HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/20/1980City Council Minutes
May 20, 1980 - 4:00 p.m.
Page 1
M.I N U T E S
ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SAN. LUIS OBISPO
TUESDAY, MAY 20, 1980 - 4:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, 990 PALM STREET
Pledge
Roll Call
Councilmembers
Present: Melanie Billig, Alan Bond, Ron Dunin, Gerald Munger and
Mayor Lynn R. Cooper
Absent: None
City Staff
Present:- Lee Walton, Administrative-Officer; J.H. Fitzpatrick, City
:Clerk; George Thacher, City Attornev ;..Henry Engen, Community
Development Director; Terry Sanville, Senior - Planner; Roger
Neuman, Police-Chief;-D.F.- Romero, Public Services.Diiector
A. Henry Engen, Community Development. Director,.introduced Jeff Hook, a
new employee in his department who will be staff member to the Architectural
Review Commission.
1. The City Council to discuss policy issues concerning.alternative
post office site facilities..
Terry Sanville presented the recommendation of the city staff and stated that
on May 6, the City Council.discussed.the construction of a new post office on
Madonna Road-site. After hearing a presentation from planning-staff,-postal
officials, the Council majority decided to support the construction of a new
facility on the Dalideo property south on Calle Joaquin. The Council also
directed staff.to return to a future meeting to discuss the policy issues
related to development of the new postal facility....He continued that it was
always the planning staff's understanding that the post office project would
follow annexation, general.plan. amendment and prezoning.procedures required
of any private project however based on discussion at previous Council meetings,
and the general intent -of the post.office to development on Madonna Road and tie
into city services, the staff felt there was little city benefit for the city's
initiating all of these processes which would take considerable staff time,
have little benefit to the community and ultimately would not resolve basic
planning policy issues. Therefore, the staff recommended that.the Council
ask the U.S. postal service to do the following:
1) Submit preliminary plans of the new postal facility to the Community
Development Department at the earliest date. The Architectural Review
Commission would focus on the site planning of the new-facility and the
design of the exterior of the building. It would be the city's intent
that the postal service follow standard architectural.review.procedure.
2) Ask the postal service to work with city engineering and planning staff
to iron out concerns for access to the site, street improvements,.utility
connections and other technical concerns.
Andrew.Merriam, planning consul.tant.for the postal service, stated-that the
post.office.officials wished to cooperate with the City Council in every way
possible but felt that the post office officials would like to start construction
of the new facility at the same time they were processing the city general plan
amendment, zoning changes and annexation procedures.
*Please refer to Page 9, May 20, 1980 at 7:30 p.m. for Councilwoman Billig's
comments.
On motion of Councilman Bond, seconded
Council accept the staff recommendation
basis. Motion carried.
City Council Minutes
May 20, 1980 - 4:00 p.m.
Page 2
by Councilman Munger, that the City
and authorize them to proceed on that
2. On motion of Councilwoman Billig, seconded by Councilman Dunin, the
following resolution was introduced: Resolution No. 4163 (1980 Series), a
resolution of the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo approving an agreement
between the City and Animal Control Services for performance of animal control
services within the city through 1981.
Passed and adopted on the followoing roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Billig, Dunin, Bond, Munger and Mayor Cooper
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
R. The City Council considered a report from the Architectural Review
Commission regarding City Sign Ordinance Amendments proposed by the Chamber
of Commerce Sign Committee.
Henry Engen, Community Development Director, reported that in April, 1979,
a group called Citizens for Fair Signing told the Council that they were
unhappy with the current sign regulations. The Council referred the matter
to the Chamber of Commerce for further study (the Chamber being previously
involved with the development of the sign ordinance). After all sign owners
were notified of the status of their signs, the Chamber assembled a sign
committee with members and compiled a list of proposed amendments to the
ordinance. On April 1, 1980, the Council referred these amendments to
staff and the Architectural Review Commission for comment and review. He
then concluded by stating that the chart was prepared by his staff which
compares proposed changes to the sign ordinance suggested by the Chamber of
Commerce, summarizes comments by the Architectural Review Commission and by
the city staff. He also stated that a letter to Adrian Gianturco, Director
of the State Department of Transportation, to express the city's interest in
participating in the new freeway signing program being tested on Interstate 5.
The program allows signs along the freeway to display logos and local sites
where food, lodging, gas and camping are accessible from freeway exits. This
program is managed by local Cal Trans' offices and authorization by the State
is required prior to participation in the program.
Mr. A.C. Patel, owner and manager of the Town & Country Motel, was opposed to
any changes to the city ordinance. He felt that the 1967 sign ordinance was
satisfactory. He felt that the 1977 Sign Ordinance was too restrictive and
felt that the signs that were being considered by staff for removal or destruction
were not offensive.
Pierre Rademaker, ARC member, stated that he was available to review any questions
that the City might have on the ARC's actions.
The City Council and staff then went through the 1977 Sign Ordinance, suggested
amendments section by section:
Section 9702.2 exempt signs. The Chamber of Commerce proposed that sub - paragraph
A read: "Signs showine the location of public telephone and signs placed by util-
ities to show the location of underground facilities and in Section S „h- pa,ragrapli-
B "or any other sign that is required be posted by any governmental agency ". Both
the ARC and staff felt these were good suggestions. The City Council accepted the
recommenation of the Chamber 5 -0.
