Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/21/1965Roll Call ' Present.: Absent: City Staff REGULAR MEETING OF CITY COUNCIL - June 21, 1965 - 7:30 -P. M. CITY HALL Frank Gallagher, Donald Q. Miller, Arthur F. Spring, Clell W. Whelchel Emmons Blake Present: P. Chapman, Director of Planning & Building; J. H. Fitzpatrick, City Clerk; W. Flory, Supt. of Parks & Recreation; W. M. Houser, City Attorney; R. D.' Miller,, Administrative Officer; D. F. Romero, City Engineer; L. Schlobohm,'Fire Chief.; W. Schofield, Police Chief. - - On motion of Councilman Spring, seconded by Councilman Gallagher, the minutes of June 9, 1965 were approved as read. Motion carried. The minutes of June 7, 1965 were corrected as follows: Page 4, paragraph 6 - should read as follows: "On motion of Mayor Whelchel,- seconded by Councilman Miller, that the matter be held over two (2) weeks and a limit of 6,000 pounds be placed on the bridge and the Southern Pacific Company be prepared to present a proposal for completion of the new bridge or repair the old one. Motion carried. if ; ' Page 6, Item 27 - the motion should read: "On motion of Councilman Gallagher, seconded by Councilman ScrinR, the following resolution was introduced. ' Resolution No. 1430 a resolution amending Resolution No. 1367, modifying the improvement of Ramona Drive, including thirty (30) foot driveway to parking lot in unit #1'." Page 7, Item 7, last paragraph - should read: "On motion of Councilman Blake, seconded by Councilman Gallagher,-the following ordinance was introduced. Ordinance No. 313, an ordinance establishing official setback lines on Higuera from Madonna.Road to the City Limits (Prado Road)." On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Sprint. the claims against the City for the month of June, 1965 were approved, subject to the approval of the Administrative Officer. Motion carried. 1. On motion of Councilman Gallagher, seconded by Councilman Miller; the following ordinance was introduced for final adoption. Ordinance No. 313, an ordinance adopting building setback line on a portion of South Higuera Street. Finally passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: 'NOES: ABSENT: 2. At this time the of Supervisors' Luis Obispo. Frank Gallagher, Donald Q. Miller, Arthur F. Spring, Clell W. Whelchel None Emmons Blake City Council considered a resolution supporting the Board request for purchase of certain lands located at Camp San ------ - - - - -- - - - - -- Councilman Blake took his seat at 7:35 P. M. --------------- - -- - -- City Council Minutes June 21, 1965 Page -2- On motion of Councilman Blake., seconded by Councilman Miller, the following resolution was introduced. Resolution No 1443, a resolution supporting the Board of Supervisors' request for purchase of certain lands at Camp San Luis Obispo. Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote: AYES: K:24ONS BLAKE, DONALD Q. MILLER, FRANK GALLAGHER., ARTHUR F. SPRING, CLELL W. L•,HELCHEL 3. Reprensentatives of the Southern Pacific Company appeared before the Council I regarding closing of Mill Street crossing. Mr. Zimmer, representing the Southern Pacific Railroad Company, stated they will begin reconstruction on June 28, 1965 at 8:00 A. M. and asked when would the City close Mill Street to auto traffic. City Engineer Romero stated that his crew.would close the street on the mornning the Southern Pacific.starts construction.. 11r. Romero and Mr. Zim'ne'rdiscussed various problems.still inanswered such as who would pay for moving of the water line,•and street paving conforms. Mr.