Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/03/19771 1 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO . TUESDAY, MAY 3, 1977 - 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL Pledge Roll Call PRESENT: Councilmen Dunin, Gurnee, Jorgensen and Petterson ABSENT: City Staff Mayor Schwartz PRESENT: J.H. Fitzpatrick, City Clerk; R.D. Miller, Administrative Officer; Allen Grimes, City Attorney; Roger Neuman, Police Chief; D.F. Romero, Public Services Director; Wayne Peterson, City Engineer; Dan Smith; Terry Sanville Vice Mayor Petterson presiding. 1. At this time the City Council held a public hearing on the appeal by Dalessi Center of a decision of the Architectural Review Commission denying Dalessi Center Office Building proposed at 999 Monterey Street. Dan Smith, Community Development Department, reviewed for the Council's information the Architectural Review Commission minutes of April 11, 1977 dealing with the application before them for a six -story office building at 999 Monterey Street. He continued that prior consideration by the ARC on January 10, 1977, as a result of staff referral on a similar project, had revealed numerous citizen and commission questions and concerns, all adverse to the design concept. Further, the Environmental Review Committee informed the City Council that they had defined a scope of work for an EIR preparation to evaluate many identified possible adverse aspects of the proposal, and the ARC with the applicant's consent had selected a qualified consultant. Finally, both staff and Council expended considerable effort exploring and enabling an alternative concept which would avoid some of the most objectionable aspects of the proposal. Then without responding to any of the issues and concerns raised in the earlier ARC comments or the EIR scope and without mention of the authorized alternative concept, the appli- cants insisted upon ARC action on the original proposal modified slightly. To compound to this premature insistence, the applicant declined to respond to questions posed by the Commission, unless submitted in writing and then asked for immediate action not allowing time to prepare such written comments. Staff had consulted with the City Attorney and advised both the ARC and the applicant of his response opinion of March 23, 1977 that the ARC need not act on the project prior to the final EIR being made available to the ARC to aid it in its design review. Staff therefore recommended and ARC concurred that if the applicant assisted upon premature action, the action should be to deny the project. The staff recommended action that the City Council deny the appeal and advise the applicant to re- submit revised project after completion of the EIR. Dan Smith then reviewed the legal memorandum opinion 477 -7 from Allen Grimes, City Attorney, which stated that the code provisions on the ARC rules and 1 guidelines do not express or provide where the approval of the Commission constitute a right which is not subject to abrogation. He was inclined to believe that the EIR requirements and the 604 -A resource deficiencies as well as the zoning regulations are each separate and individual requirements that must be satisfied. He also felt it was good administrative policy and would negate contention with the applicant if the CEQA and 604 -A review were completed before approval or granted by the ARC. Therefore, the ARC may withhold a project from the agenda administratively until the City Council has certified the EIR and resolved any 604 -A deficiencies defecting the property. Or, if it appears warranted in a particular situation, the ARC could attach its conditions of approval that the EIR be certified and any f City Council Minutes Page 2 604 -A deficiencies resolved. The City Attorney.also saw no objection to the staff recommending that.the ARC take no action on a project prior to the certified EIR being made available to the ARC to aid in its design and review. Vice Mayor Petterson opened the public hearing. Ethan Jennings, Architect and President of Dalessi Center, Inc.,:then read the following letter of appeal dated 4/21/77 as follows: "The ARC at their meeting of April 11, 1977 reviewed and denied by resolution the above project. The two stated reasons for denial are inconsistent and in nonconformity with ARC procedures and criteria set forth in City Ordinance No. 600 and the ARC procedures document. Reason 1: The required Project EIR was not - prepared and avail- able for use by the ARC. The ARC Ordinance or criteria does not state the necessity of EIR for ARC consideration. Community Development Director, Rob Strong, clearly stated to the ARC, during the meeting, of City Attorney's advice that ARC may, at their option, review and take action without EIR. Reason 2: The indication of the applicant that all questions posed by the ARC would have to be submitted in written form before answers could be given. ARC Procedures Document Section 1 states that the applicant is encouraged to appear in person before the ARC to present his proposed plans. It does not-state that the applicant shall be present or answer questions spontaneously. The statements by applicant's representative, Mr..Ethan Jennings,.Jr. AIA, that he. would be more than happy to answer any questions presented to him in letter form does not constitute reason for denial of the project in accordance with Ordinance 600 and its ARC Procedures Document. Our Architect for this project, Jennings- Vaicius and