Loading...
03/08/1982City Council Minutes Monday, March 8, 1982 - 12:10 p.m. Page 2 Terry Sanville presented staff report recommending denial of proposed County Land Use Element amendment (Brown G8108112) to allow houses to be built up to the 600 -foot elevation. Council discussion included council's support of the draft letter to request the county's denial to extend utilities above the 500 -foot elevation level; council opposed the draft letter's optional section. Discussion also included whether the applicant and neighborhood had been informed of this action. On motion of Councilman Settle, seconded by Councilwoman Dovey, and unanimously carried on the following roll -call vote, the draft letter, excluding optional section, and list of uses concerning County Land Use Element amendment (Brown G8108112) was approved and the mayor was authorized to sign. AYES: Councilmembers Settle, Dovey, Dunin, Griffin, and Mayor Billig. NOES: None ABSENT: None Terry Sanville, Senior Planner, presented staff report recommending denial of a County Land Use Element amendment (Kundert G810811:1) allowing greater variety of commercial land uses within an isolated service commercial area. Council discussion continued in support of the staff's draft letter. Council directed staff to notify applicants or property owners when an item of this nature comes before the city council, although legal requirements do not mandate this. On motion of Councilman Griffin, seconded by Councilman Settle, and unanimously carried on the following roll -call vote, the draft letter and list of uses concerning County Land Use Element amendment (Kundert G810811:1) was approved and the mayor authorized to sign. AYES: Councilmembers Griffin, Settle, Dovey, Dunin, and Mayor Billig. NOES: None ABSENT: None A -1 URGENCY MORATORIUM ORDINANCE -- AMUSEMENT CENTERS George Thacher, City Attorney, presented staff report concerning coun- cil's direction of March 2, 1982, to submit an interim urgency ordinance establishing a moratorium on the establishment of electronic game amusement centers for a period of four months. Council discussion included possible amendments to page.1, rewording of subcommittee paragraph to include the city administrative officer, community development director, and city attorney as opposed to "assist- ance by city administrative staff when required," and a requirement for a monthly reporting system to the council. Randy Bullock questioned Section 4(b). Councilman Settle urged caution as to using urgency ordinances except for emergency purposes only. Further discussion of the council continued as to whether an "emergency" existed, whether this was an over reaction, and whether this would be beneficial or hurtful to the business community, objection to the action being politicized, and how the applicant had applied for the use permit initially. Discussion concerning the "urgency" ordinance continued regarding the use of concrete standards for health and welfare, the use of emergency ordinances sparingly and support for the council's respon- sible approach for the brief period of time needed for response. City Council Minutes Monday, March 8, 1982 - 12:10 p.m. Page 3 Council outlined the need for specific rules and regulations for this new industry to prevent the problems other communities are experiencing, and whether two to four months would be sufficient for staff's comple- tion of their study with the recommendation to the council. Further discussion of the council reflected the council's very conservative approach to this problem, and staff was requested to review the ordin- ance, bringing the ordinance back to the council's meeting of March 9, 1982, at 7:00 p.m. as amended to include rewording of subcommittee paragraph and monthly reporting-to the council. Council's discussion also included the ordinance's failure to address standards, whether there is enough power in the use - permit regulations, and whether there will be more harm to applicants -in the future. - Council suggested staff research all conditions and standards for video games, allowing applications to proceed, until the data is obtained, and the conditional use permit process. Councilman Settle moved to take it; with lack of a second, the motion died. Council concluded its discussion with the recommendation that the urgency ordinance be brought back to the council on Tuesday, March 9, 1982, at 7:00 p.m. incorporating council's amendments. 1. SLO CREEK FLOOD CONTROL MODIFICATIONS Wayne Peterson, City Engineer, presented staff report. Since 1973, the city has been seeking solutions to the flooding problems that occur from time to time along San Luis Creek and other drainage ways in the commun- ity. Initially, the city was involved with:the!formation of the county's Zone 9. Zone 9 hired Nolte and Associates to prepare a master plan for the San Luis Creek Watershed. That plan was completed, but never adopted by the City Council. The recommendations in the plan called for improvement of San Luis Creek to a 100 -year level of protection. The method of improvement was to widen the creek by excavating one bank or the other, preferably not both. The recommendations were based upon City Council input. During the late 1970s; the.city hired the•.Corps of Engineers to do preliminary-planning-.for widening San Luis Creek using the 100 -year level of protection. When that report was completed and given to the city, engineering plotted their recommendations on aerial photographs. The information showed us that the creek widening would require extensive right-of-way-acquisition and have,a severe impact on the properties along the creek. With this information; George Nolte was hired by the City Council to re- evaluate the alternatives. He prepared summaries of the impact of providing for.25 -, 50- ,'..and 100 -year levels of protection along San Luis Creek from its confluence with Stenner Creek just above Marsh Street to the sewer farm where the creek was widened to handle a 100 -year storm. On February 13, 1981, he made his report to the City Council and the City Council directed him to prepare a final report for them using a 50- year :criteria. Council also agreed that while most of the creek would be an earth -lined channel with gabions where necessary to prevent erosion, concrete lining would be necessary to prevent the relocation of the mausoleum and the freeway. Staff recommends that the City Council forward to the consultant its comments and the comments