HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/07/1981City Council Minutes
July 7, 1981 - 7:00 p.m.
Page Two
cedures Lane Wilson, Dennis Cox, and the rest of the tree people. She looked
forward to her job on the Promotional Coordinating Committee.
C -1. On motion of Councilman Bond, seconded by Councilman Settle, the claims
against the city for the month of July, 1981 were approved and ordered paid
subject to the approval of the Administrative Officer, Motion carried; all ayes.
C -2. On motion of Councilman Bond, seconded by Councilman Settle, the
following minutes were approved as amended: June 1, 1981 - 12:00 noon;
June 2, 1981 - 7:00 p.m.; June 5, 1981 - 3:45 p.m.; and June 8, 1981 - 12:10 p.m.
Motion carried; all ayes.
C -3. On motion of Councilman Bond, seconded by Councilman Settle, contract
pay estimates and change orders were approved and ordered paid. Motion carried;
all ayes.
C -5. On motion of Councilman Bond, seconded by Councilman Settle, the fol-
lowing resolution was introduced: Resolution No. 4537 (1981 Series), a reso-
lution of the City of San Luis Obispo approving a deed of easement between the
City of San Luis Obispo and Arnett & Broadbent Inc.
Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Bond, Settle, Dovey, Dunin, and Mayor Billig
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
C -6. Consideration of a resolution approving annual ratification of the
' Joint Powers.Agreement creating the San Luis Obispo County Area Council of
Governments.
On motion of Councilman Bond, seconded by Councilman Settle, the following reso-
lution was introduced: Resolution No. 4538 (1981 Series), a resolution of the
City of San Luis Obispo ratifying thejoint powers agreement for San Luis Obispo
County Area Council of Governments.
Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Bond, Settle, Dovey, Dunin, and Mayor Billig
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
C -7. Consideration of a resolution approving the final public improvements
for Tract 766 (Windermere) located at 1106 Oceanaire Drive; Landco Development
Corp.; subdivider.
On motion of Councilman Bond, seconded by Councilman Settle, the following reso-
lution was introduced: Resolution No. 4539 (1981 Series), a resolution of the
City of.:San Luis Obispo accepting the public improvements in Tract 766 (Windermere).
Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Bond, Settle, Dovey, Dunin, and Mayor Billig
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
C -8. Consideration of an agreement between the City Business Improvement
Area and Thomas L. Jones to provide certain advertising services.
City Council Minutes
July 7, 1981 - 7:00 p.m.
Page Three
On motion of Councilman Bond, seconded by Councilman Settle, the following reso-
lution was introduced: Resolution No. 4540 (1981 Series), a resolution of the
city of San Luis Obispo approving an agreement between the City Business Improve-
ment Area and Thomas L. Jones providing for certain advertising services to be
performed by Thomas L. Jones to assist BIA.
Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Bond, Settle, Dovey, Dunin, and Mayor Billig
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
C -9. Council to consider confirmation of appointment of Robert'Furman to
the Business Improvement Area Advisory Board to fill recent.vacancy_ created by
Richard Crumb.
On motion of Councilman Bond, seconded by Councilman Settle, that Robert Furman
be appointed to BIA Advisory Board.
Passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Bond, Settle, Dovey, Dunin, and Mayor Billig
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
C -10. On motion of Councilman Bond, seconded by Councilman Settle, that the
Rockview Neighborhood Traffic Study be received and filed. Motion carried; all
ayes.
C -11. Consideration of Traffic Orders from the period of 4 -1 -81 through
6- 30 -81.
On motion of Councilman Bond, seconded by Councilman Settle, the following reso-
lution was introduced: Resolution No. 4541 (1981 Series), approving traffic
orders.
Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Bond, Settle, Dovey, Dunin, and Mayor Billig
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
C -12. Citv Clerk's revort of bids received for "Foothill - Chorro -Santa Rosa
Storm Drain, Phase I ", City Plan No. E -04, bid estimate $106,510.00 without con-
tingencies.
On motion of Councilman Bond, seconded by Councilman Settle, the following reso-
lution was introduced: Resolution No. 4542 (1981 Series), awarding contract to
Cast -In -Place Construction in the amount of $72,374.50.
Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Bond, Settle, Dovey, Dunin, and Mayor Billig
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
1. Public hearing to consider expanding the Parking and Business Improve-
ment Area within the downtown section of the city.
City Council Minutes
July 7, 1981 - 7:00 p.m.
Page Four
Mayor Billig stated that the council has received.a communication from the
Downtown Business Improvement Area requesting to have their original request for
a change in the B.I.A. ordinance on boundaries withdrawn.
On motion of Councilman Dunin, seconded by Mayor Billig, to withdraw the item
upon request by the B.I.A.
Passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmember.Dunin-, Mayor..Billig, Councilmembers Bond, Dovey and
Settle
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
2. Public hearing to determine public necessity, health, or safety__
by removing overhead wires and putting them underground in the Nipomo Street area.
