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