Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/17/1979City Council Minutes July 16, 1979 - 12:10 p.m. Page 2 1. The City Council reviewed the Capital Improvement Program section of the 1979 -1980 City Budget. Rudy Muravez, Finance Director reviewed-with the City Council the fund statements for Federal Revenue Sharing and for the Capital Improvement Fund (Page I -22 City Budget). Lee Walton., Administrative Officer, then presented for the City Council the summary of the General Fund and estimated balances as of 1979 -1980. 1 1 It was the consensus opinion of the City Council that Revenue Sharing Funds would not be.used for operation.and maintenance of the city but only for capital purposes. Also Council decided that any bailout funds would be used to balance the General Fund. The City Council then undertook the review of the 1979 -1980 CIP, project by project, starting with Page 7 -1 of the budget: 901 - Downtown.Parking -Land Acquisition 902 - Mission Plaza - Nipomo Phase 903 - Flood Control Deficiency Correction (City Council urged staff to program flood.control projects with one year to prepare EIR, acquire land, prepare plans & specs and 904 - Parks Master Plan 905 - Sinsheimer Tennis Court lights, changed to "Sinsheimer Park Improvements" 906 - Parking Lot Design - Police Facility 907 - 1500 GPM Pumper - Fire Department 908 - Corporation Yard, Phase I (Council felt this facility needed but approved subject to reduction in slope.) 909 - 15.foot turn mower 910 - City Hall Modification 911 - Jack Residence Rehabilitation 912 - Phoenix Building - Pedestrian Way 913 - Community Center Building Fund 914 - Emergency Generator - Fire Department 915 - Policy Facility Expansion 916 - Council Chamber Revmodel 917 - Landscape Improvements (Broad & Santa Barbara) 918 - Color Video Tape System (Police Department) 919 - Hydro -crane for Corporation Yard 920 - Capital Contingencies Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Dropped Approved Dropped Dropped Dropped Approved 2. There being no further business to come before the Council, Mayor Cooper adjourned the meeting at 2:10 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., July 17, 1979. Approved by Council on: 9/4/79 . TifSfatrick, City Clerk M I N U T E S ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TUESDAY, JULY 17, 1979 - 4:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY.HALL 990 PALM STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO Roll Call Councilmembers PRESENT: Melanie Billig, Alan Bond, Ron Dunin, Jeff Jorgensen, and Mayor Lynn R. Cooper ABSENT: None City Council Minutes July 17, 1979 - 4:00 p.m. Page 2 City Staff PRESENT: Leland Walton, City Administrative Officer; J.H. Fitzpatrick, City Clerk; George Thar-her, City Attorney; Henry Engen, Community Development Director; Richard Minor, Fire Chief; Jim Stockton, Director of Parks & Recreation; Roger Neuman, Police Chief; Dave Romero, Director of Public Services. ----------- -------- ------------- ---- ---- -------------- ------- ------------ 1. The Council Subcommittee for the Architectural Review Commission, consisting.of Councilman Dunin and Councilwoman Billig, reported on recom- mendations for appointments to the Architectural Review Commission. The Subcommittee submitted a list of applicants reviewed for the positions and on motion of Councilman Jorgensen, seconded by Councilwoman Billig, the following appointments were made: Randy Dettmer term expiring 6/30/83 Pierre Rademaker term expiring 6/30/83 Dale Sutliff term expiring 6/30/83 Motion carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Jorgensen, Billig, Bond, Dunin and Mayor Cooper NOES: None ABSENT: None 2. Ms. Lucille Janisse reported to-the City Council on her survey held in Mission Plaza on July 4, 1979 for acceptance of her song "Good 'ol S.L.O." as requested by the Promotional Coordinating Committee and the Chamber of Commerce. She stated that most of the people enjoyed the song and urged , her to continue attempting to have it accepted by the City as an official song. She asked the Council to accept the song "Good 'ol S.L.O. ". Sally Punches, Chairperson of the Promotional Coordinating Committee, submitted a memorandum stating that because of the interest in Ms. Janisse's song and the apparent interest of much of the.public in having a song for the community, the Promotional Coordinating Committee suggested that a contest be held so that others would have an opportunity to submit a song. She continued that judges could be appointed by the Council or the Promotional Coordinating Committee, and the winning song would -then become the official song of the City and the City would retain all rights to said song. Some type of prize could also be offered. Terry Sanville, musician and song writer, spoke against the City Council officially adopting any song to promote the City of San Luis Obispo. He felt that it was not needed, but that if the Council wished a song for the theme of San Luis Obispo, then the contest should be held as recommended by the Promotional Coordinating Committee in order to get more variety and more input from song writers in the community. On motion of Councilman Bond, seconded by Councilman Dunin, that the City Council accept "Good 'ol S.L.O." as a song and not hold a contest for a theme song for the city. Motion carried on-the following roll call vote: , AYES: Councilmembers Bond, Dunin, Billig, Jorgensen, and Mayor Cooper NOES: None ABSENT: None 3. Henry Engen, Community Development Director, submitted a report dealing with parkland dedication and in -lieu fee requirements as directed by the City Council. It was the recommendation of the staff that the City should prepare and adopt a Parks Master Plan Element of the City's General Plan, and obsolete provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance should be rewritten. In addition, the dwelling construction tax and in -lieu fees should be brought closer to parity. City Council Minutes July 17, 1979 - 4:00 p.m. Page 3 He continued that this evaluation request by the Council.was prompted by Tract 651., a planned development.on Royal Way, when the subdivider questioned the fairness of applying the City's.ordinance requirement to this type of development. The City's Subdivision Ordinance says new subdivisions should provide five acres.of parkland for -each 1000 residents expected. This require- ment can be-met by dedicating land, paying in -lieu fees, or bath. Credit ' toward this requirement may be given for private open space. The Planning Commission's determination shall be final and conclusive. He went on to say-that-there are.many problems with the.ordinance: the formulas for determining.acreage are incorrectly expressed; the population - per -unit figures are out of date; reference is made to Park and Open Space Part I and II element, which were never adopted; and there is a confusing point system for evaluating credit to be given for private space. He stated that the City also has