The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09/07/2004, AGENDA counat agcnaa CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY HALL, 990 PALM STREET Tuesday, September 7, 2004 Action Update 6:30 P.M. CLOSED SESSION Council Hearing Room 990 Palm Street City Attorney Lowell announced the following Closed Session topics: CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL- Existing Litigation Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9 City of San Luis Obispo v. Select Income Properties 6, etc. et al San Luis Obispo County Superior Case No: CV 040180 City of San Luis Obispo v. Stan Mark, LLC, etc. et al San Luis Obispo County Superior Case No: CV 040181 City of San Luis Obispo v. Sierra Vista Hospital, Inc. etc. et al San Luis Obispo County Superior Case No: CV 040182 City Attorney Lowell reported that the Closed Session was held during which Council heard the above-referenced litigation concerning the acquisition of certain easements in conjunction with the Foothill Bridge replacement project. Council has directed staff to proceed with the preparation of the related Settlement Agreements, which will be brought back as a Consent Agenda Item on September 21St 7:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING Council Chamber 990 Palm Street Present: Council Members John Ewan, Christine Mulholland, Allen K. Settle, Vice Mayor Ken Schwartz, Mayor Dave Romero Council Agenda ` J Tuesday, obptember7, 2004 Action Update INTRODUCTIONS Public Works Director McCluskey introduced new Public Works Department employees Chris Felt, Heavy Equipment Mechanic, and Bill Humphrey, Parking Coordinator. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE.AGENDA(not to exceed 15 minutes total) The Council welcomes your input. You may address the Council by completing a speaker slip and giving it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. At this time, you may address the Council on items that are not on the agenda or items on the Consent Agenda. Time limit is three minutes. State law does not allow the Council to discuss or take action on issues not on the agenda, except that members of the Council or staff may briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by persons exercising their public testimony rights(Gov. Code Sec.54954.2). Staff may be asked to follow up on such items. Staff reports and other written documentation relating to each item referred to on this agenda are on file in the City Clerk's Office in Room 1 of City Hall. Bill San Luis Obispo, referred to the Damon Garcia Sports Complex and explained why he thinks two fields could be placed on the other side of Acacia Creek He displayed drawings in support of his position. Gary Fowler, San Luis Obispo, discussed concerns he has related to the Council's failure to support senior citizens. Sifu Kelvin Harrison. San Luis Obispo, discussed the reasons why he believes he is being harassed in a number of ways. Matt Mackey, San Luis Obispo, asked Council to consider, as soon as possible, increasing the campaign contribution limit from $100 to at least$500. Mayor Romero noted that a Council committee will be appointed in 2005 to begin reviewing the election campaign regulations ordinance. Mary Beth Schroeder, San Luis Obispo, suggested that there should be a senior center in the Downtown. PRESENTATION Dave Mullinax, League Of California Cities, provided an update of Proposition 1A: "Constitutional Protection Of Local Government Revenues." He submitted copies of"Frequently Asked Questions about Proposition 1A"(on file in the City Clerk's office). He responded to questions and clarified that the League of California Cities is recommending that affirmative votes be cast for both 2 Council Agenda Tuesday, i6ptember 7, 2004 Action Update Proposition 65 and Proposition 1A. If both propositions pass, the initiative with the most votes will be implemented. APPOINTMENT Al. APPOINTMENT TO THE TREE.COMMITTEE. (EWAN/MULHOLLAND —5 MINUTES) RECOMMENDATION: Appoint George Sistek to an unexpired term beginning September 27, 2004 and ending March 31, 2005. ACTION. Approved. (5:0) CONSENT AGENDA The Consent Agenda is approved on one motion. Council Members may pull consent items to be considered after Business items. The public may comment on any item on the Consent Calendar. Cl. APPROVE MINUTES OF TUESDAY, AUGUST 17. 2004 REGULAR MEETING. (HOOPER) RECOMMENDATION: Waive oral reading and approve as presented. ACTION. Approved. (5:0, Schwartz voted on the Consent agenda, abstaining on all other items) C2. FINAL ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NOJ453 (2004 SERIES). AMENDING THE UNREINFORCED MASONRY_BUILDING REGULATIONS. (MANDEVILLE/T. BAASCH) RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Ordinance No. 1453 (2004 Series). ACTION. Ordinance No. 1453-12004 Series)adopted. (5:0) C3. ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1454 (2004 SERIES) AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 10.36 PERTAINING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT DISTRICTS. (MCCLUSKEWHORCH) RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Ordinance No. 1454 (2004 Series), amending Chapter 10.36 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. ACTION. Ordinance No. 1454(2004 Series)adopted. (5.0) 3 Council Agenda Tuesday, cieptember 7, 2004 Action Update C4. FINAL-ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1455 (2004 SERIES). ADOPTING TEXT.AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S SIGN REGULATIONS, CITY FILE# TA/ER 26-04). (MANDEVILLE/COREY) RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Ordinance No. 1455 (2004 Series). ACTION. Ordinance No. 1455(2004 Series)adopted. (5:0) C5. FINAL.ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1456 (2004 SERIES) ADDING NEW CHAPTER 9.30 TO TITLE 9 OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE PROHIBITING NUDITY IN PUBLIC. (LINDEN/LOWELL) RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Ordinance No. 1456 (2004 Series) adding Chapter 9.30 to Title 9 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code prohibiting nudity in public. ACTION: Ordinance No. 1456(2004 Series)adopted. (3:2, Ewan, Mulholland opposed) C6. REQUEST.FOR PROPOSALS FOR ADVERTISING SERVICE ON SAN LUIS OBISPO TRANSIT VEHICLES. (MCCLUSKEY/O'DELL) RECOMMENDATION: 1) Adopt resolution modifying the existing policy on exterior advertising on SLO Transit buses. 2) As recommended by the Mass Transportation Committee (MTC), approve a Request for Proposals (RFP) for Advertising Services on San Luis Obispo Transit Vehicles. 3) Authorize the City Administrative Officer to execute an agreement with selected contractor for advertising program on City buses. ACTION: 1) Council voted to deny the CAO recommendation. (4:1. Settle opposed) 2)Staff was directed to move forward with an RFP for interior advertising and return to the City Council for consideration, including information regarding appearance and potential revenue. (5:0) C7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPLICATION TO THE CALIFORNIA STATE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING-AND-COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (HCD) FOR FUNDING UNDER THE CALHOME PROGRAM (PROPOSITION 46). MANDEVILLE/DAVIDSON) RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution authorizing staff to complete and submit an application to HCD for Ca.IHome Program funds in the amount of$500,000 to be used for first-time home buyers mortgage assistance. ACTION: Resolution No. 9604(2004 Series) adopted. (5:0) 4 I � Council Agenda Tuesday; 6eptember 7, 2004 Action Update C8. APPOINTMENT OF CITY REPRESENTATIVE TO THE SAN LUISOBISPO HOUSING TRUST FUND (HTF) COMMISSION. (MANDEVILLE/DAVIDSON) RECOMMENDATION: Appoint Doug Davidson, Housing Programs Manager, as the City representative to the HTF Commission. ACTION. Approved. (4:1, Schwartz opposed) C9. BICYCLE RACK DONATION PROGRAM. (MCCLUSKEY/P. MANDEVILLE) RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution establishing a bicycle rack donation program within the City of San Luis Obispo. ACTION. Resolution No. 9605(2004 Series)adopted. (5:0) C10. