HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/04/1984City Council Minutes
Tuesday, September 4, 1984 - 7:00 p.m.
Page 2
City Staff
Present: Paul Lanspery, Administrative Officer; Geoff Grote,
Assistant Administrative Officer; Roger.Picquet, City
Attorney; Pamela Voges, City Clerk; Toby Ross, Community
Development Director; Wayne Peterson, City Engineer; Don
Englert, Police Captain; Terry Sanville, Principal Planner
C O N S E N T A G E N D A
On motion of Councilman Settle, seconded by Mayor Billig, the consent
agenda unanimously approved as recommended by the CAO with the following
actions taken as indicated:
C -1 COUNCIL MINUTES
Minutes of Wednesday, August 22, 1984 - 12:10 p.m. approved as amended
(5 -0).
C -2. CONTRACT-PAY ESTIMATES
Contract pay estimates and change orders were approved and ordered paid
(5 -0).
C -3 CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY - M. WILFORD (File 41189)
Claim against the City by Michael Scott Wilford in the amount of $244.22
for towing and storage of vehicle allegedly towed illegally'from the 1900
block of Huasna was denied (5 -0).
C -4 $25,000 QUARTERLY WATERLINE IMPROVEMENTS (File 41514)
$25,000 Quarterly Waterline Improvement Program priority list for first
quarter 1984 -85 and funding for No. 2 project (Brizzolara.Street improvements)
approved as recommended (5 -0).
C -5 EROSION CONTROL AGREEMENT - ZONE 9 (File 41591)
Resolution No. 5464 (1984 Series), a resolution of the Council of the City
L of San Luis Obispo approving a one -year agreement between the City.and Zone
9 for erosion control services in the city (Zone 9 contribution to be
$60,935, City to provide supervision) was adopted as recommended (5 -0).
C -6 PUC APPLICATION (File 41415)
Resolution No. 5465 (1984 Series), a resolution of the Council of the City
of San Luis Obispo approving application to the Public Utilities Commissions
for authority to construct the proposed Tank Farm Road underpass at the
Southern Pacific Transportation Company tracks (conditioned as part of the
Edna -Islay Specific Plan) was adopted as recommended.
Councilman Dunin requested that staff include areas of maintenance responsi-
bility when the contract documents are prepared with the City maintaining
the - roadways and Southern Pacific Transportation Company maintaining the
structure. (Council concurred 5 -0).
C -7 SAN LUIS WELDING SUPPLY SIGNING PROPOSAL (File 41407)
Resolution No. 5466 (1984 Series), a resolution of the Council of the "dity
of San Luis Obispo approving new roof- mounting of an existing sign for San
Luis Welding Supply (283 Higuera Street) (continued from 7/17/84 and
8/7/84) was adopted as recommended (5 -0).
C -8 TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUNDS (File 411155.1)
Resolution No. 5467 (1984 Series), a resolution of the Council of the City
of San Luis Obispo approving two annual claims for the Local Transportation
Fund ($651,990) and the State Transit Assistance Fund ($80,989) was adopted
as recommended (5 -0).
City Council Minutes
Tuesday, September 4, 1984 - 7:00 p.m.
Page 3
P U B L I C H E A R I N G S
1. TIME EXTENSION FOR TRACT 1068 ( HIGUERA TECHNOLOGY TRACT) (File
41410 -1068)
Council held a public hearing to consider a Planning Commission recommendation
to grant a 12 =month time extension to file the final map for Tract 1068,
creating five industrial lots on approximately 30 acres located at 150 Tank
Farm Road, R. Howard Strausbaugh, Inc., subdivider (part of the Higuera
' Commerce Specific Plan).
Toby Ross, Community Development Director, briefly reviewed the Council
agenda report, stating that the recommended action was for Council adoption
of the resolution which would grant a 12 -month time extension subject to
all findings and conditions of previous tentative map approval.
Mayor Billig declared the public hearing open. No one spoke for or against
the proposed time extension. Mayor Billig declared the public hearing
closed.