a dwelling unit construction tax that applies to all newly built dwellings and newly developed mobile home spaces. It was intended to obtain revenue from development not subject to Map Act requirements. Depending on location, the in -lieu fee would typically be $700 to $1000 per unit for single - family subdivision, $550 to $750 per unit for condominiums. The construction tax is a flat $150 per unit. If land has been dedicated or in -lieu fees paid, they are credited toward the construction tax, to the extent they do not exceed it. In addition, he stated that the Subdivision Map.Act prescribes rather spec- ifically how and when dedication and in -lieu fees may be collected and used. One important requirement is that park dedication and fees fit with an overall plan for park development. Proposition 13 has limited the Council's ability to increase the dwelling unit construction tax. He stated it was the planning staff's recommendation that, 1. The City must establish policies-on future park development. The Parks Master Plan element is a logical device to do so. It need not be long and elaborate, but it should answer such questions as -- would additional neighborhood parks be provided? Where? Are several small parks more.desirable than fewer, larger parks? Consid- ering-present conditions in different sections of the City, which areas should emphasize.parkland acquisition and which should emphasize facilities which.enable more intensive use of existing parks? 2. If the Council wished to retain the basic program it then had, these modifications should be made: A. Amend the Subdivision Ordinance to require five acres of parkland for-each 1000 inhabitants with the actual amount per dwelling to be determined based on the results of the most recent census. B. Upper and lower limits should be established for the in -lieu fee. The lower limit should be the same as the swelling construc- tion tax. The upper limit should be about $1000, with annual revisions according to some indicator like the municipal cost index. C. The dwelling unit construction tax should be-increased, by a referendum vote if necessary. The fee schedule should reflect ' variations in dwelling occupancy (by bedroom size) and should also be pegged to an inflation index. D. Amend the-Subdivision Ordinance to eliminate the point system for evaluating private open space .credit, but providing for such credit for-private open space if it consists of at least two contiguous acres at least one -half of which has a slope less than 10 %. And finally, 3. .Alternatively, if the Council wished to-pursue-an entirely different approach, direct staff to draft a program using a dwelling construc- tion tax only, with no dedication or in -lieu fees. City Council Minutes July 17, 1979 - 4:00 p.m. Page 4 Henry Engen concluded his comments.by reviewing, with the City Council, the results of a telephone survey of a number of cities similar to San Luis Obispo dealing with this problem. The City Council discussed in -lieu fee or construction tax as it relates to Proposition 13 and whether it can be increased without a vote of the people. It was the general consensus of the City Council that a revision of these two ordinances.were long over due, policies must. be clarified and funds for the parks must be placed to support the residents of the City. On motion of Councilman Jorgensen, seconded by Councilwoman Billig, the City Council accept the report of the staff and continue for further discussion after preparation of the Parks Master Plan. Motion..carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Jorgensen, Billig, Bond, Dunin,_and Mayor Cooper NOES: None ABSENT: None 4. Dave Romero, Public Services Director, presented the following recommendations for action from the Mass Transportation Committee meeting of June 28, 1979: 1. Bus Stops "The MTC hereby recommends that the stop for Route 2 be relocated to.mid -block on.the southerly side of Marsh Street half -way between Nipomo and Broad (near First Central Coast Bank); and the stop for Route 3 be relocated on Nipomo Street as near as possible to Marsh Street (near Hazel's Pet Shop)." The Committee also recommended that Dave Romero report back to the committee within 60 days as to the efficacy of this change. Mr. Hank Wallwebber, Senior Citizens' President, spoke against MTC's recom- mendation. He urged that all the bus stops be put back where they were for the convenience of the passengers and not the drivers or city staff. He said that old folks shopping at Scolari's on Marsh Street were now required to take a long treacherous route through the parking lot, rather than just stepping off the sidewalk onto the bus stop. He urged that the stops be placed back where they were. On motion..of.Councilman Bond,.seconded by Councilwoman. Billig, that the City Council accept the recommendation of the Mass Transit Committee with a further report within 60 days. Motion carried on the.following.roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Bond, Billig, Jorgensen, and Mayor Cooper NOES: Councilman Dunin ABSENT: None 2. Resignation of MTC Members The Mass Transit Committee reported that Mr. Jeff Wright was leaving the committee along with Mr. Walter Rice and Dr. Andrew Jones, Chairperson. In addition, LaVerne Schneider, the Planning Commission representative, was not reappointed. Therefore, there are now four vacancies on the Mass Transit Committee. Dave Romero stated that they would like to ask Walter Rice to take a leave of absence instead of resigning, then upon his return to San Luis Obispo he could take up active participation on the committee again. 1 1 City Council Minutes July 17; 1979 - 4:00 p.m. Page 5 After some discussion, it was the Council's action that the staff solicit candidates for membership to the Mass Transit Committee and that all vacancies filled. Also, they requested.that the by laws be changed to comply with the charter provisions: 1 A.S.I..member, 1 Planning Commissioner member, and 2 technical members to be appointed... The Mayor was asked to write a letter to Walter Rice thanking him for his service and that when he returns to San Luis Obispo, he will be considered for reappointment to the Mass Transit ' Committee. 3. Cuesta.Shuttle "The MTC hereby recommends that when the free transfer privileges between the City System and the Cuesta College System cease (September 1), the City and the North Coastal Transit Authority initiate a special monthly pass which would be recognized on the North Coastal System, the Cuesta College System, and the City of San Luis Obispo System. This pass would cost $17.50 per month, of which an accounting procedure would allot $2.50 per month to the City." After some discussion, this recommendation was approved by consent of the Council. 