Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/24/1985CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 1985 - 7:00 P.M. PAGE 2 Councilman Dunin questioned the acreage number and felt that as it included Reservoir Canyon and other areas that would not normally be used for that purpose, it should not be considered. Mayor Billig declared the public hearing open Mike Mendes, 1045 Montalban, and president of the ASI Student Body, reviewed his letter that he had submitted to the Council which was also signed by Councilman Griffin explaining that since the review and discussion with staff concerning this ordinance, they still felt that it was overly restrictive. He submitted a draft ordinance that was similar to that used by the City of Santa Barbara which would allow the Council to adopt resolutions for individual parks to provide more flexibility to act on a selective and specific basis rather than that proposed by the city ordinance. Mark Reichel, Rt. 2 Box 415, SLO, reviewed the meeting that was held with himself, Mike and staff with regard to the ordinance. He felt that the second reading was to allow opportunity to make changes. They had since found another ordinance that they felt would be better for all concerned. He also felt the proposed city ordinance would be negative insofar as the tourist industry was concerned as San Luis Obispo County is well noted for its wine country. Russell Brown, Dean of Students, urged support of the proposal submitted to Council by Mr. Mendez. He felt it demonstrated a willingness of the students to work with the city and hoped that the Council would not penalize all because of one incident that being Mitchell Park. Upon question by Councilman Settle, Mr. Brown stated that no casual use of alcohol was allowed at Cal Poly. John Sweeney, 132 California Blvd., urged defeat of the proposed ' ordinance. He felt that the proposed wording submitted by the students would be better. Mayor Billig declared the public hearing closed. Geoff Grote, Assistant Administrative Officer, briefly reviewed the discussions that had been held with Cal Poly representatives and felt that: 1) the ordinance proposed by the students would transfer the problem from one park to another; 2) that the proposed city ordinance was within the guidelines set by the Park Element; and 3) the proposed ordinance by the students would need additional criteria for its establishment. On motion of Councilwoman Dove y, seconded by Councilman Settle, to give final passage to Ordinance No. 1042. Councilman Griffin felt that at the last meeting it had been left open that additional options and alternatives might be available. He had become aware of the Santa Barbara ordinance from the Police Chief and after discussion with Mr. Mendes, he found that there were still a considerable number of negative comments made by the students for the one under consideration. He felt that it is important to take a positive approach and the substitute ordinance would give additional flexibility. Councilwoman Dovey stated that she was supportive of the ordinance at its introduction, and she felt that it was more important to have the ordinance written in stronger language and then later loosen restrictions if it was deemed necessary. She was displeased about the process that had been used after the staff report had been released. Councilman Dunin stated he too had a problem with the procedure but for different reasons. At the last meeting he had not felt there should be any hurry and would have preferred there be an opportunity for revisions. He felt that Mitchell Park had been the problem and felt the ordinance was CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 1985 - 7:00 P.M. PAGE 3 a rippling effect. He felt the Council had already established a precedent for taking care of individual parks by adopting the urgency ordinance for Mitchell Park to begin with. The process would have been more effective if time constraints hadn't been so great. He would, therefore, support the alternative ordinance. Councilman Settle was concerned about the liability issue. The university does not allow drinking and there is no need for it in the parks either for the same reasons. He too was afraid that the problem could be transferred from one park to another under the newly proposed ordinance. He felt that the current ordinance could be relaxed after reexamination. He would be willing to try it for a trial period. Mayor Billig suggested that f however, she would be willing changes if proved necessary. Motion carried on a 3 -2 vote, Upon general consensus, staff January 1986 on activities in inal passage be given to the ordinance, to look at it again in 90 days and make Councilmembers Dunin and Griffin voting no. was directed to bring back status report in parks relative to this ordinance (5 -0). 2. OFFICE DEVELOPMENT STUDY (ROSS - 431) Status report and review of work program for office development study. Toby Ross, Community Development Director, reviewed the agenda report stating that the recommended action was to approve the work program and authorize staff to proceed with hiring a consultant. He suggested that if the Council wished to speed up the process, that a consultant be hired. Staff would probably take 12 -13 months for completion of the study, which was three -fold: 1) supply and demand, 2) urban design, and 3) housing impacts. He also suggested that an interim measure could be required during this time, utilizing a City Council development permit process. It would not be a moratorium but would allow for additional scrutiny. Mayor Billig asked for public comment. Patrick Gerety, representing the Planning Commission, felt that the office zone and neighborhood commercial zone are the most controversial. They were particularly