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO SUPPORTING PROPOSITION 1A— CALIFORNIANS TO PROTECT LOCAL TAXPAYERS AND PUBLIC SAFETY. (LOWELL/KISER) RECOMMENDATION: Approve a resolution supporting Proposition 1A, protecting local taxpayers and public safety services. ACTION: Reso/ution.No. 9606(2004 Series)adopted. (5.0) C11. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE-CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO OPPOSING THE GAMING REVENUE ACT OF 2004. (GEORGE/KISER) RECOMMENDATION: Approve a resolution opposing the Gaming Revenue Act of 2004. ACTION. Resolution No. 9607(2004 Series)adopted. (4:1, Mulholland opposed) C12. SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO UNDER THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT. (MOLONEY/SYLVAIN — 15 MINUTES) RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution approving the Settlement Agreement between the United States of America and the City of San Luis Obispo, California, under the Americans with Disabilities Act (DJ 204-12C-425). ACTION: Resolution No. 9608(2004 Series)adopted. (5:0) 5 Council Agenda Tuesday, oeptember 7, 2004 Action Update PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION DENYING TWO SPECIFIC ATTORNEY FIRMS IN THE SERVICE COMMERCIAL SPECIFIC PLAN PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (C-S-SP-PD) ZONE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 735 TANK FARM ROAD (AP-PC 107-04). (MANDEVILLE/COREY-45 MINUTES) RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution denying the appeal, and upholding the Planning Commission's action on the subject project. ACTION: Resolution No. 9609(2004 Series)adopted. Directed staff to consider office zoning at this and the surrounding location, and in the general vicinity, rather than the current C-S zoning. (5:0) 2. DRAFT MARGARITA AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL.IMPACT REPORT(EIR), AND MEETING SCHEDULE. (MANDEVILLE/DRAZE -2 HOURS) RECOMMENDATION: 1) Discuss the draft Margarita Area Specific Plan and Final Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR), receive public testimony, approve subsequent hearing dates, and provide direction to staff, as appropriate and.continue the public hearing to September 28, 2004. 2) As recommended by the Planning Commission, certify the EIR and approve the plan in subsequent hearings, with Council amendments, as appropriate. ACTION: Report received and hearing continued to September 28, 2004 Special meeting. The hearing on September 28' will begin with a presentation regarding land use, circulation and Prado Road, including a simulation of the alignment. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS (not to exceed 15 minutes) Council Members report on conferences or other City activities. Time limit-3 minutes. Mayor Romero reported on the August 26th meeting of the Nacimiento Project Commission. Council Member Mulholland reported on her attendance at the August 20th commencement exercise at the California Men's Colony, the August 2P Cultural Heritage Committee meeting, the Auust 25`h Economic Vitality Corporation Board meeting and the September is Water Resources Advisory Committee meeting. 6 Council Agenda _ Tuesday,September 7, 2004 Action Update COMMUNICATIONS (not to exceed 15 minutes) At this time, any Council Member or the City Administrative Officer may ask a question for clarification, make an announcement, or report briefly on his or her activities. In addition, subject to Council Policies and Procedures, they may provide a reference to staff or other resources for factual information, request staff to report back to the Council at a subsequent meeting concerning any matter, or take action to direct staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda(Gov. Code Sec. 54954.2). None. A. ADJOURN. 7 -71 August ff August 27, 2004 R. Allen Baylis Esq. Director,Naturist Action Committee 4050 Katella Ave., Suite 204 Los Alamitos, CA 90720 Dear Honorable Council Members of the City of San Luis Obispo: I submitted a letter in opposition to San Louis Obispo's proposed ordinance 9.30 to all of you on August 17, 2004. Due to the shortage of time available to me prior to the City Council meeting on the 17'x', I am submitting a more complete package of information for you to consider prior to voting on the ordinance during the next Council meeting. The Naturist Society is a national organization that supports and promotes body freedom and body acceptance through nude recreation,httr)://www.naturistsocieiy.com/. The Naturist Action Committee is the political arm of The Naturist Society, http://www.nac.oshkosh.neti. We work to protect the rights of naturist throughout North America. As I stated previously,"breast flashing" for the delight and entertainment of crowds is not something that naturist practice,nor does such behavior reflect naturist values. While we understand the City's need to control unruly behavior during the Mardi Gras event,a complete, City-wide ban on all public nudity is likely to have minimal effect on the drunken crowds,but will affect.the rights of the citizens of San Luis Obispo to engage in legitimate naturist activities. The proposed ordinance suffers from three fatal flaws that could result in legal challenges. First, prohibiting exposure of the breasts of females,but not those of males, is discriminatory on its face,and as it would be applied in the context of the annual Mardi Gras celebration. Second, it would adversely affect the rights of naturist citizens of San Luis Obispo to engage in lawful and peaceful naturist activities in the city. Third, it is unnecessary to achieving the legitimate goals of the City in maintaining civil order and is unlikely to be effective. DISCRIMIATORY The proposed ordinance is discriminatory toward women, on its face, as it prohibits exposure of the female breasts but not those of males. In the context of Mardi Gras, the Police Department has expressed it's intent to enforce the law only against women "The public nudity ordinance being proposed would give officers a valuable tool to stop the behavior as soon as it occurs and before it attracts large unruly crowds."This law as it would be enforced,would make criminals of women due to the unruly behavior of drunken men.. Prohibiting exposure of"...any portion of the breast at or below the areola thereof of any female person" is discriminatory toward women and is open to challenge under the U.S. Supreme Court decision in United States v. Virginia(Virginia Military Institute)and/or under Article 1 Section 7 of the California Constitution.. Additionally, including this language would prohibit most women's swimsuit tops as well as a lot of ladies eveningwear. Many states,cities and counties have adopted statutes and ordinances 1 Y with the same or similar language. However,these provisions of the law are virtually never enforced without exposure of the entire breast. The City Council should refrain from enacting