-Zimmer stated it -vas his- understanding.that the-Southern Pcific Company would reimburse the City for the engineering plans for the water. line re- location and street conforms. He also stated that he felt that the crossing would-be closed for about one.hundred twenty (120) days. City Attorney Houser stated.he.felt that the existing contract with the Southern Pacific Company should be supplemented to include a condition that the Southern Pacific Company will pay the City for engineering; temporary water connection and cost of replacing the 4" water line with the City to pay'f or the additional cost of an 8 "line,_Southern Pacific Company to.pay, in addition, inspection fees and engineering and-the cost of conforming -.the Mill Street grade to the new, bridge structure. - City Attorney Houser - suggested that -the street not be closed until the supple- mental agreement was executed. On motion of�Councilman Miller, seconded by.Councilman..Blake,'that authoriza- tion tb th City Attorney to prepare a supplemental-agreement with 'the Southern Pacific to pay the'City for the above work and.that the City'Engineer be authorized to close the crossing upon 'execiition of letter contract-. Motion carried. 31. On motion of Councilman'Miller; seconded by Councilman Galla her;.the- following salary step increases were approved, effective Junel, 19 BREEDEN, James L., Disposal Plant- Operaior, from Step l at $385 to Step 2 at 0 ,,per month. MUSCRAVE, Duane M.,, Police Officer, from Step.1 at $455 to Step 2 at $480 per month. The following salary step increases were approved, effective July 13 1965: BARRIOS, Richard, Grounskeeper, from Step 3 at $405 to Step 4 at $442 per month. CARDOZA, Anthony, Maintenance Man II, from Step 2 at $405 to Step 3 at $455 per month. ' HIRH, Arthur J., Principal Engineering Aid, from Stpe 2 at $508 to Step 3 at T567 per month. City Council Minutes June 21, 1965 Page -3- ' KNEPPLS, Joseph'F., Senior Engineering Aid, from Step 4 at $480 to Step 'S at $535 per month. KREBS, Douglas, Fireman, from Step 2 at•$480 to Step 3 at $535.per.month. PAGE, Kenneth, Groundskeeper, from Step 2 at $385 to Step 3 at $417 per month. REPPERT, Richard, Fireman, from Step 3 at'$508 to Step 4 at $565 per month. RICHARDS. Darrell, Utility Plant Operator I, from Step 2 at $405 to Step 3 at $442 per month. ROGERS, Thomas, Maintenance Man II, from Step 4 at $455 to Step 5 at $508 per month. SYLVIA; Donald,'Fireman, from Step 2 at $480 to Step 3 at $535 per month. 4. At this time the City Council held a public hearing on sidewalk construction costs. A. T'he following are sidewalk construction costs under'Ordinance No. 257 K: J. Hoover, et al c/o Mrs. Baker 835 Branch Street $554.00 ' J. P. & H. D. Wilson 950 Branch Street $298.00 10 The following property owners wish the three (3) year payment option: S. & R. Duron 849 Branch Street $381.00 S. & R. Duron 843 Branch Street $361.00 R. D. & F. B. Aggson 214 Patricia.Drive $98.00 W. E. Chaffin. 298 Patricia Drive _. ,_. —1-.7 $78.00 C: & G. Philbrick 226 Patricia Drive $327.00 C. & G. Philbrick 266 Patricia Drive $332.00 B. Sidewalk construction cost under 1911 Act: H. H..Nielsen, et al 1039 Monterey'Street — '" $258.50 (Higuera St. side) On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Sarinx, the following resolution was introduced. Resolution No. 1444, a, resolution confirming costs of sidewalk constructed pursuant to the Municipal Cade. Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote: AYES: Donald n. Miller, Arthur F. Spring, Emmons Blake, ' Frank Gallagher, Clell W. Whelchel NOES: None. ABSENT: None On motion of Councilman Gallagher, seconded by Councilman Miller. the following resolution was introduced. Resolution No. 1445, a resolution confirming cost of sidewalk constructed pursuant to the 1911 Improvement Act. Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote: City Council Minutes June 21, 1965 Page -4- AYES: Frank Gallagher,, Donald Q. Miller., Emmons Blake., Arthur F. Spring, Clell W. Whelchel NOES: None ABSEBT: None from John..:H.; following communication was. - 1Sutter:, r.--!,T1n "This writing is in regard to a telephone conversation we had on or about rding the installation of.sidevalks at the above.addre ss May rega- _7.,.1965 ' Piillips Lan6)"c6in6r 'of 'Phillips'Ian6-diid*Calif&inia.-"(Across Phillips Lane .from the Auto Club Office). This..sidewalk was constructed.at the City's direction during, a-two.