Jack Kellerman, Building Inspector, stated that to comply with previous City
Council direction and continue the City's ongoing program of placing overhead
electric, telephone, T.V and miscellaneous distribution systems underground,
the Underground Utilities Coordinating Committee met on April 29 to establish
dates and costs associated with undergrounding all utilities in Districts 9 & 10
combined. Subsequent to the meeting, the three main utility companies, P.G.& E.,
P.T.& T., and Sonic T.V., met and agreed to the time schedule shown on the.lihe
chart. He said the estimated cost of undergrounding this combined district will
be approximately $400,000.00 and monies are available. He continued that the
City Council is requested to hold a public hearing to ascertain whether the pub-
lic necessity, health or safety requires the removal of poles and overhead wires
and supporting structures within the proposed combined districts. He recommended
that the council approve the ordinance and pass to print.
On motion of Councilman Settle, seconded by Councilwoman Dovey, Ordinance No. 893
(1981 Series), was introduced and passed to print.
Passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Settle, Dovey, Bond, Dunin, and Mayor Billig
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
3. Public hearing to consider the adoption of the 1981 -1982 City
Budget.
Rudy Muravez, Finance Director, gave some background and an introduction to the
preliminary draft of the 81 -82 budget.
Mayor Billig declared the public hearing open.
No one appeared before the City Council for or against the item.
Mayor Billig declared the public hearing closed.
' Mayor Billig brought to the council's attention a letter from the HRC dated
July 7, 1981 stating their concern about the deletion of.the staff writer
position.
After discussion by the council on the letter, it was moved by Councilman Dunin,
seconded by Mayor Billig, that the council direct that a formal reprimand be
made to the Human Relations Commissioners and Chairman for their involvement in
city personnel matters.
City Council Minutes
July 7, 1981 - 7:00 p.m.
Page Five
Passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmember Dunin, Mayor Billig, and Councilmember Bond
NOES: Councilmembers Dovey and Settle
ABSENT: None
On motion of Councilman Settle, seconded by Councilman Dunin, the following
resolution was introduced: Resolution No. 4543 (1981 Series), approving the
1981 -1982 City Budget.
Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Settle, Dunin, Bond, Dovey, and Mayor Billig
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
4. Public hearing to consider an appeal by Alpha Upsilon Fraternity
of a decision by the Planning Commission to amend conditions 6 and 16 of-approved
use permit, no. UP 0852 -A, allowing a fraternity house at 1334 Palm Street,R -3
zone. --
Ken Bruce, Senior Planner, stated that on May 27, 1981, the Planning Commission
reviewed the approved use permit for consideration of revocation or amendment.
The commission determined not to revoke the use permit, but did amend conditions
6, 14 and 16 of the use permit on a unanimous vote (one vacant seat). The appli-
cant, Alpha Upsilon Fraternity, is appealing amended conditions 6 and 16. He
said they wanted both conditions eliminated. He continued that staff recommends
the appeal be denied and the commission's action in amending conditions 6 and 16
be upheld. He said if the council desires to uphold the appeal and amend or
delete one or both of the conditions or make any other changes in the approved use
permit, staff recommends the findings and conditions noted in commission Reso-
lution No. 1720 -81 and that the council authorize the Mayor to sign a council re-
solution to be prepared by staff reflecting the action taken.
Mayor Billig declared the public hearing open.
Rod Beverage, Alumni Advisor of Alpha Upsilon Fraternity, gave some background and
explained why the fraternity was appealing the two items that were "..unfairly and
unjustly applied to fraternities and sororities."
Sylvia-Drucker, representing the Planning Commission, gave some background in
answer to Mr. Beverage's comments. She stated that the public does not feel
that the large parties can be sufficiently addressed through the Police Depart -,
mentment and its enforcement. Because of the community frustration, the Planning
Commission included those conditions.
Mike Owens, 1344 Palm Street #2 and present member of Alpha Upsilon Fraternity,
urged the council to grant the appeal so the fraternity can exist fairly and
equitably with the community.
Mayor Billig declared the public hearing closed.
Councilman Bond didn't agree with either of the two conditions and said that
the city tends to over regulate. He thought the fraternities and sororities
have been trying to work in cooperating with the Police Department. He agreed
with getting together an intra- fraternity group and didn't see where the extra
regulations would do any good. He would support upholding the appeal.
Councilman Settle thought it would be appropriate to get together an intra-
fraternity committee on use permit conditions and to establish standards. He
was in favor of keeping the conditions that.Poly Royal and Homecoming be added
and recognize that the 10 o'clock time has been established in the ordinances
as well as the by -laws, but he was not sure if the weekend situation would solve
the problem in terms of enforceabilities.
1
r1
City Council Minutes
July 7, 1981 - 7:00 p.m.
Page Six
Councilwoman Dovey supported upholding both conditions as amended by the Planning
Commission. She thought that something could be worked out that was amendable
and acceptable for all group situations; and suggested that the HRC, which has a
student representative, look at checklists that the Planning Commission has pro -,.
posed. She supported denying the appeal.
' Councilman Dunin felt that in recent times the actual relationship between the
students and the community has been improving. He thought that self - regulation
was the answer and that items 6 and 16 were not practical. He said that the
fraternities and sororities have to regulate themselves so they don't generate
problems with the neighborhood and Police Department. He would not support the
inclusion of Items 6 and 16 and would uphold the appeal.
Mayor Billig supported establishing a subcommittee to work on the use permit
conditions. She supported leaving the conditions in, agreed with Councilwoman
Dovey's comments and would support staff and the two members of the Planning
Commission who feel the conditions are appropriate.