Associates, encouraged a policy based on their previous communication experi- ence, in view of multi - disciplinary team effort and other complex- ities involved in realization of projects, and in order to give accurate, precise answers, to communicate in written form. The project conforms to the criteria of ARC Procedures Document. The Commission denied the project without stating its findings and judgement in specific detail and failed to inform the applicant precisely of the basis for its disapproval as required by ARC Pro- cedures Document. The Commission also failed to make any positive appropriately constructive resolutions to be incorporated in the design of the building to meet the ordinance requirements. The individual Commissioners basically stated that they did not like what they saw. The evaluation of aesthetics of the building is bound to be somewhat personal since it derives on accumulated experience of the viewer. The subjective interpretations account for the fact that one may like or dislike a building whether its architecture is bad.or good. Personal likes and dislikes in architecture are thus inevitable, as in all other arts, and they are not undesirable either, but they should not be confused with the absolute merit of what is liked or disliked, thus it is reasonable to say, of architecture, that you dislike it but unreasonable to call it bad and deny it merely because one dislikes it. The personal likes and dislikes are subject to reasonable objective determination. If the Architect has established a definite and consistent organization of space, mass, rhythm, function, with unity, elegance, and expressive honesty within restraints, then he has fashioned..a beautiful thing whose beauty transcends hasty pleasure or displeasure, transient likes and dislikes. If the City Council is desirous and open to acquire objective under- standing of the proposed project, the Dalessi Center, Inc., following 7 U 1 1 City Council.Minutes Page 3 request, will answer questions in written form; will state objectives of the project; will explain evolution, decisions, and reasons for design solution; and describe in detail conform- ance parameters to numerous ARC building design criteria items of ARC Procedures Document. We request the City Council to direct the ARC to continue review procedure and resolve questions to the owner within the purpose of Ordinance 600 and the ARC Procedures Document." e Don J. Kahn, Chairman, ARC, stated that Commissioner Bruce Tjaden, Vice Chairman, would submit the background on the ARC action on Dalessi Center..as he was not there for the full discussion on the date of April 11, 1977. Commissioner Bruce Tjaden then appeared before the City Council and reviewed the activities and discussions of the April 11, 1977 ARC meeting dealing with the Dalessi Center. He stated that he felt in terms of the proposed project itself, that the input from the January 10, 1977 ARC meeting would still hold. He stated he asked the applicant if litigation was the primary purpose of his actions and whether the legal concept of the ARC was being questioned, as it was his understanding that this had been established in the courts for many years. He also asked the applicant if they wished to test the implementation of the ordinance in the community and if that were true, there was certainly a less melodramatic procedure available to do this. He felt the matter could be dealt with in a creative way short of litigation. He continued that he suspected that the questions of litiga- tion were prominent in this discussion as they kept coming through on each discussion. He felt the action of the Commission was proper in waiting for the EIR and denying an immediate decision as recommended or requested by the applicant. Ila Harmon, 350 Iona Drive, was opposed to the proposed exterior finish of the proposed Dalessi Center building. She felt it looked hideous and urged the Council to support the ARC. David Brodie urged the Council to support the ARC's action; he felt the proposal, if approved by the Council, would change the entire concept of downtown San Luis Obispo. He felt that this building would start the ruin of the quality of life in downtown San.Luis Obispo. Don Smith was opposed to the development and urged the Council to support the action of the ARC, the Planning staff, and that the EIR be expedited so that a decision could be made with full knowledge of the pros and cons of this development. Larry Field, ARC Member, felt that the issue was not •whether the EIR was completed, but whether the proposal actually fit downtown San Luis Obispo, with such questions as height, exterior finish, etc. Allen Cooper stated that he was opposed to the City Council overruling the ARC as he felt this was a quite interesting project, and he felt that the public had not had an opportunity to express an interest and concern in this design. He felt there was a preoccupation with the code of requirements that he hoped for a building that did more than just avoid creating a public nuisance or an aesthetic blunder. He felt it would be wise for the Council to proceed with the application of this development. Dave Morgan, architectural student at Cal Poly, was opposed to the appeal procedure and felt that the City Council should not interfere in this pro - fessional committee and that the Architectural Review Board had the expertise to approve or disapprove this object. Randy Jones was opposed to the Dalessi Center Building because