Section 9702.3.. Prohibited Signs. The Chamber of Commerce suggested that
the following sentence be added: "Except energy reflective materials such
as Scotlite Brand ". Both the staff and ARC felt that the brand should not
be placed in the city ordinance.
After discussion by the City Council, the recommendation of the Chamber of
Commerce was accepted but to read as follows: "Except energy saving reflective
material."
City Council Minutes
May 20, 1980 - 4:00 p.m.
Page 3
Section- 9702.3H. - The.Chamber recommended.wording to include:. "Communication
lines and clearance of utiltity lines, etc." Staff -and ARC felt this wording
was adequate.but recommended shortening. The City.Council accepted the recommend -
ation.of the.Chamber but asked the staff,:to shorten the wording more concisely.
Section 9702.4. The Chamber of.Commerce suggested that:the wording,be, added as
follows: Subiect torappeal procedures set forth in Section 1400 et. seq. in
the Municipal Code." The -city staff and ARC felt that-there-was already .a
special appeals procedure to the ARC and that to refer them to a further appeal
procedure would just make the section redundant. . ..- .:
The City Council then accepted the Chamber's recommendation except that the
appeals procedure would be placed at the end of the ordinance for information.
Motion approved.
Section 9703.3 Same action as the prior action to place the appeals procedure
at the end of the sign ordinance.
Section 9704.3:C.• The Chamber.of:Commerce recommended . that the -city remove th
restriction that said signs were allowed only on the sides of buildings that
had a public entrance. The city staff agreed that this amendment s ou d'Fe—
clarified -so there would be no confusion as to where the signs were to be
placed on the building.
After discussion, the.City ..Council accepted the recommendation of the Chamber
of Commerce with wording to be amended by staff.
Section 9704.3E. The Chamber of Commerce recommended that the sign height
limit be increased to 35'. City staff felt there was no justification for
increasing the height of signs in C -T zones and the ARC felt the current high
standards- should be maintained.
The City Council accepted the Chamber recommendation on a 4 71 vote, Council-
woman Billig voting no.
Section-9704.3.F. The Chamber of Commerce recommended that the sign height
be increased to 25' in the Calle Joaquin area.` The city staff stated that
the Council review this matter -and adopt the present limit as an amendment
to the '77 sign ordinance. The ARC felt.the.current high.standards should
be maintained.
After discussion, the City Council accepted the sign height change to 25' on
a 4 =l vote, Councilwoman Billig voting'no.
Section 9704.4.B This involved free standing signs in setbacks in the upper
_Monterey Street area. This was a problem caused when the original set F=c
was zero under the zoning and the area was rezoned to C -T as.a.required setback
of 10' making all the signs in this tourist - oriented area practically illegal.
The Chamber of Commerce recommended that the City Council allow the free - standing
signs to be placed in the setback.. City staff stated that there were alternative
types of signs allowed -in the setback such as slow free - standing signs, monument
signs, etc. and they felt there was no justification in changing the rules for
all C -T zones to solve a complex zoning problem. ARC agreed that the current
regulations were appropriate, that they held special review'and.appeal process
were available and that they had been cooperating with the general properties
in the area.
Councilwoman Billig stated.that the City Council should recognize the existing
unique conditions in this area, exempt all motels in the upper Monterey Street
area from the restrictions of signs in the setback..
Councilman Dunin agreed and stated that all motels in all zones should be
exempted from the conditions of the setback.
City.Council Minutes
May 20, 1980 - 4:00 - p.m.
Page 4
After.discussion.by the City Council, they decided that they would allow free-
standing signs in .setbacks in C -T zones for lots where existing buildings
are in the setback. Motion carried. .
Section 9705.3A. This dealt with the amortization of non - conforming signs.
The Chamber.recommended a change in.the amortization schedule. They also
recommended a change in the-ordinance from original cost to replacement cost
and they also recommended that the.amoritization would start with the
adoption of this ordinance.
The City Council supported the Chamber recommendations and also suggested
that in order to.arrive for a.value for amoritization that the city and
property owner use a sign contractor or have the staff establish.a fair
formula for replacement cost. Motion carried.
Section 9705.4. Notice to Owners of Non - Conforming Signs. The-Chamber of
Commerce recommended-that all sign owners be notified as to the extent of
their sign.infractions., if.any, in light of new amendments within 90 days
of the date of the adoption.of .these amendments. The city staff stated that
there was absolutely no that.this could be accomplished by the staff
available. The ARC stated they-could not.support the proposal under the
present circumstances.
The.City Council.accepted -the Chamber's recommendation with the following
amendment that-the amoritization would start at the time the notice was
sent out by city staff. (Councilwoman Billig voted N0.)
Section 9702.2.. Exempt signs. The - Chamber of Commerce recommended.that signs
in commercial.areas, 4 square feet.or less, 8 feet high or less for pedestrian
orientation would be exempted. The city staff stated that this could be appro-
priate in some situations but the proposals needs to specify the type of sign
the content of.sign, etc. The ARC agreed with the concept. Pedestrian signs
' should be encouraged, however, they felt the proposal should be clarified,
particularly, for clarifying window sign.regulations.:
The City Council accepted the Chamber recommendation with staff to clarify
wording as amended.
