and lot frontage exceptions are granted for lots 31 thru 34.
2. The subdivider shall reimburse the City $2100 (60 lots @ $35 per lot)
for a share of the excess capacity advanced in the sewer trunk lines,
lift station and force main serving the subdivision.
3. The subdivider shall pay the City the sum of $3624.60 (10.356 net acres
@ $350 per acre) connection charge to the City water system in accordance
with Section 7410.5.1 of the Municipal Code.
4. The subdivider shall pay the sum bf $4541 ($1 per foot of street fron-
tage) for City planting and maintenance of street trees.'
5. It is mutually agreed that the grading permit fee will be deposited .
with other subdivision inspection fees and that these fees will be
' treated as normal subdivision inspection fees.
Mayor Pro -Tem Blake asked Ray Skinner, developer, if he was aware of the
conditions of the agreement and if he agreed with them.
Ray Skinner stated he was 'aware of the conditions and agreed with them
and was willing to abide by them.
City Council Minutes
July 19, 1971
Page 12
On motion of Councilman Graham, seconded by Councilman Brown, the following
resolution accepting TRACT NO. 412.was introduced. RESOLUTION NO..2219, a
resolution approving.the final map of Tract No. 412.
Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote:
AYES:. Emmons Blake, John C. Brown, Myron Graham,
T. Keith Gurnee
NOES: None
ABSENT: Kenneth E. Schwartz
11. Consideration of the acceptance of TRACT NO. 375, Sherwood Terrace,
was continued at the request of the City Engiener.
12.. Consideration by the Council of the abandonment of an existing sewer
easement and acquisition of a new sewer easement in Block 3, Lot 7 and 8
of the Gold Tree Vineyard Tract was continued.
13. The City Council discussed the communication from the City Engineer
and the State Division of Highways regarding studies being made in
developing the California freeway and expressway system and requesting
suggestions for additions or deletions.to the.system.
The City Engineer was asked to contact the Division of Highways to see if
their suggested deletion of Route 227 from the freeway system - would elim 7
inate the proposed improvements of the existing route through the City.
On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Graham, the City
Engineer was asked to investigate whether the Council could have an ex-
tension of time to present recommendations for changes or additions to
the system. Motion carried.
14. Communication from the City of Santa Cruz requesting support of the
San Luis Obispo City Council in urging the election of the County Board
of Supervisors, to be elected at large in certain size and type of
county. The request was referred to the City Attorney for further
information.
15. On motion of Councilman Graham, seconded by Mayor Pro -Tem Blake,
Change Order #2 for Mission Plaza, Phase II, to install City. standard
fire .hydrant and connect to main at a cost of $1,300 was approved.
Motion carried.
16. On motion of Councilman Graham, seconded by Councilman Brown,
Change Order #3 for Mission Plaza, Phase II, to delete a portion of
landscaping around the Murray Adobe (deduct $541) and add a railing on
the east side of the creek (add $657) was approved. Motion carried.
16A. R. D. Young, Planning Director, presented another Change Order #4
for Mission Plaza, Phase II, to install a drain line along the lands-
caped area to avoid sloughing of the banks (increase cost $744).. On
motion of Councilman Graham, seconded by Councilman Brown, the change
order was approved. Motion carried with Mayor Pro -Tem Blake-voting no.
i.
F,
City Council Minutes
July 19, 1971
Page 13
17. Communication from Police Chief E. L. Rodgers regarding disposition
of a police car damaged during a police call on July 10, 1971. The cost
to repair the vehicle Was estimated from a low of $929.37 to a high of
$1,531.03. Two of the bids to repair the vehicle left items open for
parts and labor, to repair the rear axle housing and the transmission.
The estimates also showed there was frame damage to the left rear portion
of the vehicle which necessitates straightening or replacing the left
rear frame rail and the success of this type of work was somewhat
questionable. Further, it was the feeling of the Police Department that
if this vehicle were repaired, it would then be driven close to 100,000
miles or more and the Police Department felt the repairs would not be
satisfactory and the cost of keeping this unit running would be high.
Therefore, the Chief recommended that one of the unmarked staff cars be
made available as a patrol unit, that a new unit be purchased and that
the damaged unit be sold for salvage for which a bid of $1,200 had been
received. This amount together with the insurance check for the repairs
would accumulate approximately $2,200 and with money already accumulated
a new car could be purchased. The Police Chief requested that the City
Council approve this suggestion.
R. D. Miller, Administrative Officer, suggested that the City Council
accept the recommendation of the Police Department and that bids be
called for.
On motion of Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Graham, the recom-
mendation of the Police Department was accepted and the Administrative
Officer was authorized to call for bids. Motion carried.
18. The claim of Mrs. Linda Barlogio for damages to her automobile
which was backed into by a City truck was referred to the City's insurance
' carrier on motion of Mayor Pro -Tem Blake, seconded by Councilman Brown.
Motion carried.
19. The Council received a request from William Baker, Tropicana Villaqe
developer, for permission to appear before the Council to appeal the
decision of the Fire Code Board of Appeals. The reason for his coming
before the Council at this late date was that the Appeals Board did not
render a decision until Friday, July 16, 1971.
See transcript for 'rest of item. Motion was as follows:
On motion of Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Graham, that the
City Council uphold the decision of the Fire Code Board of Appeals and
denies the appeal of Mr. Baker on the basis of health, safety and welfare
provisions and the protection of the future owners of the property.
Motion passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Emmons Blake, John C. Brown, Myron Graham,
T. Keith Gurnee
Noes: None
ABSENT: Kenneth E. Schwartz
(Details on this item are in attached transcript)
The meeting was adjourned.
G H. F TZPATRICK, CITY CLERK
APPROVED: August 2, 1971
1'
REPORT OF THE PROCEEDINGS
IN THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
RE: TROPICANA APARTMENTS:
FIRE CODE
0
Taken on
Tuesday, July 19, 1971
11:30 o'clock p.m.
Reported by CARY ALAN SARNOFF, CSR
COPY
PETRICK & PINA
Official Court Reporters
304 COURTHOUSE ANNEx
SAN Luis Oaisro, CALIFORNIA 93401
543 -3078 544 -6352
i
z
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 .
PETRICK .& PINA.
Official Corirt Reporters
543-3078 544 -6352
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24•
25
26
27
28
REPORT OF THE PROCEEDINGS
IN THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
RE: TROPICANA APARTMENTS:
FIRE CODE
Taken on =
Tuesday, July 19,_ i971..
11:30 o'clock p.m.
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant: CROSSMAN,WRAVER b GEMS
Attorneys at Law
By Gerald C. Weaver, Esq.
For the,City Council: HAROLD JOHNSON, Esq.
City Attorney
Reported by CARY ALAN SARNOFF, CSR
RETRICK & PINA
Official Court Reporters
543 -3078 544 -6352
2
1 MR. FITZPATRICK: Next item: William Baker,. - appeal from
2 Division of the Fire Board, regarding fire protection equipment
3 and fire protection requirements for phase three of the
4 Tropicana Village.
5 MAYOR BLARE: Mr..Weaver, is this information you have
6 for us tonight of a technical nature?
7 MR. WEAVER: Not really. I don't think so. I think
8 that the Board of Fire Appeals made their report and
9 recommendations on the three things and'I don't think they
10 are really that technical. I apologize for coming to you so
11 late.
12 MAYOR BLARE:~ I just wanted to specify before we.heard-
13 your presentation that the hour is late, the decision is a
14 weighty one, I would -- there is a possibility that if there
15 is the technical nature of it, that we will hear into it, or
16 possibly through it and then reserve our decision until a..later
17 time .
18 MR. WEAVER: The reason that we asked to be heard
19 tonight is because of the fact the Appeal's Board met and I
20 understand it was their first case, they were formed right
21 before this, rather the position was filled and their report
22 was not submitted. It occurred last week and their report
23 was not submitted. At least we didn't.get it until noon Friday
24 and if my client does not get a rapid determination one way or
25 the other, I don't know what he is going to do. He has got to
26 start construction. If he waits another week, it is going
27 to cost him about $5,000 which is not an inconsiderable sum.
28 So hopefully we could get the evidence into the record from
PETRICK & PINA
Official Court Reporters
543 -3078 544 -6352
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
.17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
money.
MAYOR BLAKE: It is my sincere hope that we can reach a
decision on this, but I only point out to you that the hour is
late and it is added to our agenda in a rather odd situation.
MR. WEAVER: We couldn't come before you until the
Appeal's Board decided. In addition, I have -- I put together
a letter outling our basic contentions. I can -- you haven't
had an opportunity.to read it.' I also have the sections of
the Fire Code that have been concerned with and Mr. Johnson
has put up Section 13.30(b) or the pertinent parts of it and
there is another section.that has recently been asserted by
the Fire Department: Section 13.40 and I have five copies of.
those sections and I have marked in pencil Section 13.30(b) and
.then,Section 13.40.
As a preface to this I might add, as you all know,
my client was granted a use permit on I believe it was
January 6th, 1970 and certain conditions in that permit, one
i
being: "All portions of all buildings to be protected with
approved heat detection systems with alarm pull stations,
system to be tied to Fire Department headquarter panels."