he felt a more sensitive treatment should be included in the design and felt that the building as designed was offensive. Fred Peterson was opposed to continued expansion of parking lots in downtown San Luis Obispo and felt that some new construction should be encouraged and allowed in downtown San Luis Obispo to bringing life to the downtown rather than blocks and blocks of parking. City Council Minutes Page 4 , architecture student at Cal Poly, was opposed.to the design and material in the Dalessi Center Building. He felt this would hurt the San Luis Obispo environment. Larry Storm, Cal Poly student, felt the discussion should be limited to the appeal and not design or material proposed for the building. He felt this proposal would hurt the character of San Luis Obispo. Von Shamel, Cal Poly student, asked what right did the developer have to appeal; felt the entire proposal was wrong for downtown San Luis Obispo. Jay Johnson was in support of the appeal process; he felt everyone should have his day in court; felt that the development was premature; stated the Council should wait until the two studies for downtown had been completed before further discussion. Vice Mayor Petterson closed the public hearing. Councilman Gurnee stated that he was in support of the ARC decision to deny development. He felt the ARC acted correctly in holding up final decision for completion of the EIR. He felt the project EIR could answer many of the questions unknown by the ARC and staff at this time. Finally, his personal feeling was that the Dalessi Center Building was too big and would hurt the spirit of downtown. Ron Dunin felt the community -at -large was opposed to-a building proposed by Dalessi Center. He also felt the request for_the ARC'to write their questions down was unreasonable. He felt that dialogue between the.ARC and applicant was healthy for all concerned. Councilman Jorgensen stated that he was personally opposed to the building proposed, but that the appeal was a matter -of discussion, and he felt the basis of the appeal was spurious and he would support the ARC and staff. Vice Mayor Petterson stated that he agreed with Councilman Jorgensen's statements; there was no merit in the appeal. He felt the ARC had a right to ask for the EIR before discussion and he also felt the ARC was right in denying the application until the information they needed to make a decision was received. On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Jorgensen, that the City Council deny the appeal of Dalessi Center until the EIR for the project had been completed and been made available to the public and to the City agency. Motion carried. Mayor Schwartz absent. 2. At this time the City Council held a public hearing onthe adoption of the amended Uniform Fire Code, which amends portions of Article III, Chapter I, Part 2, of the Municipal Code. Vice Mayor Petterson opened the meeting to the public. Councilman Dunin requested that the consideration of this ordinance be continued until the Motel /Hotel Association Membership had an opportunity to comment on some of the devices that were required in future and existing motel /hotel complexes. He felt until'this_ ordinance had been finally received in its iinal form, no one realized the implications this would have on private business. W. Dolezal, developer, objected to the speed for adopting of this code without everyone knowing of the implications of the changes proposed, particularly in new dwellings and in future existing dwellings. Charles Long, representing the Motel /Hotel Association and Mobile Home Packs asked for clarifications of regulations being imposed on these industries. City Council Minutes Page 5 Mike DeNeve, Manager, Building Contractors Association, questioned conditions of Section 3120.45 which he felt was in conflict with zoning regulations on dimensions and Section 3120.413, clarification of regulations for condominiums. W. Dolezal.again spoke questioning the City's ability to enforce requirements by adding fire protection units in buildings upon sale or transfer and how this would be accomplished. Vice Mayor Petterson closed the public hearing. a Battalion Chief Mike Parks, appeared before the City Council stating that this ordinance had been in preparation for a year and that they thought that at the other hearings and public exposure that every element of the community had had an opportunity for input. He then reviewed some of the questions brought before the City Council at this meeting. Councilman_ Jorgensen stated he was in support of the ordinance including the need for smoke detectors in new buildings and hopefully in existing buildings. Councilman Gurnee,discussed with Chief Parks the driveway requirements which seem to be in opposition to regulations in the zoning ordinance, and also how or what would be the controls requiring equipment on homes that were sold or transfered. Councilman Dunin stated that with information presented, he would support the ordinance. Vice Mayor Petterson stated that he felt a great amount of time had been spent on bringing this ordinance to this point, and that he would support the ordinance. On motion of Councilman Dunin, seconded by Councilman Jorgensen, the follow- ing ordinance was introduced and passed to print: Ordinance No. 701 (1977 Series), an ordinance amending portions of Article III, Chapter I, Part 2, a of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, to adopt the 1976 edition of the Uniform Fire