On motion of Councilman Bond, seconded by Councilman Dunin, Resolution No. 4544
(1981 Series), be adopted upholding the appeal to eliminate conditions No. 6 and
16.
Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Bond, Dunin, and Settle
NOES: Councilwoman Dovey and Mayor Billig
ABSENT: None
5.. Public hearing to consider an appeal by Timothy S. Richardson of
a decision by the Planning Commission to deny a use permit to allow outdoor sale
of cut flowers and small plants at 1631 Monterey Street, C -T zone.
Henry Engen, Community Development Director, stated that on May 27, 1981, the
Planning Commission denied the use permit request on an unanimous vote (with one
vacant seat). The commission found the proposed use was not appropriate at the
proposed location and would not be compatible with surrounding land uses. He
said they also found that the proposed use would be detrimental to the health,
safety and welfare of persons living or working in the area because no permanent
parking on -site was available and street parking and pedestrian street crossing
would be hazardous. He said the applicant, Mr. Timothy Richardson, is appealing
this denial to the council. He continued that staff recommends the appeal be
denied and the commission's action to deny be upheld, including findings. He
stated that if the council desires to uphold the appeal and approve the use per-
mit, staff recommends the findings and conditions noted in the attached staff
report, and that the council authorize the Mayor to sign a resolution to be
prepared by staff reflecting the action taken.
Mayor Billig declared the public hearing open.
June Clark spoke in opposition to the use permit to allow outdoor sales of cut
flowers and small plants.
Henriet Smith also spoke (the French Accent - owns The Gazebo).
' Wilma Sneet, owner of a flower shop, supported the use.permit.
Mayor Billig declared the public hearing closed.
Councilman Bond supported denying the appeal because it was not a proper location
for that type of stand. He said there were plenty of florists and shops in town.
Councilman Settle supported denying the appeal because it was not an appropriate
type use.
Councilwoman Dovey would support denial of the appeal and thought the city should
look at the use permits as they come up.
City Council Minutes
July 7, 1981 - 7:00 p.m.
Page Seven
Councilman Dunin would support denial of the appeal for the simple= .reason of .the
policy.:that the city-has-had--.for--.various years.
Mayor..Billig agreed with Councilman Dunin's comments and would support denial of
the appeal. She felt it would be appropriate to direct staff-and the Planning
Commission to analyze this problem and evaluate and come back with a suggestion
to the council on direction for dealing with the whole issue of vendors and
outside sales in the City of San Luis Obispo.
On motion of Councilman Dunin, seconded by Councilman Settle, the Resolution
No. 4545 (1981 Series) be adopted denying the appeal, and that staff and Plan-
ning Commission be directed to study and evaluate the problem and come back to
Council with recommendation within 3 months.
Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Dunin, Settle, Bond, Dovey, and Mayor Billig
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
6. Public hearing to consider an appeal by Robert Forsberg of
Galaxie Enterprises of a decision by the Planning Commission to deny a use permit
to allow a Ticketron office in an auto stereo sales and service facility in
Tenwise Park at 3550 South Higuera Street C -H zone.
Henry Engen, Community Development Director, stated that on May 27, 1981, the
Planning'Commission denied the use permit request on a 2:2 vote (with one
vacant seat). The commission's By -laws require three affirmative votes to approve
a use permit. He said the applicant, Mr. Robert Forsberg of Galaxie Enterprises,
is appealing this denial to the council. He continued that staff recommends the
appeal be denied and the commission's action to deny be upheld, including the
following findings:
1. The proposed use is not appropriate at the proposed location and will not
be compatible with surrounding land uses.
2. The proposed use does not conform to-the general plan.
He said staff further recommends that the council approve a temporary use permit
for a period not to exceed 4 months, subject to the following conditions:
1. Use permit shall be valid for four (4) months and shall expire on November 7,
1981, at which time the use shall have vacated the premises.
2. Ticket sales operation shall be limited to 100 square feet of floor and
counter area.
3.
No
more than one employee
shall
be
allowed
for
the
ticket
sales
operation.
4.
One
on -site parking space
shall
be
required
for
the
ticket
sales
operation.
He stated that staff makes this recommendation so that the Ticketron Service will
be available in San Luis Obispo County over the.busy summer months. He said that
four months would allow time for an orderly transition to a more appropriate
location. Henry Engen concluded that if the council desires to uphold the
appeal and approve the use permit, staff recommends the findings and conditions
noted in the attached staff report, or if the temporary use permit is'approved,
that the council authorize the Mayor to sign a resolution to be prepared by staff
reflecting the action taken.
Robert Forsberg, 3546 S. Higuera and owner of Galaxie Enterprises, gave some back-
ground on the appeal and stated that the loss of the Ticketron office would.be
detrimental to the citizens of this area. He urged the council to consider the
use permit to allow the Ticketron office in Tenwise Park.
City Council Minutes
July 7, 1981 - 7:00 p.m.
Page Eight
Don Smith felt that from a public or community viewpoint the Ticketron office
should be in the downtown area or Madonna Plaza.
Peter Kardel, co -owner of "Sweets" on Marsh Street, spoke on the appropriateness
and that the threat of the Ticketron office leaving the community was something
that the City Council ought not to consider. He said that Ticketron customers
are interested in goods and services clustered about the downtown area, and urged
the City Council to exercise discretion in granting the requested use permit.