-.:Section..9702.1: Permit Required.. .The Chamber of Commerce recommended that a
permit and.fee.requirement.be eliminated for all signs. - The city.staff stated
it was.not clear as to the Chamber's recommendation whether they wished to
do away.with.all.permit requirements.or just those for older existing
signs. Staff felt it was impractical to do away with-all fees and..permits and
tis was their only way of regulation.. They also felt that if the city issued
permits without fees to those who never obtained them, it would be unfair to
those who did get permits... Finally; they..feit.that according to their records,
it. _was:possible . to tell-who had complied•:with the ordinance because they had
records of sign permits over the past 20 years, although sometimes sign
permits have- been.confused with other permits issued-for electrical hookups,
etc. The ARC recommended that the ordinance be left as it was with the
staff to concentrate on getting information about signs and permit requirements
to the public and on enforcing current law.:
The City.Council accepted the Chamber's recommendation but.amended it.to
read that the staff no- longer requires fees for old.signs that conform to
current regulations and were put up prior to the adoption.of the 1977 sign
ordinance and that a permit be issued by the city with no fee. All signs
put up since the adoption.of the 1977 sign ordinance would.need permits and
fees.. The staff was also authorized to send a letter to CalTrans asking for
permission to join the program.on logo-signs at freeway entrances. The matter
of the amendments to the sign ordinance was.referred back to- the -city planning
staff to incorporate the changes tentatively approved by the City Council at
this meeting.
City County Minutes
May 20, 1980 - 4:00 p.m.
Page 5
X.1 The City Council considered the added item dealing with Wastewater
Treatment Plant proposal to divide the expansion program into two phases;
the first phase would upgrade and correct current plant deficiencies and
eliminate bypass to the creek and the second phase would deal with the advanced
secondary treatment which may or may not be approved by the EPA.
Councilwoman Billig objected to having this item brought to the Council as
an emergency item as she felt this was too important an item to consider
without indepth review and discussion. She felt it was unfair to the Council
to be asked to decide this important matter without advance study. She also
objected to not having this placed on the regular agenda so that the Council
would have two or three days of study, research and would have an opportunity
to discuss this matter with staff members, as it was just getting it one day
before the meeting, it was impossible to study this indepth. She again
reiterated her objection to constantly adding items to the agenda after the
close of the agenda.
Councilman Dunin agreed stating he felt that while this was an extremely
important matter, there were many questions that were not answered in this
report. For example, if the City Council took this action, divided the plant
development into phases how would it affect future requests for funds for
the second phase of the plan. It was his understanding that it was a one-
shot grant for the funds and if you didn't take advantage in the beginning
you couldn't come back. He too objected to having received this at such a
late hour prior to a meeting as he could not truly analyze the problem.
Councilman Munger stated that he could not vote for or against the matter
as he was unfamiliar with the background as he understood that this had
been going on for a number of years.
Therefore, it was decided by the City Council that the matter would be
continued to the June 3, 1980 regular meeting. Hopefully, the staff would
present additional information on this matter.
CONSENT ITEMS:
C -1 On motion of Councilman Bond, seconded by Councilman Munger, claims
against the City for the month of May, 1980 were approved and ordered paid
subject to the approval of the Administrative Officer. Motion carried.
C -2 On motion of Councilman Bond, seconded by Councilman Munger, the
minutes of the Council meetings of May 5, May 6 at 4:00 p.m. and May 6 at
7:30 p.m. were approved as amended. Motion carried.
C -3 On motion of Councilman Bond, seconded by Councilman Munger, the
following resolution-was introduced: Resolution No. 4164 (1980 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 through
June 30, 1980.
Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Bond, Munger, Billig, Dunin and Mayor Cooper
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
C -4 On motion of Councilman Bond, seconded by Councilman Munger, the
claim against the City by Steven Brown for an undisclosed amount was denied.
Motion carried.
C -5 On motion of Councilman Bond, seconded by Councilman Munger, claim
against the City by Paul Smith was denied. Motion carried.
I I
1
1
�I
I1�]
City - Council Minutes
May 20, 1980 - 4:00 p.m.
Page 6
C -6 On motion of Councilman Bond,.seconded by Councilman Munger, the
claim against the.City by Katherine C. Lucas was denied.. Motion carried.
B -1 The City Clerk-reported on the following.bids received for "SOS
STREET.RECONSTRUCTION ", City Plan No. C -14, bid estimate $128,815 without
contingencies:
R. Burke Corporation
P.O. Box 957
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
Walter Bros. Construction
P.O. Box 809
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
Madonna Construction
P.O. Box 910
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
Sully- Miller
311 Front Street
Grover City, Calif.
Cecil Construction Co.
Rt. 1, Box 499
Arroyo Grande; Calif. 93420
Melcher Construction
1415 Smith Court
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Pacific Western Construction
4704:E.- Carmen
Fresno, CA 93703
A.J. - Diani Construction Co.
295 North Blosser
Santa Maria, CA 93456
Lee's Paving, Inc.
P.O. Box 498
Goshen, CA 93227
$139,842:60
139,961.00 .
140,107.20
146,578.00•
149,658.04
T53,765.00
156;736.00
157,922.00.
176,171.00
Wayne Peterson, City Engineer, stated that after consultation with the
representatives of Cal Trans that they recommended that the award of the
contract go to R. Burke Corporation in the amount of $139,842.60.