received in writing-in-the final-environmental document. Dr. James Schaaf, representing-George S. Nolte and.Associates; was introduced. Dr. Schaaf explained starting downstream and moving in an upstream direction, using aerial photographs; the creek's suggested modifications (using the vertical, 3:1 sideslope, and 2:1 sideslope methods). Major construction areas would be the removal of a power line near Prado Road, relocation of.the, trailer park;.and removal of the.Elks Lane bridge. The area near Madonna-Road-and the freeway will cause extreme construction difficulties. Public testimony commenced with a question from Art Spring concerning the-Elks Lane bridge. -:John Mello questioned the-modification , of the creek bottom. (Councilman Griffin left- meeting.at 1:40 p.m.). Barbara Conner questioned bank - construction areas; Marshall Ellis questioned the City Council Minutes Monday, March 8, 1982 - 12:10 p.m. Page 4 time schedules for construction and which area would be constructed first. Dave Romero, Public Services Director, commented that the tentative schedule called for construction on city -owned lands and bottlenecks, then a long time systematic improvement starting downstream and working upstream. Dotty Conner commented on Prefumo Creek; George Barn ques- tioned the impact on Avila Beach; Marshall Ellis commented on his work with the Zone 9 Flood Control group's research on creek ecology. Bill Landow questioned the financing of the construction. Mayor Billig re- emphasized the purpose of this study session was to evaluate the Environmental Impact Report for a possible, proposed project, and that economics will be an important factor at a later date. Staff members Terry Sanville, Senior Planner, and Dave Romero, Public Services Director, commented briefly on velocity of the creek flows which might result in increased siltation or erosion. John Ashbaugh, MDW architect, discussed why the.Environmental Impact Report was prepared, requested written public comments, and reiterated the history of the environmental- impact process thus far. The three major areas which were found to be insignificant to the project were: (1) run off, (2) historical preservation, and (3),growth inducement. The areas which had high significance to the project were: (1) soil and geological mitigation, (2) aesthetic measures, immediate planting of heavy landscaping (3) utilities, relocation of the transmission line and special precautions with Union Oil pipeline, and (4) land use and zoning, relocation of the mobile home park and replacement.of the Elks Lane bridge. Mr. Ashbaugh's presentation continued with the environmental- impact requirement for alternatives to the project: (1) do nothing, (2) non - structural alternatives such as flood - proofing buildings, flood insurance requirements, flood -plain management regulations, and (3) levels of protection. Council reiterated direction that property owners along the creek be notified of all further activity on the project, along with a special announcement in the newspaper. Roy Parsons commented on the level of protection, anchoring of facili- ties subject to flooding, life- safety services, funding, and the steel - head resource. Marshall Ellis commented on the benefits for the prop- erty owners who received benefit but did not have property immediately adjacent to the creek and better equity gained if they also were required to contribute. Joan Leon questioned monitoring procedures of the project. John Mello questioned the council as to the final date for accepting written comments. Terry Sanville stated that staff would receive comments until March 10, 1982. Council discussed the review period and suggested a three -week extension for receiving written comments, extensive advertising, and an additional staff /public informational meeting. Staff was directed to readvertise the extended date for receiving written comments and hold an additional meeting prior to certifying the Environmental Impact Report. The public in attendance was invited to advise staff of its interest to be notified by mail of the next meeting. John Mello questioned whether the same professional experts could be available for the next public hearing. Dr. Eric Barn commended the council on their thoughtfulness in extending public comments. Paul Lanspery commented that staff might develop an informal meeting to discuss detailed information on staff recommendations and mitigation measures with the public prior to the next public hearing. 1 1 1 City Council Minutes Monday, March 8, 1982 - 12:10 p.m. Page 5 Joan Leon questioned when the council would make a policy decision on the project; Rose Barger commented the city staff had refused infor- mation to her when requested. There being no further business to come before the council, Mayor•Billig adjourned the meeting at 2:25 p.m. to the next adjourned meeting of the City Council on March 9, 1982, at 7:00 p.m. Respecfully. submitted by: D. K. Rowlee, Council Secretary Pamela Voges, C' y Clerk APPROVED BY COUNCIL: 8/31/82 M I N U T E S ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ..TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 1982 - 7:00 P:M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, 990 PALK STREET ..SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA STUDY SESSION ROLL CALL Councilmembers Present: GlennaDeane Dovey, Ron Dunin, Robert Griffin, Allen Settle and Mayor Melanie C. Billig Absent: None City Staff Present: Paul Lanspery, City Administrative Officer; George Thacher, City Attorney; Pamela Voges, City Clerk; Wayne Peterson, City Engineer; Jim Stockton, Recreation - Director; Terry Sanville,-Senior Planner; Geoff Grote, Acting Community Development Director; Glen•Matteson, Assistant Planner A -1 INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE - ELECTRONIC GAME AMUSEMENT CENTER (continued from 3/2/82) Councilman Settle stated he could support the ordinance if a provision was provided that current pending applications now on file be exempt. Randy Bullock, Planning Commissioner and speaking as a private citizen, urged the Council to exclude pending applications for electronic game amusement devises. After brief discussion it was moved by Councilman Settle, seconded by Councilman Griffin, that a section be added to the ordinance that the ordinance would have no effect on applications for electronic amusement game centers submitted prior to the effective date of this ordinance. Motion died (3 -2).