Steve Braden, Regional Manager for Ticketron located at 5151 W. Imperial Highway
in Inglewood, urged the council to grant the requested use permit at the risk of
not having a Ticketron office in San Luis Obispo.
Rosalyn Burke spoke in support of the use permit.
Mayor Billig declared the public hearing closed.
Councilwoman Dovey did not feel the proposed use was detrimental to the health,
safety, and welfare of the citizens, and did not see a traffic problem. She said
if the ticket agency's definition is used and this is in conformance with the
General Plan and zoning requirements she sees no.. problem with the findings. She
would be willing to uphold the appeal strictly on the basis of this use in that
location.
Councilman Bond would vote to uphold the appeal and had no problem with the loca-
tion.
Mayor Billig would support staff's recommendation to let Ticketron operate dur-
ing the summer and into the fall to look for a more suitable location, one that
is more centrally.located to most people in the community and more appropriate
given the surrounding uses in the area.
On motion of Councilman Bond, seconded by Councilwoman Dovey, that Resolution
No. 4546 (1981 Series) be adopted upholding the appeal subject to 5 findings as
listed in the staff report.
Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Bond, Dovey and Settle
NOES: Councilmember Dunin and Mayor Billig
ABSENT: None
9:15 p.m. Council broke for recess.
9:30 p.m. ..Council reconvened in regular session, all Council members present.
7. Appeal by Steve Puglisi, representing Stan Bell, of a decision
of the Architectural Review Commission requiring front yard landscaping and
irrigation system for a new single home division located at 950 Los Osos Valley
Road.
Councilman Settle said that he would .like to see the Ticketron
office in down-
town or Madonna Shopping Center. He would uphold the
appeal on
the grounds that
it was an acceptable use and workable.
Councilman Dunin felt that the Madonna Shopping Center
would be
a proper use be -....
cause of the trailers and boats, and would rather see
if upon recommendation
by
staff the business could be relocated at Madonna Plaza
where it
would be more
compatible with the traffic and local situation.
Mayor Billig would support staff's recommendation to let Ticketron operate dur-
ing the summer and into the fall to look for a more suitable location, one that
is more centrally.located to most people in the community and more appropriate
given the surrounding uses in the area.
On motion of Councilman Bond, seconded by Councilwoman Dovey, that Resolution
No. 4546 (1981 Series) be adopted upholding the appeal subject to 5 findings as
listed in the staff report.
Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Bond, Dovey and Settle
NOES: Councilmember Dunin and Mayor Billig
ABSENT: None
9:15 p.m. Council broke for recess.
9:30 p.m. ..Council reconvened in regular session, all Council members present.
7. Appeal by Steve Puglisi, representing Stan Bell, of a decision
of the Architectural Review Commission requiring front yard landscaping and
irrigation system for a new single home division located at 950 Los Osos Valley
Road.
City Council Minutes
July 7, 1981 - 7:00 p.m.
Page Nine
Ken Bruce, Planning Associate, stated that on June 1, 1981, the ARC voted 4 =0
granting final approval of 34 new single family houses subject to (1) land-
scaping and irrigation plans for front yards being submitted for commission
approval; and (2) fencing details to return for approval by staff. He stated
the applicant was appealing the requirement to install front yard landscaping
and irrigation systems. He continued that Council- adopted standards and guide= ..:..::
lines for the ARC state .... that appeals, "...may be based only on inconsistencies
between ARC action and the procedures and criteria based by law or stated in
this booklet. These alleged inconsistencies must be explained in detail in the
appeal." The grounds listed for the appeal stated "Impropriety of ARC action
which effectively discriminates against tract home buyers by depriving these
buyers of their right to individually landscape their property." Staff did not
feel this established any inconsistency between the ARC's action and the
commissioner's guidelines. The ARC ordinance included landscaping as a "physical
improvement" which required commission review and approval as part of overall
development plans. Single family homes were not normally reviewed by the com-
mission unless: 1) architectural review was required as a condition of the
subdivision; 2) when a developer proposes to construct 3 or more units; 3) when
the director determines the site is a sensitive one.
He continued that most single lot, single family subdivisions created in the
past had not been built out with houses by the original developer. Therefore,
the issue of landscaping had not previously been a significant issue. The
action taken on this appeal may set a precedent for future subdivision pro-
jects - staff felt the appeal should be denied as no evidence had been provided
to show the commissioner's actions were inconsistent with adopted procedures or
guidelines.. Staff did_feel the developer had a legitimate concern and grounds
for compromise. The developer was offering a $500 rebate to homeowners if
front yard landscaping and irrigation was completed within 60 days of close
of escrow. Also, proposed CC & R's would require .homeowners to complete land-
scaping and charge the home buyer. Staff would support this providing the City
Attorney and Community Development Director could review and approve the follow-
ing:
1. Front yard landscape /irrigation requirements in terms of minimum acceptable
levels of quality and performance, a wide range of approved plant materials
minimum- specifications; and minimum landscape design guidelines.
2. Provision for enforcement of CC &R's covering timetable for completion of land-
scaping and irrigation. Who enforces CC &R's and consequences of non - compliance.