I think that correctly.reflects the substance of the use permit
condition. There was no plan promoted by the Fire Department,
any detailed plan on which he could get bids for which he
could determine the cost. There has never been one until May
of this.year. The Fire Department and the architect and my
client have worked together and the Fire.Department has express
PETRICK & PINA
Official Court Reporters
543- 3078 544 -6352
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
' 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
in their letters their appreciation and cooperation and we
appreciated the cooperation that the various City agencies
-have given us, but, however, the fact remains that there wasn't
any detailed plan. The Fire Department -- we kind of had to
engineer our own, but not knowing what they wanted until May,
my client really had no idea what was involved here, what
exactly they were going to require.
This hearing here tonight is because in may of this
year he was advised of exactly what the Fire Department was
going to require and having found that out he looked into the
cost of it, got bids and found out it was going to cost him
forty =seven thousand dollars ($47,000). He didn't anticipate
anything-like that during any of the proceedings. He didn't
anticipate it when he got the development together. He didn't
anticipate.it when he got his financing and he is hoping that
your council will give same consideration to the bases for the
Fire Department's requirements, whether they have a reasonable
basis for it and whether or not it is necessary. It wasn't
anticipated in -all honesty. If there is any question about
that, we have sufficient evidence, I think, to justify to anyb
that this is the truth.
Daring the time, of course, like everybody else when
he got these requirements and he found ant that this involves
a lot more than he conceived it would involve he started looking
into seeing what, just what the reason for it was, you know,
if something is only going to cost you a few hundred dollars
and it is a requirement well, okay, why argue it? They tell me
it is the law. so they tell me it is the law, I believe that
PETRICK & PINA .
O//icidl Court Reporters
543-3078 544 -6352
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
-12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
it is a law or the people that are administering the law for
the City, so you go along. When you find out it is going to
cost you $47,000 you don't have any idea that you are involved
with this kind of a burden, then like everybody else, you look
around to see: Is this really necessary? Is it justified and
further when he came to me, you know, is this the law? Does
the law say what they say it says? Do I have to do this? He
has checked around.with -- the system I. am speaking of that
originally the department required was a system involving I
believe nine heat detection devices in each unit plus one in
each of the thirteen.boiler rooms with all of the wiring, and
I believe that this was tied into an.enunciated plan which
again was tied into the Fire Department so little lights would
flash up and show,where the alarm had been set off in the
various units. There 'is 18 separate buildings. I believe this
was more -- would more particularly locate the alarm than just
the building. It.would locate the room -- it would locate the
building, but there would be nine in each unit.
Subsequently in June the Fire Department agreed to
reduce the amount of heat sensing devices to one in each room
and the stairwell. The structure has a living area on the
bottom stairway and bedrooms on top and this did reduce the
costs, so now we are not.talking about $47400. We are talking
about, when you take this system plus the fire curtain system
which the department is asking be required, we are talking about
$35,000 or 30.000, somewhere around that neighborhood.
But, he started checking around and he checked with
various cities, Los Angeles and Santa Barbara, Sacramento,
PETRICK & PINA
Official Court Reporters
543 -3078 544 -6352
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C
cities around the area that he knew had housing and asked them:
°I am building a two story structure which is classified two
story under the Uniform Building Code,' which you have adopted,
°For student housing and,the Fire Department contends that
student housing comes within the provisions of 13.30(b) as
occupancy of especially hazardous nature and do you interpret
the Fire Code that way or do you have any-experience that would
justify' --
MAYOR BLAKE: The interpretation was made by whom?
MR. WEAVER: By your Fire Department. "That student
housing constituted of an especially hazardous nature and
therefore they could legally impose these additional require-
ments under Section 13.30(b).° That is the only authority they
have to impose additional requirements. Any requirements are
under that section and none -of the cities that my client --
in fact we can say for the record, I think without being wrong,
that there is not a city in the State of'California that applies
Section 13.30(b) to student housing occupancy. we contacted
Chief Gain at the Downey Fire Department and asked whether
or not they have any particular experience with student housing.
I don °t'know, but Chief Gain was instrumental in drafting the
Uniform Fire'Code and asked him how Section 13.30(b) was
interpreted.
I have, for the record and your consideration, five
copies of his letter on June 3, 1971, asking him specifically,
because he was instrumental in the composition of the Uniform
Fire Code, about Section 13.30(b): °Refers preimarily to
occupancies judged to be 'E' occupancies according to the
PET.RICK & PINA
Official Court Reporters
543 -3078 544 -6352
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Ii
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
Uniform Building Code classifications such as the storage, use
and handling of highly flammable, explosive or toxic materials
whether in liquid or solid form.'
Some people may consider students highly flammable,
explosive or'maybe even in some people, even toxic, but in
any event it doesn't refer to the type of person inhabiting the
premises. It refers to what they do with it. If you are
storing dynamite or other flammable substances.
He points. out.:. "If your statement is correct in
that your buildings are normal two story, one hour construction,
used as apartments for students, I find it extremely difficult
to interpret as anything other than 2H'-occupancy and not as.
a hazardous occupany providing they are built according to the
provisions of the Uniform Building Code.
°If it is the intent to change the classification of
these buildings because of the buildings being occupied by
students, we would have to.apply the same premise to all occupan-
cies where students inhabit for whatever purpose. This is not
practical..
we would like to offer this for the council's
consideration.
MAYOR BLARE: Mr. Weaver, you have accomplished up to
and including I.believe page two of your letter. May I at this
time point out that your statement that not a city so classified
student housing is unprovable.
MR. WEAVER: We haven't been able to find one and I know
the Fire Department has done its own survey of 23 cities and
of those 23 cities, or I don't know how many they sent out,
PETRICK & PINA
Official Court Reporters
543-3078 544 -6352
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
but they provided us with 23, including Berkeley which is --
has got one of the largest student populations.and probably
has more fire traps than any place in the state, I think, that
is common knowledge, you have got Whittier, you have got
Pasadena, you have got Los Angeles City Fire Department and
Los Angeles County. Now, only two of those cities reported any
unusual fire experience in student occupancy -and those two were
Fresno, and they referred.to the riots they "had and Stanford
and they referred to the arson they had at Stanford.
MAYOR BLAKE: They don't consider it unusual at
Berkeley?
MR. WEAVER: Pardon?
between student apartments.
Not to justify discriniination
They state that: oft ,haven't
experienced anything more unusual with fires.occuring in
student housing than we have`had in - apartments and hotels."
MAYOR BLAKE: May I add at this time, and since we are
being recorded, I would like you to identify yourself as
Fire Marshall Kaye, have we had any reportable fires in the
present structure known as Tropicana?
MR. KAYE: .Yes, we have. To date there have been four
fire alarms recorded in Tropicana and Islander. In the past
three years we have averaged four fires in each of our --
totally our major student housing facilities. These are just
the major ones. This subject just came to me today, but in
this afternoon's research, checking our statistics.for 1970 on
a one shift basis, we can, I feel, accurately project that
approximately one -third of our fires in the.City are involving
college level student.occupancy or vehicles and so on.So we have
PETRICK & PINA.
Official Court Reporters
543-3078 544 -6352
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9
a rather high fire incident rate related to students.
MAYOR BLARE: Let me get to this. One -third of our
fires are student housing oriented?
.KR. BAYE:. This is what we project. What we found out
today, that °s right, based on one shift.
MAYOW SLAKE: This is an interesting figure, but is it
true that there is a higher percentage of students in the city
than one - third?
MR. KAYE: I have no idea.
MAYOR BLARE: It could be projected, we know how many
students there are,
MR. KAYE: I don't believe that-the structures within
the city would reflect one -half of the students.
MAYOR BLARE: That's true. Then let me ask what type.
of an alarm protection is employed in the red brick college
housing?
MR. KAYE: At Cal.Poly? We are not involved.
BIAYOR BLARE: Are you incidentally familiar with it?
MR. KAYE: No, I am not.
MR. WAINSCOTT: I might add all the buildings out at
Cal Poly are type one construction, that is required now that
all their buildings be type one construction which is of
fire proof nature and in the buildings =-
MAYOR BLARE: Mr. Baker?
MR. BARER: All the,student housing on campus is not
type one --
MR. WAINSCOTT: All the new --
MR. BARER: And the older ones have no fire detection
PETRICK & PINA
Official ficiai Courl Reporlers
543-3078 544 -6352
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
system. I do not believe it is part of the State Code that it
be incorporated in existing units. It is not State .policy.
I don't think they have the funds for it. I don't think they
are requiring it be built into the new ones as the captain
points out because they are more fire resistent.
MAYOR BLAKE: Mr. Kaye, the nature of.these fires at
student housing, that are reported, is it of a determined
cause that is not common to other structural fires? Student
oriented causes?
MR. KAYE:- .Based on what I have seen, I'd have to say
that it was somewhat different. The average life style of
the average college student'is somewhat different from the
average citizen and their life style places a less important
emphasis on fires. Well, their vehicles, the fact that in a
college facility carburetors are stolen and when you start
that car, you are going to have.a car fire. This thing is
specific to college level - facilities, not to the average
citizen.
