HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/13/1977City Council Minutes
June 13, 1977
Page 2
::I
1. The City...Council continued,.their..consideration of the proposed 1977/78
City Budget, continuing,,with,Section IV.
Section IV - Community Services Departments
A - Public Services Department (Page IV -21)
On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Jorgensen, that one
additional groundskeeper, truck and other necessary equipment be added to
Budget Account No. 50- 11 -57. Motion carried, Councilman Dunin voting no.
On motion of Councilman Petterson, seconded by Councilman Jorgensen, that
the Administrative Officer investigate cost /benefits of contracting for
sweeping of parking lots, tennis courts with alternatives in bidding
specifications. Motion carried, all ayes.
2. At 1:40 p.m. the City Council adjourned to Executive Session.
3. On motion of Councilman Dunin, seconded by Councilman Petterson, the
meeting adjourned at 2:10 p.m., to 7:30 p.m., Tuesday, June 14, 1977.
Motion carried.
APPROVED: July 19, 1977
Fitzpatrick, City Clerk
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
TUESDAY, JUNE 14, 1977 - 7:30 P.M. 1
COUNCIL..CHAMBERS;-CITY HALL
Roll Call
PRESENT: Councilmen Dunin, Gurnee, Jorgensen, Petterson and Mayor
Schwartz
ABSENT: None
City Staff
PRESENT: J.H. Fitzpatrick, City Clerk; R.D. Miller, Administrative
Officer, Terry Sanville; Glen Matteson
A. Councilman Gurnee reported on behalf of the sub-committee (Gurnee, Dunin)
interviewing-appointees to-the-Housing Authority, that the City Council
appoint Mildred Roske to fill the vacancy now existing on the Commission.
On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Jorgensen, that the
City Council appoint Mildred Roske to the Housing Authority for the term of
Leon Osteyee who resigned. Motion carried.
1. City Council members reported on activities of standing Council 1
Committees:
A. Area Planning Council Councilman Jorgensen
B. C.C.C.J.C. Councilman Petterson
C. Solid Waste Committee Councilman Dunin
D. Water Advisory Board Mayor Schwartz
E. Whale Rock Commission Mayor'Schwartz
F. Zone 9 Advisory Committee Councilman Gurnee
City Council Minutes
Page 2
2. At this time the City Council held a public hearing on the recommenda-
tion of the Planning Commission to consider the adoption of the new sign
regulations for the City of San Luis Obispo.
The City Clerk presented a letter received from the Design Review Board sub-
mitting for the Council's consideration additional changes which they felt
would improve the proposed sign regulations for the City of San Luis Obispo.
It was their recommendation that based on recent experience, that the City
Council would prefer to adopt standards more in keeping with desired community
character and made the following recommendations:
1) Section 9702.2.J should read "Temporary window signs, covering not
more than twenty percent (20 %) of the window area or more than the
permitted sign area, whichever is less."
2) Section 9702.4.B should read "Roof signs, when they are an integral
part of a building design proposal."
3) Section 9704.2.B(2) should read "One wall sign not exceeding five
percent (5%) of the building face or twenty -five (25) square feet,
whichever is less, for each frontage..."
4) Sections 9704.3.B(2), C(1)-and D(1) should be changed to indicate
that one wall sign will be permitted for each frontage or building face
having a public entrance. (As it presently reads, each business
is allowed only one wall sign, regardless of building and site
configuration.)
5) Section 9704.3.D should be changed to read "...Total area of all signs
shall not exceed one - hundred (100) square feet,..."
6) Section 9704.3.d(2) should read "One free - standing sign not to exceed
fifteen (15);feet in height and seventy -two (72) square feet in area."
' 7) Sections 9704.3.R(2)(a) and (b) should be changed to indicate a maximum
area for wall signs of seven.percent (7%) of the building face and a
total area for all -signs of 130 square feet.
8) Section 9704.3.E(2)(b) should read "One free - standing sign not to
exceed twenty -five (25) feet in height or seventy -two (72) square feet
in area." (Delete reference to not demonstrating reason for exceeding
standard.)
9) Section 9704.3.D, permitting billboards, should be eliminated, and
billboards should be added to the list of prohibited - signs, Section
9702.3.
10) Section 9704.3.G should be changed to indicate the ARC rather than the
DRB will approve signs in Mission Plaza.
11) Section 9704.4.D Unless otherwise approved by the ARC, wall signs in
all zones should not exceed 12 feet in height. Other sections should
be changed accordingly.
Communication from the Environmental Center of San Luis Obispo, Connie Hendricks,
Executive Director, informed the City Council that the Environmental Center was
quite concerned about preserving the charm and character of San Luis Obispo and
felt that the revised sign ordinance as presented by the Planning Commission
needed further refinements and concurred with the recommendation of the Design
Review Board as previously listed.