3. Other provisions which are deemed necessary to adequately and reasonably in-
sure all developed lots will be landscaped and irrigated in a timely manner,
and to meet the intent of the city's Architectural Review Commission guide-
lines.
Mayor Billig opened the public hearing.
Steve Puglisi, representing Stan Bell, agreed with the concerns of the ARC
that adequate landscaping be made for new homes but deferred with the method
used to achieve this. He felt that if the developer built the homes and_.:._.::
installed landscaping, all homes would look the same. This, he felt, did not
respond to the needs and best interests of the city. Tract landscaping would
not be agreeable to the home buyer as well. He proposed that incentives be
given to the proposed homeowners as outlined by the CC &R's.
Stan Bell, 1036 Vista Collada, applicant, supported the idea of imposed land-
scaping especially in the first _phase of this development, however, he would
propose it be done as part of the CC &R's allowing the homeowner an opportunity
to landscape his own home.
Councilwoman Dovey questioned how the new home front yard would look without
mandatory landscaping. Would the lot be in a tough state: i.e. building
debris, rough grading, etc.?
Stan Bell assured her that the city inspectors saw to it that the lots were
clear and level.
1
City Council Minutes
July 7, 1981 - 7:00 p.m.
Page Ten
Don Smith was concerned that this developer had previous tracts that were left
for up to 2 -3 years prior to landscaping. He would support the staff recommend-
ation.-to give the homeowner an incentive through the use of a rebate, however,
he felt 2 months for the new buyer was too short. They should be given at
least 6 months.
Vic Montgomery, representing himself, was very concerned regarding the matter
of whether any ARC decision is appealable to the Council or only particular
items to be included. It was his understanding, unlike staff's, that any
decision was appealable to the Council.
Pierre Radamaker, representing the ARC, outlined the ARC's. concerns and ex-
plained the ARC's reasoning. The ARC would support staff's recommendation to
include the 3 conditions listed by staff.
Walt Ross, 595 Patricia Street, stated that in the case of Tract 569, most lots
had been landscaped within 1 year, however, in this case, most had been specu-
lative buyers and the lots were not kept up.
Mayor Billig closed the public hearing.
Councilwoman Dovey asked about the possibility of using a bond to insure land-
scaping.
Ken Bruce stated that he felt a bond could be required but would be difficult
to administer. He felt the developer's approach was very innovative and a
good one. He would be more inclined to extend the time factors from 60 days
for the rebate to 6 months and 6 months for the final deadline to 1 year.
Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Settle, Bond, Dovey, Dunin and Mayor Billig
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
After brief discussion, it was moved by Councilman Dunin, seconded by Councilman
Settle, to reaffirm ARC guidelines that all conditions approved by the ARC
are appealable to the City Council. Motion carried, all ayes.
8. Consideration of final passage of Ordinance No. 888. An ordinance
of the City of San Lids Obispo adopting the 1979 editions of the Uniform Building
code, Building Code Standards, Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous
Buildings, Uniform Housing Code, and Uniform Plumbing Code; and repealing
portions of Municipal Code, Article 8, Chapter 1. Jack Kellerman, Chief
Building Inspector, explained that the _proposed ordinance had been reviewed by
architects, engineers, contractors, members of the Board.of Appeals, Planning
Commission, ARC, HRC, CAC, city staff, and Fire Department. Except for 3 minor
problems, which have been incorporated on the proposed draft, no objections or
major changes have been requested. He stated that the most significant change
from the 1976 Uniform Building Code was the elimination of fire zones. This
would permit wood frame buildings to be built anywhere in the city, most notably
in the downtown central business district where only fire - resistant, non- combus-
tible exterior walls were premitted.
Mayor Billig opened the public hearing. No one spoke for or against this ordi-
nance.
Councilman
Settle concurred with staff recommendation to include the 60 days
and 6 months.
Councilman
Bond agreed with staff recommendations.
On motion of Councilman
Settle, seconded by Councilman Bond, the following
resolution was introduced:
Resolution
No. 4547 (1981 Series), a resolution of
the City of San Luis Obispo
denying an
appeal from an architectural review commision condition requiring
front yard
landscaping and irrigation systems for
a new single family subdivision.
Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Settle, Bond, Dovey, Dunin and Mayor Billig
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
After brief discussion, it was moved by Councilman Dunin, seconded by Councilman
Settle, to reaffirm ARC guidelines that all conditions approved by the ARC
are appealable to the City Council. Motion carried, all ayes.
8. Consideration of final passage of Ordinance No. 888. An ordinance
of the City of San Lids Obispo adopting the 1979 editions of the Uniform Building
code, Building Code Standards, Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous
Buildings, Uniform Housing Code, and Uniform Plumbing Code; and repealing
portions of Municipal Code, Article 8, Chapter 1. Jack Kellerman, Chief
Building Inspector, explained that the _proposed ordinance had been reviewed by
architects, engineers, contractors, members of the Board.of Appeals, Planning
Commission, ARC, HRC, CAC, city staff, and Fire Department. Except for 3 minor
problems, which have been incorporated on the proposed draft, no objections or
major changes have been requested. He stated that the most significant change
from the 1976 Uniform Building Code was the elimination of fire zones. This
would permit wood frame buildings to be built anywhere in the city, most notably
in the downtown central business district where only fire - resistant, non- combus-
tible exterior walls were premitted.