-month • period 'that I"wis in the'hospital reco'Vering"from d Heart attack;- My Wile states -that -she was assured "bj'someone in the City- 'vff ice-:that we would have three years to pay the $304 at 3% intreste- We subsequently received the - attached noticet.. . .7.: In our telephone conservation you said that you would take;_thi­_mat-ter UP with Mr.., Fitzpatrick and-that _I ,would hear, from him. -Fearful that. it may hdW slipped_ your -mind-) I 'am takinig_ this- opportunity to- r`e­m-in-d•_­y_ou7 Thanking - you for your, consideration in this.matter." :J L; U 7. .r­ City Attorney the problem as follows. That i-far'mal procedure d bythe City..to impose a lien upon the property to sure `the' jollows that City collection `6f'-thd c6st, a�ff tSiit procedure . -.I postponement pos; set forth in the Streets and Highways Code, which requires iny'tponement of collection to be ruled upon to confirmation of•.the,cost.,,.That the Council could protect their lien by, retaining the -aist i*n'g-. lien •o'n' the property but e- d with in trest .::authorizing thirCity'Clerk"to collect over a.thre year perio 'at A. provided" that the . council agrees i�'iwhdrf the : tlired -year payments are collected the lien-would be cancelled by the.Council. On notion of Councilman Gallagher, seconded by Councilman Miller, that the lien be kept on the property, but allowed a thiee..U) year payment. Motion Cou�a �:�4r*ing'joting no* `carried, 7P 65 -6 -1T The Traffic` Committee has had a request th'at--:w6 -..investigate the cross walk-bn Higuera, Str"t at what was formerly Court 'Street. We don't : 6 C 6mmittee feels -know just thIi'ifniidividual had in mind,, but he: Traffic -'that this is. i%well`e'stablished cross walk widefly'usea. We recommend that it stay as is* Councilman Spring moved, seconded by Mayor Whelche12 that.these crosswalks be elimiridted so= that traffic may move fre-ely'an'd-- jpedestiian"s' should go to the nearest'signaiizdd -proiected intersection. Notion defeated 3 to 2* CoUn - ci • =-.wilk:--66_61minated'due t o its . - -'" L"-proximitg".to�Morro Stieet-ilitersectiox-.and� Osds Str 6e t int6rsec tion which - are both- protected' Vk' ti"Xf -1i ic s i9fials, 65-2-2T Some time ago,- 'tle fib Con tee ; was requested`to:16&' into the second crosswalk on Higuera at Garden (west side) with-.the thought of meet' the pair p _.ar_e_a`t6the west. The reloc- li"t lov �edbstrian . , I . .. . � City Engineer strongly i4c'_o'r'maen_db17'against` p acing a' crosswalk in the middle of the block,, feeling it would present a hazard to the pedestrian and would make our system of synchronizing signals even more—dWorleable. Councliman Blake also agreed that one of the crosswalks at Garden Street should be eliminated and preferred the elimination of the easterly one. City Council Minutes June 21, 1965 Page -5- On motion "of Mayor Whelchel, seconded by Councilman Spring, that the most ' easterly crosswalk be eliminated on Garden and Higuera Streets. On motion of Mayor Whelchel, seconded by Councilman Spring, the matter was referred to the City Engineer to see which crosswalk has the most use at Higuera and Garden Street before elimination, Motion carried. 65 -6 -4C In response to the request of Mrs. Bilodeau that certain parking restrictions be placed'on Johnson Avenue in front of her property, the Traffic Committee feels that the present No Parking Zone extending from Lizzie Street should be enlarged to reach the telephone pole in front of Mrs. Bilodeau's house. These signs would read: "No Parking Between Signs, 7:00 A. M. to 6:00 P. M., Monday thru Friday." Since this is a residential area, the Traffic Committee recommends that a public hearing be scheduled on the matter and that the City Clerk be asked to correspond with each property owner who would be affected. On motion of Councilman Blake, seconded by Mayor Whelchel, a public hearing was set for July 6, 1965. 