5. The City Council considered.the request from Bunnell Construction Company regarding the stockpiling of fill material at 1383 Duncan Road. Gerald Kenny., Engineering Associate, reported that approximately 350 to 400 cubic yards of material has already been dumped on this site. This was discovered during a field investigation of the proposed development. The developer was.notified of the violation, hence the request for a stockpiling permit. He stated that.although a grading plan has yet to be submitted for the site, it is safe to assume that the amount of material stockpiled is reasonably necessary to the development.of the site. "If it were spread evenly over the entire site, it would only be about 1.5 inches deep." He continued that the staff recommends approving the temporary stockpile permit with the following conditions: 1. Posting of a cash bond in.the amount of $1000 to guarantee the removal of the stockpiled material if not utilized on the site within one year from.date of approval by the City Council, in conjunction with an approved grading permit for the.development. 2. No additional fill materials shall be stored on the site prior to issuance of the grading permit. On motion of Councilman Dunin, seconded by Councilman Jorgensen, a temporary permit for the stockpiling of fill material was approved subject to the conditions 1 and 2.as recommended by the.staff. Motion carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Dunin, Jorgensen, Billig, Bond, and Mayor Cooper NOES: None ABSENT: None 6. On motion.o£ Councilman Bond, seconded by-Councilman Dunin, the plans and specifications for the SWAZEY STREET WATER LINE, CITY PLAN NO. C -04, bid estimate $17,578; with contingencies $19,863 were approved and the staff was authorized to call for bids. Motion carried on.the following roll.call vote: City Council Minutes July 17, 1979 - 4:00 p.m. Page 6 AYES: Council-members Bond, Dunin, Billig, Jorgensen, and Mayor Cooper NOES: None ABSENT: None CONSENT ITEMS C -1. On-motion of Councilman Jorgensen, seconded by Councilman Dunin, claims against the City for the month of July were approved subject to the approval of the Administrative Officer. Motion carried. C -2. On motion of Councilman Jorgensen, seconded by Councilman Dunin, the following City Council meeting minutes were approved: June 5, 1979 - 7:30 p.m. June 8, 1979 - 12:10 p.m. June 12, 1979 - 7:30 p.m. Motion carried. June 18, 1979 - 12:10 p.m. June 19, 1979 - 4:00 p.m. C -3. On motion of Councilman Jorgensen, seconded by Councilman Dunin, the following resolution was introduced: Resolution No. 3906 (1979 Series), a resolution of the-Council of the City of San Luis Obispo approving the City's borrowing of $63,190 for the purchase of a fire suppression vehicle, and authorizing the City Administrative Officer to enter into agreements and sign documents on behalf of the City as are necessary to perfect the loan. Passed.and.adopted on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Jorgensen, Dunin, Billig, Bond, and Mayor Cooper NOES: None ABSENT: None C -4. At this time the City Council considered an agreement between the City of San Luis Obispo and the Swim Club for use of the swimming pool at Sincheimer Park. The City Council held a lengthy discussion on the pro- visions of the agreement for use of the pool by the Swim Club at Sinsheimer Park. Councilwoman Billig felt that the.fees agreed to by the City for the club for use of the pool were too low and were not fair to the taxpayers who had built the pool and were giving exclusive use to a private organization. Councilman Jorgensen agreed with Councilwoman Billig. He felt that the fees seemed.inadequate in light of the c.itizens,using.the pool fees. Councilman Dunin also agreed that the fees seemed inadequate in relation to the normal admission fee for people using the pool, but he also did not feel that the insurance requirement"§ for liability insurance of $1,000,000 were adequate to cover the City in case of an accident. After further discussion, Councilman Dunin moved that the matter be continued to August 7, 1979, for clarification of the conditions of the agreement. Motion lost for lack of a second. On motion-of Councilman Dunin, seconded by Councilman Bond, that the agreement be approved for a six -month period only and in the mean time the staff would look into some of the questions presented by the City Council. On motion of Councilman Dunin, seconded by Councilman Bond, the following resolution was introduced: Resolution No. 3907 (1979 Series), a resolution of the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo approving an agreement between the City and San Luis Obispo Swim Club Inc. for use of municipal swimming pool and related facilities for a six -month period. 1 1 _1 City Council Minutes July 17, 1979 - 4:00 p.m. Page 7 Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote: AYES: .Councilmembers Dunin,.Bond, Billig, Jorgensen, and Mayor Cooper NOES. None ABSENT: None Councilman Dunin asked that the-Park & Recreation Department look into admission fees for spectators at various meets sponsored by the Swim Club. C -5. On motion of-Councilman Jorgensen, seconded by Councilman Dunin, the following resolution was introduced: Resolution No. 3908 (1979 Series), a resolution of the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo approving an agree- ment with the State of California Department of Forestry for Mutual Aid. Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Jorgensen, Dunin, Billig, Bond, and Mayor Cooper NOES: None ABSENT: None C -6. On motion-of Councilman Jorgensen, seconded by Councilman Dunin, the following resolution was introduced: Resolution No.. 3909 (1979 Series), a resolution of the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo approving an agreement between the City and KSLY.Radio and Virginia and Homer Odom for the City's use of certain property for location of radio repeater equipment. Passed -and.adopted on.the following roll call vote: ' AYES: Councilmembers Jorgensen, Dunin, Billig, Bond, and Mayor Cooper NOES: None ABSENT: None C -7. On motion of ' Councilman Jorgensen, seconded..by.Councilman Dunin, the claim against the City by Edna Melaun in the amount of $100,000 for injuries sustained when the claimant allegedly tripped and fell over a cracked.sidewalk at 942 Chorro Street was denied. Motion Carried. C -8. On motion of Councilman Jorgensen, seconded by Councilman Dunin, the claim against the City by Donald Miernicki in the amount of $247.53 to cover damages to his broken window when .a golf ball hit his car.while it was parked in the driveway was denied. Motion carried. C49: On motion of Councilman Jorgensen, seconded by.Councilman Dunin, a report from the Planning Commission on a Council referral for policy interpretation regarding density issue on a split zoned parcel of land in the Rockview area was ordered received and filed. BID ITEMS B -1. The City Clark-reported on the following bids received for the OSOS STREET WATER LINE, CITY PLAN 110. C -25, bids opened Friday, July 13, 1979, at 3:00 p.m., bid estimate $31,537.58. Burke Oilfield Construction $29,975.00 Post Office Box 762 San Miguel, CA 93451 Fred Julien & Associates $33,511.80 910 Orcutt Road San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Charles A. Pratt Const. $42,725.00 Post Office Box 1295 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 City Council Minutes July 17, 1979 - 4:00 p.m. Page 8 South Coast Contractors, Inc. $52,551.00 Post Office Box 1199 Goleta, CA 93017 Smee's Plumbing & Heating $63,631.70 2959 Broad Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 The City Clerk presented a letter from the.Engineering Departmen-t.recommending that the low bid of -Burke Oilfield Construction- for the OSOS STREET WATER LINE of $29,975.00 be accepted. On motion of Councilman Dunin, seconded by Councilman Bond, the following resolution was introduced: Resolution No. 3910.