MR. BAXKR: Is it at all significant to you that the
Tropicana prohibits the having of candles?
MR. KgYB: No, it really doesn't enter in this case in
that we have to base our plan check use permit conditions not
on what the management is of that facility, is today, but what
it may be tomorrow and what we can expect ten years from now.
Now, Mr. Baker is fully able to sell this facility and we
can find a much lesser management control in that facility and
we'd.have some very severe hazards. We've had some fires there
now. We could expect more with a lesser management practice
PETRICK & PINA
Official Court Reporters .
543 -3078 . 544 -6352
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1 27
28
11
over there. I admit to Mr. Baker's good management principles,
but we can't base our plan check on his management principles
because that could change tomorrow.
MAYOR BLARE: You may continue, Mr. Weaver.
MR. WEAVER: Thank you. As I said before, when I got
into this before I went to, the Appeal's Board, the only
requirement, or the only .bases on which the department was
acting, that I, was aware of, and this includes conversations wi,
Bud that there was a local history of more fires, adverse
fire history in this community and therefore regardless of what
someone may do in Berkeley, Los Angeles, that we had an
adverse history here that justified this being classified.as
an occupancy of an especially hazardous nature, or one where
special hazards exist.
That is the only authority for the department to
justify these requirements, this 13.30(b), this type of
structure. Now, I have asked for statistics and I have never
seen them, so I talked.to Mr„ Kaye and he told me that their
history was this:. That the Tropicana had three fires in six
years, two in 1968 and one in July of 1969. Now, to be fair to
him, he did say, first, he said there has been alarms. These
were alarms. My clients had one room fire in six years. It
did $400 worth of damage.. They had one fire in a trash bin
outside the building and of course the heat detection system
can't do anything about that. He can't recall the other fire,
he can't reeall.whether it was a false alarm, but I think we .
can assure it was not a major fire.
MAYOR BLAKE: Does this check with yon?
PETRICK & PINA
Official Court Reporters
543 -3078 544 -6352
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12
MR. KAYE: Not exactly. The fire history that I was
relating was the one that was compiled while I was gone and
this was a three year. Not a six year period. The one major
fire that we had in a one room was a potential fatal fire.
The trash can fire was in the building and : ..removed before
we got there. There was paint and scorching damage to the
structure.
MR. BAKER: No,'it wasn't in the building. It was
MR. KAYE: I am basing this on the fire report.
MR. HEAVER: That might have been the third.fire.
MR. KAYE: This does not involve non - fires, false
alarms.
MR. WEAVER: But there was three calls in six years.
Now, Mustang Village, Mr. Kaye stated had six calls in three
years. I talked to.the. manager, they have been there for the
three year period, they have had one fire in the apartments
which potentially could be a serious fire. It burned the curtai
the bed and scorched the.outside of the window frame. They
had two other alarms involving any kind of a fire. I don't
know how many alarms were turned into the station, but they
had two other alarms involving fire. One was a fire in a
trash can which again was outside the building. The other one,
which the department is considering in its history was a grass
fire by the railroad tracks outside of the complex which was
started by the Fire Department and which got away from them. It
was controlled burning. Stenner Glen, your other complex,
has had two, according to the manager in three years.
PETRICK & PINA
Oificiai Court Reporters
543-3078 .544 -6352
r"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12'
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13
one was a candle fire in a room which could be
dangerous. The other one was a faulty overload in a building
circuit. Row, as I say this is only what these two people have
reported to me, but I think before you use this as a history,
the alarms, that the department should go into the incident
itself and say whether or not it is a fire or anything involving
a fire or whether or not it could possibly be just a false
alarm. I think also in the history they should most certainly
exclude controlled burns outside of the apartment building
complex which in this particular case -were situations, according
to the manager, there was a situation where_it.was.a controlled
burn and it got away from the Fire Department itself.
All right, let's assume that there is some specially
hazardous nature in student occupancy which I don't see any
justification on any factual basis, but let's assume the
Uniform Building Code, in particular, provision 13.30(b), does.
not relate to human behavior. It relates to the kind of.use you
are making of the premises and the very intent of the code is,
as set forth in Section 1.02 of the Uniform Fire Code which
states: °It is -the purpose and intent of this code to provide
regulations, safeguarding.life, health, property and public
welfare to a reasonable degree from the hazards of fire and
explosion arising from the storage, use and handling of dangers
and hazardous materials, substances and.devices, the operation,
installation, construction, location, safeguarding and main-
tenance of adequate means of egress not provided for by the
Building Code.°
when you go= through the Fire Cade you see what it
PETRICK & PINA
O//icial Court Reporters
543 -3078 544 -6352
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
14
refers to is explosives, ammunitions, blasting agents,
compressed gases, celulose nitrate, motion picture film and
the storage thereof, service stations, calcium carbonate and
acetylene and it relates to the use of materials in the premisess
use of materials, not to human behavior, which is a sometime
thing, it can happpen anywhere.
--Further, if you are going to justify this imposition
of these requirements based upon student housing and you say
it is a violation.of the code or it-is a.danger, even if it
isn't, then every structure in this town which houses students
is a public nuisance under the code and it is discriminatory.
Row, lastly, there is obviously no justification
for distinguishing between the Tropicana Apartments and some
other apartments and even if you might have .imposed the
requirements on someone else, two wrongs don't make a right
any more than two rights make a wrong and we would ask that
you view this particular case, based upon what you find to
determine is the intent of the code.
Row, the thing that concerns us is that the Fire
Department,, in attempting to justify this on:-.one basis of the
type of occupancy, that is use- by students versus somebody
else, we were prepared to meet that before the Fire Appeal's
Board. When we got into the Fire Appeal's Board, the department
completely changed its tack. They didn't present any statistics
it didn't present any history of adverse fire use by student
occupancy. it said that.we can justify these.conditions under
13.40 of the Uniform Fire Code which is another section you
have in front of you. 13.40, and this appears to be the basis
PETRICK & PINA
Official Court Reporters
543-3078 544 -6352
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
15
for the action by the Appeal's Board.. If you will notice the
Appeal's Board recommendations to you, there is no reference
whatsoever to this being a hazardous occupancy because it is
occupied by students. 13.40 states that: °Every apartment
house three stories or more in height and containing more than
15 apartments and every hotel three stories or more in height
containing 20 or more guest rooms, shall have installed
therein an approved automatic:or manually..operated fire alarm
system designed to warn the occupants of the building in the
event of a fire. Such fire alarm system shall be so designed
that all occupants of the building may be warned simultaneously.
This is not a two story structure. Your building
department, under the building code, has defined -- determined
it to be a two story structure. 'My client constructed it to
be a two story structure.
MAYOR BLAKE: Would you-read that back? Did he say
this is not a two story structure?
(Record read by the reporter.)
HR. WEARIER: Your building department has -- according
to your building department and the Uniform Building Code,.
this structure is a two story structure, it does not came within
Section 13.40. My client constructed it to be a two story
structure. Now the Fire Department took the tack that regard-
less of the Uniform Building Code and regardless -- at the
hearing before the Appeal's Board, regardless of the fact that
under the building code it is a two story structure, that as
far as they were conceined-it was in fact 'a three story
structure because on one end where the garages are, the
PETRICK & PINA
Official Court Reporters
543-3078 544 -6352
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
16
drive in area of the garage, there is a garage underneath the
two units. Now, you cannot read the Uniform Fire Code
Section 13.40 or any portion of it unless you mead it in
connection with the building code. They are meant to be in
connection with each other and there is nothing in the uniform
Fire Code which would in any way- -take out of the operation .
from the building. code the provisions of the building code
which make this a two story structure and the authority of
the department in 13.40 is very specific. They have the
authority to do this if it is three stories or more in height.
Now, another thing the department pointed out and it
shoied slides that they did not like the access for fire
fighting and rescue equipment between the buildings and you will
notice that one of the bases for the-recommendation of the
board is number one, because of the physical layout of the
buildings and the property and the closeness of the buildings
resulting in less than normal access to all portions of the
building by the fire apparatus for fire fighting and rescue
purposes. When the plan was approved, the fire department had
objections to the access. The objections they had were met
with, incorporated into the plan and the access which this
structure has is as approved by your fire department in
accordance with their suggestions. If the access was insuf-
ficient, they should have raised that point at the time. The
second point of the -- for the bases for the Appeal's Board
recommendation to you, and I don't recall if there was any
if this was really made an issue of at the hearing, I had to
leave before,it was over, was because of the density of the
PETRICK _& PINA
Official Court Reporters.
543 =3078 544 -6352
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
buildings on the property and the density in the number of
student residences and as I point out in my letter we have 160
units on five and a half acres and it is my understanding that
your RH zoning that you generally have in the city, and which
you do not require any special expensive fire protection systems
generally allows a maximum'of up to one unit for 1,000 square
feet.
MAYOR BLAKE: This is not RE zoning.
MR. WEAVER: If this is true, if the RE zoning allows
for one unit every thousand square feet then the density on
this complex is less dense than in RE zoning, yet you do not
and cannot require an additional fire protection device of the
nature that the department has required.