On motion of Councilwoman Dovey, seconded by Councilman Settle, Resolution
No. 5468 (1984 Series), a resolution of the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo was adopted granting approval of a 12 -month time extension for Tract
1068, located at 150 Tank Farm Road, with amendment to include the reason
for the time extension request. Resolution adopted unanimously (5 -0).
2. FINAL PASSAGE OF ORDINANCE NO. 1021 - SOUTHWOOD DRIVE (File 14463)
Council held a public hearing to consider final passage of Ordinance No.
1021 to rezone property at 1045 Southwood Drive from R -2 -S to R -3 -PD and
approve preliminary development plan for Southwood Apartments creating a
168 -unit apartment complex; Smith, Andrews and Piperato, applicants.
Toby Ross, Community Development Director, briefly reviewed the Council
agenda report, stating that the Council at its previous meeting had unanimously
approved the ordinance.and•it was staff's recommendation to give it final
passage at this meeting.
Mayor Billig declared the public hearing open. No one spoke 'for or against
the proposed rezoning. Mayor Billig declared the public hearing closed.
Councilman Griffin urged that staff be very sensitive to this site as he
felt this major development has potential for setting a precedent and would
require very close attention.
On motion of Councilwoman Dovey, seconded by Councilman Settle, Ordinance
No. 1021 (1984 Series) be given final passage. Motion carried unanimously
(5 -0).
3. FINAL PASSAGE OF ORDINANCE NO 1022 - SOUTH HIGUERA (File 11463)
Council held a public hearing to consider final.passage.of Ordinance No.
1022, an ordinance rezoning approximately 2.94 acres from Neighborhood
Commercial (C -N) to Office with Special Considerations (0 -S) located at
3240 South Higuera Street; Don Walters, applicant.
Toby Ross, Community Development Director, briefly reviewed the Council
agenda report, stating that the Council had voted at a 3 -2 vote to introduce
the ordinance and it was-staff's-recommendation that Council give it final
passage this evening.
Mayor Billig declared the public hearing open. No one spoke for or against
the proposed rezoning. Mayor Billig declared the public hearing closed.
On motion of Councilman Dunin, seconded by Councilman Griffin, to give
final passage to Ordinance.No. 1022 (1984 Series) as introduced. Motion
carried on the following roll call vote:
City Council Minutes
Tuesday, September 4, 1984 - 7:00 p.m.
Page 4
AYES: Councilmembers Dunin, Griffin and Settle
NOES: Councilwoman Dovey and Mayor Billig
ABSENT: None
4. TERRACE HILL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (File #410- 926/1034/1064)
Upon general consensus, public hearings to consider Planning Commission
recommendations to adopt resolution granting 12 -month time extensions to
file final maps for.Tract 926, 1034 and 1064 was continued to date certain,
September 18, 1984 (5 -0).
7:22 p.m., Mayor Billig declared a recess.
7:25 p.m., Council adjourned to closed session to discuss litigation
matters.
7:55 p.m., City Council reconvened in open session, all Councilmembers
present.
5. HILLSIDE PLANNING PROGRAM, PHASE II (File X6467)
Council held public hearings to consider Planning Commission recommendations
on Phase II of the Hillside Planning Program to amend the Land Use Element
map and text and the zoning map to change the location of the urban reserve
line, land use designations, and zoning boundaries and designations affecting
the following three hillside areas as follows:
A. GP /R 1151 (CR 1152) - CAL POLY /CUESTA PARK
B. •GP /R 1153 (CR 1154) - ANDREWS STREET
C. GP 1155 - ORCUTT ROAD
Terry Sanville, Principal Planner, reviewed each area in sequence as
follows:
A- Cal Poly /Cuesta Park He gave a brief slide presentation, reviewing the
Planning Commission recommendation, and the recommendation by staff where
it differed (please see staff recommendation listed on page 11 of the
Hillside Planning Program and the Planning Commission-recommendation
beginning on page 15).
Don Stimson, 2100 Slack Street, read a letter into the record as follows:
"Mayor Billig and members of the City Council, My name is Don.