(1979 Series), a resolution of the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo accepting a bid and awarding a contract. Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Dunin, Bond, Billig, Jorgensen, and Mayor Cooper NOES: None ABSENT: None B -2. The City Clerk reported on bids received for the WOODBRIDGE STREET WATER LINE, CITY PLAN NO. C -33, bids opened Friday, July 13, 1979, bid estimate $8,946.25. Fred Julien & Associates $6,504.00 910 Orcutt Road - San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Burke Oilfield Construction $8,025.00 , Post Office Box 762 San Miguel, CA 93451 Charles A. Pratt Const. Co. $8,563.00 Post Office Box 1295 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 Smee's Plumbing & Heating $8,595.60 2959 Broad Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 So. Coast Contractors, Inc. $9,437.00 Post Office-Box 1199 Goleta, CA 93017 The City Clerk presented a recommendation from the Engineering Department stating that the low bid of Fred Julien & Associates for $6,504.00 be accepted. On motion of Councilman Dunin, seconded by Councilman Bond,.the following resolution.was introduced: Resolution No. 3911 (1979 Series), a resolution of the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo accepting a bid and - awarding a contract. Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Dunin, Bond, Billig, Jorgensen, and Mayor Cooper NOES: None ABSENT: None City Council Minutes July 17, 1979 - 4:00 p.m. Page 9 There being no further business to-come before the City Council, Mayor Cooper adjourned the meeting at 6:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., Tuesday, July 17, 1979. APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: �yf� 9/4/79 J AK Fitzpatrick, City. Clerk. ------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - -- M I N U T E S ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TUESDAY,.JULY 17, 1979 - 7:30 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL -990 PALM STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO Roll Call Councilmembers PRESENT: Melanie Billig, Alan Bond, Ron Dunin, Jeff Jorgensen, and Mayor Lynn R. Cooper ABSENT: None City Staff PRESENT: Leland Walton, City Administrative Officer; J.H. Fitzpatrick, City Clerk; George Thacher, City Attorney; Henry Engen, Community ' Development Director; Mikel Park, Fire Marshall; Jim Stockton, Director of Parks and Recreation; Roger Neuman, Police Chief. --------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 7. At this time-the City Council held a public hearing.to consider all actions related to-the South Higuera Commerce Park Specific Plan, a development plan for 80 acres on South Higuera Street between Prado Road and Tank Farm Road. The Planning Commission had recommended that the northern 50 acres of the site be developed with service - commercial uses or light industry and the southern 30 acres be designated as "interim agriculture" area where farming would continue. _Terry Sanville, Senior Planner, presented the recommendations of the Planning Commission as follows: In May, the City Council asked the Planning Commission to restudy the Higuera Commerce Park Specific Plan. The Commission.was asked to report on the alterna- tive of planning the northern 50 acres of the site as a service commercial district while leaving the southern 30 acres as-an "interim agriculture" area. On June 27, the Planning Commission studied a revised specific plan report which presented this land use alternative. The Planning Commission also talked about five other land use alternatives. The Planning Commission also recommended the following: . 1. The Planning Commission determined that the revised specific plan will not cause environmental impacts not discussed in the original EIR for the project. The Commission found that no further environ- mental studies are required. 2. The Commission recommended that the City Council adopt a revised South Higuera Commerce Park Specific Plan. City Council Minutes July 17, 1979 - 7:30 p.m. Page 2 3.. The Commission recommended that the City Council initiate an amendment to the General Plan-to designate the southern 30 acres of the site as "interim Agriculture." General Plan studies should also evaluate properties beyond city limits to determine candidate areas for permanent agriculture use. (After the General Plan amendment is approved, the City Council should initiate the rezoning of this 30 -acre area from C -H -SP to A /C- 20 -SP.) Terry Sanville completed his presentation by reviewing a number of items in ' the revised specific plan for the Higuera Commerce Park prepared by the consultant Robert Strong. Mayor Cooper declared.the public hearing open. Rob Strong, representing the property owner, stated that he felt that the revised specific plan overcame the previous objections of the City Council, covered all points brought up at the last public hearing, and that he was available for council questions on the revised plan. He, very briefly, reviewed for the City Council the proposed phasing plan for the northern 50 acres service - commercial area. He felt that the phasing element was to make sure that the rate that new jobs were created would not severely effect the availability of housing in the community. He recommended that the following provisions would apply: 1. The amount of construction that happens each year would not exceed 20 percent of the total potential development within the service - commercial area. 2. That any unused.allocation of development permits may be carried over to future years. However, the minimum development phasing time would continue to be five years. 