On motion of Councilman.Bond, seconded by Councilman Munger, the-following
resolution was introduced: Resolution No. 4165 (1980 Series), a resolution
awarding the contract to R. Burke Corporation.
Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Bond, Munger, Billig, Dunin and Mayor Cooper
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
B -2 The City Clerk reported on the following bids received for the
"LAWRENCE DRIVE SEWERLINE ", City Plan No. B -23, bid estimate $62,220.00:
Fred Julien & Assoc. $45.,749.00
4725 Santa Fe Road
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
City Council Minutes
May 20, 1980 - 4:30 p.m.
Page 7
Sierra National.
44549 N. 10th Street West
Lancaster; CA 93534
R. Baker, Inc
P.O. Box 419
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
M -D Construction
1698 N. Valentine
Fresno, CA 93711
Charles Pratt Construction
P.O. Box 1295
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
So. Coast Contractors, Inc.
P.O. Box 1199
Goleta, CA 93017
Lee's Paving
P.O. BOx 498
Goshen, CA 93227
Vic's Pipe Line Const. Co.
Rt. 1, Box 15 -B
Templeton, CA. 93465
.58 $450.
64,193.00
73,238.00•
80,380. 00
86,611.00 =
89 ,529 .!00
99,690.00
D.F. Romero, Public Services Director, stated-that after review:of:the
bids received that they would recommend that the low bid of Fred Julien
and Associates be accepted.
On motion of Councilwoman..Billig, seconded by Mayor Cooper,:the.following
resolution was introduced: Resolution No. 4166 (1980 Series), a resolution
awarding the contract to Fred Julien & Associates. -
Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilwoman Billig, Mayor.Cooper, Councilmembers.Bond,- .Dunin and
Munger
NOES: None
ABSENT:. None ..
There being no further business to come before the City Council at this time,
the Mayor adjourned-the meeting at 6•:20 p.m. to-7:30-p.m.:, May 20,.1980.
COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES ON: 6/3/80
J. tzpatrick, City Clerk
------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - --
it
City Council Minutes
May 20, 1980 - 7:30 p.m.
Page 1
M I N U T E S
ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
TUESDAY, MAY 20, 1980 - 7:30 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, 990 PALM STREET
Pledge_
Invocation by Father Jim Van Lanen, Old Mission
Roll Call
Councilmembers
Present: Melanie Billig, Alan Bond, Ron Dunin, Gerald Munger and
Mayor Lynn R. Cooper
Absent: None
City Staff
Present: Lee Walton, Administrative Officer; J.H. Fitzpatrick, City
Clerk; George Thacher, City Attorney; Henry Engen, Community
Development Director; Richard Minor, Fire Chief; Roger Neuman,
Police Chief; D.F. Romero, Public Services Director
3. The City Council held a public hearing on Resolution No. 4140 (1980
Series), a Resolution of Intention to abandon a portion of Olive Street between
Osos Street and Stenner Creek.
The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council hold up the final
abandonment subject to the final conditions:
A) Final abandonment to take place concurrently with the final parcel map
to be prepared, approved and recorded reflecting changes to lot lines
to all adjacent parcels. Adjacent property owners should be responsible
for the parcel map. '
B) That suitable easements be reserved for storm drainage and access to
Stenner Creek (easements not presently described).
Mayor Cooper declared the public hearing open.
Curtis Conalan, 1001 Olive Street, asked if their would be public acces to
the creek from Olive Street over this land.
It was explained to him that except for the drainage easement, the city
would be giving up all rights to this land and it would be divided amongst
the adjacent property owners.
Frances McNamara, representing Herrara property, requested clarification
of the action being considered by the Council.
Staff again reviewed what was being abandoned, what steps would be taken,
etc:
Mayor Cooper declared the public hearing closed.
On motion of Councilman Dunin, seconded by Councilwoman Billig, final action
be continued until the final map of the property be approved and the easements
described. Motion carried.
4. The City Council held a public hearing on Resolution No. 4139 (1980
Series), a Resolution of Intention to abandon a portion of Howard Street adjacent
to Highway 101.
City Council Minutes
May 20, 1980 = 7:30.p.m.
Page 2
The Planning.Commission recommended that the City Council hold up the final
abandonment action until the final action took-place:
A) Final abandonment take place .concurrently - with. the. final approval and
recording of Minor Subdivision No. 79 -274 and that an easement be reserved
in the right -of -way for storm drainage purposes to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer (easement not presently described).
Mayor Cooper declared the public hearing open.. No.one..appeared.before or
against the proposed abandonment. Mayor Cooper declared the public hearing
closed.
On motion of Councilwoman Billig, seconded by Councilman Bond; the. -final
abandonment action was continued until the final map was approved and easements
described. Motion carried.
5. . The City Council held a public hearing to consider the report by the
Superintendent of Streets of costs of work for sidewalk construction and repairs
under the 1911 Act.
Mayor Cooper declared the public hearing open. No one appeared before
the City Council for or questioned the'cost-of repairs. Mayor Cooper
declared the public hearing closed.
On motion of Councilman Munger, seconded by Councilwoman Billig, the
following resolution was introduced: Resolution No. 4167 (1980 Series),
a resolution of the.Council of the City of San Luis Obispo confirming
costs of sidewalk construction repairs under the 1911 Act.