Stimson and we live at 2100 Slack Street.
The Hillside Planning Program is a disappointment! It could have
been a comprehensive planning guideline for the creative use of.
sensitive homesites, but instead it has become the Hillside
Confiscation Plan and will involve the City in many legal problems
if staff recommendations are followed.
Any program which proposes to take away something of value from a
citizen is bad public policy and does not deserve your support.
Remember'that the victims here are your friends and neighbors:
property owners who have worked hard and invested their earnings
in the future of San Luis Obispo. Don't punish these people
simply because they have not yet built upon their own residential
properties.
As you examine the map please recognize that this site is,
indeed, most suitable for the sensitive placement of a few
creative homes. Consider these facts: Our property is already
zoned for residential land use and is within the city limits and
the urban reserve boundary (it is a legal land use right now
without any annexation or zoning change). It is part of two
existing neighborhoods (Phillips Addition and Monterey Heights)
and is provided with full utilities and four improved city
L J
t
[i
City Council Minutes
Tuesday, September 4, 1984 - 7:00 p.m.
Page 5
streets. The solar exposure is ideal (south facing slopes are as
good as it gets). We are close to Cal Poly and also to Cuesta
Park. The General Plan "Land Use Objectives" (page 11) encourage
this type of development.
This is an exceptional.property and a great place to live. With
skillful planning and attention to environmental iesponsibilities
an exciting architectural contribution (to our community) could
be made here. It certainly deserves a better future than to be
zoned right out of existence tonight.
Current regulations adequately protect hillsides within the urban
reserve. The extensive plan -revue process gives ample opportunity
forithe Planning Department and the public to influence our
efforts. The "S" added to our "R -1" zoning recognizes that the
special physical features of out site will be considered at the
proper time (when we submit a plan).
Your hearing format restrictions do not allow adequate time to
effectively present all of our considerations tonight, but two
areas, slopes and water, need clarification before I conclude.
Obviously a home would'not be built on an unstable part of any
building site (flood zone;. landslide area, etc) but why discriminate
against "cross slopes" in general? A 30% slope is really no big
deal! That only means that for every 10 ft. of distance a slope
rises 3 ft. A legal residential stairway describes a slope of
89 %. It's a good thing-Greece or- France or Italy didn't have
this hillside program!
The City Engineers Department apparently thinks our slopes are
stable, since they recently bulldozed a road right through them
to the.water. tank..
Slope stability is judged.as.a condition of permit application.
If it's not safe, building.will' not occur. We are regulated by a
rigid grading ordinance and guided by engineering standards.
Planning Commission review will address the visual issues as
well.
The public has been mis- led-with - the notion that water is not
available above'460 ft'. elevation. This is simply not true! The
City water tank'sits on our property and can deliver abundant
water by gravity flow to an elevation of 555 ft. (with tank
filled). Homes throughout the city are above 460 ft. and have
water with no pumps, many are above 500 ft. (above Johnson Avenue
and in Monterey Heights).
We plead with you not to be a.party to.the discrimination proposed
by the planning staff. It scares me that the whims and prejudices
of a staff planner or two could have such a serious impact upon
the welfare of my family.
On August 21 the City authorized construction of a $19,000.00
waterline extension and fire hydrant installation "on Buena'Vista
Avenue•in order to supply water•to the Wendt residence being
built at an elevation of 535 ft. plus in "cross slopes "!
When.we allowed the City Utilities Department to place an eight
inch water main across our property to Monterey Heights it was
with the condition that this would•also supply water service for
-our residential development needs. I would urge the City Council
to honor that agreement.
Please let your records clearly show that my family and I firmly
oppose any proposal which changes the zoning of our property from
it's present residential use. We-respectfully request that you
vote tonight for no chap a to existing conditions.
If you cannot agree on that action then we would expect your
support of your Planning Commission recommendation.
We plead with you not to be a.party to.the discrimination proposed
by the planning staff. It scares me that the whims and prejudices
of a staff planner or two could have such a serious impact upon
the welfare of my family.