Now, I don't know your zoning that well, but that
was my understanding, that one unit per thousand aqua t® feet
of property. This -- here we have 160 units for I think
almost two hundred and thirty or forty thousand square feet,
five and a half acres, whatever that is.
MAYOR BLARE: You have to take roads out of that.
MR. WEAVER: That is right, but it certainly would not
be any denser than RH.
The third basis is -- states the fact that although
the buildings housing students are technically two story
buildings per Uniform Building Code, the rescue and Fire
Department require that the buildings be construed to be a
three story building from a fire standpoint. Just technically
the department, we contend, does not have the authority to
treat this in absence of some legal authority which I could find
PETRICK & PINA
Official Court Reporters
543 -3078 544 -6352
I
2
J 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1.4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
le
none as anything but a two story building. If there are
additional problems involved, again, because of access, and
here we get into the inherent fairness, it should have been
brought up by the department when the plan was approved. They
had no objections to the access. They had objections to the
location of the buildings in relation to each other. They
should have made that a condition or asserted that to the
Planning Commission at the time. The letter that they sent
to the commission, my client has complied with every objection.
As I say this tack the department is taking is unfair at this
stage of the construction because it was never asserted before.
It just -- the whole basis for all of this has been
Section 13.30(b). To verify this to you, in January 9, 19700,
the Fire Department wrote a letter concerning the existing
complexes which are the Islander and Tropicana and they -- in
their reinspection of the premises they requested certain things
be done and one of those under Section 13.30(b) of the Uniform
Fire Code: °Installation will be required in this occupancy
of a minimum approved, local fire alarm system,," at strategic
locations to be determined by-citing Section 13.30(b).
The Tropicana is a three story structure, at least
the back part of it is and if 13.40 applies in this case, it
most certainly applies in that case. As I said, my client
it was the law.
Going to May 22, 1970, a letter from the Fire
Department again concerning the Tropicana and Islander and
.again for this system they cite Section:13.30(b) of the Uniform
Fire Code.and again no reference was ever made to Section 13.40.
PETR.ICK & PINA
Official Court Reporters
543 -3078 544 -6352
t
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
19
No contention was ever.made'that this was a three story
structure. August 24, 1970, a letter from Mr. Kaye concerning
the Tropicana and Islander and here he has dropped his require-
ment of the heat detection system. He states that he desires t
they► install fire alarm bells at strategic locations in the
building. That the requirement of the heat protection system.
_ he had in the past, now he is not going to require and
he bases this on: "Keeping in mind the adverse fire experience
in this type of facility for the past few years.' He doesn't
cite 13.30(b) this time, but he is giving.the same reason;
a occupancy in a specially hazardous.nature.. So when me come
to the hearing prepared to.argue about whether or not students
are highly flammable or whether or not they are.toxic, we are
confronted with this argument that now you have got a three
story structure even though the building department says
it is two stories. So even if we misinterpret completely 13.30
"we want yon to do this because it is a.three story structure."
and I think they relied a lot upon what the objections they
had to access and if they had those objections, they should have
made them at the time.and not now.
I don't know if we don °t have a map, but I would like,
if you -- for your indulgence if Mr. Baker would just draw on
the board there to show you how the buildings sit on the
property.
MR. KAYE:. we have a transparency of the development.
MR. BAKER: I think you want a cross section. We
rehearsed.
My proportions aren't very good. The buildings are
PETRICK & PINA
Official Court Reporters
543 -3078 544 -6352
t
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
20
constructed in this fashion with -- pardon me, parking in this
area, the dotted line represents a natural slope. Parking
underneath with the access into the building around a perimeter,
the grade of.which is at the bottom of the first floor here and
the second story structure above the basement parking under-
neath 'and-the whole thing that the Fire Department brought up
at the Board of Appeals hinges around the grade around the
bottom flook, contending that the grade at the basement. is
what makes it a three story structure while the Uniform Building
Code, contrary to that, says the grade on 50 per cent or more
of the perimeter is what establishes how many stories it is.
MR.- WAINSCOTT: Mr. Mayor, may I ask him a question?
What type of access do we have to the second story section of
those buildings between them? Can you pull a fire engine
between those buildings?
MR. BARER: No, you can't.
MR. WAINSCOTT: That's true, you can't and any rescue
that would have to be made from those buildings by necessity it
has to be made from the third story side which includes the
garage. If you have to ladder those buildings -- anyway you
put a ladder against those buildings from the third story
side, it comes out to be a three story building.
MR. BAKER: You say any rescue that has to be made with
a ladder --
MR. WAINSCOTT: Any rescue would have to be done on the
im. BAKER: You say with a.ladder.
MR. WAINSCOTT: With a. ladder, right. That's the only
place we can get equipment in. We can't get equipment on the
PET-RICK & PINA
Official Court Reporters
543-3078 544 -6352
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
21
second story side and if I may, while I am on my feet, a planned
development of this nature, whether it was for student housing
or any other type of housing in this city would have required
basically the same requirements we have asked.here and that
we are -- were approved by the City Council for this planned
development and when he states he doesn't -- he didn't know
that he was required these certain items, this specifically
states in the-letter you have before'you from the review board
the sections of the -- that were required in the past by the
council.
MAYOR BLAKE: I don't think he -- it says here that he
didn't know. He didn't know the magnitude.
MR. WAINSCOTT: And this is not the responsibility of
the Fire Department to design and engineer fire protection.
This is the responsibility of the architect and his engineers,
and not the responsibility of the.department. Our only
requirement is that it meets Underwriter's Laboratory tests and
all the equipment used and this is our equipment and that it
is functional and meets our specific requirements.
COUNCILMAN GRAHAM: What was the requirement in 1970?
MR. WAINSCOTT: In 19707
COUNCILMAN GRAHAM: What was your interpretation of the
requirement then?
MR. KAYE: Exactly the same. This application was made
in 1970.
COUNCILMAN GRAHAM: There was a comment made here that
actually there was a change of attitude as far as the time or
feeling of what should be required.
PETRICK & PINA
Official Court Reporters
543 -3078 544 -6352
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
T1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MR. KAYE: He is referring to a change in the require-
ment on the existing Tropicana building, not the new construc-
tion. Now, the existing-facility was inspected by our fire
inspector. He took our established standard requirement and
applied it to that building. Mr. Baker recruested that I
review that, which I did. I reviewed that with him on the
property. The life hazard based on the style of construction
on the existing Tropicana is quite a bit different than the
new facility we are talking about and it is based on the fire
hazard that we have lessened that requirement. We didn't-
eliminate it, and as far as. basing it on Y3.40, the three
story portion, the major portion of that building is two stories
and not three stories and we applied 13.30(b), although we could
have applied.the 13.40, although�.we did modify it at
Mr. Baker's request because of a different degree of hazard.
COUNCILMAN GRAHAM: When you say you modified it, you
say you took the 13.30 instead of the 13.40?
MR. KAYE: That is-not true. Two different sections,
either one of which could have applied, but we applied the
lesser protection based on the lesser hazard.
MR. WEAVER: I think.maybe my point was misunderstood.
My point was this: It is true the use permit stated there
would be an approved system. The Fire Department says we don't
design it, but they didn't know what they wanted. They
couldn't say, "All right, this here and this here." It wasn't
until May of this year that they knew what they wanted so that
the man could go.out and say, "What is this going to cost me ?"
When he finds out it is $47,000 then is when he wants to know,
PETRICK & PINA
Official Court Reporters
543 -3078 544 -6352
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
s 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
23
°Can they make me do this?" It is not that he didn't know that
there was a requirement that he have an approved system, but
he didn't know what the system was going to be and he didn't
understand the magnitude of the cost of it. So what we are
asking is considering that regardless of the use permit and
considering that the Fire Department, that this is a new thing
for them, if it wasn't new, they wouldn't be looking at
different sections'as they-have been, they wouldn't be saying
that you have got to do this because.this is an occupancy of
especially hazardous nature and then'come into the board last
week and say; °Well, no, that is not really the reason. We
really can't justify that. The reason is because it is really
a three story structure, or if it isn't,., we have got access
problems." I realize the department has to,'you know, evolve
like everybody else.does'and maybe the requirements have got
to get stronger in the future, but I know when a man is going to
build::something, particularly of this expense or anybody
building a house or an addition, you have got to be able to
know and Zook at something definite and know what it is going
to cost you to put it up, to know what it is going to cost you
when you go--to the bank.
It was a fairly new thing with the department, They
don't apply it and here again you get into basic unfairness of
applying it in this project,.but not applying it to an apartment
house down the street with the same type of occupancy of
especially hazardous nature. It just isn't fair. It is not
a rational distinction between the Tropicana and somebody else's
apartment house that has students there, or even a house, for .
PETRICK -& PINA
Official Court Reporters
543 -3078 544 -6352
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
24
that matter. But, there have been many apartment houses that
have allowed student housing --
PIAYOR BLARE: Mr. Weaver, could we allow that to be your
presentation?
MR. [BEAVER: Yes, other than there was one point that
I am not qualified to even talk about that Mr. Baker did want
to, if the board please.