3. The City would administer this part of the specific plan by withholding ' building permits if the proposed construction would exceed the 20 percent annual allocation. The service - commercial area could be subdivided by the filing of a single tract map. The map must be consistent with the schematic subdivision plan of the report. The six larger lots proposed for the eastern portion of the site would be retained for at least two years. Furthe- : ubdivision of these _lots would not be allowed until two years had elapsed after the original lots are available for building permits. The southern 30 acres-of the planning area designated "interim agriculture" would continue until the "ultimate use" of the property was determined. The question of ultimate use would be: A. Deferred until the five -year phased development of the northern 50- acre service- commercial area had been accomplished; and B. Resolved -as part of a general plan study in the future. Conservation/ Agriculture, low or medium density housing, or service commercial /light industrial uses would be considered as ultimate land use alternatives for this area. Joe Gibbs objected to the proposed plan as he felt it took more farm land out of production and filled the land with job producing development. He urged the entire area be left for agricultural uses. He felt the.circulation from this area.would be intolerable. Tom Schuman, Cal Poly professor, objected to the withdrawal of farm land for commercial development. He felt the City should protect any producing farm land. He felt it was a short - sighted proposal. Mark Elliott, Higuera Street, objected to the loss of prime agricultural land and that the farmers are forced to move on to more marginal land. He urged conservation of farm land. City Council Minutes July 17, 1979 - 7:30 p.m. Page 3 Charles Meissner, objected to taking prime farm land for commercial devel- opment. He felt-that he has farmed this.land for many years, as has his family, and it is wrong to destroy more farm land. Pete Evans ojected to the proposed commercial development on prime farm land. He felt that the proposed - development would destroy good land and was not needed. He did not.feel that matters such as circulation had been adequately ' covered in.the proposal. E. Bonnetti, former land owner who farmed this land with his family, stated that this is poor land, not prime land as claimed. He stated that you could not grow revenue producing crops on the land as they could not properly fertilize the land. He felt the best use of the land was the proposal for urban develop- ment. Rose McReen stated that she objected to the speakers who urged continued use of farm land. She.said they have never farmed this land and that this land does not even pay taxes levied on it. She felt the best use of the land was as proposed, a moderate commercial development in order to provide jobs for the citizens-and the children of the community. She urged help from the city to build up the tax base in the city'to pay city and school taxes. Judy Newhouser, San Luis Obispo, was in-support of protecting farm land for future generations. She felt that -when development to commercial use is made, the soil is lost forever. She felt everyone should be cooperative in order to keep the land in production. Dennis Ahearn spoke in support of the proposed- commercial development on Higuera Street rather than minimum, farm.produc ica. He would support commercial development in the City rather than in the County so that the Council could control development rather than County Supervisors. ' , objected to the proposed development as he felt that there was no intention -of developing the land. He felt it was being proposed for speculation of real estate operators only. He felt the land should remain in agricultural use. He also felt the land would be valuable just as open space for the citizens of the community. Robert Hibshman, property owner, .stated that it is impossible.to use the land for agricultural-purposes. He stated that the agricultural.commissioner has established stringent rules on farming, for example., no fertilizing or spraying. He stated that without that, you cannot farm inside a city. Gene , felt there was-no need to spray in order to farm. He gave an example of oriental -style farming. Shannon Richards objected to the proposed commercial development as she felt there was sufficient land in the.City zoned for.commercial /industrial development at this time and which is vacant. She urged the council not to take more land out of food production for.commercial development which would be growth inducing. She stressed that we need to conserve our farm land. James Lopes, objected to the Council limiting debate on the part of the public. He also felt that the City should protect its farm land rather than allow development to commercial uses. Mayor Cooper closed the public hearing. Terry Sanville again.reviewed the proposal as to phasing of the commercial development.on.this land. He than reviewed the findings the Council must make to approve the specific-plan, including amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element. George Thacher, City Attorney, felt the Council should make a decision on phasing whether it should be 20 percent of the area or 20 percent of the development. City Council Minutes July 17, 1979 - 7:30 p.m. Page 4 Councilman Jorgensen stated he felt that nothing had been submitted to change his mind about denying the development. He would support protection of the prime land for.food production. He also felt the proposal is growth indusing, he would continue to deny the plan. He objected to the interum agricultural use of the 30 acres south of the commercial development. He felt the land should be designated to permanent. agriculture. He also felt that the development phasing was unfair as it could be built any time after five years. He felt the area should be developed in phases by the developer filling 1/5 of the area each year, also there should be no use permits for offices allowed, it should I be strictly light industrial uses. Councilman Bond stated he would accept the proposal as amended. Councilman Dunin stated that nothing had been presented that would change his mind to not support the development. He felt phasing, as proposed, was poorly defined. He felt it should be phased by filing developed maps of the area. He felt that whatever proposal for development was submitted to the Council, the same group would.object. He felt the City has no land available for development at this time. He would support the specific plan. Councilwoman Billig felt that this amended plan was no different, no better than the first one, but she could not support this specific plan either. She felt the City had done a poor job,of developing the entire length of South Higuera Street, with the mixing of residential, industrial, mobil homes, etc. all mixed and conflicting.uses. She felt the phasing program was weak and that the agricultural land should be preserved. She would support CH development on Broad Street. Finally, she stated she did not feel the people of the.community were aware of.the effect this development would have on housing and the environment of the City. She would not support the specific plan. Mayor Cooper felt the revised plan was better than that originally presented. He felt phasing should be well defined and that a five -.year period was fair I with 20 percent each year of land areas. He would also support no PO uses in this area for offices, etc. On motion of Councilman Bond, seconded by Councilman Dunin, the following resolution was introduced: Resolution No. 3912 (1979 Series), a resolution of the Council of the City.of San Luis Obispo amending the Land Use Element of the General Plan (Higuera Commerce Park). Conditions.for the resolution: 1. South Higuera Commerce park Specific Plan.is adopted as revised. 