65 -6 -5C The Traffic Committee has looked into the request of Mrs. Presthus that changes be made in the vicinity of Hathway and Slack to remedy current problems involving parking by Cal Poly students and staff members. We feel that there is no reason to restrict parking on the north side of Slack, the east side of Motley, or.the north side of Hathway adjacent to the Cal Poly athletic field. Howevever, we feel that there would be quite a benefit to the area and a relief of congestion if signs were posted reading: "Two Hour Parking 8:00 A. M. to 5:00 P. M.,.Monday thru Friday," commencing on the south side of Hathway at 14 Hathway, and running in an easterly direction to Motley, on the west side of Motley running in a southerly direction to and including the Dunklee residence, and on the south side of Slack Street from the corner of Motley to Grand Avenue. We feel that the No Parking signs which are currently posted on Hathway around the curved portions of the street are necessary and should be retained. 65 -6 -6T The Traffic Committee has had a request from the Poly Motel for directional signs at Foothill and Casa, and Murray and Casa, to replace the old unofficial signs which had formerly been erected by the motel owner and taken down during the Foothill Bridge construction project. It is recommend- ed that the City Engineer be authorized to order and install standard black and white directional signs pointing to the motels on Casa Street.' On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Gallagher, the City Engineer was instructed to order and place the signs. Motion carried. 65 -6 -7C In regard to the letter from Mrs. Ethridge regarding traffic problems at Foothill and Chorro, the Traffic Committee feels that it would not be advisable to place right turn only markings at the northeast corner of the intersections governing west bound traffic on Foothill, but the Engineering Department does plan to place channelizing stripes west of the ' intersection on Foothill,to guide west bound traffic. Recommendation was accepted by the City Council. 65 -6 -8C In regard to the letter from the Quintana P. T. A. asking that traffic signals be placed at Foothill, Patricia and La Entrada, the Traffic Committee has made numerous improvements at this location and further street widenings are imminent. We feel that the City should recommend against traffic signals at this location because of the expense, because of the fact that the signals installation would be very complicated and confusing to pedestrian and motorists alike, and because signals might actually pose more of a hazard to youngsters because of through traffic attempting to jump the yellow signal and other related problems. We suggest that a polite letter be addressed to the P. T. A. to this effect. Recommendation was accepted by the City Council. City Council Minutes June 21, 1965 Page -6- 65 -6 -3T The State Division of Highways has submitted a proposed layout of`�' red zones at Broad and Pismo and at Broad and South Streets in connection with the new signals. The Traffic Committee has reviewed these and agrees that they are necessary, with the exception of red zone at the new Shell Service .Station. - which, fronts South _Street and Broad Street... We, feel that 1.1 ..:•::. n with the street_-widenings:at this location, the restrict ions; are,not.necessary at this time. It is recommended+ that 'the other red zones tie authorized by :_`Co until: resolutions, :upon _completion of signaliz.ation. r." On motion "of_ Councilman Blake,_sec.onde"d . iyl'Counciliman "Mill er,,,the,fgllowing - resolution was introduced. Resolution P1o: 2, a "resolution establishing - ,,, No, Parking•,zones,..at Broad and ismo and at Broad and South, and traffic n,: nL' i restrictions, _on Hathway, Motley and Slack Street...., � Passed; and adopted_ ;on Vie' 'following roll call" votes AYFS:,'' Emmons :Blake;- Donald'Q.`Miller;`Frank ;Gallagher,�a_' i :. _... a, _ ._ Arthur F. `Spring; Clell W.' Whelchel : ` `NOES's` Nonei- ABSENT:. None _ _..:�:5! _ _.._... � _ - -'Gr-] .r�L:: _..._ - :,.• _ -:fry ...: _ b�, -_ -.