Terry Sanville, Planning Associate, presented for the Council's consideration
the recommendation of the Planning Commission and asked that the sign regulations
be adopted by the City Council. The Planning.Commission stated that this
proposal involved many months of work by staff, the Design Review Board, the
Architectural Review Commission, public and business interest groups., and that
after several hours of- public hearing, the proposal was approved for Council
consideration. The Planning Commission stated.that, while no one person or
group would be completely in agreement with all the provisions of the new
City Council Minutes
Page 3
regulation, they represented extensive study and numerous compromises and they
believe that they had general support of these groups and they would be a
significant improvement over the existing 1967 ordinance.
These new regulations had been tailored to the regulatory procedures and
philosophy that had been evolving in San Luis Obispo. The Planning Commission
stated that certain types of signs which were clearly required for public
information or which typically did not create esthetic problems subject to
number and size limits would be permitted without obtaining a sign permit.
Other types of signs which were clearly threats to health and safety or which
by nature created esthetic problems, such as signs which simulated or
interfered with traffic control devices or signs attached to merchandise
stored outdoors, would be prohibited throughout the City. Another group of
sign types, which usually created esthetic problems but which under unique
conditions, and a part of total site design, might be acceptable, such as
animated signs and roof signs, would require ARC approval in any zone.
Further, within each zone, certain types, numbers, and sizes of signs would
be allowed. These standards would apply to an applicant who proposed -
installation of an individual sign, when ARC review would not be required.
They would also serve as a guideline to applicants and the ARC. When a sign
was proposed to exceed these standards, the burden of proof would be on the
applicant to justify his request; when smaller signing was required, the
burden of proof .would be on the City. An applicant with an individual sign
proposal could request ARC review if he desired more or larger or taller
signing than the zone district standards allowed.
Signing as part of new construction and major.remodeling would be reviewed by
the ARC, which could impose more restrictive requirements or allow the basic
standards to be exceeded.
Signs which did not conform with the 1967 ordinance and which continued to be
non - conforming would be abated according to the schedule in that ordinance
(upon proper notice, abatement could begin immediately, since the amortization
periods in that ordinance will have been expired). Signs which became non-
conforming under the new regulations would be abated according to a liberal
amortization schedule based on the value of the sign. In either case,
the owner of a..non - conforming sign would have the same opportunity as someone
proposing a new sign to submit it for ARC review in order to exceed, upon
demonstration of reasons, the prescribed standards.
Terry Sanville stated that the Planning Commission urged the City Council
to adopt the regulations as presented.
Glen Matteson, Planning Assistant, then presented the City Council a slide
show of signs in the City, both exemplary types and those in poor taste.
Mayor Schwartz.declared the public hearing open.
Vic Montgomery appeared before the City Council stating that he supported the
Design Review Board's comments, feeling that they were more in keeping with
the character of San Luis Obispo.
Dave Garth, Executive Secretary, Chamber of Commerce, explained the input
placed in this ordinance by business people. He continued that the City
business interests felt that the 1967 City sign ordinance was satisfactory
although not enforced by the City. He felt what had been recommended by the
Planning Commission was a compromise, not what business interests really
wanted, but what they felt they could live with. 1
Jane Lily, Design Review Board Chairperson, felt that the proposed ordinance,
if it included the ll new points recommended by the Design Review Board,
would make the Planning Commission's recommendations sign ordinance more pala-
table to those who were supportive of a more restrictive ordinance. She
concluded that the proposed ordinance was strictly a Chamber of Commerce /business
interest ordinance and not what she felt the people of San Luis Obispo really
wished.
City Council Minutes
Page 4
Don Smith supported the 11 points presented by the Design Review Board for
amending the ordinance, as he felt this would make for a much better sign
ordinance for the City.
Melanie Billig, representing the League of Women Voters, stated that their
organization supported the 11 points of the Design Review Board, and that if
included in the ordinance would be more palatable and a good step forward for
the City and its citizens.
James Lopes questioned the method of developing the proposed sign ordinance
by going to individual pressure groups, business interests, sign companies,
Chamber of Commerce, etc., and then saying what was being.considered was a
compromise of the community. He felt that the regulation under consideration
was very weak and would not do much to improve the sign situation in San Luis
Obispo. He would support more restrictive rules on signs, smaller signs, etc.
Al Ingersoll stated that he spent many hours, over 100 hours, working with
staff in an attempt to come up with a.reasonable sign ordinance for the City.
He felt the result before the Council at this time was a compromise by both
City, business, environmentalists, etc.