MR. BARER: I will make this real brief.
MAYOR BLARE: In another five minutes.. I will complete
a world's record. Forty -five 'hours since I have been in bed.
Life is hard.
MR. BAKER: If I walk out of here without a decision,
then I have to put in a fire system that I may not have to put
in so I will be as brief as I can. -1 know Don has some other
points and the captain probably does. This boils down to
three things: Are students hazardous, and is it the intent of
the Uniform Fire Code to classify the occupants of a building
as hazardous or is it the intent of the use for which-.the
building is built? I don't want to say any more about that,
I think that has been hashed out.
The second point is: Is there an abnormal or unsafe
access that creates a hazard in the building or these buildings
that make it necessary to put in such a fire detection system?
I want to dwell on that a minute by asking the captain a
question. You say that you contend that it is necessary to
have the system because you can only access the buildings from
one side?
MR. WAINSCOTT: No. The system is designed to eliminate
PETRICK & PINA
Official Court Reporters
543 -3078 544 -6352
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
25
Idelayed alarms, basically, and to eliminate this human error.
I.If someone is in that bedroom asleep and has a fire, why he
is not going to be able to turn in an alarm.. You might very
well be in that room with it pretty well in fire and still
have your heading off.
MR. BARER: I'did have a point I wanted to make and that
was I can give you two actual physical conditions where there
are three story buildings.and in one of these buildings you have
got access from only one side. This is student housing in
San Luis Obispo and in.the other building,'a three story
'structure, you have access from about half of one side. The
condition in these two buildings is far less accessible than
lit is in the- unit6.that vie are building and yet no heat
detection device has been enforced on those buildings and that
is the Islander and the Tropicana.
MR. WAINSCOTT.:-,-This is true, but the Uniform Fire
Code wasn't adopted at the time those buildings were built.
MR. BASER: 'But. the.Uniform Fire Code doesn't require
w heat detection system in those buildings.
MR. WAINSCOTT: It states that units of the nature that
we are speaking of, it is a requirement on these planned
developments to insure protection to your tenants, not -- it
is not.basically, for the Fire Department's benefit.
MR. BAKER: I wanted to make the point that you are
requesting the system because of access which access the Fire
Department redesigned in the Fall of 169 and which access I
have a letter in the file, Don Kaye said that the access
problems were cleared up and that the turn radiuses and.that thel
PETRICK & PINA
Official Court Reporters
543-3078 544 -6352
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
-` 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
26
things that you requested were complied with and we- complied
with everything that you required.
MR. KAYE: May I inquire about that. That same letter
also includes all of these other items that you are disputing..
MR. BAKER: Okay. I will let you elaborate on that in a
minute. The.same access which in these buildings is far .
better than two other three story structures adjacent to these,
and you are not requiring anything on those, you are not
enforcing anything on those and this is where we feel it is
very, very discriminatory. There is student housing all over
this town that from a fire standpoint is far inferior to the
new units we are building and nothing -is being.done about that:
It will be interesting to see when an attempt is made of
whether enforcement can actually be placed upon owners of
existing constructed units that are occupied.. It will be.
interesting to see whether you are able to enforce it because
I don't really think you are. I know Stenner Glen has
(complied voluntarily. I talked to their manager there and.he
said that he felt it was the code requirement and that's the
way.the Fire Department applied it.
MAYOR BLAKE:- They also appeared at the protest hearing
and then they volunteered to comply.
MR. BAKER: But we very, very sincerely don't feel that
the municipal code gives the City the latitude or the right to
enforce that.
MR. WEAVER: If you feel that you should rule against
Mr. Baker and his
brother
we
would propose
this to
prevent an
undue hardship on'him'.
I
am
talking about
having
to go ahead
PETRICK & PINA
Official Court Reporters
543 -3078 544 -6352
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
-16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
27
do it.and then find out that it wasn't required. We would
offer to put up a bond in an amount that is determined by the
council, but to put up a bond to guarantee the construction
of this system if it is ultimately determined that it is
required rather than having him go ahead and building it.
MAYOR BLARE: You mean no emphasis implied?
.MR. JOHNSON: I would like to comment on that.
'MAYOR BLARE:::
I am trying
to figure out the
mechanics
of the construction
access of it.
You would have
conduit
installed so that the wires could be pulled later? Is this
a.wired device; is that what you mean?
MR. BARER: Any raceway that needed to be provided, and
there are-several items on this -- there is piping, also
water-- piping involved.
MAYOR BLARE: But that is your theory, that you would
put the raceways, channels in?
MR. BARER: Yes, and when it was determined that this
system.was required by law and that we were required to comply,
I would post a performance bond in the amount of whatever the
system costs with the City to insure compliance, If, however,
any form of determination, whether it be through the council
or litigation or whatever, determined that the system was not
required, then the bond would be.terminated and I would not be
asked to comply with it.
MR. WEAVER: We would put the bond up immediately because
I say if you feel that you need time to study this, it is
going to cost him $5,000 if he waits a week. That is why we
appreciate your putting it on tonight.
PETRICK & P1NA
Official Court Reporlers
543-3078 544 -6352
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
28
MR. JOHNSON: I don't want to be any spokesman on this
matter, I am sure that the Fire Department has some cements,
but I want to comment on this last request. I don't presuppose
to prejudge the matter, but if the council determines that
the appeal is not in order and sustains the action of the
Appeal's Board,.and I believe the reasons for their action are
clearly indicated in the decision, then I feel that the request
to post a bond is c =pletely. out of order because there -is
then a presumptive determination there is a hazard. It is
necessary to have this system installed and no bond is going to
replace the protection this system would provide. It has to
either be installed or it is waived, one way or the other. If
they feel so strongly that it is not, as a legal matter,
required,.there are remedies by the court by restraining
order or otherwise that would prevent them from installing the
system until such time as the adjudication is had. I.don't
think that the council should provide -- in any way provide
any alternative if the'council feels that it is a matter of
life safety. The question of notice from Mr. Baker has been
alluded to many times. How much ti m@ he had, opportunity he
had to detezmine the extent of the requirement. I think that
it has been recognized that at all stages of the proceedings,
and it is in the record, papers, the documents that you have,
the requirement in a general sense, at least, was made known
to Mr. Baker. His planning for the project involved many
considerations and if he waited until the very end of the
project to take.care of this consideration that was his
decision. It was made very well known to him very early. The
PETRICK & PINA
Official Court Reporters
543- 3078. 544 -6352
a . 1
- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12'
13
14
,15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
extent of it was -- .may.not have been particularized, but it
was up to him to come.to the Fire Department, submit his plans,
get a determination one way or the other before he proceeded
down the line and put up the structure.. One thing you haven't
the benefit of that the Appeal's Board did have was a
presentation of the glides showing the actual location of the
structures on the site in their present state of development
which helped to perhaps convey to them the item that they
list as number one, the physical layout of the buildings on
the property and the closeness of all the buildings which they.
say resulted in less than nomal access by -- for fire fighting
Now, the other points that he has referred to, or
that they are referred to relate to item one and they have
discussed extensively to item two. They appear to rely on
their criticism on the third that the Fire Department approved
the access. Well, the Fire Department approved the access, did
so knowing that they had also required certain other protective
devices so in reliance on these devices, perhaps they were
affording more latitude in putting the buildings closer
together than they normally would. I don't think that by
approving something that may involve some difficulty recog-
nizing that you have -- that you are waiving your rights to.
require the extra protection in the system, and I think the
language of the section that they are dealing with is designed
to give the Pire Department the very latitude that they appear
to try to destroy here in the appeal.
The type of determinations that the Fire Department
PETRICK & PINA
Official Court Reporters
543 -3078 544 -6352
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
30
has to make are not limited to any one of these items. It isn't
that they have to show that.all three exist, it is merely that
one of these three conditions exist and the Fire Department
has a basis for imposing a requirement.
Now, again this is an interpretation, but this is
what the Fire department is charged with doing, is interpreting
.the code.. They.are the primary interpreting body and if it is
brought out to the Board of .Appeals, there -may be opinions
by other department heads in other cities'that differ with our
particular department-,.but they are in the fortunate position
of being far removed from the problem. We have a problem here
in this particular.unit and our chief is the one who has to
make the determination.
Now, if they knew all of the - facts, all of the
buildings, all of the locations, where they were on the site,
they might have an..entirely different analysis of the problem
than they have long range being asked specific questions. I
think this is the problem that is laid before you. You have
a recommendation from your department that is based on their
opinion of.the hazards, call them hazards, presented by all
the facts on the.site and the appellants are presenting their
view as to why the requirement should be waived and I think at
this point, I -think that perhaps the department could reinforce
their views if they have any on the requirement. I think we are
at the point now where we are not really talking about 13.30
versus.13.40, we are talking about hazards that exist and
whether it be construed in the general sense as being because of
the fact that there is a three story condition on one side of
PETRICK & PINA
Official Cour! Reporlers
543-3078 544 -6352
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
31
the building or whether it is construed as being an access
problem.. If it is as ever present from one section or the
other, I don't think it makes much difference which section
we are dealing with.