Passed and adopted on .the following roll call vote
AYES: Councilmembers Munger, Billig, Bond, Dunin and Mayor Cooper
NOES: None
ABSENT:- . None
6. The City Council:held a public hearing:to consider.a request for
amendment to Tract Map Condition No. 15 for Tract No...718; Laguna Shores
Planned Development, located at 1301 Laguna Lane concerning wall between
the tract and the Laguna Junior High School; Val Vista.Estates; Inc.,: subdivider.
Condition No. 15 read as follows: "Subdivider shall install a solid 6' high
masonry wall along tract frontage on Los Osos Valley Road and tract boundary
of Junior High School. Location and design shall be to the approval of the
Community Development Director." Resolution No..3555.(1978.:Series) adopted
on May 2, 1978.
Ken Bruce, Senior Planner, presented the Planning Commission's action.stating
that the wall:requirement.was a condition of the tentative map approval, was
not modified at the final map approval at.which time the subdivision agreement
was accepted. It was the staff's position that the condition should remain
as originally approved in the.tentative map.: He reviewed the reasons for
the condition and.stated.that.now the subdivider wished to install a solid
4' high wood fence instead of the 6' high masonry wall. He continued the
staff had.two.concerns with-this requested change: 1)-procedure; and 2)
practical. First, the staff was concerned with conditions changing after
final map approvals and the precedence this might set for other similar
requests in the future. Also, from a practical standpoint-the staff felt
that this location a masonry wall would be much better than a wood fence
and the Homeowner's Association would have less. - maintenance responsibility
.and the masonry wall would reduce noise from the school zone. The wood
fence would reduce no noise. Although the staff would have no objection
.to a reduction in the height of the wall from 6' to 5'. Staff again recommended
the original condition remain as approved.
Stan Bell, Vice - President of Val Vista Estates, Inc., stated that.the.main
purpose of the wall, Condition No. 15, was to satisfy the school system. Their
primary concern had been to insure the safety of the students and protect the
homeowners property and the developer certainly concurred in the same. An
i
City Council Minutes
May.20, 1980 = 7:30 p.m.
Page 3
additional aim should be to maximize views, accentuate.openess, therefore,
he believed that the best of both goals could be satisfied with a 4' wooden
fence. This fence-would be the same as was installed on Tract 465 which was
adjacent. He also stated that the San Luis School.System now felt that a 4'
wooden fence would be satisfactory. To summarize, the developer felt the
school felt the 4' fence would do the job and as a developer in selling the
..houses, felt the 4'.fence was best as well and requested the City Council
approve their request. He then submitted a petition by 11 owners of the
tract, Lot 65 through 78 supporting the 4' wooden fence across the backyards
of their property bordering on Laguna Junior High School. They felt the
natural beauty of the area should be maintained so a continuation of. -the exist-
ing fence height on the adjacent tract.
Michael Dobrzensky, property owner Lot 62, was opposed to allowing a wooden
fence to be placed instead of -the required masonry wall. He-felt the City
Council should continue to.require the wall for the safety of.the neighbors
and also for the - safety of the school. He also felt the masonry wall.was
one that would stay a much longer period of time and that the wooden fence
would deteriorate and become an eye sore.
Charles Andrews, Planning Commissioner, spoke in support of the Council
continuing Condition No. 15: In effect, he felt that any change to a final
map would eventually-set a precedence as to when a final map was final and
could-the developer keep - coming back time and time again asking for change
to conditions as the political picture changed.
.George Thacher, City-Attorney, stated that their was no law that he could
find regarding final maps. He felt that any conditions to a final map were
legal and binding.as part of the final map but he could not say on precedent
of the law that the Council could not make .a change in .a final map after approval.
Councilman.Dunin stated he did.not feel comfortable in amending a final
map condition at"this late;-date particularly after the final map and sub-
division agreements had been approved. He could not support the appeal.
Councilwoman Billig felt the wall was needed for protection and privacy.
She also felt the.final map condition should have been changed at the
tentative.map or final map stage and not a year later. She felt-it was
unfair to change conditions at this late date. She could not support the
-appeal. .
Councilman Bond felt he would-have to support the original condition no. 15.
Councilman Munger .stated he too would support the original condition no. 15.
On:motion of Councilman.Bond, seconded by Councilwoman Billie, that.the
appeal of Val Vista.Estates be denied and that the original condition of
the final map be upheld. Motion carried, all ayes.
7. The City Council -held a public hearing on the request from.the San
Luis Garbage Company for the.City Council to consider a proposed 20 %.rate
increase foi.household:.ind.commercial services and also for the City.of San
Luis Obispo to.adopt-a curbside pickup service of garbage and rubbish and
a backyard garbage service available at an extra cost of $2.00 per container.
Robert Knight; CPA for:.the San Luis Garbage Company, appeared before'the
City Council on :,behalf of-the-company's request for a'20% rate increase for
residential and commercial collection including request for curbside service.
He-reviewed in.detail the income, expenses of the San Luis Garbage Company for
calendar :years•1977, =1978 and 1979: He also reviewed his calculations of the
amount required-to--produce a 12 %`return on the investment of the garbage company.