City Council Minutes
Tuesday, September 4, 1984 - 7:00 p.m.
Page 6
My final.question to the Council:, How would your feel if this
was your land, your future, your dream? It's in your hands.
Thank you for your considerations."
Upon question, Mr. Stimson stated that.only 1.57 acres would be utilized,
out of the total 13 acres under, the current proposal.
William Tickell, architect in San Luis Obispo for 30 years, spoke in
support of Mr. Stimson's proposal. He would urge the Council to support
the comments made by Mr. Stimson, respectfully requesting that they vote
for no change to. the existing conditions.
Councilman Dunin requested that the density issue be explained with regard
to what possible alternatives might be available for Mr. Stimson should
this property be rezoned as recommended.
Hardie Phillip, owner of a home at 868 Church Street, also spoke in support
of Mr. Stimson's rights, which he felt were being undermined with the
proposal as recommended. He would urge .Council's support of Mr.- Stimson's
request.
Linda Johnson, architecture student from Cal Poly, read a letter.into the
record in support of Mr. Stimson as follows:..
"Extensive research as a student of architecture with a -specific
interest in city planning has revealed planning concepts appropri-
ate to our healthful future. These include solar access, energy
conservation through intelligent planning, and protection of
remaining lowlands for agricultural uses.
The ideal residential properties for the existing City of San
Luis Obispo then, are the southern facing slopes. These sloped
sites offer solar.exposure, adjoin existing neighborhoods and
facilities thereby reducing energy expenditures, and free the
remaining valleys and lowlands for more appropriate agricultural
uses. The Community Development Department proposal is in direct
opposition to these principles, and.therefore I cannot accept it.
Cutting off all hillside homebuilding opportunities would not
only create an elite group of existing hillside homeowners and
preclude the possibility of architecturally sensitive enhancement
of these areas, but would force future homes to be built in the'
lowlands, forcing out both existing and vital future agricultural
access to these lands.
The San Luis Obispo General Plan, Urban Land Use Element, states
as its residential land use policies and goals the following (and
I read here from that document):
'a. The City should encourage residential development, promoting
efficient urban densities and diversity of-design consistent
with prevailing or proposed neighborhood character,.to
enable adequate choice of location, type, tenure, design and
cost by.families and individuals working in or enrolled near
Sasn.Luis Obispo.
b. Low - density residential development, allowing a maximum of 7
dwelling units per acre, will be.encouraged within neighbor-
hoods clearly committed to this type of development and
within identified expansion areas at the periphery of the
city.'
It is very clear to me as a student of these issues that these_
objectives defined by the General Plan, in conjunction with the
many checks and balances provided by the Architectural Review
Commission and.the required studies by experts in the fields of
engineering, geology, energy, etc. provide more than adequate
control over the private properties in question, and that no
modification to the existing zoning.is necessary.
1
1
1
1
1
1
City Council Minutes
Tuesday, September 4, 1984 - 7:00 p.m.
Page 7
Any city approval of the Community Development Department's
proposal as it now stands would bring up some strong legal
issues. Precedents do exist in other cities establishing similar
actions as illegal takings'of privately held lands. This can, of
course, only be established in a court of law, and I would regret
any need being established tonight for this issue to progress to
that point.
I sincerely hope that the council can see the wisdom of relying
on their present, very adequate, set of regulations and restric-
tions regarding these properties, and leave the zoning as it now
stands. I also hope that you will carefully consider the impor-
tance of contributions to our community by these citizens who
have in good faith chosen to spend their.lives, their livelihoods,
and their tax monies in the City of San Luis Obispo. Persisting
along a course of action which denies these citizens the opportunity
to contribute to the unique character of our city, in favor of a
strict line on a map, will not only defy sound principles of
planning for our future well- being, but would also be true legal
folly. Thank you very much for your consideration of these
important points."
Michael Nolan, stated that he was an attorney speaking on behalf of Mr.
Miossi. He stated that he had a letter to read into the record as follows
as Mr. Miossi was unable to attend.
"Because I am unable to be here this evening, I am asking Mr.