Mayor Billig opened the public hearing. No one spoke for or against this ordi-
nance.
City Council Minutes
July 7, 1981 - 7:00 p.m.
Page Eleven
Mayor Billig closed the public hearing. On motion of Councilman "Settle, second-
ed by Councilman Dunin, Ordinance No. 888 was introduced for final passage. It
finally passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Settle, Dunin, Bond, Dovey, and Mayor Billig
NOES: None 1
ABSENT: None
By way of comment, Councilman Dunin stated he did not wish to hear any complaints
from the building industry, as no one had spoken for or against this ordinance.
9. Consideration of final passage of Ordinance No. 889,-an ordinance
of the City Council for the City of San Luis Obispo, amending certain provisions
of Article 8 (demolition and moving of buildings) of San Luis Obispo Municipal
Code.
Jack Kellerman, Chief Building Inspector, explained that the proposed ordinance
would replace present language dealing with the 45 7day waiting period with the
following basic provisions:
1) ARC Referral: All demolition permits (approximately 10 last year) would
go straight to the ARC for determination as to whether the building is
significant. If not, the demolition permit could be granted as a routine
administrative act of the chief building inspector.
2) Significant Structes:. Where the ARC determines that a structure has
historic architectural or aesthetic significance to the community, the
applicant would be required to submit plans for its replacement; and
these plans would have to be found at least as compatible with the...' '
neighborhood as the pre- existing use. In addition, a 45 -day notice
requirement would be placed in the local paper alerting citizens of
the proposed demolition. In the event the ARC did not make the neces-
sary findings, the demolition permit.would not be approved unless suc -.
cessfully appealed to the City Council.
Mayor Billig opened the public hearing.
Vic Montgomery, representing the owners of the piece of property that brought
this item before the City Council, had a question on two items.
Section 2B -1 Paragraph states in part that if the demolition project is not in
conjunction with a replacement project then the ARC cannot determine any histor-
ical, architectural, or aesthetic significance to the community, the ARC shall
refer the matter back to the building official with direction to issue the dem-
olition permit. He questioned whether this would require the applicant to pay
the initial filing fee again with the ARC. Would the applicant also be required
to submit drawings of the proposed building to the ARC?
In Section 3, No. C -2, the ordinance requires the ARC to notify the City Clerk.
He felt it should be the staff's responsibility to notify the clerk. Jack Kel-
lerman responded by saying it was the intent of staff for the applicant to submit
plans for any demolition permit, although fees were not discussed, nor did he
feel they should be required. Obviously, if it had been a significant structure
therefore requiring a new building be built on this property, that building
would be subject to the normal permits..
Mayor Billig closed the ublic hearing.
Councilman Settle stated he would support the ordinance and no fee should be
required.
Councilman Dunin stated he would not support the ordinance, specifically he had
a problem with condition No. 3, which would require the submittal of plans. He
felt that the main intent of this ordinance was to preserve significant histori-
cal buildings. Presently written, he feels that a piece of property could be
City Council Minutes
July 7, 1981 - 7:00 p.m.
Page Twelve
tied up, although the City would have no ability to enforce it.
Jack Kellerman agreed with Councilman Dunin that enforcement is very difficult.
The ordinance relies very heavily on the honesty and integrity of the person
wanting to tear down the building.
' Mayor Billig stated that she felt staff had submitted a good ordinance and it
gives the public an opportunity to respond and make some attempts to recycle -.
significant structures. She felt the ordinance was flexible.
On motion of Councilman Settle, seconded by Councilwoman Dovey, Ordinance No. 899
(1981 Series) was given final passage. It finally passed on the following roll
call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Settle, Dovey, Bond, Dunin and Mayor Billig
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
On motion of Councilman Settle, seconded by Mayor Billig,.to specify that no
fees-or plans be required.for application of demolition of ARC review. Motion
carried, all ayes.
10. Consideration of final passage of Ordinance No. 890 (1981 Series),
an ordinance of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, amending Article
4, Chapter 3 of the Municipal Code (Tree Regulations).
Dave Romero, Public Services Director, explained that this ordinance was coming
to the Council for final passage but stated that for a number of years, the Public
Services Department had assumed that the Tree Ordinance wording gave sufficient
authority for the City to control removal of trees within 5 feet of the property
line on developed properties. While preparing a news release, staff found that
this authority was unclear and had:it.verified with.the City Attorney, since
staff was.unaware of the problem, the new ordinance contains the same questionable
authority as the old ordinance. He therefore recommended the new tree ordinance
be modified in accordance with, the legislative draft submitted—
Mayor Billig opened the public hearing. No one spoke for or against the final
passage of this ordinance.
Mayor Billig closed the public hearing.
On motion of Councilman Settle, seconded by Mayor Billig, Ordinance No. 890
(1981 Series) was given final passage, finally passed on the following roll call
vote:
AYES: Councilman Settle, Mayor Billig, Councilmembers Bond, Dovey and
Dunin
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
On motion of Councilman Bond, seconded by Councilman Settle, to instruct staff
to prepare another ordinance modifying Ordinance No. 890 (1981 Series) as rec-
ommended by staff tonight and bring back at the next regular meeting. Motion
carried, all ayes.