Code, together with amendments and additions thereto; and replacing all ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict therewith. Introduced and passed to print on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmen Dunin, Gurnee, Petterson and Jorgensen NOES: None ABSENT: None 3. City Council again considered the recommendation of the Planning Commission regarding the minor annexation request for Castle Motel at 4320 South Higuera St., Jackson DeWitt, applicant. Dan Smith reviewed the appli cation and action by the Planning Commission, stating that the minor annexation as presented was recommended to the City Council as the 1977 General Plan Land Use-Element appeared consistent and feasible and they urged annexation subject to the following conditions: 1) That the annexation involve both the developed Castle apartment property and the undevelopment adjoining property to compose a logical ultimate boundary of the southern City limits, limiting all property on the west side of South Higuera Street approximately 4.8 acres. 2) That the properties be rezoned R -1 SP or R -2 SP to reflect the low or medium density residential uses of property appropriate to the area, assuming annexation permits service and subject to approval of a specific plan for development and improvement of each property. City Council Minutes Page 6 3) That water, sewer and street improvements be extended at the property owner's expense prior to or concurrent with annexation and that other landscaping and architectural improvements including building code compliance be completed in accordance with an acceptable specific plan and implementation programs established by agreement prior to annexation. It was the staff's opinion that annexation of the City would enable urban services to the existing Castle apartments and a potential of 58 residentials on the two affected properties was both logical and beneficial and also achieved the improved appearance, more compatible site development and complete public utility and street improvements concurrently. The Planning Commission at their meeting of April 6, unanimously recommended that the City Council consent to emergency and temporary 1 -year period sewer service and accept a formal annexation and prezoning applications for consideration action prior to March 1978 including the three provisions outlined above. Don Smith was opposed to the annexation on the basis that he did not believe there was enough water available to the City of San Luis Obispo to serve the people in the City much less bringing in new land, and also he didn't feel the City should try to solve sewer problems for areas outside the City. He urged the City Council to reject the annexation. P. Evans asked was a definite plan submitted for development of this property prior to annexation. Dan Smith, Planning Department, stated yes, development plans for all parcels must be submitted prior to final annexation. P. Evans stated that he was opposed to the annexation due to the lack of water.to serve the people within the City and further, he did not feel that the City had a legitimate policy on sewer and water expansion. Warren Dolezal,.developer, stated he was in support of the annexation, felt that being in the City the property could be brought up to higher standards, and could be an asset not a detriment to the City. Jerry Reis, 1354 San Marcos Ct., owner of the property adjacent to the Castle Apartments and considered annexation, said that he had no present plans for development but that he was interested in the Council's comments. Councilman Gurnee stated that in general he was opposed to any annexation due to lack of water and the expense of extending City service to the annexed area. He felt that if the City extended sewer to the property then they were actually approving annexation. He felt that no annexation without a specific plan should be allowed and no annexation at all, but he would be willing to allow connection of the sewer system on the basis of health. Councilman Dunin agreed with Councilman Gurnee, stated no annexation but the City could provide sewer service.by contract. Councilman Jorgensen stated that he was opposed to the extension of utilities outside the City. He felt the City should take care of the properties within the City and not extend the limited utilities to new areas. Vice Mayor Peterson stated that he was opposed to the annexation, but that he would agree to extend sewer service to serve the property. On motion of Vice Mayor.Petterson, seconded by Councilman Gurnee, that the staff prepare an agreement with the property owner dealing with sewer service connection and that the agreement include an upgrading of the existing Castle Motel Apartments. Motion carried, Councilman Jorgensen voting no. Mayor Schwartz absent. Vice Mayor Petterson called a recess at 8:55 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:05 p.m. with all Councilmen present. Mayor Schwartz absent. City Council Minutes Page 7 4. At this time the City Council continued their consideration of Tentative Tract Map No. 77 -66, John King, applicant, 2701 Augusta Street. Allen Grimes, City Attorney, presented his memorandum opinion No. 77 -13, questions which were brought up to the City Council at the first public hearing: 1) To what extent does the City have discretionary controls over the subdividers.building more than 1 house on 1 lot. ANSWER: None, if the..lot meets-the. area requirements of the zoning regulations, except for the general authority of the Council to regulate the design and improvements of subdivisions and disprove them if it makes findings in accordance with the provisions of government code, Section 66 -474. After a subdivision map is _.. approved, the City must rely primarily on its land use regulations to-prescribe or control proper development on lots thus created. In addition to zoning, the City has authority and substantial discretion even though the subdivision may have.been approved to assure that the subdivisions developed in accordance with pertinent and applicable City regulations including environmental, grading, drainage, access, utilities, open space, and other development criteria. He then reviewed in detail his analysis of the various code sections dealing with this matter. 