2. City Staff is directed to initiate an amendment to the General Plan to designate the southern 30 acres of the specific planning area as an interim agricultural area. 3. The EIR, which had been previously certified by the City Council, adequately addressed the environmental effects of the revised specific plan and no additional studies need be required. Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmen Bond, Dunin and Mayor Cooper NOES: Councilmembers Billig and Jorgensen ABSENT: None 8:55 p.m., Mayor Cooper called a recess. 9:15 p.m., the City Council reconvened with all councilmembers present. 8. At this time the City Council held a public hearing on the final recommendation and revisions to the City's Housing Element of the General Plan. City Council Minutes July 17, 1979 - 7:30 p.m. Page 5 Henry Engen, Community Development Director, reviewed, for the City Council, the Planning Commission's recommendations-on the Housing Element. He felt that primarily they were relatively minor amendments except for the Cal Poly enrollment implication of Goal No. 9. which was the section dealing with Induced Housing Demand: "Enrollment, employment, and business opportunities are drawing residents from outside..the county. to San Luis Obispo faster than the housing stock has been or is likely to be able to expand." The ' recommended policy was: "Institutional, industrial, and'commercial'�including tourism) expansion will be.discouraged until housing supply can catch up with the present employment base." Councilman Jorgensen suggested that paragraph B, under Programs, be amended to read as follows: "Urge the state legislature and California State University and Colleges Board of Trustees that, so long as there is unused capacity at other campuses, new Cal Poly enrollment beyond the largest number of.students actually enrolled 1978 -1979 school year, be diverted to campuses with programs desired by the new students." and that paragraph E be amended to read: "Do not approve tract maps and other applications for growth- inducing commercial and industrial developments until overall housing vacancy rates reach a level of three percent. On motion of Councilman Jorgensen, seconded by Councilwoman Billig, that the City Council accept the amendments of Section 9 as amended by the Council. AYES: Councilmembers Jorgensen, Billig, Bond, and Mayor Cooper NOES: Councilman Dunin ABSENT: None Henry Engen.continued.that . the .Elanning Commission recommended.that Problem No.13, condominium conversion, paragraph 4 of programs.be amended to read: ' "right of tenants to remain as tenants under substantially similar terms for up to 120 days after notification of intent to convert;" In regards.to. Section 13, the City Council-held a:long.discussion with the staff and public on "3Y rental vacancy rate" as it relates_to.condominium conversions. On motion of Councilman Dunin, seconded by Councilman Jorgensen , that the City Council accept Section 13 as amended by the Planning Commission and- adopting a time frame.of September, 1979, and replace four months with 120 days. Motion carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmen Dunin, Jorgensen, Billig,. and Mayor Cooper NOES: Councilman Bond ABSENT: None Stephen Nelson, Chairman of the City's Housing Authority, asked the City Council to amend Problem 11; Site Availability, Paragraph A, by changing time frame effective January, 1980, to immediately, as the Housing Authority is really up.against deadlines to get any land to develop low -rent housing for the people of.San Luis Obispo. Mayor Cooper declared the public hearing closed. On motion of Councilman Jorgensen, seconded by Councilwoman Billig, the following resolution was introduced:. Resolution No. 3913 (1979 Series), a resolution of the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo adopting a revised Housing Element of the General Plan. Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Jorgensen, Billig,-'Bond, Dunin and Mayor Cooper NOES: None ABSENT: None City Council Minutes July 17, 1979 - 7:30 p.m. Page 6 Councilman Jorgensen suggested that when the city staff prepared the final copies of the Housing Element that the element state it was advisory and not mandatory. The City Council agreed with Councilman Jorgensen's suggestion. 9. . The City Council considered the final passage of Ordinance No. 813 (1979 Series), an ordinance amending Part 1, Chapter 4; Article II of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code to modify provisions pertaining to the establish ment, membership and duties of the Planning Commission. Mayor Cooper declared the public hearing open. No one appeared before the City Council for or against the ordinance. Mayor Cooper declared the public hearing closed. On motion of Councilman Jorgensen, seconded by Councilwoman Billig, Ordinance No. 813 was introduced for final passage. Finally passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Billig, Bond, Dunin, Jorgensen and Mayor Cooper NOES: None ABSENT: None 10. The City Council considered the final passage.of Ordinance No. 814 (1979 Series), an ordinance amending portions of the Municipal Code, Article VIII, Chapter 1, 2 and 3, adopting the 1976 editions of the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, Uniform Housing Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, and 1978 Edition of the-National Electrical Code and repealing certains sections thereof. Mayor Cooper declared the public hearing open. ' Vic.Montgomery.appeared before-the City Council to discuss a technical inter- pretation of a section of the Uniform Building Code and he was informed by the Administrative Officer that this was a matter which should be taken up with the Chief Building Inspector for clarification. John King also appeared before the City Council, dealing with a technical area of the Building Code, asking as it was his understanding, that 'the Administrative Officer's direction was that these problems be taken up with the Building Inspectoz He was told that was true and he thanked the Council for their attention. Mayor Cooper declared the public hearing closed. On motion of Councilman Jorgensen, seconded by Councilman Dunin, Ordinance No. 814 was introduced for final passage. Finally passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Billig, Bond, Dunin, Jorgensen and Mayor Cooper NOES: None ABSENT: None The City Clerk was directed, as part of the record on adoption of Ordinance No. , 814 to place-in the minutes the reasons for making amendments to the Codes as suggested'by the .Chief Building Inspector: CHAPTER 1 - PART II Subsection M. The