an ordinance it has no intention of enforcing. Most states don't criminalize exposure of the female breasts (California for example)while others provide constitutionally based protection for female topfreedom. The State of New York protects the right of women to bare their chests in any place that a man may do so. (See The People of the State of New York v. Santorelli, et al. 80 N.Y.2d 875) RIGHTS OF CITIZENS Social attitudes about nudity are changing. In 2000,the Naturist Education Foundation commissioned a Roper poll to gage the change in public attitudes toward nude sunbathing. Without going into detail here,the results of that poll can be seen here:(Appendix A) htty://www.nef.oshkosh.net/Proiects/NEF-Roper Poll/nef-rover poll.html The language"place open to the public or any place visible from a place open to the public"is extremely broad. This would criminalize back yard nude sunbathing if someone in a public place somewhere could possibly view the nude person(s) on their own private property. This would also prohibit legitimate naturist events, and have a chilling effect on nude political protests such as the recent World Naked Bike Ride to protest dependence on oil. For example, if a naturist club wanted to rent a private pool, gym or other recreational facility for nude recreational events,and allow non-members to attend,they would be prohibited from doing so with this ordinance in effect. This would infringe on their rights to free association and peaceful assembly. Life in a free society requires that we have a certain level of tolerance for other people's behavior even though we may find it to be distasteful or offensive. In this country,there is no overarching right"not-to-be-offended."We cannot pass a new law every time someone cries that someone offended him or her. To do so will ultimately require us to tailor all of society's behavior so as not to offend even the most sensitive among us. Essentially, the government has neither duty nor right to protect everyone from being offended,as protecting one person from being offended requires restricting the rights and freedom of the other. Passing the proposed anti- nudity ordinance will only encourage the unhealthy gymnophobia of those who are so sensitive as to be afraid of the nude human body. NECESSITY The real issue here is crowd control,not nudity. Has the Police Department actually found any case where a citywide ban on all nudity or exposure of the female breast actually helped to control an unruly crowd?The Police Department has already studied crowd control techniques used in other cities. They should use what they have learned, and the tools that the California Legislature has provide, and give these things a chance to work before creating another level of government regulation. A ban on public nudity is unlikely to be effective, and is unnecessary to achieve the City's goal of maintaining civil order during MardiGras. Other cities have dealt with Mardi Gras and similar 2 crowds effectively without resorting to the use of discriminatory law enforcement practices or broad anti-nudity laws.Louisiana is one of the few states that criminalizes exposure the female breast,but police don't enforce that law during Mardi Gras. Yet even though"breast flashing"is prevalent during the New Orleans Mardi Gras parade, effective crowd control techniques ensure that civil order is maintained. Austin Texas has huge MardiGras celebration and no law against exposing the female breast. Again, "breast flashing' is common at this event and Austin's Mardi Gras event is orderly. By the two previous examples it can be seen that effective crowd control during Mardi Gras is not dependant on a law to prohibiting exposure of the female breast or public nudity in general. Effective crowd control techniques and using the laws that are already on the books will accomplish this goal. (Appendix B)In fact,to suggest that the police go into a large crowd to cite a woman for exposing her breasts is likely to be counter-productive. To do so would almost certainly inflame the crowd and incite a riot. Public Nudity takes place with increasing frequency in U.S.with no problems..Examples of peaceful occurrences of public nudity include; the annual Bay to Breakers Run/Walk in San Francisco, the World Naked Bike Ride that took place in cities around the world in June of this year,the Seattle Solstice Festival in Washington State;the Burning Man Festival in Nevada, and at Clothing-Optional beaches all along the coasts of our great State. The common thread of violence in large crowds is public drunkenness. In fact, large crowds of inebriated people cause plenty of violence without any nudity or"flashing"involved. Other cities have had similar problems that were claimed by the police to be cause by"flashing." However, some of these cities have been able to control crowds without passing anti-nudity ordinances. Most notably is the city of Huntington Beach,California,where the July 0 crowds rioted for a few years. Through effective use of existing appropriate California Penal Code sections, and good police work,they have had.several years of relatively peaceful July 4`h holidays,with out prohibiting public nudity. It must be remembered as well,that City Council has a duty to represent all citizens including those whose lifestyle choices they might personally disagree with, such as naturists. This proposed ordinance would only serve to perpetuate the myth that the human body is dirty and something to be ashamed of. On behalf of all of the residents of you city who hold naturist values and abhor excessive government control,we urge you to vote against passage of this proposed ordinance, or at least delay any action until such time as all viable alternatives that will fit the City's needs while respecting the rights of the people have been explored. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration, R. Allen Baylis Director,Naturist Action Committee 3 I 7 Appendix A NEF/Roper Poll 20®® American Attitudes on Skinny-dipping and Nude Sunbathing In 1983, The Naturist Society (TNS) commissioned an independent Gallup poll of the attitudes of Americans concerning skinny- dipping and nude sunbathing. The results were quite encouraging and have been used for years as evidence of the acceptance of naturist activities in the U.S. However, with the approach of a new millennium, the numbers had unquestionably become outdated. The Naturist Education Foundation (NEF) is the nonprofit educational and informational arm of The Naturist Society. Using the exact same questions asked by Gallup for TNS in 1983, NEF commissioned the well known and highly respected Roper-Starch polling organization to take the pulse of America in 2000. NEF anticipated good numbers, but the results of the 2000 NEF/Roper Poll cant' more positive news for naturists than anyone could have imagined. Here are the three questions asked in the nationwide scientific sampling, along with the gratifying answers of Americans. QUESTION number 1 4 1983 2000 Do you believe that people who 80% enjoy nude sunbathing should be ............._...._._._......._.72% ........_______....... .._ able to do so without interference z0 •..•••_..---------- ......................_._........... from officials as long as they do eo — ......................................... so at a beach that is accepted for 50 .. ......._........._................ that purpose? 40 — ....................................... 30 ...... X4°6--• •••••••-•-•••_..._..•.............••• ROPER POLL OF 1,010 ADULTS 20 ,.. 