MAYOR BLAKE: You are not --
MR. KAYE: The question is how far are we going to delve
into this? I do have the slides here.
MAYOR BLASTS: We are going to go into it.
MR. KAYE: First, -I have an apology to offer. This
was on my desk when I got back from vacation this morning,'-
so I have had just today to try and prepare other than what I
had prepared for the Planning Commission before I left. So our
package is far from polished or complete.
I wish I could recall everything that had been said.
I had instant rebuttals to almost every point that was made,.
but trying to get them all back out is quite a problem.
First, I'd like to go back and review our version of
the history of this thing. That is, what we tried to do for
the Planning Commission. The original concept --
MAYOR BLARE: Would you use the microphone and would you
check with the radio to see if they are carrying this?
MR. BAKER: What was that ,comment? It was seriously
jeopardised�what?
COUNCILMAN GRAHAM: He was talking about Gurnee because
he wanted to leave.
MAYOR BLARE: Mr. Gurnee was discussing the possibility
of a °split,° I think.
MR. SAYE: .I guess the first thing we are going to do
PETRICK & PINA
Official Court Reporters
543 -3078 544 -6352
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 .
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
32
is try and review the slides. What we tried to do here is show
the magnitude of this facility. It is one of the largest'in
the city, one of the most impressive. It is a very attractive
complex. I don't disagree with that, but it is very closely
packed together. I haven't had time to go back and find out
the total square footage, but you have the equivalent of many
housing tracts piled one on top of the other in this facility.
MR.-BAKER: There is..142,000 square feet.
HR. RAYS: Which would be the equivalent --
MR.'•BARER: Equal to one hundred 142W- .square foot houses.)
MR.. FAYE: In a very tight space. That is what we
tried to show here.
_The type of construction, although the use permit
condition agreed to by the architect was one hour fire resistive
construction throughout, that is not what we have. We have
type five H. It is not. -fire resistive. In lieu 'of a fire
resistive separations they have installed what they determine
to call two hour fire resistant separations every three thousand
feet. I have a memorandum from the Chief Building Inspector to
the effect that these two hour separations.are marginal. The
Fire Department viewpoint is that these two hoar separations
are totally inadequate and will not function as they are
designed to. So, we have the lowest rated, most highly fire
prone type of construction which you can have for this entire
project.
This gives you an idea of the type of construction
and this
is one of
the dead end corridors,
-the
only access
that you
have into
this particular area --
you
might note, we
PETRICK & .PINA
Official Court Reporlers
543 -3078 544 -6352
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
.18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0411
.see three floors there. We think we see three stories any place
we look. The most fire prone structure we have.. This is an
example of the closeness of the units. We would have the
equivalent of about fourteen private residences facing
each other across a space that in no way compares to a city
street. -
MAYOR BLAKE: When that scaffolding is-removed, you
Will have eight feet more access?
MR. KAYE: Right. We would have that minimum. There'
was no intent to use the scaffolding to distort the picture.'
This is more reflective of what you actually have -
back when you get inside the facility. Of course, you have
to go to make several corners, which are very tight to get
back into this area, but in no way can you compare this
situation to a city street. On a city street we can expect to
find 60 to 80 feet between those buildings. Here we have
substantially less than that with three story construction.
The same situation again, three story construction.
That just shows the separation. Now, this supposedly is the
two story side of the construction. That building on the left,
that is the two story side. We have no way to ladder it,
we have no way to get apparatus in there. A crew of our firemen.
can't take a ladder up there and ladder that second floor.
By backing their dirt up against that building, they may have or
may not have satisfied the technical requirement between the two
or three story building, but they have completely eliminated
any two.story building for laddering. That is a three story
laddering problem on both sides of the building. On the back
PETRICK & PINA
01/icial Coarl Reporlers
543 -3078 544-6352
1
- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
34
there is a two story structure in between and there is
supposed to be clearing on the left side of that building.
I think another slide just might show how close these buildings
laze.
Can you see any daylight there to the left between
these two buildings? None whatsoever.
:.That is just to show the bank and the elevation on
the second story side of a different building, another structure
Next slide.
This is from the Ramona Street side. Again that is
supposed to be the,second story side of those structures. For
any kind of Fire Department emergency we have to consider the
we have to- ladder it 'just like.you would a three story building,
no difference. Next slide...
This again shows.separations, superior separations
between main buildings in a:subdivis?on area.
Again this is another spot where major buildings are
exposed one to the other. Now, this is one of the particular
points right here, between those two buildings. We have called
with the .architect and the developers an agreement for a water
curtain exposure line between those two buildings. If we have
a serious fire in the right building, the left system would
come on and we'd have some means to somewhat protect the left
building. Without that we would have no hope of stopping a fire
between those two buildings, no chance.
MAYOR BLARE: Is this the water stream referred to?
MR. KAYE: Right, the water curtain. That is just one of
the parts. We have tried to divide the entire complex into the
PETRICK & PINA
Official Court Reporters
543-3078 544 -6352
1
z
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
35
equivalent of three large blocks where if we lose one, at least
we would be able to stop it somewhere and to not wipe out the
entire complex. Next slide.
This again shows the closeness of the buildings.
It varies from one place to another. This is a medium, it is
very bad, but it is still medium. Next slide.
This might not look like anything, but to a fireman
this is one of the major hazards. It is an open stairwell from
the first to the second floor. The second floor is sleeping
quarters. Any kind of a fire involvement or even a start of
a fire, just a smoking couch situation, goes directly up that
stairwell into those bedrooms. Where we have increased
hazards, it becomes doubly important that we do something about
that hazard on that second floor or we call it the third floor,
in fact, but.it.is a complete open stairwell. Next slide.
This -- the only point for this slide was if you can
pick out that fire hydrant that is back between that bank over
there, all of the fire hydrants were to be installed and fully
operable before the start of any combustible construction. This
has been a standard fire requirement for over a year. On this
particular complex there were to be five hydrants required.
One hydrant was belatedly installed way up inside. The other
four at the time of this photograph were still not in service.
It is blocked by ditches, blocked by the back hole -.and it,.is
not in service. If we had a fire there we would have no chanceg,
no possible hope of stopping it.
MR. BAKER: You are talking about a construction fire?
MR. KAYE: Right. And construction probably is the most
PETRICK & PINA
Official Courl Reporlers
543-3078 544 -6352
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
.7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IT
hazardous phase of fire-protection through one of these
buildings -- it is during construction. We are having major
losses in California from fires during the period of construc
That is why we have required this. we did not get it at the
Tropicana, that was the point of this particular slide..' Next
slide.
COUNCILMAN GRAHAM: Is'that an eventual roadway there?
MR. KAYE: Yes. This is Ramona Drive, right. We had
another series'of slides that didn't work out. We also had
slides of the tigo hour. walls during construction.
The two hour separation is as required by the
building department and they concur with us in the fact that
.they will not work for the reasons that main support beams
are tied into them. They are not continuous from the foundation
to the roof. They are a combination of systems as they go up.
'If we have a fire on either side, the odds are great that that
fire is going to completely wipe out that two hour separation
and we have a protection through non -fire resistive construction
Those were the other slides, we won't have them. We do have
the statement that these two hour walls are marginal. The Fire
Department considers them totally ineffective. That just covers
our slides.
MAYOR BLAKE: Thank you, you have more?
MFR. KAYE: That is just one point.
MAYOR. BLARE: I am going to release Mr. Gurnee in six
minutes.
MR. KAYE: Let me briefly see if I can cover the high
points. I would like a chance to prepare a staff report because
PETRICK & PINA
Official Court Reporters
543 -3078 - 544 -6352
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
37
it is rather lengthy, if the need comes up. First of all
the architect and the developer came.to us with a plan.. origin-
ally we reviewed it. we recommended to the Planning Commission
that they deny this use permit on the basis of various factors,
inadequate access, water, et cetera.
The architect and developer came to us at the Fire
Department and said, •What can we do to resolve these problems ?•
We sat down with him. We worked out all the details.on what
it would take to make this a minimum safe project, in our
opinion. We agreed on all of these various factors and we
recommended this back to the Planning Commission and they
accepted them, accepted our recommendations which included the:
water curtains, all of the various factors — well, at least
two of the. three they are appealing.
We covered that end of the scale without any objection
from the architect or the developer and they were put into the
use permit condition. The planning check on the facility came
through. We again reiterated all of the requirements which were
specifically spelled out, the one that they are resisting.. the
most being the-heat detection system, an heat detectio
system throughout all portions of the buildings, tied back to
-- through a single line to the Fire Department.
This is the way it was originally laid out, it was
again laid out that way on the building planning check.0opies.
of that went to the architect and the developer. This was
incorporated into the plans. The first time that we find
objection is when it gets to that phase of construction and
a building inspector discovers that they in fact were not making
PETRICK & PINA
Official Court Reporters
543 -3078 544 -6352.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
J
this installation. At that time we were advised by the
developer that it was his intent to appeal this.
Back at the original agreement we at no time stated
that these water curtains were code requirements. We had no
cutaways. We didn't have.anything like this to show that we
were dealing with either two or three story buildings. These
were code references and they agreed to them so it was made a
part of the use permit.