concerned about the supply and demand issue being completed within six months and commented that one month had already been lost. Personally he felt there were several conflicting policies the city needed to clear prior to reviewing additional proposals. He would urge that if an interim procedure regarding the possible use of a Council use permit is approved, that the Planning Commission have an opportunity for review. Pierre Rademaker, representing the ARC, discussed the actions taken at the last ARC meeting where they discussed the demise of the R -0 zone and the reasons and the emphasis of how this had significantly changed Council's directions. Vic Montgomery, RRM, felt that there was entirely too much confusion and lack of the definition of what the real problem was. He did not believe that this would stop bad projects. He did not support a stop gap measure as this interim ordinance would suggest. He would like to see staff analyze the conflicting policies and have those amended. He would recommend that the Planning Commission reevaluate those city policies and resolve those issues first. Michael Brady, AIA & Assoc., asked for clarification with regard to what the interim regulations would entail. Toby Ross, Community Development Director, stated that the interim regulations would be on any business in excess of 5,000 sq. ft. with the cutoff date of October 1. Development would still receive ARC and Planning Commission review. Mr. Brady would urge against the cutoff date of October 1 as he felt several projects would be affected in mid - stream. Speaking as a BIA member and Chairman of the Beautification Committee, he was also concerned CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 1985 - 7:00 P.M. PAGE 4 that clarification be given to conflicting policies. He would support ARC's recommendation of having more of an entitlement area for the historical areas of the community. He would not support a stop -gap measure at this time. John French requested that in the review made for the supply and demand study, that the school properties currently with mixed office space be looked at carefully as they could skew the study if they were included. Barry Williams, architect and local president of the AIA Association, echoed the comments made by Mr. Montgomery and would also urge against the adoption of an interim measure. Aaron Corob, insurance salesman, also urged against the adoption of a moratorium and asked that the Planning Commission be given discretionary power. Mayor Billig closed the public portion. 9:15 p.m. Mayor Billig declared a recess. 9:30 p.m. City Council reconvened, all Councilmembers present. Councilwoman Dove y stated she could support the supply and demand portion of the study and would like to see the involvement of both ARC and Planning Commission. She hoped this could be done as quickly as possible including the use of a consultant if necessary. She would like some kind of interim stop -gap measure, possibly using the use permit method. Councilman Griffin felt that the work program component had his conceptual support but he would like to look at Land Use policies in conflict. He felt the Council may need to wait until after the results and analysis were in before taking action. He would like to see staff resources, the ARC and Planning Commission involved in the decisions of the LUE policies including conflicting downtown policies. He felt there was a strong urban design conflict and would like the Planning Commission to get some initial input from the ARC. He could support an "S" designation on those properties near the downtown office zone area under discussion but he would not support any interim regulations to stop projects coming forward. He would like the ARC to take on the urban design aspect. He asked that the ARC and Planning Commission extend their review of the Housing Element until some of the rest of this is in place. He felt that the supply and demand component was an important one. This would provide valuable information and would be willing to contract this out with the use of a consultant. Councilman Settle agreed that the Planning Commission should be utilized in getting the policy language changed. The ARC should review the design component. He could support the use of a consultant. He felt the Housing Element should be reviewed by staff and Planning Commission. As far as the mixed use is concerned, he would not want to add that to the study as it would delay the process. He would like this to come back within six months. Councilman Dunin stated that he could conceptually support the program as recommended. He too would like to see the policy language reviewed and rewritten. He would prefer the R -0 approach and the LUE to allow greater use of offices in the R zone. He would hope that retail use would not be compromised in the downtown. He too would like to include as many outside resources as possible, any of those individuals that might be affected by these decisions. He felt the Housing Element was very closely connected with the older downtown historical overlay. He could support the high ratio conversion. The conversion of a one -to -one he did not feel was right. He agreed with the comments by Mr. French that the school property issue was important in the supply and demand study. He would like to develop large offices in cul -de -sacs like the Pacific Street project. He would not support an urgency measure. On motion of Mayor Billig, seconded the work program and authorize staff for supply and demand study; 2) the months. If necessary, staff to come accomplish this; 3) ARC requested to by Councilman Settle, to approve: 1) to proceed with hiring a consultant study to be completed within six back for additional funding to work with AIA on the urban design