2) Does the City have the authority to require the dedication of an easement to it for walkway purposes? ANSWER: It does. Section 66 -475 of the Government Code, part of the Subdivision Map Act, authorizes cities by ordinance to require the dedication of real property within a subdivision for streets, alleys, including access rights, drainage, public utility easements, D and other public easements. Section 9100.5 -2 1 -A of the Municipal Code requires the subdivider to install improvements for curb, gutter, sidewalk, and walkways. While there does not appear to be a pro- vision in the code which expressly provides for the dedication of walkways, it seems clearly implied not only by this section, that by the sections relating to street dedication and improvements. Generally speaking, the Council has authority to require any easements in the proposed subdivison as will implement the proper design and improvement and preserve the neighborhood and public interest. In contrast, if the easement is needed on land outside the area of the proposed subdivision, the City would have to acquire through condemnation proceedings of voluntary acquisition through purchase. Vic Montgomery; representing the developer John King, reviewed the development proposed for the lots, how the lots were formed, and their proposal to be as cooperative as possible with both the City and the adjacent property owners. Dan Smith submitted the recommendations of the Planning staff's, stating that the proposed subdivision and proposed 4 -unit development met all requirements of the zoning and subdivision ordinance. Specifically, the staff found no alternative to interpretation of present provisions of their zoning ordinance, R -1 zone, which allowed a second and third dwelling on lots existing prior to April 1, 1965, providing there was sufficient lot area. It .appeared the proposed development would be eligible on this.provision with no-additional city approvals needed other than building permits. The staff had recommended that a use permit be required for a second or third dwelling on lots exist- ing prior to April 1965 as part of.the pending zoning ordinance text changes, that these changes were not yet effective. Unless the Council was per- suaded by neighborhood testimony in opposition to the proposal, the staff considered development and minor subdivision to be the best acceptable solution despite the commission action to the contrary. If the Council City Council Minutes Page 8. wished to proceed and approve subdivision 77 -66, the action would be to adopt the attached resolution outlining the four findings required by subdivision regulations and the 15 conditions for approval recommended by staff. Councilman Gurnee felt that in light of the legal opinion and the conditions submitted by the Planning Department, that he would approve the Tentative Map Tract as-presented. Councilman Dunin stated that he would do the same. Councilman Jorgensen stated that he felt the Council should approve the Tentative Map and Tract Subdivision 77 -66. On motion of Councilman Jorgensen, seconded by Councilman Gurnee, the follow- ing resolution was introduced: Resolution No. 3296 (1977 Series), a resolution of the Council of the City of San -Luis Obispo granting approval of tentative Minor Subdivision No. 77 -66, located at 2701 Augusta Street, John King, applicant. (A) That the Council, after consideration of the tentative map of Minor Subdivision 77 -66 and the Planning Commission staff recommendations and reports thereon, makes the following findings: 1. The proposed parcel map and design are consistent with the General Plan. 2. The site is physically suited for the proposed type and density of development permitted by the R -1 zone. 3. The design is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage, or cause serious public health problems. 4. The design of the proposed subdivision will not conflict with public easements for access through, or use of, property within the pro- posed subdivision. (B) That the approval of the tentative map for Minor Subdivision 77 -66 be subject to the following conditions: 1.. All new lot corners shall be staked by a registered civil engineer or licensed surveyor. 2. Subdivider shall extend sewer, water and other utilities including easements required to serve all parcels to the approval of the City Engineer and utility companies. New utilities shall be undergrounded. 3. Subdivider shall install one fire hydrant at each of the access driveways off Helena and Augusta Streets to the approval of the Fire Department. 4. The San Luis Unified School District shall approve and sign final parcel map for access and utility easements across school property. 