Michael Nolan to read this letter into the record as part of my
testimony.
Following your adoption -of Resolution 5458 on.Augiist 21, 1984,
which resolution contained recommendations to LAFCO, you passed a
motion to study the small area north and east of.the city limits
which we had asked to be considered within your urban reserve.
Councilman Griffin, in seconding that motion, specifically
directed your planning staff to confer with me, and to arrange a
hearing time convenient for me to be present.
Although I saw your planners as recently as August 30 at the
LAFCo hearing, they have yet to make any overture for meeting
with me to view and discuss the property and the proposals.
Contrarywise, they submitted testimony to'LAFCo that they did not
choose to be concerned "with individual cases." And the attitude
of.your staff for-the past five months-when I have been offering
input appears to be -- distres'singly -- that they choose to plan
a vacuum without property -owner input.
From public statements, I.remain convinced that your staff is
unaware of the physical features of our proposal and indeed may
have the wrong property in mind.
Let me reiterate our positions as previously presented to you
staff, to your Council and to LAFCo, as follows:
1. We ask that the sphere of,influence..and /or urban reserve line
for influence and services be delineated northerly and easterly
of the city limit line at the location we show on attached .
assessor map 1152 -27, and specifically described in the text in
the third paragraph of my July 9, 1984 letter to LAFCo, of which
your staff has a copy. This includes only about 2.5 acres and
includes the Cuesta Park Veterinary clinic. We are agreeable to
retraction of the existing urban reserve line (shown as the
broken line on attached map) which encompasses an area of some 30
acres to our recommended line-which includes only 2.5.acres.
2. We ask that what hillside criteria you establish, they be
identical so far as slope and topography .to-those afforded-
adjacent property owners. Our request here applies to the 7
acres we presently hold within the city limits in addition to the
2.5 acres within the urban line we propose.
City Council Minutes
Tuesday, September 4, 1984 - 7:00 p.m.
Page 8
3. We-ask that since the City exhibits no interest or concern
for the areas of.Cuesta Canyon.beyond, the area northerly and
easterly of our proposed line-be-considered withing the hegemony
of San Luis Obispo County so far as planning and land use."
Don Smith, 1111 Vista Del Lago, reminded the Council that at the last
November election, 677 of the people voted in support of protection of the
hillsides. He would, therefore, urge the Council to remember the problems
that are involved with development on the hillsides, i.e. fire flow, water
availability, landslide stability and would, therefore, urge staff recommendation
Jean Stanlan, 76 Stan Valley, Atascadero, was concerned about.the staff's
recommendation if it was approved, feeling that much of the land that the
property owners have would be confiscated. She felt that the city.'s
current laws would negate any unsafe homes being built in this area, that
the city had strict.enough controls at this time,.and, therefore, the
Council would not need to.be rezoning the property.
T. Keith Gurnee, speaking on behalf of Mr. Miossi, stated that Mr. Miossi
had never received a copy of the staff's report and was, therefore, unprepared
to address any of the alternatives tonight, but would request that a copy
be given him and that he have ample opportunity to respond.
He was also here in support of the property owned by Mr. John King. He
felt that if the property was zoned Conservation Open Space, that the
property primarily 307 slope was obviously not agricultural and could not
be used.for agricultural uses or grazing...He felt that the density transfer
issue has also not been adequately addressed in any of the reports concerning
the hillsides. He submitted a geology study that was prepared for all 3 of
these properties which would show that the properties could easily be
developed. He would urge, therefore, the Planning Commission's recommendation
and felt that individual review made by the Planning Commission, ARC and
staff would adequately handle any concerns expressed for these areas.
Mayor Billig declared.the public hearing closed.
Council then discussed the issues of density transfer, public notice
requirement and had staff respond to many of the issues raised by public
testimony (tape available and part of the official record for all issues on
each particular hillside area).
Councilman Dunin commented that he felt too much emphasis had been placed
on staff's recommendation in the oral report and the Planning Commission's
recommendation.had not been given a fair shake. He did feel that the
written material submitted was ample for both.