173a......... SEPTEMBER,2000 ERROR RISK:5% 0 1 __.. NO YES NO YES Nude Sunbathing?No Problem! Few American adults object to nude sunbathing that takes place at beaches in designated areas.The increase in acceptance over the past 17 years is significant. The 2000 NEF/Roper Poll indicates that fully four out of five Americans today support nude sunbathing at places accepted for that purpose.Approval for nude beaches remains higher for men than for women, but the support among women has risen from 65% in 1983 to 75%in 2000. QUESTION number 2 1983 2000 80 .........................I................__.___......._......._._..__........._.._._........... Local and state governments now 70 ....._----._.........__---_._..._........._----..............................__.__...... set aside public land for special e0 ........54%••— --— 48%.................... 50 ......_.......... 48% types of recreation such as snow- �__ .................. 4039% mobiling,surfing an hunting. o 30 _ you think special and secluded ... areas should be set aside for 20 10 - people who enjoy nude o _ sunbathing? NO YES NO YES ROPER POLL OF 1,010 ADULTS SEPTEMBER,2000 ERROR RISK:5% Designated Nude Beaches -an idea for the 21st Century As legitimate and recognized of users of public land in the U.S., naturists have finally turned the comer.The idea of setting aside portions of public land for special recreational use is not new, but in 1983,the majority of Americans were not quite ready to approve designated areas for nude sunbathing. In 2000,the idea has achieved parity,with as many people supporting it as are opposed to it.The 2000 NEF/Roper Poll shows broad support across the country and compared to 1983, an increase of more than 10% in support among women. 5 1983 2000 QUESTION number 3 83% 80 - 73%---._....._. _ 70 ,�_ Have you, personally, ever gone _........................._..._. .... ...:. . so "skinny dipping"or nude 50 _. sunbathing in a mixed group of 50 men and women at a beach, at a _.._.....__.._ .._.......–_.— 30 __�. _.._ ......._.. ZSgf,_.._. pool, or somewhere else? 20 15%- 10 ROPER POLL OF 1,010 ADULTS 0 _.. ._ SEPTEMBER,2000 NO YES NO YES ERROR RISK:5% 51 Mi//ion Skinny-dippers The 2000 NEF/Roper Poll shows that one of every four adults in the U.S. has been skinny-dipping or has sunbathed nude in a mixed-gender social setting. Using current population estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau, the poll suggests more than 51 million Americans have participated at one time or another in nude recreation. For more information on the 2000 NEF/Roper Poll, contact the Naturist Education Foundation. NEF P.O. Box 132 PHONE: (512)282-6621 Oshkosh, Wl, USA 54903 FAX: (5tnu ists(M of e-mail: ctnudists(daol.com All poll results rounded to nearest whole percentage. 0 2000 Naturist Education Foundation,Inc. All rights reserved.Reproduction without permission prohibited. 6 r APPENDIX B Relevant sections of the California Penal Code 148. (a) (1) Every person who willfully resists, delays, or obstructs any public officer,peace officer, or an emergency medical technician, as defined in Division 2.5 (commencing with Section 1797)of the Health and Safety Code, in the discharge or attempt to discharge any duty of his or her office or employment, when no other punishment is prescribed, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment. 404. (a)Any use of force or violence, disturbing the public peace, or any threat to use force or violence, if accompanied by immediate power of execution,by two or more persons acting together, and without authority of law, is a riot. 404.6. (a) Every person who with the intent to cause a riot does an act or engages in conduct that urges a riot, or urges others to commit acts of force or violence, or the burning or destroying of property, and at a time and place and under circumstances that produce a clear and present and immediate danger of acts of force or violence or the burning or destroying of property, is guilty of incitement to riot. (b) Incitement to riot is punishable by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment. 405. Every person who participates in any riot is punishable by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars, or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment. 405a. The taking by means of a riot of any person from the lawful custody of any peace officer is a lynching. 405b. Every person who participates in any lynching is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for two,three or four years. 406. Whenever two or more persons, assembled and acting together,make any attempt or advance toward the commission of an act which would be a riot if actually committed, such assembly is a rout. 407. Whenever two or more persons assemble together to do an unlawful act, or do a lawful act in a violent,boisterous, or tumultuous manner, such assembly is an unlawful assembly. 408. Every person who participates in any rout or unlawful assembly is guilty of a misdemeanor. 409. Every person remaining present at the place of any riot, rout, or unlawful assembly,after the same has been lawfully warned to disperse, except public officers and persons assisting them in attempting to disperse the same,is guilty of a misdemeanor:. 7 410. If a magistrate or officer, having notice of an unlawful or riotous assembly, mentioned in this Chapter,neglects to proceed to the place of assembly, or as near thereto as he can with safety,and to exercise the authority with which he is invested for suppressing the same and arresting the offenders, he is guilty of a misdemeanor. 415. Any of the following persons shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of not more than 90 days,a fine of not more than four hundred dollars ($400),or both such imprisonment and fine: (1)Any person who unlawfully fights in a public place or challenges another person in a public place to fight. (2)Any person who maliciously and willfully disturbs another person by loud and unreasonable noise. (3) Any person who uses offensive words in a public place which are inherently likely to provoke an immediate violent reaction. 416. (a) If two or more persons assemble for the purpose of disturbing the public peace,or committing any unlawful act,and do not disperse on being desired or commanded so to do by a public officer,the persons so offending are severally guilty of a misdemeanor. 647 Every person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of disorderly conduct,a misdemeanor: (f)Who is found in any public place under the influence of intoxicating liquor, any drug, controlled substance,toluene,or any combination of any intoxicating liquor, drug, controlled substance, or toluene, in such a condition that he or she is unable to exercise care for his or her own safety or the safety of others,or by reason of his or her being under the influence of intoxicating liquor, any drug,controlled substance, toluene,or any combination of any intoxicating liquor, drug, or toluene, interferes with or obstructs or prevents the free use of any street, sidewalk, or other public way. 8 nr' at„ 717IPYfH 4� Chumash Village Mobile Home Park residents and neighbors have many unmet concerns about the proposed Margarita Area Specific Plan (MASP) and the development of the King Ventures property along our properties' eastern border. We request all members of the San Luis Obispo City Council and any interested others meet at our park to observe our current situation and the impact of the potential King Ventures development. The following text addresses our major