Anna Alexander stated that she was-in support of a strong sign regulation for
the City to make for an attractive community. She would support signs that
would identify the business, but would not support signs that would be used
strictly for advertising. She also supported the recommendation of the
Design Review Board to amend the proposed sign ordinance.
Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing closed.
Councilman Jorgensen stated that he was disappointed at the direction the
meeting had taken on the matter of- signs. He felt that the proposed sign
ordinance was a step backward as the ordinance did nothing to improve the
sign environment in the City. He personally supported the Design Review
Board version of the ordinance over the Planning Commission's version. He
stated that he was opposed to permitting rotating, moving, flashing, roof
signs, billboards, etc., in the City as would be allowed under the proposed
regulation. He also objected to the definition of sign area, height, etc.
Councilman Petterson stated that he would support the proposed ordinance,
felt that the regulations were a compromise between the business interests and
those who were opposed to business in general and signs in particular. He
would support the Planning Commission recommendation.
Councilman Gurnee stated that he would support comments of Councilman Jorgensen,
but personally felt that signs should be for identification only and not for
advertising purposes. He felt the City should and could control signs. He
would support the Design Review Board approach to a more restrictive sign
regulation. He, too, would support elimination of outdoor advertising
billboards, and further felt that no ordinance was any good if not enforced
which was the case with the 1967 sign ordinance and other City regulations.
He also hoped that rather than estimate size, height, etc., for signs, that
the Council would adopt a theme for signs in the City which would be easier
for both City and sign users and business interests to understand. He
suggested that the Council refer the draft sign ordinance to the City Attorney
to rewrite and include all 11 points of the Design Review Board.
Councilman Dunin reviewed the history of the development of the ordinance
before the Council that evening. He felt that the points presented by the
Design Review Board had never been considered or reviewed by business inter-
' ests and the sign industry, and he could not support the ordinance as amended
by.the Design Review Board, but he would support the sign ordinance recommended
by the Planning Commission and adopted by them unanimously.
The City Council then reviewed with the staff the reasons for the Planning
Commission to recommend the sign ordinance to the Council in its present state.
Mayor Schwartz felt that the Council, to accomplish anything, should review the
proposed sign ordinance, section by section, including the recommendations of
the Design Review Board.
City Council Minutes
Page 5
On motion of Councilman Dunin, seconded by Councilman Petterson, that the City
Council accept the.Planning Commission's recommendation with a review by the
special interest groups within 12 months. Motion lost, Councilmen Gurnee,
Jorgensen and Mayor-Schwartz voting no.
Mayor Schwartz declared a recess at 9:25 p.m.
City Council reconvened at 9:35 p.m. with all Councilmen present.
The City Council then reviewed in detail the recommendations of the Design
Review Board, 11 amendments to the proposed ordinance of the Planning Commission.
(See 11 conditions listed previously)'
1. Rejected by City Council on a 4 to 1 vote.
2. Rejected by City Council on a 3 to 2 vote.
3. Accepted by City Council on a 5 to 0 vote.
4. Accepted by City Council on a 5 to 0 vote.
5. Rejected by City Council on a 3 to 2 vote.
6. Accepted by City Council on a 5 to 0 vote.
7. Accepted by City Council the 7% portion of the recommendation on a
4 to 1 vote and rejected the total area of signs for 130 square feet.
8. Accepted by-City_Council.on a 5 to 0 vote.
9. Eliminate all billboards unless City Attorney finds reason that City
cannot enforce this section. Accepted by Council on a 5 to 0 vote.
10. Accepted
by
City Council on a 5 to 0 vote.
11. Rejected
by
City Council on a 5 to 0 vote.
The City Council then reviewed the entire recommended ordinance as amended by
the Design Review Board recommended as just completed. The City Council
proceeded on a page -by -page basis making amendments and changes as they went
along.
On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Dunin, that the ordin-
ance as amended by the City Council be referred to the City Attorney to
include changes:
1) As recommended by the Design Review Board and accepted by the Council;
2) To ban billboards if legally possible;
3) Request the staff to prepare an enforcement program including staffing
and cost to enforce the sign regulation.
Motion carried on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Dunin, Gurnee, Jorgensen, Petterson and Mayor Schwartz
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
3. The City Council then received a preliminary review of the Planning
Commission's actions to date for rezoning property in the Laguna and Edna/
Airport areas of the City in order to bring the zoning map into consistency
with the General Plan.
Terry Sanville, Planning Associate, reviewed with the City Council the progress
of-.the Planning Commission's actions_to..date at the zoning hearings which
would bring the City's zoning ordinance into conformance with the General
Plan recently adopted by the City Council, particularly in the Laguna Lake,