5. The final parcel map shall have an agreement signed by the City and school district for the property required for the Helena Street cul -de -sac. 6. Subdivider shall install one half of the Helena Street improvements required. Improvements shall consist of curb, gutter, sidewalk, driveway ramp and street pavement. 1 7. Subdivider.shall.install one street tree on Helena Street to the approval of the Public Services Department. 8. Subdivider shall install new pathway and bridge at the end of Helena Street, to connect with existing pathway to Sinsheimer School and Park to the approval of the City and school district. City Council Minutes Page 9 9. Final Parcel Map shall define all-areas of site subject to innunda- tion during.a 100 -year storm and such area shall be enclosed in an easement. A note on final parcel map shall state the City's res- ponsibility in this easement shall be for access and /or maintenance of a clear waterway only. 10. Subdivider shall pay park -in -lieu fees in amount of $150 per parcel (2 new parcels). Total fee $300.00. a 11. Subdivider shall pay water acreage and frontage fees prior to final parcel map approval. 12.. Subdivider shall submit a soils report and grading plan showing minimun finish pad elevations and existing fill material to be removed and recompacted, if necessary, for approval of the City Engineer prior to final parcel map approval. 13. The access driveway to Augusta Street shall be 16' in width (ordin- ance requirement). If ordinance changes prior to final parcel map approval, the subject driveway width may be reduced in accordance with minimum standards. 14. Subdivider shall show area of common driveway agreement on the final parcel map and shall obtain Board of Adjustments use permit approval of a common driveway agreement prior to final parcel map approval. 15. The property shall be classified as a sensitive site and development on site shall be subject to Architectural Review Commission review and approval. Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmen Dunin, Gurnee, Jorgensen and Vice Mayor Petterson a NOES: None ABSENT: Mayor Schwartz 5. At this time the City Council considered the update and rewrite of the zoning ordinance. Dan Smith, Planning.Department, submitted a communication from Rob Strong, Director of Community Development, which stated that on the April 19, 1977 meeting the City Council received a Planning Commission report on suggested amendments to the City zoning ordinance, text and charts. This report was discussed by the Council and the City Council continued the public hearing to the May 3 meeting to allow the Planning staff and City Attorney sufficient time to produce a retyped'version of the zoning regulations adequate for passage -to bring action by the Council. He submitted a copy of the redraft of zoning texts and charts for Council consideration. The document had been reviewed by the City Attorney, whose separate comments were also involved. Only minor correction was suggested as a result of legal review. It was the Planning staff's recommendation that the Council accept the draft of the amended zoning text as presented, authorize as printing in the local newspaper, and schedule final hearing for May 17 for adoption. The City Council then discussed with Dan Smith several of the items brought to the attention.to the Council following the last meeting and discussions with the Planning Commission. Mike DeNeve, Manager of the Building Contractors Association, again ques- tioned the inconsistency in Section 9200.22, Paragraph 3, regarding the density slope standards and its inconsistency with the existing subdivision ordinance which again puts the developer /builders in a difficult position of complying with two different interpretations and regulations. He also questioned 9200.17.1B, the number of days for use permits by the Planning Commission and by the Board of Adjustment.. Vic Montgomery objected to not receiving the final draft of the zoning regulations until one day before adoption by the City Council. He said this made it extremely difficult to review to see if the comments made at prior meetings and objections submitted had been cleared up. Laverne Schneider, Planning Commissioner, stated she was quite concerned City Council Minutes Page 10 with the regulations under the new zone P -0 which made residences a non- conforming use in the zone and yet the majority of uses in the proposed P -0 zone were residential, and were in most cases in transition. She urged the Council to consider dropping the P -0 zone and leave the zone R -0. Melanie Billig, representing the League of Women Voters, felt the new rewrite of the zoning ordinance did not make provisions for flood zone plaining nor was prime agricultrual land adequately protected from urban sprawl. She also felt the ordinance lacked equal treatment for all' commercial or business zones such as provided for minimum parking. She concluded that another area concerned was the lack of uniformity in building , heights allowed in various zones which could go up to 75' with use permit. She also questioned the great number of use permits now required in the ordinance. She felt the annexation policy in the ordinance was very limited and should be.:explained in the ordinance. She felt this might be due to the confusion in the recently adopted General Plan's annexation policy. She also questioned allowing the Director of Planning to be on the Board of Adjustment and also be responsible