The square footage and the fire extinguishers that --
MAYOR BLAKE:. That isn't an item of contest.
MR. KAYE: Yes, it is. That is the third item that they
have appealed. -They are requesting that the fire extinguishers
also be deleted. Anyway,that was the history of that part.
As.far'as it being a two or "three story building, I
have always considered that our fire fighting problem here had
to be viewed.as..a three story building. Particular questions
to the interpretation of the technicality and you can see wheth
it is a two or three story building. It is subject to debate
which was admitted by the Chief Building•Inspector at the time
this afternoon just by good fortune the Deputy State Fire
Marshall was in town, I took him to the site and he concurs
with me that technically these are three story buildings,and
not two. I believe the original -
MAYOR BLAKE: Does he outrank the Fire Chief in the
City of Downey?
MR. KAYE: Chief Gains? I have another point with him.
MAYOR BLAKE: Let's make that point clear. This was
a Deputy State --
PETRICK & PINA
Official Corers Reporters
543 -3078 544 -6352
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
39
MR. KAYE.: Deputy State Fire Marshall.. He serves three
counties including --
MAYOR BLARE: I have never seen a department that is
so clearly delineated in rank.. He does outrank any chief?
MR. KAYE: No. In fact his job is actually identical
only he serves in the county area and is advisory with the
city whereas the fire chief serves a --
MAYOR BLAKE: Then they are not parallel.
AM. KAYE: Yes. Referring to Chief Gains, we have the
letter back from Chief Gains that -Mr. Weaver has referred to
and Chief Gains was presenting his opinion on false information
to the fact that they were two story.one hour resistive through-
out, which is not a fact. The-determination-on the taio or
three story, a story, in the uniform Building Code, is
determined as being six feet.or more above grade in excess of
50 per cent of the perimeter. We have just; at first glance,
50 per cent of the perimeter in excess of nine feet. On the
other
side of the
building
we pick up more
than that. So, there
seems
to be more
than that.
A large part
of these buildings
are technically three story buildings. The original plans
were wholly inadequate.- We had no idea of how anybody got.: nto
these buildings because none of the stuff.was presented so this
was the handicap, so we'feel that we have had the authority
and the ability to require heat detection systems throughout
and under 13.40 and under 13.30(b), right from the beginning,
and it was originally put in as an agreement. It was not
put in as law, it was put in as an agreement based on reference
and we have continued it right through based on that particular
PETRICK & PINA
Official Court Reporlers
543 -3078 544 -6352
1
2
3
4
5
6
-7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
IT
18
19
20
21
22
23'
24
40
survey.
MR. WAINSCOTT: I might add, I think that Don feels the
same Hay I do. I think..that this is our responsibility to
require these things in this type of building and I think we
are neglecting.our duty if we don't require them.
MAYOR BLARE: Mr. Baker, at this time I am --
MR. BAKER: No rebuttal.
MAYOR BLAKE: No rebuttal and inasmuch as the hour, I
think I can conservatively say late, if it is your desire at
this time, and if my fellow councilmen feel at this time that
they are in a position to vote, I would suggest they vote. If
they feel that they are not in a position to vote, I will
adjourn this meeting at this point and then we will take up
with rebuttal with copies-of the Fire Department's observations.
We will also dispose, and I imagine rather rapidly, with the
determination as to the number of stories which will be supplied
us by our city building inspector. We can add other information
from the engineer's office on.site grading and other elements
and aspects of the construction of this property. At this point
I will ask and poll my council as to whether they wish to
proceed with this subject at this point or whether they wish
to adjourn to a different hour. Mr. Brown?
COUNCILMAN -BROWN: I am prepared to vote.
COUNCILMAN GRAHAM: I truly am, however, I would like to
see or hear from the Fire Marshall and Mr. Kaye here that he
says he can actually give us a detailed report. If you want to
wait to that point, why I am willing to delay until then, but
I am ready to vote.
PETRICK & PINA
Official Court Reporters
543 -3078 544 -6352
25
26
27
28
40
survey.
MR. WAINSCOTT: I might add, I think that Don feels the
same Hay I do. I think..that this is our responsibility to
require these things in this type of building and I think we
are neglecting.our duty if we don't require them.
MAYOR BLARE: Mr. Baker, at this time I am --
MR. BAKER: No rebuttal.
MAYOR BLAKE: No rebuttal and inasmuch as the hour, I
think I can conservatively say late, if it is your desire at
this time, and if my fellow councilmen feel at this time that
they are in a position to vote, I would suggest they vote. If
they feel that they are not in a position to vote, I will
adjourn this meeting at this point and then we will take up
with rebuttal with copies-of the Fire Department's observations.
We will also dispose, and I imagine rather rapidly, with the
determination as to the number of stories which will be supplied
us by our city building inspector. We can add other information
from the engineer's office on.site grading and other elements
and aspects of the construction of this property. At this point
I will ask and poll my council as to whether they wish to
proceed with this subject at this point or whether they wish
to adjourn to a different hour. Mr. Brown?
COUNCILMAN -BROWN: I am prepared to vote.
COUNCILMAN GRAHAM: I truly am, however, I would like to
see or hear from the Fire Marshall and Mr. Kaye here that he
says he can actually give us a detailed report. If you want to
wait to that point, why I am willing to delay until then, but
I am ready to vote.
PETRICK & PINA
Official Court Reporters
543 -3078 544 -6352
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
41
MAYOR BLAKE: Mr. Gurnee ?.
COUNCIL6IAN GURNEE: 'I am ready to vote.
MR. BAKER: I would appreciate a vote now. There are
a couple of things that need mentioning.
MAYOR BLARE: Mr. Baker --
MR. BAKER: And I would press for.ihe.vote at this
time.
MAYOR BLAKE: I have a hand from one other staff member
who wishes to be heard, from Mr. Kellerman.' .
AIR. KELLERMAN: One comment and Mr.Baker is well aware
of this, that if in.fact the buildings are not, by definition,
two story, he gets no .occupancy,and.he has to go back and in
make them one hour resistive,.thioughout' and he has been made
well aware of that.
14AYOR•BLAKE: Repeat that, or clarify it.
MR. KE •TEF1iAN: If, at the time the buildings are ready
to be occupied, if they do not meet the definition of two
stories, so that he can waive the requirement for a three story
structure, then he will not get occupancy and he will have to
make them one hour throughout and provide the additional
requirements necessary for a. three story building. He is
aware of that.
MR. BAKER :. This is a kind of a side issue. Are you
talking about the grade around -the building?
MR. KELLERMAN: Grades around the building as the
definition calls for.
M.R. BAKER: You are talking about as per the Uniform
Building Code?
PETRICK & PINA
Official Court Reporters
543 -3078 544 -6352
13
14
l
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
41
MAYOR BLAKE: Mr. Gurnee ?.
COUNCIL6IAN GURNEE: 'I am ready to vote.
MR. BAKER: I would appreciate a vote now. There are
a couple of things that need mentioning.
MAYOR BLARE: Mr. Baker --
MR. BAKER: And I would press for.ihe.vote at this
time.
MAYOR BLAKE: I have a hand from one other staff member
who wishes to be heard, from Mr. Kellerman.' .
AIR. KELLERMAN: One comment and Mr.Baker is well aware
of this, that if in.fact the buildings are not, by definition,
two story, he gets no .occupancy,and.he has to go back and in
make them one hour resistive,.thioughout' and he has been made
well aware of that.
14AYOR•BLAKE: Repeat that, or clarify it.
MR. KE •TEF1iAN: If, at the time the buildings are ready
to be occupied, if they do not meet the definition of two
stories, so that he can waive the requirement for a three story
structure, then he will not get occupancy and he will have to
make them one hour throughout and provide the additional
requirements necessary for a. three story building. He is
aware of that.
MR. BAKER :. This is a kind of a side issue. Are you
talking about the grade around -the building?
MR. KELLERMAN: Grades around the building as the
definition calls for.
M.R. BAKER: You are talking about as per the Uniform
Building Code?
PETRICK & PINA
Official Court Reporters
543 -3078 544 -6352
rmE
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
I 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MR. KELLERAmAN: That's correct.
MR. BARER: In rebuttal I can think of at least eight
or nine things that are not true. We had no. meeting of the
minds on the heat detection system. The specifics of it were
never alluded to in a conversation between the architect and
myself and Don.
MAYOR BLAKE: We have had that information given us by
your attorney.
.MR. BAKER: But Mr. Kaye has.got up and said many
things that cement his argument together and put together an
emotional appeal here that just isn't true and I think really
that this will wind up litigated and these things will be
brought out, but as a matter of the record, to support any
further litigation I would like to make a comment at this time,_
between the architect and Mr. Kaye and myself we never talked
about the specifics of any heat detection system. There was
never any understanding that there were any specifics of any
of the requirements with the exception of maybe the water curtai
lines, the fire access routes and the hydrants. The access
routes and the hydrants we have already complied with and he
is trying to make me out like a:bad guy like I haven't done
everything that he said when really we have done everything that
we were required to do up to the point where we had a
$35,000 heat detection system to put in.