Council then reached consensus of the Cal Poly /Cuesta Park area, taking one
section at a time as follows:
SLACK AND HAYES
Councilwoman Dovey supported the 460' level for visual, fire flow, water
availability, etc.
Councilman Dunin stated he could support the Planning Commission recommendation
and would hope that there would be review of the density transfer areas
included.
Councilman Settle would support the staff recommendation and, based on
slope stability, he could also support a density transfer.
Councilman Griffin supported the staff recommendation.
Mayor Billig supported the staff recommendation, primarily for service
availability.
Consensus reached to support staff recommendation (4 -1).
City Council Minutes
Tuesday, September 4, 1984 - 7:00 p.m.
Page 9
KING AND STIMSON PROPERTIES
Councilman Griffin stated that he could support inclusion of a portion of
the King property as recommended by the Planning Commission and drew a line
on the board indicating where he felt those boundaries should approximate.
Councilman Settle would support staff recommendation.
Councilman Dunin supported recommendation as submitted by Councilman
Griffin.
Councilwoman Dovey was in support of staff recommendation.
Mayor Billig also supported staff recommendation.
Consensus reached to support staff recommendation (3 -2).
MIOSSI LANE - CUESTA PARK
Councilman Settle supported the staff and Planning Commission recommendation
which would exclude segments A and B.
Councilman Dunin felt that some development could be made here, and would
support segment B's inclusion.
Councilwoman Dovey supported the staff recommendation following the Miossi
property boundary, excluding segment B. and could support some type of
density transfer.
Councilman Settle agreed that some -type of-density transfer be made available.
Councilman Griffin supported the staff and Planning Commission recommendations.
Mayor Billig agreed with comments made by Councilman Griffin. She would be
willing to consider a density transfer.
Councilman Griffin stated he would like to try to keep the lines of communica-
tion open between the property owners and the city so that this could be
worked out in a manner agreeable to-both.-
Consensus reached to support staff and Planning Commission recommendation
with some type of density transfer (4 -1).
Council reviewed the text changes and supported the recommendations as
submitted by staff found on page 13, with-amendment as proposed by Councilman
Griffin for proposed rezoning rewording.(5 -0).
10:45 p.m., Mayor Billig declared a recess..
11:00 p:m., City Council reconvened,.al-1 Councilmembers present.
B. ANDREWS STREET
Terry Sanville, Principal Planner, reviewed study area #B and stated the
recommended action as submitted by staff on page 25 of Hillside Planning
Program Phase.II and the recommendation by the Planning Commission found on
page 29 of the same report.
' Mayor Billig declared the public hearing open.
Rob Strong, representing Alex Madonna, spoke-in support of Mr. Madonna's
proposal. He would urge support of.a 30% slope boundary, and submitted a
map showing this. He would urge that Council concur with the Planning
Commission's recommendation.
Mayor Billig declared the public hearing closed.
After brief discussion, -Couincil-reached - consensus.to.support the Planning
Commission recommendation and text changes to include recommendation by the
Planning Commission that the location.of the R -1 district be consistent
City Council Minutes
Tuesday, September 4, 1984 - 7:00 p.m.
Page 10
with the Commission's recommended general plan change with the . "S" designation
being retained (5 -0).
C. ORCUTT ROAD AREA
Terry Sanville, Principal Planner, reviewed the Council agenda report
stating staff's recommendation as found on page 38 of the Hillside.Planning
Program and the Planning Commission's recommendation on page 40, which was
to support the staff's recommendation for the Hillside area. There would
be no proposed rezoning. However, before any of the areas considered for '
annexation it would have to be pre - zoned, being consistent with the Orcutt
area specific plan. No new type of land use designation was proposed.
Councilman Griffin did request that the 460' elevation, where it was found
in the text, be reinforced as to the purpose for this number.
Mayor Billig agreed.
Mayor Billig declared the public hearing open. No one spoke for or against
this proposed area. Mayor Billig declared the public hearing closed.