Mayor Cooper declared the.public hearing open. No one appeared before
the City Council for or against the proposed rate increase: Mayor Cooper
declared-the-public hearing closed.
Councilman Dunin stated he felt that-some increase was needed by the garbage
company in order to continue their service. He stated he felt they were
doing an excellent job and he received very few complaints but he felt the
City Council Minutes
May 20, 1980 - 7:30 p.m.
Page 4
staff should have looked into this matter and given the City Council some
background on this request.
Councilwoman Billig agreed that there was some increase warranted to the
Garbage Company, but felt that the C.A.O. should look into the rate increase
with some comparisons in other communities and a review of the cost presented
by Mr. Knight.
Councilman Bond stated he did not feel that much more study was needed. He
felt that the City Council could approve this rate increase this evening,
knowing the figures that were presented and knowing what is happening in the
business world.
Councilman Munger agreed stating he did not feel that the city should retain
another C.P.A. or auditing firm, or to have the staff audit the company's
financial records. He felt enough information had been presented and he felt
comfortable with the presentation by Robert Knight.
Ken Bruce, Senior Planner, brought to the attention of the City Council, the
fact that the Garbage Company was not in compliance with a use permit issued
by the Planning Commission on March 16, 1977. He stated specifically that
the condition stated that the applicant install a solid 6 -foot fence around
the entire property to the approval of the Director of Community Development
and also that the applicant provide an all- weather dust resurface on site
in areas not noted as approved on the attached plan had not been completed.
He further stated that the staff should bring this to the council's attention
in order to try to get compliance with the use permit when the rate was
being requested. He stated as an example that this had happened when the
rate increase was under consideration for the Yellow Cab Company, and they
were made to comply with a longstanding use permit conditions.
It was the majority of the City Council's feeling that if there were any
violations of use permits or other city laws, that the city staff should
proceed to correct those and not tie this to other items such as rate increases.
The council felt that the Yellow Cab situation was an entirely different item.
Mayor Cooper stated that he supported the rate increase and felt the company should
try to tighten up its management operation in view of the present inflation problem:
On motion of Councilman Bond, seconded by Councilman Munger, the following
resolution was introduced: Resolution No. 4169 (1980 Series), a resolution
of the Council of the City of san Luis Obispo Establishing Rates for Solid
Waste Disposal, and superseding Resolution No. 3535, which would grant a
20% increase and would become effective July 1, 1980.
Councilwoman Billig stated she would not support the resolution as she felt
the council should have its own staff or a consultant make the analysis to
see if the figures presented were adequate. She felt that the City Council
after all, were representing all the public and not private industry.
Without input from staff or private C.P.A., she would vote against the motion.
She wished the council to be aware what this action was -placing on the
city's citizens by the council and that the council should be satisfied as
to the background and figures on which they are working.
Councilman Dunin agreed with Councilwoman Billig's comments that some staff
analysis should have been prepared prior to the meeting so that the City
Council could consider this request with all information on the rates, although,
he would support the rate increase.
Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Bond, Munger, Dunin and Mayor Cooper.
NOES: Councilwoman Billig
ABSENT: None
1
1
City Council Minutes
May.20, 1980.- 7:30 p.m.
Page 5
8.:.. ..City Council.considered the final.-:passage of Ordinance No. 852,
(1980 Series), an Ordinance..of the.City.of San...Luis Obispo amending
Section 3220 of.the..San-Luis Obispo Municipal.Code,.to include motorized
bicycles in the city bicycle license regulations.
Mayor Cooper declared the public hearing.op.en...No..one appeared before
the..City.Council for or.against ...the adoption of the ordinance. Mayor
Cooper declared the public hearing closed.
On motion of Councilman Bond;__seconded by Councilwoman Billig,.Ordinance No. 852
was introduced for final passage. Finally passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Bond, Billig, Dunin, Munger and Mayor Cooper.
NOES: None
ABSENT:. None
9. City Council considered the.final.passage . of Ordinance No. 853
(1980 Series),.and ordinance amending the contract between.the Public.
Employees..Retirement System and the,City of San Luis Obispo.to.provide
for one year final compensation for miscellaneous.emplo.yees.
Mayor Cooper declared the public hearing open. No one appeared before the
City Council.for.or.agaiiist the final passage of the - ordinance. Mayor
Cooper.,declared.the public hearing closed.
On.motion_of. Councilman._ Bond.,;_ sec _onded.by.Councilwoman_Billig, Ordinance No. 853
was introduced for,final passage. Finally passed on the ,following roll call vote:
.AYES: Councilmembers Bond,.Billig,.Dunin, Munger and Mayor Cooper.
-NOES:,
ABSENT: None
10. ... .City_Council. considered .the..final..passage..of Ordinance No. 854
(1980 Series) an ordinance.of.the City.of San Luis Obispo amending
Sections, 5220.5 and 5220.6.of. the San .Luis Obispo Municipal Code to
Increase the.Administrative Charge assessed for.Citv.Weed and Debris Abatement
Work From 20% to 75 %.
Mayor - Cooper declared .the.public..hearing.open.. No.one.appeared,before.the
Ciy Council for.or.against the the proposed ordinance. Mayor.Cooper
declared the public hearing closed.
On motion of Councilman.Munger, seconded.by.Councilman Dunin,.Ordinance.No. 854
was introduced for final passage. Finally passed on-the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Munger,.Dunin, Billig Bon and.Mayor.Cooper.