11. Consideration of an ordinance amending the Zoning.Regulations,
the PF zone, to provide for commercial uses in public schools.
Glenn Matteson, Assistant Planner, stated that on June 16th, the Council held a
public hearing on this matter and the related general plan amendment which was
approved. The zoning amendment was continued to allow staff to prepare a new
"past print" version reflecting Council comments from June 16th. The following
changes were made from the previous draft:
City Council Minutes
July 7, 1981 - 7:00 p.m.
Page Thirteen
1) Office type activities would require administrative use permit approval,
with posting of the property, rather than over the counter approval; 2) medical
and denatl offices would not be allowed; 3) travel and ticket offices would re-
quire approval by the Planning Commission rather than the director; 4) artisan
type manufacturing would require approval by the Planning Commission rather than
the director; 5) furniture refinishing or upholstery would not be allowed; 6)
the standards would prohibit client or customer visitation on weekends.
Mayor Billig stated that she was in receipt of a communication from the San
Luis Coastal Unified School District requesting Council considered three minor
revisions:
1) Uses allowed with administrative approval.
Item
a. "Employee organization offices." Our Teacher's Association wants to run
a_ classroom.
2) Uses allowed with Planning Commission approval.
We prepare to have item c., small -scale artisan -type manufacturing..., under
uses allowed with administrative approval. We see such.use as involving
only two or three workers and it would be one of the uses.least disruptive
to the school and neighborhood.
3) Standards.
We would like to see Item f. revised to change the work "weekends" to
"Sundays ". Some renters could operate a six -day work week, and we would:
rather eliminate use on Sunday only, not the entire weekend.
Bruce Johnson, Business Manager of the School District, thanked Council for
working with th School District on this issue.
Shirley Gard, member of advisory committee supporting the School District, strong-
ly urged the City Council to make the work changes, especially with regard to the
weekends to Sundays. She felt that most of the important activities would happen
after school hours_, evenings, or on weekends. She assured the Council that the
parents were very concerned about what was going on in the schools and would be
monitoring any activity very closely. She wished to thank the Council also for
helping the schools to solve their problems.
Councilman Bond stated that he could support the proposed ordinance.
Councilman Settle stated that he could support the ordinance with the conditions
as suggested by the School District.
Councilwoman Dovey stated that she had several reservations still about this
ordinance. She could support Ticket Agency use as listed in Item 4 -b. She also
could not agree with Paragraph 3 -a; Paragraphs 3 -b would be okay with administra-
tive approval; she would have no problem with revising weekends to Sundays;
Paragraph 5 -f, she could support varying the hours.
Councilman Dunin stated that he would support this ordinance but very reluctantly,
as he felt it represented a double standard, different standards being used
for the public versus the private sector. He still had problems with 3 -a and 4 -a
uses. -
Mayor Billig stated she had a problem with 3 -a office uses, but she had no prob-
lem with businesses operating at night or on weekends. She would prefer to see
community- oriented uses, which would also probably make fewer changes to the
buildings, so that should the schools wish to use these buildings again in the
future, there would not be much remodeling required.
1
1
City Council Minutes
July 7, 1981 - 7:00 p.m.
Page Fourteen
Councilman Bond stated that he could support Paragraph 3 -a by putting faith in
the administrative approval process. He felt there would be considerable review
by various staff, Planning Commission, and the School District.
On motion of Councilman Settle, seconded by Councilman Bond, to introduce the or=
dinance to print amending the PF zone in the Zoning Regulations, to provide for
commercial uses in public schools with the three added revisions as requested by
the School District, with review of the ordinance within three years. Motion
failed on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Settle and Bond
NOES: Councilmembers, Dovey, Dunin and Mayor Billig
ABSENT: None
On motion of Councilman Dunin, seconded by Councilwoman Dovey, to introduce the
ordinance to print as submitted, eliminating conditions 3 -a, 4 -a and 4 -c, but to
include the revisions 1 and 3 as requested by.the School District. Further, the
ordinance to be repealed within 3 years and use permits to die at the same time.
Motion carried on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers, Dunin, Dovey, Bond, Settle, and Mayor Billig
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Councilman Dunin stated that if the School District cannot live with this or-
dinance, that they should come back to the City Council and ask for a variance.
12. . Council to make nominations for appointment of a senior citizen
member and Cal Poly representative for the Mass Transportation Committee..
Glenn Matteson, Planning Assistant, explained the Housing Authority Commission
had asked that the city consider selling property at 3700 Higuera Street to
allow the development of federally assisted housing. The Housing Authority
would like to gain the Council's support of a housing project at this location
for the various development review processes are initiated. He stated that in
February, 1979, the city staff conducted a study of the property and would
still support the study's conclusion that service commercial /light industrial
uses were the best long range use of the site. Staff felt housing could be
appropriate; however, it would require extensive work and a creative design
to develop housing which fitted in with existing and potential land uses in
the area. He felt the following steps would be required to develop housing on
the site:
1) The city would have to declare the property surplus to its needs and
find that its sale would be consistent with the general plan.
2) The Housing Authority would have to apply for a change to the land
use element map to change the site from service commercial class/
light industrial to residential - probably medium density residential.
3) The property would have to be rezoned from public facility to a resi-
dential zone, probably R -2.
