HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/10/1971MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
September 10, 1971 - 12:10 P.M.
City Hall
Roll Call
Present: Emmons Blake, John C. Brown, Myron Graham,
T. Keith Gurnee, Kenneth E. Schwartz
City Staff
Present: H. Johnson, City Attorney; D. F. Romero, City
Engineer; R. D. Young, Planning Director;
Paul Landell, Engineering Assistant; L. Schlobohm,
Fire Chief; K. Michel, Secretary to City Clerk
Mayor Schwartz stated the purpose of the meeting was to review the cur-
rent -status of the Tropicana Development resulting from recent out of
court determinations made with the owners of Tropicana regarding the
access for fire fighting equipment.
Councilman Blake summarized events leading to this meeting: the con-
ditions of the planned development requiring fire protection devices and
the Baker's appeal for relief from this condition which eventually led to
the court suit by the Bakers. He stated the City negotiating team of
H. Johnson, City Attorney; L. Schlobohm, Fire Chief; and himself met with
Mr. Baker and his attorney, Mr. Gerald Weaver, to workout an agreement
and the principal concern of this agreement had been human safety. As a
result of the meeting, the Bakers would substitute battery powered smoke
detection devices which would not connect directly to the Fire Station,
the fire curtain (of water) would be eliminated and in its place an access
road would be constructed to be kept cleared and locked at all times. The
City negotiators were assured that the landscaping would remain and would
only be curtailed in certain areas. He stated they did not dwell heavily
on the matter of landscaping. The Bakers had agreed to withdraw their
suit against the City subject to the conditions of the agreement being
ratified by the City Council. He stated that the Bakers had immediately
commenced construction of the access road but that a work stoppage was
now in effect.
Chief L. Schlobohm stated they were concerned with life safety within the
development. The Fire Code Appeals'Board had backed the requirements of
the Fire Department as the City Council also did. He stated that any
changes would have to be approved by the Council and would also still
have to maintain an acceptable level of fire protection with some con-
sideration of the landscaping. He felt that sufficient space was left
for the landscaping next to the access road. He pointed out that this
road would also give fire fighting access to the rear of the properties
on Verde Drive.
H. Johnson, City Attorney, explained the City was prepared to present
documentation from the Fire Department establishing the requirements of
a smoke detection device to provide higher degrees of protection to the
occupants. The fire curtain was discussed and an alternative was a
means of access to the buildings which was.the eleven foot (111) road
which was under discussion. He stated the landscaping would be affected
in some areas but a wood and masonry fence would be built.
R. D. Young, Planning Director, stated the conditions of the planned
development were for landscaping and fencing along the property line.
The Council and residents of Verde Drive discussed the distance between
the property line and the Tropicana buildings.
The Council also received a letter signed by several residents of Verde
Drive who were unable to attend the meeting.
City Council Minutes
September 10, 1971
Page 2
Mayor Schwartz stated the out of court settlement had still not been
accepted by the full Council. He acknowledged the adjacent property
owner's questions about the road and drainage and about the landscaping
and possible modifications. He summarized the possibilities as (1)
determine that the compromise was unacceptable and possibly go back to
court, he felt the City might still get the fire curtain installed rather
than the road and the landscaping could still be installed according to
the planned development; (2) accept the presentation of the compromise '
committee and ensure that the technical aspects were carried out with
respect to construction of retaining walls to allow the eleven .foot
road; (3) accept the concept of the roadway, recognizing the physical
constraints and devise a.landscaping plan to determine whether there
would be sufficient landscaping to screen the adjacent properties.
Frank Shaw stated that Tropicana.had removed his back fence three years
earlier.
Steve Ellis stated that trees were removed from his property.
H. Johnson stated that the side fences would be extended to meet the
retaining wall and fence at Baker's expense.
Mrs. Jack Hemen felt the Bakers should construct a brick wall to keep
the noise from the adjacent properties. She stated she and her neigh-
bors wanted a six foot brick wall between their properties and the
development on Baker's side of the property line.
Mayor Schwartz stated the Bakers took the City to court. He pointed
out that the court might not require Baker to provide any fire safety .
protection such as the fire curtain in the original plan.
H. Johnson stated the reason for the compromise involved interpretation
of the Fire Code and the developer had a right to re -open the issue in
court and challenge the interpretation of the Fire Code. The purpose of
the water curtain was to prevent.fire from spreading between buildings.
Councilman Blake stated the substitution of the smoke devices-for heat
detection devices was a separate matter from the access road. He stated
that the access road was to be in place of the fire curtain.
Mayor Schwartz stated the City staff members had reviewed the case and
had suggested that: if the road were put in and the fences which now
exist at the back of the Verde Drive properties were taken down.-the
Bakers should construct the new retaining wall and fence the.property
line plus extend the side fences to meet this new fence. They further
suggested that if the road were insta.lied and the landscaping which -.was
to be planted would have to be eliminated in certain areas, then the
Bakers should put the same amount of landscaping for screening in the
back three or four feet of the adjacent property. He asked if the _,..
property owners felt this was a reasonable way to get a solid fence and
landscaping and still put in the access road. If they felt this should
be done, he asked that they direct the City Council to do so. He
pointed out that the Bakers were still obligated to plant landscaping
on their own side of the fence where the space is greater than eleven....
feet.