concerns. Resident Safety: With the continuous aircraft fly-over above our park and the existing open space where the proposed development would occur, any development could contribute to a potential aircraft disaster. The site is now open space and can accommodate emergency aircraft landing. If the property is developed, especially along our eastern border where much of this fly-over happens, aircraft would not have a proper emergency landing area. Need for Buffer Zone: A buffer zone along our eastern border would serve many purposes: 1. Airport compatibility would be assured if open space, a greenbelt or parkway were worked into the adjacent development. This caution addresses resident concerns of emergency aircraft landings in our immediate area. 2. A landscaped green belt in the acknowledged flood zone area will absorb or divert drainage from Chumash Village. Additionally, a carefully designed and engineered green belt would help buffer invasive noise, bright lights, visible buildings, and provide the residents of Chumash with continued quiet enjoyment of this peaceful setting. The proposed residential 20-foot set back from the existing boundary would not be adequate for meeting our needs. 3. A 6 foot wall can be installed to help protect us from the development noise, insure our privacy and avoid other bothersome problems during construction and possibly thereafter, depending on how the landscaped set back and buffer zones are addressed. This wall, when built should be softened with landscaping on both sides (plants such as flowering vines). 4. Underground utility lines adjacent to or along the common property line will need to be installed. 5. Security is a constant issue for seniors, and the increased population in the adjacency increases worries about our safety and vulnerability. Building Density: We request a low density zone adjacent to Chumash Village. Building density and population density are both statistics that matter. The MASP calls for medium density housing in the King Ventures development that allows at least three to four people per household in the homes at our property line. Our population density is lower than it appears. Units per acre do not take into account our per capita density. Within the MASP, the Rancho San Luis Mobile Home Park/Cowan adjacency and the existing Margarita subdivision/King Ventures adjacency areas are dealt with quite differently as to proposed density. The MASP before you calls for low density housing adjoining those property lines and medium density housing adjoining our property line. We request the equal consideration from any adjacent development. Structure Heights: Privacy, natural light and our view-shed to the east continue to be a major priority. The city's approval of a single- story row of housing immediately next to our one story mobile home park would help us maintain natural light exposure to our individually held properties and protect us from bright lights beaming into these properties or keep it to a minimum. To maintain continuity of neighborhood, we propose staking and story poles (orange tape) be installed before subdivision construction begins to show heights and setbacks along our common property line so everyone can visualize the impacts of the currently proposed King Ventures design. Drainage: Chumash Village and adjacent areas have known runoff flooding from the pasture and from the South Hills. Recently, two mobile homes washed off their foundations during a flood here. Underground springs and a high ground-water table are known at our lower eastern border which would be compromised by poor drainage planning. We need assurance that flood waters from any development will not flow onto our properties. Currently a nearly nonfunctional berm on the King Ventures property handles some run-off during storms by diverting it within that property down to its lower corner adjacency. Soil stability and maintaining level footings for the mobile homes will be a challenge if the proposed construction and drainage engineering are not carefully considered. In March 2004, hoped for discussions between Chumash Village residents and King Ventures failed as their representatives had promised us meetings and proper communication on drainage planning details. This follow-through has not yet occurred. Prado road Extension: Obviously, safety, traffic noise and pollution are major issues. At a recent San Luis Obispo City Planning Commission hearing, a two-lane extension of Prado Road was deemed sufficient to deal with the traffic flow for the next ten years. It seems unnecessary to turn Prado Road into a four lane trucking route. Please reevaluate alternative routes such as Tank Farm Road, which can be upgraded or widened, instead. Greater traffic flow in any surrounding streets will heighten difficulty of ingress and egress at Chumash Village. Special Needs of Seniors: We are a vulnerable population with some of us in our seventies, eighties and nineties. We purchased homes here with assurance that our community would be for seniors only; a quiet, secure place to live out the final years of our lives. We have safety, air quality, light and noise concerns that will begin when the proposed site development and building starts. Security is also an item as the Margarita area becomes home to a more diverse population. Proposed Project During Construction: Strict compliance with city ordinances is expected during the years of completion. We have health concerns about on-going noise, and air pollution from dust, exhaust fumes of heavy equipment, vapors from construction materials, and other site development associated processes. Who will take responsibility for making sure the ordinances will be obeyed? What construction days and hours will be approved? What construction materials, equipment and trash would stay on site and for how long? What visual, noise, and safety protection would we have from the transient construction workers during the ongoing process? Shouldn't these issues be addressed now prior to subdivision approval? Please help us maintain our quality of life here in Chuinash Village Mobile Horne Park. 'Thank you for your attention to these important concerns. CVAIHP/HASP 7/29/2004 , - - ' i HearingDrait Margarku Area Specific Man 1 � Open Space-hi0s =M Opao Spew-riparian&wetland �� Neighbadmod Perk '( I] Greortvarys-1m;F Mend buffs strips p Qeerts;ace-melny for aircraft saftey EEB Spoft Fields 71 ji !`•`• _ R 1fWdD==ertsSy Residaltlai(ga&,,) G )�•-�`. '. M'Median Dens.Resid.-detached dwellings only t •` �L� Medium High Densly Resfdemial(19-tBlaue) f , EM High Densky,Residentlal(19-24/acre) ,=-- Neighbod cod Commercial J" r < <'+-'1•: � ?'n'ti%�• ;;T,-N NbadComml dwePags must be single Business;Perk-general D 9usinesa Pack-2-story mac,office-type uses r 7 h(L �• j �! rr r I`-7 \'. [� Business Perk-1 max.•masomy,constr. -a^;�, • L.•1 }'.�' Business Park-ou-�oor uses only t� r, . 71;ti.;:'f spateg r Use =__ 6risdnrrew street Potential alley -1'. Street median wMs treourtss tree ! Street median with trees •`?�, r-j-�l_`,=I� EEI Access court(potential private street) Tral t ' �'--'i• �1��_'-��'�'•� t!` TrallUnderet Ing �•— _ 44 ' ••"'7 i 100 '17 —• <---• �.� �� r Meters ® /�\l Wil:+t '- =ti•1 — 1 1 C I Feet 5® N 17 - - `--__c-t-^ •_= lam:�?r T1�-�F:�' �—' ; y-- � kk o, n r.L. . ROa = --� ~ Pi - W - } vN. =7 `J I I r I i I i s ua/ur,'U4 10:31 hAb 8U5 531 343'-t WHEELER & BEATON x001 ®1 '/ .