Uniform Building Code contains no provisions for using a common wall for buildings located at and on each side of a property line. Today's concept of PUD's with zero lot line setbacks, for condominium projects incorporating land subdivision, dictates the need for common walls to facilitate construction of buildings at property lines. This provision will accommodate that need and is a relaxation of Code requirements. City Council Minutes July 17, 1979 - 7:30 p.m. Page 7 Subsection (g). The Uniform Building Code contains no provisions -for allowing doors in buildings adjacent to_praperty lines even though two adjacent lots or parcels may be owned by the same person.. This.amendment will permit-doors-at property lines, under certain conditions with proper documentation. Subsection (k). The present Table- 29 -A-in the U.B.C. is misleading and inappropriate for the soil conditions existing in the City. The proposed new Table 29 -A relates foundation requirements to the expansive characteristics of the in situ soils at any given building site. The advantage of the proposed table is that it will provide a minimum foundation standard for most light frame buildings with- out the expense of..a soils report. CHAPTER 1 - PART VI Subsection (e). This amendment is an adaptation.of the State Housing Law standard for the use of plastic drain, waste and vent piping. We are obligated to abide by it through the State mandate. Subsection (g & i). Presently the Uniform Building Code limits the use of plastic drain, waste and vent piping to residential buildings not over two stories high. These amendments will permit its use in residential buildings of any height. This too is a requirement of the State Housing Law and is mandated to us. CHAPTER-.1 — PART VII ' Section.817.6. Subsection (a). This subsection is presently-in our ordinance with.a - different wording. We now propose a.wording different -from what appears as set forth. The wording would be:..: "shall be installed in- approved. raceways. Plastic raceway systems shall not be exposed and shall not penetrate fire - resistive construction." .. CHAPTER 2 - PART I This entire part is new and heretofore, no regulation of garden walls was exercised. Because of the potential hazard of personal-injury or property damage from toppling walls which were incorrectly constructed, the proposed standards will provide the tools necessary to get garden walls built to with- stand earthquake and wind loads. 11. On motion.of.Councilman Jorgensen, seconded by Councilman Bond, con- sideration of the referral-from the Planning Commission.to add Section 9800 to the Municipal.Code establishing condominium development and conversion reg- ulations was continued to August 6, 1979. Motion carried. 12. Continuation of the public hearing on the. appeal from a.condition of Minor Subdivision No. 77 -357, located at 975 Foothill Blvd., continued from June 19, 1979. ' Mayor Cooper left the meeting due to possible conflict of interest. Henry Engen, Community Development Director, reviewed the basis of the appeal for the Council's consideration. In April, 1978, the tentative minor subdivision for 975 Foothill Blvd. was approved by the City Council subject to certain find- ings and conditions. Now that the final map was up for final.consideration the developer was appealing Condition No. 9, which read, "The final map shall contain a note that drainage improvements and structures including off site improvements located on Parcel C may be required at the7.time. parcels are developed to the approval of the-City Engineer." City Council Minutes July 17, 1979 - 7:30 p.m. Page 8 The developer felt that this was an unfair imposition.of costs on his develop- ment as the drainage of his property only contributed a minor amount of drainage for the total problem. The area that drained through this.property covered a much larger area and they had engineers who have studied and stated that their development would contribute approximately 18% of.the drainage. Henry Engen continued that the Council had met in Study Session on July 10, 1979 to discuss the matter and at that time, the City Attorney had submitted a legal ' opinion as to the conditions that could be imposed on the property owner to improve drainage from his.property. .It was the City Attorney's opinion that the City Council could impose on the property owner the cost of improving drainage of water collected on his property and caused by his development but the Attorney did not feel that one property owner could be required to improve the drainage for an entire area. This could be handled cooperatively between property owners, pursued and paid by the City or by the formation of an assessment district. Finally, Henry Engen stated the applicant was now request- ing final approval of a parcel map, a performance bond in the amount of $2,700 was on deposit with the city to guarantee installation of additional sidewalk and retaining walls to accommodate them and all other.conditions except Council decision on Item 9 dealing with drainage had been completed. The Community Development. Department recommended final approval of.the map retaining the language of Item 9 and that the Mayor be authorized to execute the "agreement. Keith Crowe, Engineering Assistant, reviewed the report of Gerald Kenny, Engineering Associate, which was submitted for the Council's consideration, a report on staff negotiations with the developer's representative regarding the future responsibility for off -site drainage-improvements and submitted the following: a) Estimates of the cost for a 12 -inch diameter CMP storm drain from the southeasterly corner of Parcel C to .Stenner Creek and for a 24 -inch diameter CMP (the required size to satisfy the deficiency). The estimated cost of the 12 -inch pipe was $14,000. The cost of the 24 -inch diameter pipe was ' $21,600 based on open cut construction within Santa Rosa. Both estimates included 15% for contingencies and 15% for inflation. The State Permit Engineer stated that it may be possible to open =cut Santa Rosa Street to install the pipe in "a couple years ", but at this time a jacked casing would be required. If that method were used, the cost.would be increased approximately $9,100 to $30,700. b) Based on the above figures, the percentage of responsibility of the developer would range from 46% to 65 %. In conferring with Dave Romero regarding these estimates, he felt that 50% would be.a fair percentage. If the Council agreed, they could set a maximum of $14,000. c) It was the City Engineer's understanding that the Council did.not want to commit to participation in the future -of the required off -site improvements, but that it could be possible. In any case, the necessary parallel storm drain (2411) would be required as a condition to development of Parcel C. d) A letter was received from Vic Montgomery stating his interpretation of the Council's actions at the July 10th study.session to which-the Engineer agreed in