NOES: None
ABSENT:.. None.._ . .. ..
11. City Council considered.a report from the Planning Commission on
the state of fraternities.and sororities in the City of San.Luis Obispo.
.Henry Engen, Community.Development Director, submitted a report fr6m the
Planning.Commission..listing all the.various fraternities and sororities in
.the city who are in violation.,of one or more city ordinances. The Planning
Commission recommended.that the.City.Council initiate action to abate the
fraternities and sororities that are .in.violation.of, city regulations.
He. further stated that the staff's position.was that the City Council.should
take no specific action. Normal code enforcement would occur with emphasis
on response to specific nuisance.complaints such as noise, disorderly conduct,
traffic violations and the like.
City Council Minutes
May 20, 1980 - 7:30 p.m.
Page 6
He then reviewed the conditions of six (6) sororities and fraternities that
are in violation of various ordinances; for example: no use permit or in the
wrong zone and no use permit can be issued. He continued that the staff has
given first priority to those fraternities and sororities eligible to obtain
use permits. They had also devoted time to gathering information and background
on those fraternities and sororities with zoning making them ineligible for
permits to ensure that abatement proceedings would be based on sound evidence.
He then presented the following action for the council's consideration:
1) Consistent with the Planning Commission recommendation, direct staff to take
immediate action to abate these uses -- understanding that other enforcement will
have to slow down substantially. Staff would seek voluntary compliance which
would involve notification for compliance, usually 30 -90 days, to eliminate
the violation. Timing is good so that the issues can be resolved over the
summer before the fall quarter starts.
2) Take no action and allow normal code enforcement to occur with primary emphasis
on response to specific nuisance complaints by type (i.e., noise, disorderly
conduct, traffic violations, and the like.)
Councilman Bond stated that he would support the staff recommendation and
take no specific action; but try to allow normal code enforcement to proceed
to abate any of these problems.
Councilman Dunin felt that the relationship between the neighbors and the
fraternities and sororities in the last few months have improved. He
felt that fraternities and sororities were making every effort to get along
in their neighborhoods and he felt that these groups should be treated should
be treated like any other citizens in the city. He felt that if they were
in violation of state law or city law, they should be put in compliance.
He felt that the city should cooperate with these groups and they should
also cooperate with the city. If there was no way to correct them, then they
must be abated. He felt more study to correct should be made before starting
abatement proceedings.
Councilwoman Billig felt that the city should not ignore violations to zoning
and land use and she felt that these groups living in single - family residential
areas are incompatible due to noise, circulation, etc., and if in violation
of city law, they should be abated and moved into areas where they can be legal.
Roger Neuman, Police Chief, stated upon question, that the Police Department
had been working very closely with members of sororities, fraternities, and
the inter - fraternity council, and he felt that they had been 90% successful,
and he hoped that this continued cooperation would continue. He would support
the staff's option of gathering information in order to have all that's
necessary before abatement proceeds.
Councilwoman Billig continued that she felt the city should support the
Planning Commission recommendation and correct those groups in violation
to city land use.
Mayor Cooper stated he felt he would support the C.A.O.'s recommendation to
allow the staff to continue their enforcement program, giving priority to
those cases where complaints are being received.
Councilwoman Billig again urged the council to work with Cal Poly to develop
a Greek row for fraternity and sorority housing and placing them out of the
single - family residential areas where there are conflicts in use and lifestyles.
Councilman Dunin suggested that the Mayor should appoint a council sub-
committee to meet with university officials, fraternity and sorority officers,
and to try to solve the many problems facing the city and the housing groups.
He offered to act on this committee with Ms. Billig if the Mayor would appoint.
City Council Minutes
May 20., 1980..- 7:30 p.m.
Page 7
On motion of Councilman Dunin,:seconded.by.Councilwoman Billig,: that.the
Mayor appoint a subcommittee from the City Council to-meet with the
.university officials, fraternity and -.sorority officials, to try and work
this.matter.out..and.also_ accept the recommendation.of. the administrative
officer to authorize the.staff.to..continue enforcement program giving
priorities to those cases where.complaints had been received concerning
disorderly conduct, noise and traffic problems.
Mayor Cooper.- stated that since -he has been Mayor,.he has been actively working
with the university.president.and staff as a liaison.with the city in order.
to have more cooperation between.the city. and university. He wasn't.sure
if another subcommittee would be of any benefit, particularly in view of the
last subcommittee which -was very ineffective.
Councilman Dunin called for a vote. Motion carried on the following roll
call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Dunin, Billig, and Mayor Cooper.
NOES: Councilmembers Bond and Munger
ABSENT: None
12.. City Council- considered a progress- report.on•the.Pigeon Control Program
in downtown San Luis Obispo.
Geoff -Grote stated this.matter.was before the council -again as.the.original action
by the city..to have a_contract.with Mr. Carlton Green to abate pigeons by
trapping and bating them- in.the downtown area could not enter into such a contract
and therefore.could . not:be allowed to work.for the city. He felt that the
City Council still had..three basic options at this time:
11 Trapping of Pigeons - -He -felt the staff could.enter into negotiations
with individuals who are licensed to perform this service.