for enforcing the zoning regulations. Terry Sanville, Associate City Planner, again reviewed for the City Council the questions and objectives submitted by.members of the audience at this meeting. Councilman Gurnee agreed with the comments made that the final draft of the ordinance should have been delivered at least 5 days before the hearing in order to give the public adequate time for study and review, as he felt this was quite a comprehensive ordinance. He personally did not feel the ordinance was too good and did not clear up problems from the prior ordinance, but he hoped the Community Development Department would come up with -a new comprehensive zoning ordinance as was promised two years ago and then he would agree with adopting this rewrite as an interim regulation, but he wanted action on a new ordinance within 9 months and he would.go along on this rewrite on that basis. Councilman Dunin agreed with Councilman Gurnee's remarks and also hoped that this interim period would not exceed the 9 months. He also felt that these ordinances should be delivered to the Council and public at least 5 days before hearings. Councilman Jorgensen also agreed with Councilman Gurnee's comments on interim provisions of the ordinance and hoped there would be an improvement over the existing ordinance. He felt that a new comprehensive zoning ordinance should be brought to the City Council for adoption within the 9 month period. Councilman Petterson said he too was not happy with.the provisions in the rewritten ordinance,.but agreed that this was.best of "the worst regulations and hoped the staff would work on a new regulation for the City as soon as possible. On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Jorgensen, the following ordinance was introduced and passed to print: Ordinance No. 702 (1977 Series), an ordinance of the City of San Luis Obispo amending Municipal Code, Article IX, Chapter 2, zoning regulation. Introduced and passed to print on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmen Dunin, Gurnee, Jorgensen, and Vice Mayor Petterson NOES: None ABSENT: Mayor Schwartz On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Dunin, the City Clerk was directed to see that all proposed ordinances are available for public and Council within three days of the hearing and if not, the matter is to be withdrawn from consideration of the City Council. Motion carried. All ayes, Mayor Schwartz absent. City Council Minutes Page 11 6. Council consideration of an ordinance amending the Municipal Code, Article 3.5 by repealing Sections 3202:9 and 3202.10 addding Chapter 18 entitled "Inoperative Vehicles ". Police Chief Roger Neuman submitted for the Council's consideration, a revised ordinance pertaining to the abatement of abandoned vehicles in the City. This ordinance had been revised to bring it into conformance with the California Vehicle Code and the County's ordinance on abandon vehicles.. He asked that the City Council consider its passage at the earliest possible a time. Vice Mayor Petterson asked if anyone wished to speak for or against the ordinance. No one appeared. On motion of-Councilman Jorgensen, seconded by Councilman Gurnee, the following ordinance was introduced: Ordinance No. 703 (1977 Series), an ordinance of the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo amending Municipal Code Article.III.V by repealing Section 3202.9 and 3202.10, and adding Chapter 18, entitled "Inoperative Vehicles ". Introduced and passed to print on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmen Dunin, Gurnee, Jorgensen and Vice Mayor Petterson NOES: None ABSENT: Mayor Schwartz 7 -A On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Jorgensen, the City Council approve the plans and specifications for Water Line Improvements, City Plan Nos. 24 -77; 28 -77, 26 -77. Estimated cost: Alternate.A, Foothill Blvd., Crandall and Leff Streets, $49,200.and for Alternate B, Foothill Blvd., Crandall, Leff and Monte Vista Place, $65,100. ' Motion carried, and the staff was authorized to call for bids. CONSENT ITEMS: C -1 On motion of Councilman-Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Jorgensen, claims against the City for the month of May 1977 were approved and ordered paid subject to the approval of the Administrative Officer. Motion carried. C -2 On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Jorgensen, minutes of the following meetings were approved as presented: January 25, 1977 April 1, 1977 Motion carried. C -3 On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Jorgensen, the contract payment for Mitchel Park Playground, Estimate #2, Conco Engineering. Company, $15,917.58 was approved and ordered paid. Motion carried. C -4 On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Jorgensen, request of the San Luis Obispo Mozart Festival Association to close Monterey Street on May 17, 1977 between Santa Rosa and Osos Street for 2 hours to hold a movie fund - raising event was approved and the City staff, Police, and Public Services Departments were asked to cooperate. Motion carried. C -5 On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded,_by.Councilman Jorgensen,;the proposed ordinance amending Article III.V Municipal Code, entitled "Traffic Regulations" was continued for future study session. Motion carried. City Council Minutes Page 12 C -6 On motion of Councilman Jorgensen, seconded by Vice Mayor Petterson the memorandum from Mayor Kenneth E. Schwartz forwarding concept for identifi- cation markings for City vehicles was continued for input when the Mayor could attend the meeting. Motion carried. C -7 On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by-Councilman Jorgensen, the request by the Board of Supervisors that.the City Council consider the adoption of an-ordinance similar to the one recently adopted by the County on County Water Conservation Plan was referred to the Community Development Department, Building Division and Public Services for recommendation of the City Council. Motion carried. 