-c-c4W U,- / cd (, attoneysatL : Charles Vheq rWheple) B1�tUn / fir -D y GiRor1 G.Beaton Craig A.Kingscott A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORaTIOti (�,; �I September 7,2004 Reply to: P.O.Bon 1a2-S Sun Luis Obispo,CA 934C�� To: San Luis Obispo City Council Members Subjec 9;7 SLO City Council Agenda Iter:Re: Edna Valley CMice Building Genrlepersons: We wish to thank you for considering t1he following information rek-rding the appeal to the Planning Commission's denial of the request to aiiow two specific attorney firm, to practice law in the Edtta Valley Office Building. We are requesting an excq)tion to the professional office use zoning. We have been proud to practice workers' compensation lav/on the Central Coast for 26 years with our main office in San Luis Obispo. However,recent changes it the workers' compensation law will adversely affect the profitability of ours and other offices representing injured workers in a very significant way. We are now being forced to consider, at the conclusion of our current lease in January 2005,relocation to a less expensive site, probably at some locality is Grover Beach, close to the Workers' Cem?enation Appeals Board,because of.expenses associated wit i renting in the downtown corridor and because of the difficulty in lccatiag the type of space required by c-ur clients. In support of the appeal,we would point out:he following: 1. We have ho cases of any sort,workers'compensation or social security disability, heard in the downtown area.Our social security appeals are heard in the Waltr.s Building,•which we know houses attorneys,although it is not suitable for out large clientele of mote than 1,200 clients. 2. We represent injured workers,most of whom have significant physical disabilities.They may requti-e handicapped par::ng and eieva`or access.This fact rules out many of the do,%mtown buildings of the sine we require,as we need a great deal of parking. 3. We requir:ar. office space of between 4000-5000 squire feet, which makes it a very difficult proposition to locate a suitable space given the restictions as mentioned above. We fully support t.his appeal of the SLO Planning Department's decision regarding the denial to allow two specific attorney firm;to at lease office space. Both of these finiE do not use County courthouse and :elated facilities and de not create foot traffic because of the nature of their practice. Charles T.Wheeler,Eer,40 Gir.'ford G.Beaton,Esq,, Wheeler£e.Beaton A Professional Law Corporation 900 East Main Street, Suite 201 1194 Pacific Street,Suite 205 5855 Capistrano Street,Suite C, Santa filaria,CA 93454 San Luis Obispo,CA 93301 Atascadere,CA 93422 (305)928-2601 (305)541-2901 Fax(80�541.5434 (805)462-3277 6II K.Gray LAW OFFICES OF Other Offices John P. Welch, Inc. Lee E.Herschler James B.James Malcolm D.Schick GRAY & PROUTY SANTA ANA Melinda Schaffner, Inc. C. Kempton Letts (714) 558-3751 FAX (714) 973-4736 Stephen B.Hazen Kelly J.Hamilton A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION SAN FRANCISCO Stephen M. Berger Roger A.er Herian (650) 246-1440 FAX (6501 246-1441 Sherry M.Dixon Christopher Hewitt GROVER BEACH OFFICE SACRAMENTO Gents, Inc.Prouty 11947 Br - Sutherland (916)649-9961 FAX IS IS) 649-9965 John R. Banks, IcG.Bruce Sutherland 4349 SANTA FE ROAD RIVERSIDE Joseph A. Hernandez Thomas E. Mullen Christopher Cooley David J. Gittelman SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93401 1809) 276-8750 FAX(909) 276.0392 Diane L.Cray Dawn C.Nelms ($05) 786-4050 FAX (805) 786-0131 SAN DIEGO-CIVIL Daniel R. Brown Joanne Marecek 1619) 718-9790 FAX(619) 718-9797 Terry Wheaton Julie N.Michelsen SAN DIEGO Jennifer A.Haber Kathleen L.Wilson E-Mail gpO13@grayandprouty.com (619) 521-2660 FAX(61 91 521.2655 Frank M. Jodzio Gary 0.Gemberling LOS ANGELES David J.Machell Karen i.Rose (323) 525-3170 FAX(323) 525.3780 Diana C. Guzman Janke N. Hunter July 21r 2004 1559) 243-439FRESNO Khanh Le Kwan Bernie L.Williamson 0 FAX(559)243-4399 James D.Gabriel Joseph R.Montenegro SANTA BARBARA Ian Fyvie T.Kelly Cox (805) 565-2050 FAX(805) 565-2069 Brandi G.Steller Rosa M.Hernandez REDDING David J.Oemshki Eugene Gogerman (530)246-9061 FAX(530) 246-0781 Josaph y.A,:n POMONA Jill S.Grathwohl Elizabeth H.Adamson (909)623-9966 FAX(909)623.9936 Kathe R.Moore Ronald J. Zappelli SALINAS 01 Counsel (831)751-9365 FAX(631) 751.7978 James C. Hazen RECE Y GY Mr. Michael Hodge 'JUL 2 2 2004 EDA, Inc. 1998 Santa Barbara Rd. IDA San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Mr. Hodge: This letter is a follow up to our conversation pertaining to the leasing of office space at 735 Tank Farm Rd., in the new Edna Valley Professional Building in San Luis Obispo. As I've previously mentioned, we are currently in the market to relocate as we are limited in office space. In our efforts to locate suitable space, pricing and employee parking, it has become quite a challenge. With the current zoning restrictions, space availability is very limited and very costly. The Law Offices of Gray and Prouty is a Worker's Compensation Defense firm. Our business is one that does.not require our clients to.meet and/or visit:our office, therefore the only foci traffic that we have is from Gray and Prouty employees. Your help in this matter is greatly appreciated. Should you need further information or if we can be of any assistance, please free to contact me. Kind re ards, Qixi�tt.� D nna Helmer HR Manager This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL, and EXEMPT from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any dissemination,distribution,or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately via telephone, and return the original message to us at the address listed above via the United States Postal Service. ahlD4 cc McLijYn 91 a - fon in LI�Aj psOTECTIOCUTaxenyEes Frequently Asked Questions About-Proposition-JA _ www.YesonProplA.com Q:What would Prop 1A do? A: Proposition 1A would prevent the state legislature from taking and using local tax dollars that local governments use to provide essential services like fire and paramedic response, law enforcement, emergency and trauma care, parks, roads, libraries, transportation and more. Specifically, Prop 1A prohibits the State Legislature's ability to lower the existing city, county and special district's existing share of sales taxes, property taxes and VLF revenues. Proposition 1A also requires the state to reimburse local governments for the cost of programs and services it forces cities, counties and special districts to provide. If the state fails to provide reimbursement to local governments for state-mandated local programs, the mandate must be suspended, except for specked employee rights and benefits. Q: Why is Prop 1A needed? A: For more than a dozen years; in both good fiscal times and bad, the state legislature has been raiding local tax dollars to pay for state responsibilities — more than $40 billion over the past 12 years. This practice has starved local communities of the funds needed to pay for vital services like fire protection, paramedic response, law enforcement, healthcare, parks and libraries. if these funding raids continue, it could mean fewer firefighters, fewer law enforcement officers and longer waits at emergency rooms -- or higher local taxes and fees. The system is broken, Voters must act now to protect local revenues for local services from being taken by the State. Q: Who supports Prop 1A? A: Proposition 1A is a historic, bipartisan accord reached among local govemment leaders, public safety representatives, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Democrat and Republican state legislators, healthcare