part. The Engineer did not concur with respect to his Item 1, in which he indicated a set percentage pertaining to amount of contribution but rather the difference between a.minimum.acceptable project and the ultimate project. That is the basis for reimbursement.for sewer and water projects - and in conformance with the Subdivision Map Act. e) Although the option of an assessment district was possible, realistically ' it probably would not happen. It was difficult to process thsi type of district because upstream developed "properties especially would probably not sign for it,.and the-Council would probably need to' override a majority protest. f) If the Council accepted the concept of a contribution to the project at a later date, the tributary area-could be set up as a "zone of benefit" requiring payment of proportional shares of the cost in conjunction with future building permits. City Council Minutes July 17, 1979 - 7:30 p.m. Page 9 Vic Montgomery, representing the property.owner, appeared before the City Council, discussing his interpretation-of what occurred at the July 10 Council study sessior dealing with.this.matter and it was his understanding that the developer would not be required to participate in off-site-drainage improvements beyond the extent to which his development proposal would contribute to the drainage problem, that is if the developer contributed.10% of the potential flow needed to be considered off -site, he would be required to pay no more than 10% of the costs of said off- site improvements. He.also felt that.potential problems of timing for constructior of necessary drainage improvement might arise. He.unders.tood that the drainage improvements off -site had not-been installed at the time the developer wished to proceed with the development, he must put through one or more of the following alternatives: 1) Offer -to fund his proportionate share of the estimated cost of the off -site improvements and request the city to fund the remainder; 2) Offer to fund his proportionate share of the estimated cost of the off - site improvements and request the city to form an assessment district composed of property owners within the drainage area to fund the remainder of the con- struction costs. 3) Control the drainage.(via ponding, etc.) with cooperation of other adjacent property owners in such a manner that the existing off -site .facilities -would function in a workable, although perhaps technically deficient,. manner. 4) Construct off -site improvements sufficient to.accommodate drainage from his proposed project and be reimbursed by.'the city and /or. benefited prop- erty owners.for any city - required oversizing of proposed facilities. He also felt it was his understanding that the engineering staff and developer work together to resolve the maximum proportionate liability to be associated ' with this property. This would .firmly establish the property owners proportionate share of liability.for of£ si.te.improvements for the 10.year storm.criteria. He felt that-the-developer in offering a.5.0- 50.sharing with the city for the develop- ment of this drainage to a maximum of $14,000 was more than fair when the property did not contribute drainage to that.extent. The City Council held a long discussion .with the city staff and the developer's representatives dealing with past city practice, present city conditions in handling the drainage -from an area such as this particular minor subdivision. Councilman Jorgensen suggested that possibly the developer should be required to provide for adequate drainage of runoff from his property subject to the approval of the City Engineer regardless of the cost. Burt Polin, property owner, stated.he would be willing'to deposit $14,000 which would be more than 18% which was their. contribution.of water. He felt that contribution would be.more than the 18% they_contribute.and that the $14,000 could represent over half the cost of this development to handle the drainage. He continued that he did not want an open -ended type agreement with - increase for inflation each year but would like the City Council settle.on a figure at this time and that $14,000 or 50% of.the project seemed fair to him. D.F. Romero, Public Services Director, stated that he felt that the $14,000 offer by the developer was more than fair to correct this deficiency. He felt it was fair to the city and the developer. He said his calculations show that ' the developer's property contributed only 18% of the storm water to the area. Councilman Dunin moved that the City Council accept the recommendation of the staff with a 50% contribution by the developer, not to exceed $14,000 plus 15% inflation factor per year after the first year. Again the City Council discussed the contribution by the developer including the so- called 15% inflation factor and after discussion the motion was with- drawn for lack of a second. City Council Minutes July 17, 1979 - 7:30 p.m. Page 10 On motion of Councilman Jorgensen, seconded by Councilman Bond, that the developer either put in a 12" drainage line when he was ready to develop or if the city was ready to participate, the developer shall pay for the equivalent of a 12" line with the city and /or the neighborhood to.pay the balance. Motion carried, Mayor Cooper absent. Mayor Cooper returned to the meeting. On motion of Councilman Jorgensen, seconded by Councilman Bond, the following resolution was introduced: Resolution No. 3914 (1979 Series), a resolution of the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo granting final approval of Parcel Map SLO 77 -357 located at 975 Foothill Blvd. Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmemhers Billig, Bond, Dunin and Jorgensen NOES: None ABSENT: Mayor Cooper 13. The City Council considered the final map for Tract No. 710, Timberline, located at 750 Chorro Street. The community development staff stated that the Community Development Department had reviewed the final map, a contractor's bond in the amount of $6,000 which included-30% inflation and contingencies was on file with the city to guarantee completion of fencing, frontage improvements, finished grading and hot tub drainage system, and all other items had been met. Staff recommended that the final map be approved and the Mayor authorized to execute the agreement. On motion of Councilman Jorgensen, seconded by Councilwoman Billig, the follow- ing resolution was introduced: Resolution No. 3915 (1979 Series), a resolution I of the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo granting approval to the final map for Tract No. 710, Timberline Condominiums, located at 750 Chorro Street. Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmember.s Billig, Bond, Dunin, Jorgensen and Mayor Cooper NOES: None ABSENT: None There being no further business to come before the Council, Mayor Cooper adjourned the meeting to Monday, July 23, 1979 at 12:10 p.m. Approved by City Council on: 8/21/79 ` J. itzpatrick, City Clerk 1