1 C -8 On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Jorgensen, a public hearing on the final report on the County -wide Solid Waste Manage- ment Plan was set for public hearing on May 17, 1977 at the request of the Department of Public Health. Motion carried. C -9 On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Jorgensen, the request from the American Legion Auxillary, Unit 66 and the Veterans of Foreign War Auxillary No. 1766 requesting Council approval to sell Veteran - made Poppies for Poppy Days on May 20 & 21 was approved. Motion carried. C -10 On motion of Councilman Gurnee;.seconded by Councilman Jorgensen, the request of the Chairman of the Downtown Business Improvement Area appointing Andrew Renetzky to replace recently resigned director of the Advisory Board, Ron Dunin, was approved. C -11 On motion of Councilman-Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Jorgensen, the following resolution was introduced: Resolution No. 3312 (1977 Series), a resolution of the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo increasing the 1976/77 budget for insurance for Police protection liability. Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmen Dunin, Gurnee, Jorgensen, and Vice Mayor Petterson NOES: None ABSENT: Mayor Schwartz C -12 On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman-Jorgensen, the following resolution was introduced: Resolution No. 3313 (1977 Series), a resolution of-the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo regarding realign- ment of San Luis Drive by an exchange of real property. Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote AYES: Councilmen Dunin, Gurnee, Jorgensen, and Vice Mayor Petterson NOES: None ABSENT: Mayor Schwartz C -13 On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Jorgensen, the following resolution was introduced: Resolution No. 3314 (1977 Series), a resolution of the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo approving the closing of State Highway for La= Fiesta Parade. The Police and Public Service Depart- ments were asked to cooperate with the La Fiesta Program. Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmen Dunin, Gurnee, Jorgensen, and Vice Mayor Petterson NOES: None ABSENT: Mayor Schwartz City Council Minutes Page .13 C -14 On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Jorgensen, the following resolution was introduced: Resolution No. 3315 (1977 Series), a resolution of the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo requesting the State Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration to approve Federal Aid Urban Projects for the San Luis Obispo urban area. Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmen Dunin, Gurnee,.Jorgensen and Vice Mayor Petterson ' NOES: None ABSENT: Mayor Schwartz C -15 On motion of Councilman.Gurnee, seconded by Councilman - Jorgensen, the following resolution was introduced: Resolution No. 3316 (1977 Series), a resolution.of.the.Council of the City of San Luis Obispo approving an agreement between the City and H. Dieter Heinz, for consulting chemist services. Passed. and adopted on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmen Dunin, Gurnee, Jorgensen, and Vice Mayor Petterson NOES: None ABSENT: Mayor Schwartz C -16 On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Jorgensen, that Mayor Schwartz would- authorize.to ,prepare a proclamation for.--the. San Luis.- Obispo-Grange endorsing their project for a sister City in the Province of Taiwan. Motion carried. C -11 On motion of Councilmen Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Jorgensen, the following resolution was introduced: Resolution No. 3317 (1977 Series), a resolution of the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo finding and declaring the necessity for condemnation of private property for Santa Rosa Street widening, City of San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California. Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmen Dunin, Gurnee, Jorgensen,and Vice Mayor Petterson NOES: None ABSENT: Mayor Schwartz C -18 On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Jorgensen, the request of the E1 Camino Foreign Car Club for use of Santa Rosa Park on May 29, 1977 and using a public address system for the Ninth Annual Concours D'Elegance was approved. Motion carried. C -19 On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Jorgensen, sick leave in excess of 5 days for John Huelsman, Policeman, was approved. Motion carried. C -20 RD. Miller, Administrative Officer, announced the following.employ- ments to public service: Richard Wright to.the position of Water Supply Assistant effective 4/18/77 at Step 1 or $802 per month. Sarah Walsh to the position of Administrative Aide, (CETA) Police Department, effective 4/18/77 at Step 1 or $822 per month. Ernie Miller to the position of Civil Engineering Assistant I, effective 5/2/77;at Step 1 or $1066 per month.