4) Early on in the process, environmental documents would have to be
prepared which study the effect of using the site for housing. A
focused EIR may be needed. It would be desirable for the Housing
Authority to submit schematic plans of the project to the city as
part of the general plan amendment application.
5) Standard building permit and plan check procedures would be followed.
Dave Romero, Public Services Director, made a strong presentation against place-
ment of any housing on the Gudel property, which is directly downwind from the
sewage treatment plant. He stated there was always some degree of odor from
even a well -run plant and that its almost a certainty that someday there will
be a failure at the City plant which would create intolerable living conditions
City Council Minutes
July 7, 1981 - 7:00 p.m.
Page Fifteen
for the residents and extreme criticism of the City. He emphasized again his
strong opposition to residential use of this property.
Steve Nelson, representing the Housing Authority, stated that the Commission had
first in January 1979 inquired about the possiblity of utilizing this site for
the development of affordable housing. He felt it was with a sense of urgency
that the Commission would like to reopen discussions with the city. The Housing
Authority presently has a $687,750 HUD funding commitment which they will lose
unless they can obtain a suitable site and complete development plan by Septem-
ber 30, 1981. They felt that this property met HUD's site criteria for assisted
housing and offered one last opportunity to utilize the HUD funds. They were
asking the Council to make this site available to the Authority for this pur-
pose. If the Council would determine that this site be available-to the Author-
ity, he felt that time constraints were such that the city would need a strong
commitment and that they would assign a member of the city staff to work directly
with the Authority on this project. Assignment of a staff person to this pro-
ject would greatly improve the prospects for their achievement of their goal.
He agreed that this site had several undesirable risks, but he felt that there
were people willing to take that chance. If it was a question of living with
bad odors in the area or having a roof over their head, he was sure they would
choose the latter. Upon questioning by Councilman Bond as to who would qualify
for this affordable housing, Mr. Nelson stated that normally a family of four
making less than $12,000 per year could qualify..
Rose Barger stated that it was her understanding that the Housing Authority ori-
ginally had $750,000 and this was to have been used for elderly housing, not for
low- income.
Councilwoman Dovey stated that she could not support this project for several
reasons: one, because of the odor, because of residential housing in a com-*
mercial use. This would put a great deal of low- income and moderate housing
in one place and does not satisfy the need for elderly housing.
Councilman Bond stated he could support the proposed project.
Councilman Settle stated that this was not the best location, but the Housing
Authority was faced with the prospect of not having any site at this late date
and would lose their funds from HUD if the city did not support them with the
site.
Councilman Dunin agreed with Councilman Settle's comments and felt that Measure G
was the cause for not having any site available. He felt we should either use
the.land available or go to the people and overturn Measure G. He would support
the Housing Authority's request.
Mayor Billig stated she did not feel South Higuera was a suitable space for this
sort of housing. She felt there were numerous problems involved with this site.
She did not feel that Proposition G was the problem. Upon majority consensus,
staff and Housing Authority was instructed that the Gudel property was not an
appropriate place for residential housing.
14. Proposed amendments'to ARC Ordinance to permit approval of
selected single - family dwellings (stick -built or mobile homes) to the ARC where
such projects appear to be out of scale or character with adjoining housing.
In view of the discussions on Item No. 7, this item was continued for additional
information to come back at the next regular Council meeting.
C -4 Council to consider approval of the Corporation Yard Master Plan and pro-
posed construction schedule.
Dave Romero, Public Services Director, recommended that the Council review the
master plan and phasing, modify the plan if the Council desired, and then ap-
prove the final Master Plan, thereby allowing the staff to solicit an architect
for the construction phases of the project.
City Council Minutes
July 7, 1981 - 7:00 p.m.
Page Sixteen
Councilman Settle supported the CAO's recommendation to approve the Master
Plan and authorize solicitation for architectural services, but to defer
action on scheduling and phasing pending the report by CAO.
Councilman Dunin suggested that the•coun be thinking about disposal of the _
1 Gudel property. - - - - -- - - - - -- --
After brief discussion, it was moved.by Councilman Settle, seconded by Council-
woman Dovey, to authorize solicitation for architectural services but defer
action on scheduling and phasing pending report by the CAO on design alterna-
tives, financing, and pending receipt of EIR call. Motion carried,.all ayes.
For.the record, Item C -10 ended up being approved on the same motion as the
other consent-items.
There being no further business to come before the Council, Mayor Billig ad-
journed the meeting to Friday, July 10th at..1:30 p.m.
M I N U T E S
ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FRIDAY, JULY 10, 1981 - 1:30 P.M.
COUNCIL HEARING ROOM, CITY HALL, 990 PALM STREET
Roll Call
Councilmembers
Present: GlennaDeane Dovey, Ron Dunin, Mayor Melanie Billig
Absent: Allen K. Settle, Alan C. Bond
1:30 p.m. Mayor Billig adjourned the meeting to closed session to discuss per-
sonnel matter.
2:35 p.m. Mayor Billig reconvened to regular session, Councilman Settle
absent.
There being no further business to come before the Council, Mayor Billig
adjourned the meeting to Monday, July 13, 1981 at 12:10 p.m.
APPROVED BY COUNCIL ON:
i
7/21/81
Patela Voges, City Clerk
1