Basically there isn't a meeting of the minds between
the Fire Department and myself in laying out the plan. Once
again you have been,led to believe by the slides that all the
buildings are five feet apart. Mr. Kaye showed you an instance
PETRICK & .PINA
Official Court. Reporters
543 -3078 544 -6352
t FM
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
43
where there were two buildings in close conjunction with one
another. ghat he didn't tell you was that it was a fire
resistant wall and when it was designed extra cautions were
taken. It is right on the plan.
Another point he has alluded to.tract site develop-
iment.. This being one hundred 1.400 square foot houses.
You can take a housing tract and .put buildings ten feet apart
and rooflines six.,feet apart; isn't that right?
MR. KELLERMAN: Ten.
MR. BAKER: Roof lines...We don't have that condition
out there. I can think of maybe two instances where the
buildings are in close together.. Mr. Kaye is trying to build
up a case to show that this,site is jammed packed. I am not
.saying that it is not an apartment complex,but I am saying that
it is no more..dense than it.would be in a normal PH apartment
zone with building lines established and side yards established
according to the U.B.C. and the various items that make the
whole project not an abnormal project. There is another very,
very important point and that is never in-our discussions with
the Fire Department was ever any comment made about access or
three stories and these points came up last Wednesday in the m
ing with the Fire Board of Appeals.
This is the first time they have come up and it
appears that the Fire Department is deciding these things now
as a last ditch stand when really their whole argument at first
rested on an interpretation:of hazardous housing. So, I feel
that -- well, there are so many things in his.conversation that
I -- like the one hour construction. Here is a letter:
'.PETRICK & PINA
Official Court Reporters
543 -3078 544 -6352
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
44
"All portions of all buildings shall be one hour fire
resistive construction or shall have two hour separations as
marked on the Fire Department approved plan.°
We went the two hour fire separation route instead
of the one hour resistive construction. It was an elective
alternative we had and that the Fire Department condoned at
the time.
so, I don't mean to discredit the Fire Department
in their attempt to make our society safe or our student
housing as safe as possible, however, I think they got an over-
kill going in the worst degree because there is none such
requirement in any other city that I know of and I have called
dozens of them and I have yet to hear from Mr. Kaye or
Mr. Wainscott or anyone who is applying the fire preventive
measures that our local Fire Department is applying. I think
it is a burden. I think it is unfair and I think it is
discriminatory and I don't think that.the law supports it, so
on that basis I would like --
MAYOR BLAKE: Do you feel the pictures were fair?
MR. BAKER: You saw the high side of the pictures. We
intentionally took the code and designed the building to fit
the code which we have the right and the latitude to do, in
fact, the code really is the rules by which you design
buildings. We took the code and designed our buildings to
conform with it,-to harmonize with it and we have by the
Uniform --
MAYOR BLAKE: The code of its very nature --
COUNCILMAN GRAHAM: I would like to ask Mr. Kellerman,
PETRICK & PINA
Official Court Reporters
543 -3078 544 -6352
1
2
3
4
5
6
7'
8
.9
•10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
45
who is determining the height of these buildings? Who does
determine the height? What is going to be the determining
MR. KELLERMAN: Well, the definitions in the code
determine the height of the building and the number of stories
by the definitions within the building code. It is not an
arbitrary determination by anyone.
COUNCIIMAN.GRAHAM: Are these defined as two story or
three.story? .
MR..HELLERMAN: If he meets the criteria as two story --
MR. JOHNSON: Don!t.be led astray, though by this. We
are hung up on whether or not it is a two story or a three
story as if the only requirements for fire protection exists
in three stories and that is Mr. Baker's argument, but it is noti
the position.of the Fire Department, The Fire Department's
position is that the hazards of a three story building are
present here because of the construction.
.MR. BAKER:. Well, if the Fire Department wishes to make
a compromise, I'd be very, very willing to comply with every
fire preventive measure under the Uniform Fire Code and we'd
classify these structures as three story structures, because
only four of the.units out there would be required anything in
the way of fire appliances* and those four would be the units
that have 15 or more dwelling units and.in those four there are
no fire appliances required, even in those four.
MR. KAYE: The extinguishers would be required -- you
are stating that if we called them three story --
MR. BAKER: Uniform Building Code requirements.
PETRICK & PINA
Official Court Reporters
543 -3078 544 -6352
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
r 27
28
46
MR. KAYE: Uniform Building Code.doesn't call for the
fire --
MR. BASER: The Uniform Fire --
MAYOR BLAKE:. I think we are laying out the rules for
a new ball game.
MR. BASER: What I•am trying to do is just illustrate
a point, Mr. Blake, and the point is that the Fire Code is
designed in its initial introduction to supplement the
Uniform Building Code and to put it in simple language, where,
the Uniform Building Code has a blank spot,..the Uniform Fire
Code evidently is intended to step in.. The Uniform Building.
Code, however, in the case for which we designed these buildings
has all the design criteria for fire preventive systems. We
are not bad guys. When the Fire.Department tries to drop a
$40,000 system on us, that is not in my mind required by law,
I think it is worth looking into and-I feel that if you can
honor our request for our appeal, I'd appreciate it. If you
can't, we intend to litigate it because it should be brought
out in the open and I am sorry we kept you so long.
MAYOR BLAKE: Thank you'very much. All conversation
will be eliminated. I would like Mr. Johnson to sum up and
comment on the alternatives open to us.
MR. JOHNSON: The obvious alternatives, number one
would be to sustain the action on the Appeal's Board and in
effect to.deny the appeal. I think the reasons for this type
of action are amply covered in the. action of the Board of
Appeals. In fact, I'would recommend if you.take that action
that you refer to their findings, specifically, because I don't
PETRICK & PINA
Official Court Reporters
543-3078 544 -6352
1
2
3
4
5
6
.7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
r 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
47
believe that there is any question but.that they have gathered
the arguments of the Fire Department and have scrutinized
them and made findings on the express points that they base
their requirement on.. The other alternative, quite obviously
also mould be to sustain the appeal saying that the requirement
imposed by the Fire Department is inappropriate and should be
waived. It should be noted, however, that there are more than
just the question of fire sprinklers, or rather fire detection
devices involved in the appeal. The application that came
(before the board was that in a two story group 8 occu ancYr
this is his statement on his position, the Uniform Building
Code, or the Uniform Fire Code does not require the following
items: One, the heat detection system together with the
electronic apparatus required. Two, water curtain fire exposure
three, installation of 40 portable dry chemical extinguishers
and.the request for the appellant4� is that the aforementioned
requirements be cancelled even though some of these have not
been extensively discussed in the.presentation, so the action
that is before you is a request that all of these requirements
be deleted and.obviously your action in upholding your appeal
.would be granting permission to delete these requirements.
MAYOR BLAKE: Mr. Brown, do you have any comment you'd
like to make?
COUNCILMAN BROWN: Yes. Mr, Mayor, I feel that we shouldi
uphold the denial by the Board of Appeals due to the permit
and the fact that the.public health, safety and welfare, in
my opinion, are involved pretty heavily.due to the complication
of building height and access. It would seem to me that the
PETRICK & PINA
O//icia! Court Reporters
543 -3078 544 -6352
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
48
stipulation with the Fire Department should be required and
I will make a motion to do that.
MAYOR BLAKE: I'd like to listen first to Mr. Graham,
COUNCILMAN GRAHAM: I would just second, just what he
said.
COUNCILMAN GURNEE: I concur.
MAYOR BLARE: At this time -- I too concur with the
staff. I feel there.is nothing vindictive, nothing to be gained
on the part of the staff. I think we have had it adequately
presented to us that -both-by..yourself, Mr. Baker and by your
attorney, Mr. Weaver, that-in case we do uphold the decision
of the Appeal's Board .and the comments of ,the staff that you
intend to pursue it through legal channels, this of course is
your right. This is also a portion of the protection both for
the City and for you, the petitioner. So -at this time I will
accept the motion.
COUNCILMAN GRAHAM: I second it.
.MAYOR BLARE: I think we all understand Mr. Brown's
motion, however, Mr. Fitzpatrick will read it. It was
seconded by Mr. Graham,
MR. FITZPATRICK: Motion of Councilman Brown that the
City Council upholds the decision of the Fire Code Board of
Appeals and denies the appeal of Mr, Baker on the basis of
health, safety and welfare provisions and the protection of
the future owners of the property.
COUNCILMAN BROWN: And reference to the Board of
Appeals having merit.
MAYOR BLAKE: We will have a roll call vote on this for
PETRICK & PINA
Official Court Reporters
543 -3078 544 -6352
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
clarity, with your recorder..
MR. FITZPATRICK:
Mr.. Broom?
COUNCILMAN BROWN:
Aye,
MR, FITZPATRICK:
Mr. Graham?
COUNCILMAN GRAHAM:
Aye.
MR. FITZPATRICK:
Mr. Gurnee?
COUNCILMAN GURNEE:
Aye..
MR. FITZPATRICK: .Mr.
Blake?
MAYOR BLAKE : - Aye.
PETRICK & PINA
Official Court Reporters
543 -3078 544 -6352