advocates, taxpayer groups, business and labor leaders, and many more. The coalition in support of Prop 1A is growing daily. Q: Will Prop 1A raise taxes? A: NO. Proposition 1A will not raise taxes. It simply ensures that existing local tax dollars continue to be dedicated to local services. In fact, Prop 1A helps ensure local governments aren't forced to raise taxes or fees to make up for revenue raided by the State. Paid for By Yes on lA Californians to Protect Local Taxpayers and Public Safety, Sponsored by a coalition of local government organizations, League of California Cities(non-public funds account), Califomia State Association of Counties (non-public funds account), and the Caftmia Special Districts Association (non-public funds account) 1121 L Street,Suite 803•Sacramento,CA 95814•Phone(800)827-9086•Fax(916)442-3510 Q: What happens in the event of a fiscal emergency?Will this measure tie the , legislature's hands in passing a budget or create more problems during the next state fiscal crisis? A: Prop 1A was intentionally written to allow flexibili .and provide the Governor and legislature _ with options =but only in the event of a "significant state fiscal hardship". Under the provisions of Prop 1A, beginning in 2008=09JT_the ovemor proclaims a"significant state fiscal hardsf the Legislature may suspend the constitutional protection and may borrow local property taxes only under following conditions:. ■ A separate urgency bill must be passed by a 2/3 vote of Legislature; ■ The Legislature must pass a law to fully repay the loan with interest within 3 fiscal years; ■ New loans are prohibited until prior loans have been repaid; ■ No more than two loans may occur during any ten-year period; • The loan amount is capped at 8% of local government property tax amount (equivalent. of approximately $1.3 billion in today's property tax dollars); While Prop 1A contains flexibility in a state fiscal hardship, it also prevents the state from using local government funds any time legislators choose. It also requires that-future state reductions be repaid in full. Q: Will Prop 1A erode state funding for schools or education? A: No. Prop 1A was carefully written to ensure that it does not reduce funding for education or schools by one dime. Under Proposition 98, schools are guaranteed a level of funding from the state—and Prop 1A does not change that. Q: Does Prop 1A give more protection to local government than schools currently receive? A: NO. Under Proposition 98, schools are guaranteed a minimum amount of funding out of the . state general fund and Proposition 1A does not impact those protections at all. Further, comparing the funding guarantees for schools with Prop 1A is an apples-to-oranges protection. Proposition 98 guarantees schools a specific amount of State General fund revenues. Proposition 1A simply protects revenues that are LOCAL GOVERNMENT revenues., but that the state has been taking for more than 12 years. Q: What about other state programs? Will this measure reduce funding for state programs like roads and prisons? A: Prop 1A simply prevents the state from raiding local revenues. The state still has flexibility over its own revenues. Q: Doesn't Prop 1A just add to the state's fiscal woes by initiating further"ballot-box- budgeting" that puts restrictions on how it can spend its revenues? A: No. The initiative does not tell the state how to spend the state's own.revenues (as some propositions have done). What it does is prevent the state from raiding local government revenues for state purposes. This will mean that, for the first time in many years, local communities will have the certainty and predictability they need to plan and provide for current and future service needs. y Q: Will this measure prevent state fiscal reform efforts? --A: No. The first-and-most-important-step-in-reforming the-troubled-State-Local-fiscal relationship is to protect local government funding from continual state raids. Prop 1A would accomplish this important first step, while also leaving the door open for more comprehensive fiscal reform in the future. Specifically, Prop 1A would retain authority for the Legislature to approve the exchange of local sales tax for an equal amount of property tax when requested by local agreements. Any type of voluntary revenue exchange agreement must be revenue-neutral for the impacted local governments. Q: Does this measure increase revenues to local governments? A: No. Prop 1A simply prevents the state Legislature from further reducing existing levels of local government revenues. Q: Why doesn't Prop 1A attempt to recollect lost ERAF property tax dollars? A: Prop 1A was intentionally drafted to draw a line in the sand and prevent future state legislative raids of local government funding. While local governments and services are still deprived by the ongoing state raid of property taxes, given the state of California's fiscal health, we believe a more responsible approach at this time is to "stop the bleeding" at current levels. Q: What happened to Proposition 65, which is also on the November ballot and attempts to protect city, county and special district revenues from state raids? A: Our coalition placed Proposition 65 on the ballot earlierthis year, prior to the historic, bipartisan July agreement that placed Prop 1A on the November ballot. After Prop 65 qualified for the ballot, Govemor Schwarzenegger approached our coalition and asked that we work with him on an alternative local government protection measure. We agreed, to provide the state with short-term contributions from local governments to help the state out of its immense budget problems, and the Governor agreed to work with the legislature to place Prop 1A on the ballot and to actively campaign for passage of Prop 1A this Fall. Proposition 65 will continue to be on the ballot, but all of the official sponsors of Prop 65 are now opposin4 65 and supporting Prop 1A as a better, more flexible approach to protect funding for local governments and local services. Q: What happens if both Proposition 65 and Prop 1A pass? A: Proposition 1A was written.so that if it gains more votes than Proposition 65, it supersedes Prop 65 in its entirety. Prop 1A contains language that specifically says that Prop 1A is a "comprehensive and competing alternative"to Prop 65, and that "it is the intent of the people that this measure supersedes in its entirety Prop 65", if Prop 1A gets more votes. t I. council agenda CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY HALL, 990 PALM STREET Tuesday, September 71 2004 6:30 P.M. CLOSED SESSION Council Hearing Room 990 Palm Street CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL Existing Litigation Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9 City of San Luis Obispo v. Select Income Properties 6, etc. et al San Luis Obispo County Superior Case No: CV 040180 City of San Luis Obispo v. Stan Mark, LLC, etc. et al San Luis Obispo County Superior Case No: CV 040181 City of San Luis Obispo v. Sierra Vista Hospital, Inc. etc. et al San Luis Obispo County Superior Case No: CV 040182 7:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING Council Chamber 990 Palm Street CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Dave Romero PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: Council Members John Ewan, Christine Mulholland, Allen K. Settle, Vice Mayor Ken Schwartz, Mayor Dave Romero ® City Council regular meetings are televised live on Charter Channel 