After brief discussion Council concurred to support the staff and Planning
Commission's recommendation as submitted with text changes as.proposed by
Councilman Griffin (5 -0).
6. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION (File.#431)
Council held a public hearing to consider an appeal by Greenwich.Development
Company of a decision by the Planning Commission to uphold the Community
Development Director's interpretation.of parking required based on change
of uses at Foothill Square Shopping Center (Burger King) located at 975
Foothill Blvd.
Toby Ross, Community Development Director, reviewed the Council agenda
report, stating that the recommended action was to adopt the resolution
denying the appeal and to uphold the Community Development Director's
interpretation as recommended.
Mayor Billig declared the public hearing open.
Robin Fairbairn spoke on behalf of the Greenwich Development Company,
submitting a letter dated August 3, 1984, to him from John Low of Hill
Pinckert Architects, Inc. with a summary of his understanding of what the
parking requirements should be for this location,-highlighting the codes
and regulations and commenting on previous correspondence submitted to
staff. He explained that when he initially submitted the specs to Community
Development, that the proposed uses to be listed in the C -N zone were only
suggested ones and was not to be conclusive that those would be the only
uses. He maintained that any C -N use as provided for in the C -N designation
by the General Plan should be allowed, and given that, the parking requirements
would have been sufficient which were approved at the time this went to
staff. He did not feel it was fair to come back at this late date and
state that there was insufficient parking when in fact the only uses
proposed for this center were those uses that are allowed in C- N.zones.
Don Smith felt that the real issue was whether or not adequate parking
existed, which was not the case.
Mayor Billig declared the public hearing closed.
On motion of Councilwoman Dovey, seconded by Councilman Settle, to.move the
recommended action denying the appeal.
Councilman Griffin stated that he was basing his decision on the findings
as indicated in the report rather than how the neighbors might feel about
this area.
Mayor Billig also stated for the record that the Council had been privy to
the Planning Commission minutes regarding this appeal. She also hoped site
improvements would be done as quickly as possible.
1
1
City Council Minutes
Tuesday, September 4, 1984 - 7:00 p.m.
Page 11
After brief discussion Resolution No. 5469 (1984 Series), a- resolution of
the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo was adopted denying the appeal
as recommended (5 -0).
12:00 a.m., City Council declared a,recess.
12:05 a:m.,•City Council reconvened for closed session to discuss personnel
matters.
2:15 a:m.,-City Council reconvened in open session, all Councilmembers
present. There being no further business to come before the City Council,
Mayor Billig adjoured the meeting at 2:15 a.m. to Monday, September 10,
1984 at-12 noon.
APPROVED BY COUNCIL: 10/2/84
-------------------------------------------------------------------
M I N U.T E S
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 10,.1984 - 12:10 P.M.
COUNCIL HEARING ROOM, CITY HALL, 990 PALM STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
STUDY SESSION
CALL TO ORDER: -Mayor Melanie C. Billig.
ROLL CALL
Councilmembers
Present: GlennaDeane Dovey, Ron Dunin and Mayor Billig
Absent: Robert Griffin and Vice -Mayor Settle
City Staff
Present: Paul Lanspery, Administrative Officer; Roger Picquet, City
Attorney; Mike Dolder, Fire Chief; Roberta Goddard, Finance
Director; Ann Crossey, Personnel. Director; Sharon Turner,
Recording Secretary
1. 12:10 p.m. Mayor Billig adjourned the meeting to Closed Session-to
discuss Personnel Matters.; :
3:10 p.m. City Council reconvened in Regular Session, Councilmembers
Griffin and Settle absent.
3:11 p.m. Mayor Billig declared a recess. 3:20 p.m. City Council reconvened,
Councilmembers Griffin and Settle absent:
2. EMT II SERVICES (File #725)
A. Council considered a request from the County Emergency Medical Services
(EMS) Agency for funding in fiscal year 1984 -85.
Mike Dolder., Fire Chief; briefly reviewed the Council agenda report stating
it was staff's recommendation that Council authorize the City Administrative
Officer to transfer $3;530 from the contingency - account to the Fire Department