2) Birth Control - To "work' =with Cal Poly on a program .using.the.chemical.Ornitrol.
3) Determine that the city'should not pursue a pigeon-.control program at this time.
He stated that.he had discussed with Mr. Jack Lane of Jade Pest Control,
Paso'Robles, a- .'trapping program and he has submitted a proposal for the
council's consideration.
'He continued he had also asked Assistant.Professor Charles.Crabb of.the Crop
Sciences.Department . of the School of.Agriculture at Cal Poly to discuss the
Ornitrol program and to answer..any questions that the council may have.
He.said that in his opinion, the Ornitrol program seems to be the most viable
program despite some protests.by people concerned -with endangered species.
Finally., the council.may find that those.citizens opposed to any pigeon control
program may make any city action unfeasible at this time. While he believed
-that the vast majority of.the San Luis residents which supported a•pigeon control
program, the.council should feel that any program might cause more controversy
and bad feelings than it's worth.
Mr. Charles Crabb, reviewed the pigeon problem as it affects, -the university.
He felt that the university's problems seemed to be caused by nesting.pigeons
-in the city'. He,felt that the:birth control program with the Ornitrol process
would be the best. He felt.this was.the best way to control the pigeon population.
If birth.control.is not possible, then an ambitious long -term program would
be the next best policy. He felt the Ornitrol program was best. He offered his
full cooperation to the city in whatever programs -the city decided on. He felt
once the - pigeon control-program would be adopted, it must be continued forever
in order`to keep pigeon population under control..
Jack Lane, owner of the Jade Pest Control Service, reviewed his proposed trapping
program for the City of San Luis Obispo involving two conditions: 1) If he
were to dispose of the birds; 2) If the birds were given to the city to dispose
of.
Vt.
City Council..Minutes
May 20, 1980 - 7:30 P.M.
Page 8
Robert Corcoran,.Administrator for B..I.A.,. stated ... that:.the greatest complaint
of downtown business people.and the.residents of.the'community are the bird
droppings on.the sidewalks. He felt it was the City Council's responsibility
to clean up the downtown streets..
Carleton Green, apologized to the council for not having.been.able to go ahead
with the trapping'prog=am.he proposed for the city. He.felt that the.-Ornitrol
program.would not work: .He.felt that. any.agency, publ c.or private, would see
that this program would.not work. .He also felt it was-unfair . of the city to
bring in out- of- town.experts, to trap pigeons..and paying them while Carleton
Green had been doing it for free. He stated that this expert would use the
same trapping sites that he.had been.using and he objected to that.
Nancy Clark, Santa Margarita stated she was opposed to any program that would
kill.pigeons.. She would support the Ornitrol program reluctantly as she did
not want-to see any of-G6.V s creatures killed.
Councilman Bond stated he would support an Ornitrol program and also could
accept a trapping program.
On motion of Councilman Munger, seconded by.Councilman Bond,.that_the City
Council authorize the staff to call for bids for a trapping program and also
to start an Ornitrol program.
Councilwoman.Billig stated she was:opposed to.the motion on the.basis..of long -
term expense_dtie to. continued costs for trapping and the Ornitrol program,
She felt.that..the birth control, trapping-and-elimination of pigeon nesting
was what was needed to really control the pigeon problems.
Councilman Dunin.suggested . a four -phase program:
1) Start a trapping program.
2) Allow contracts.to give pigeons to Carleton Green:for the Falcoln program.
3) Start an.Ornitrol program in September.
4) Have staff research an ordinance to require property owners to pigeon
proof their buildings..
The motion-.by Councilman Munger and.:Bond, as amended by Dunin was approved.
Motion carried on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Munger, Bond; Dunin, Billig and.Mayor Cooper
NOES: None
...ABSENT: None
13.. On motion.of.Councilman Bond, seconded by Councilman-Munger, the..
following resolution was introduced: Resolution No. 4168..(1980 Series),
a resolution.of the.Council of the City of San Luis Obispo.adjusting various
budget accounts and increasing appropriations for the 1979 -80 Fiscal Year..
Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Bond, Munger, Billig; Dunin and:Mayor Cooper.
NOES: None
.ABSENT: None
A. Mr..Charles Jones..ap.peared.b.efore. the City Council-stating that
he wished to question.the acceptance by the United States of America of
the tremendous number of Cuban refugees, giving his reasons why U.S. Citizens
should object to the influx of Cubans to the United States.
1
1
1
1
1
City.Council Minutes
May 20, 1980 —'7:30 p.m.
Page 9
There being.no.further business to come.before the City Council, Mayor
Cooper adjourned-the meeting at 10:20 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Tuesday, June 3,
1980.
COUNCIL APPROVED.MINUTES ON:. 6/3/80
J ,VTrtzpatrick, City Clerk
*The following are Councilwoman Billig's comments in regards to Item No. 1,
Council meeting of May 20, 1980 at 4:00 p.m. ;
Councilwoman Billig stated she.would vote against the motion as she felt
that the council was making a mistake in:allowing the partial development
of the Dalidio property without the preparation of a master plan of the
entire property., She also felt that the proposal was wrong due to the
extremely hazardous traffic condition existing on Madonna Road and this
facility would implant this all the more. She felt that she could support
the South Street site on the industrial tract off of South Higuera, but
in no way could she support the Madonna Road site.
1
1
1