Councilman Blake stated the fire trucks would.run practice runs through
this road frequently so that the access would remain clear.
R. D. Young, Planning Director, upon questioning, stated the 15- gallon
trees would be the minimum size.
Mayor Schwartz felt there was no reason for Baker to put in more than
eleven feet of roadway.
B. Dusek asked if it would be advisable to have one species of tree or
would the property owners be able to choose if a tree were planted on
their property.
City Council Minutes
September 10, 1971
Page 3
Councilman Graham felt the City Council. was not trying to protect the
Bakers.
S. Ellis asked what would be done where his property was higher than
the Bakers.
Mayor Schwartz stated that in each case a retaining wall was necessary
as part of the fence.
Paul Landell, Engineering Assistant, pointed out that placement of the
trees on the private property side of the fence would more effectively
screen them from the developmenttsri upper windows.
Mrs. Heman stated she would not mind trees on her side of the fence but
wanted the agreement in writing.
Mr. Ellis agreed with Mrs. Hemen.
Councilman Brown suggested trading the smoke for heat detection devices
but go back to the original fire curtain and forget the road. He
stated this was a planned development and part of the basis of its
acceptance was the landscaping.
Mayor Schwartz pointed out that everything could be lost if they went
back to court.
Councilman Gurnee stated Councilman Brown's comment surprised him. He
stated that the Bakers would have to purchase so many 15 gallons for
screening of each property and the landscaping should also screen the
road. He felt it was unfortunate that things had been allowed to'go to
the extent that emergency measures were necessary. He .agreed with'
' Councilman Brown about the conditions of the planned development.
Councilman Brown felt the fire safety should not be the entire basis of
the discussion. He felt the Council could still settle the matter on
the basis of the conditions of the planned development and make the
development compatible to its neighborhood.
H. Johnson felt the compromise provided both.
Councilman Gurnee felt the Bakers should stick to the precise plan.
Chief Schlobohm stated the Planning Commission stipulated that certain
things should be done, but the court did not have to agree.
Councilman Blake stated it would take a pretty unique court to upset the
City Code, Planning Commission and City Council on a life safety device.
Councilman Graham favored developing to the precise plan.
Mayor Schwartz stated it was added as a part of the plan check and was
not a condition of the planned development.
Councilman Brown suggested that the Bakers bring-the access road up
through the middle of the development.
' Councilman Graham asked the location of the fire hydrants.
Chief Schlobohm pointed them out on the map.
Mr. Ellis asked if another alternative could be considered in respect to
human safety.
Mr. Shaw pointed out that the hydrants were not along the access road.
City Council Minutes
September 10, 1971
Page 4
Chief Schlobohm stated the fire trucks hook up, then drive up to lay out
the hoses so the hose is ready for use when they get there.
Councilman Blake stated he was not supporting the Bakers or the negotia-
ting team but was primarily concerned with life safety. He felt the fire
curtain could be obtained rather than the access road and still retain
the smoke detection device without going back to court. '
On motion of Councilman Gurnee,.that the Bakers be required to put in a
fire curtain and adhere to the landscaping in the precise plan as he
favored the original plan.
Councilman Blake felt the Fire Department should be allowed to reconsider
and take advice of experts and at no time did the Fire Department
question the skill of the fire underwriter who appeared before the court.
He felt this was no reflection on the confidence of the Fire Department.
Mayor Schwartz suggested the motion might better be to agree to the sub-
stitution of the smoke device in place of the heat detection device.
Councilman Gurnee agreed to that amendment.
The motion was seconded by Councilman Brown.
Mayor Schwartz stated it was the determination of the City in the precise
plan after two public hearings that the screening was needed for esthetic
and buffer purposes. He agreed with.the motion and agreed with Council-
man Blake that the City could get both landscaping and the fire curtain.
Councilman Gurnee felt the water curtain was still there and without any
sacmifices.
Mayor Schwartz stated that the fire curtain would confine the fire to a '
certain area. He pointed out that with the access road, the Fire
Department could get better access to all buildings. He felt the water
curtain would not be a cure -all.
Councilman Graham felt the landscaping and buffer zone was the best
answer.
Councilman Blake stated the fence or solid wall would be constructed re-
gardless and was not a consideration in this discussion.
Mayor Schwartz pointed out that if the motion passed as presented, the
conditions that existed would be as per the precise plan; with trees on
the Tropicana side of the fence which would be like the other Tropicana
fence on Broad Street and not a solid wall.
Councilman Brown asked Chief Schlobohm wh -i:ch way he would chose if asked
in court about the safety.
Chief Schlobohm replied he would favor the access road.
Councilman Blake felt it was unlikely that the court would require that
the Bakers landscape anyone else's property.
Mayor Schwartz wondered what the property owners present felt in.re- 1
action to the conditions as related to the original proposal.
Mr. Shaw favored landscaping, as did Mr. Ellis, Mr. Dusek & Mrs. Hemen.
Mayor Schwartz stated the original proposal provided a fence and land-
scaping on the Tropicana side. The proposal now being discussed would
have a wall, a road and landscaping on both sides.of the fence depending
on where it would be placed. He asked if the property owners still
favored the original plan as approved in the precise plan.