20. The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs, and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410. Please speak to the City Clerk prior to the meeting if you require a hearing amplification device or other assistance. For more agenda information,call 781-7103. Council Agenda Tuesday, �-aptember 7, 2004 INTRODUCTIONS INTRODUCTION OF NEW EMPLOYEES IN THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. (MCCLUSKEY—5 MINUTES) PRESENTATION UPDATE OF PROPOSITION 1A: "CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT.REVENUES" PRESENTED BY.DAVE MULLINAX. LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES. (10 MINUTES) PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA(not to exceed 15 minutes total) The Council welcomes your input. You may address the Council by completing a speaker slip and giving it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. At this time, you may address the Council on items that are not on the agenda or items on the Consent Agenda. Time limit is three minutes. State law does not allow the Council to discuss or take action on issues not on the agenda, except that members of the Council or staff may briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by persons exercising their public testimony rights(Gov. Code Sec.54954.2). Staff may be asked to follow up on such items. Staff reports and other written documentation relating to each item referred to on this agenda are on file in the City Clerk's Office in Room 1 of City Hall. APPOINTMENT Al. APPOINTMENT TO THE TREE COMMITTEE. (EWAN/MULHOLLAND —5 MINUTES) RECOMMENDATION: Appoint George Sistek to an unexpired term beginning September 27, 2004 and ending March 31, 2005. CONSENT AGENDA The Consent Agenda is approved on one motion. Council Members may pull consent items to be considered after Business items. The public may comment on any item on the Consent Calendar. Cl. APPROVE MINUTES OF TUESDAY, AUGUST 17, 2004 REGULAR MEETING. (HOOPER) RECOMMENDATION: Waive oral reading and approve as presented. 3 Council Agenda Tuesday, z,aptember 7, 2004 C2. FINAL ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE.NO. 1453 (2004 SERIES), AMENDING THE UNREINFORCED MASONRY BUILDING REGULATIONS. (MANDEVILLE/T. BAASCH) RECOMMENDATION: Grant final passage to Ordinance No. 1453 (2004 Series). C3. ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1454 (2004 SERIES) AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 10.36 PERTAINING.TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT DISTRICTS. (MCCLUSKEY/HORCH) RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Ordinance No. 1454 (2004 Series), amending Chapter 10.36 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. C4. FINAL ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1455 (2004 SERIES). ADOPTING TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S SIGN REGULATIONS,.CITY FILE # TA/ER 26-04). (MANDEVILLE/COREY) RECOMMENDATION: Grant final adoption to Ordinance No. 1455 (2004 Series). C5. FINAL ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1456 (2004 SERIES) ADDING NEW CHAPTER 9.30 TO TITLE.9.OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE .PROHIBITING NUDITY IN PUBLIC. (LINDEN/LOWELL) RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Ordinance No. 1456 (2004 Series) adding Chapter 9.30 to Title 9 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code prohibiting nudity in public. C6. REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR ADVERTISING SERVICE ON SAN LUIS OBISPO TRANSIT VEHICLES. (MCCLUSKEY/O'DELL) RECOMMENDATION: 1) Adopt resolution modifying the existing policy on exterior advertising on SLO Transit buses. 2) As recommended by the Mass Transportation Committee (MTC), approve a Request for Proposals (RFP) for Advertising Services on San Luis Obispo Transit Vehicles. 3) Authorize the City Administrative Officer to execute an agreement with selected contractor for advertising program on City buses. C7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPLICATION TO THE CALIFORNIA STATE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING.AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (HCD) FOR FUNDING UNDER THE CALHOME PROGRAM (PROPOSITION 46). (MAN DEVI LLE/DAVI DSON) RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution authorizing staff to complete and submit an application to HCD for CalHome Program funds in the amount of $500,000 to be used for first-time home buyers mortgage assistance. 4 Council Agenda Tuesday, aeptember 7, 2004 C8. APPOINTMENT OF CITY REPRESENTATIVE TO THE SAN LUIS OBISPO HOUSING TRUST FUND (HTF)COMMISSION. (MANDEVILLE/DAVIDSON) RECOMMENDATION: Appoint Doug Davidson, Housing Programs Manager, as the City representative to the HTF Commission. C9. BICYCLE RACK DONATION PROGRAM. (MCCLUSKEY/P. MANDEVILLE) RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution establishing a bicycle rack donation program within the City of San Luis Obispo. C10. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO SUPPORTING PROPOSITION 1A— CALIFORNIANS TO PROTECT LOCAL TAXPAYERS AND PUBLIC-SAFETY. (LOWELUKISER) RECOMMENDATION: Approve a resolution supporting Proposition 1A, protecting local taxpayers and public safety services. C11. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO OPPOSING THE GAMING REVENUE ACT OF 2004. (GEORGE/KISER) RECOMMENDATION: Approve a resolution opposing the Gaming Revenue Act of 2004. C12. SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO UNDER THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT. (MOLONEY/SYLVAIN) RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution approving the Settlement Agreement between the United States of America and the City of San Luis Obispo, California, under the Americans with Disabilities Act (DJ 204-12C-425). PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION DENYING TWO SPECIFIC ATTORNEY FIRMS IN THE SERVICE COMMERCIAL SPECIFIC PLAN PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (C-S-SP-PD) ZONE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 735 TANK FARM ROAD (AP-PC 107-04). (MANDEVILLE/COREY—45 MINUTES) RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution denying the appeal, and upholding the Planning Commission's action on the subject project. 5 Council Agenda Tuesday, beptember 7, 2004 2. DRAFT MARGARITA AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR), AND MEETING SCHEDULE. (MAN DEVI LLE/DRAZE — 2 HOURS) RECOMMENDATION: 1) Discuss the draft Margarita Area Specific Plan and Final Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR), receive public testimony, approve subsequent hearing dates, and provide direction to staff, as appropriate and continue the public hearing to September 28, 2004. 2) As recommended by the Planning Commission, certify the EIR and approve the plan in subsequent hearings, with Council amendments, as appropriate. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS (not to exceed 15 minutes) Council Members report on conferences or other City activities. Time limit-3 minutes. COMMUNICATIONS (not to exceed 15 minutes) At this time, any Council Member or the City Administrative Officer may ask a question for clarification, make an announcement, or report briefly on his or her activities. In addition, subject to Council Policies and Procedures, they may provide a reference to staff or other resources for factual information, request staff to report back to the Council at a subsequent meeting concerning any matter, or take action to direct staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda (Gov. Code Sec. 54954.2). A. ADJOURN. 6