�., Communication from Nativity School Parents Club. - was ordered received`-and filed. City Clerk Fitzpatrick,was instructed to send a latter. enclosing,65 -64C "for' their lnforma=tion. " n' onh 65 " public hearing- ' e =6 -City Budget. , Mayor Wlielchel -declared- th6 public hearing'•open. _ Lee '.repre "senting the -Woods `Aminal shelter -' ­appeared--before; the City Council on' behalf of- the =shelter's request' -for'-an increase in money granted' by the City, Counc'i-1-_to the shelter: Mr's::- Me . presented.`a report of'• activities =of 'the �sFielter` for -tie •past• fiscal ye7is'ting'aminals-picked °-up, destroyed:and; given homes by the shelter. ' She -' stated -that"our`City'ordi£nces -cost ther`'shel£er' more_ money -as th IS' City required animals to be kept for five ( 5)'days'wheri'the`-6ther=cities' and county only require three (3) days retention. Mrs. Lee stated that she felt "that the sYielter had more-than� lived up to °its -agreementland - had. actually given more service' than' required:._ - L•J:..t:.. Mrsv Lee asked�'tliat'ahe =•City �cons2der'�rais'rig;'t1i e coritract`to-th'e• sYieTter to 900:00 per month- Ior =th6 next' fiscal, y "ear, an increase' °from the egi Ling $750.00 per month-.- - Mrs: Lee' stated that ' the -Rorie re "ason1 theyA Vere =asking for 'and increase was that the City of San Luis Obispo was not paying for their - - . _ _ --share` of.`.the':anlfDal_colitrolr�'i. iE.... ;� ., 7;3ss r- G_iCG. ..... :a' Mayor Whelchel stated that an investigation in the past year showed that the City could` perform'•adequate' anima l'' con trol'for`the''Same as "o-r--less thaftnthe: 'amount being requested 't�y'Woods'Animal'Siielter and do:a better control'job -= `o`u•= st'r "ay.:ari�aals�.: ., �.�• _. -.,,. - �,c _:,::.. _ _ ...::!•_ :,� r•:,:c._.•,- - -• -- �Ij� .._,. _.._�.. ter..'_ L_ .�:. :. _.[. ., ._,._..., .. __.. ;1....i ...J J•l:_ r..:'C.'. �•J'. c: :/J :_.. ��. ��.:' Cound Tman •Spring _asked'whyi ;'in:view'of the request'= for - additional funds and :extra -work; were the'= li'cens®';revenues, downr40`gi . . �. .— ten, .,.i: �` :l :l • fit' :_.: �i.. �:. �i Jr'. Mrs. Lee stated the license fees were down because they did very little canvassing for •unlicensed 'dogs 'in-.the' City .-due..to %personnelrproblemsd,_� hick have' since:: so1v ed,and7= alsd: 1' ncreased.^ wbrk 'bf.:. the. - shelter:.'-Also, :� fly ':owner`s '.were cot%iedeeming:.their •animals we =t - Administrative Off icer- Millerstated :. upon <questions, .'..that Xood! s Animal i elter -' :had; started- ser -ving the•,Cityy i:n;1959•'at.'$3� =Per_' nth and' had received ricrease to :$5 ?$: `in =1962, and: to .$750- in.:�1964 _- rHe :wo4d- not `have = - ='tdor much -objection, to:�'increasingithe' fee- toi!$900 - if r,it-,- would.stay,at that �= _figure.' _.., ..:,.�� :;z���;:,;: ..� ,� -_�'c ..._:,r.•... ..._.._., __., .. _ _,. . �.. ., r.. ..r -_ �'i:r i:: ...__._.. _._�li.':r .n •vv.._,,, �' __.:5. 1_d ., .. _. a __.._ 1 -., .. �_l r.:, :J:� Mr. Richard Mohler, member of the Economic Development Committee, appeared before the Council listing some of the achievements of the Economic Develop- ment Committee since its inception. He listed as achievements, the publica- tion of the RERC Report for future economic development of the community. He continued that the Committee has spent many hours answering and meeting with representatives of industries making inquiries to settle businesses in the community. He continued that he felt that the EDC had kept faith with the City and hoped that the Council would look with favor upon increasing the public contribution to the Chamber of Commerce operations. City Attorney Houser recommended that any agreement should guarantee a canvass for'dog licenses.. That the dog license sales have,apparently ' substantially decreased and, ia,the`past,,when the City.t�as= ?conducting —. the canvass on it limited basis, many follow up.letters and some complaints were =egnested from -the City Attorney's o£fice- because some - people always refuse to obey the laws. But, no requests for -be1Q and not even one tele- phone call had been received from any representative of Woods'Animal Shelter in the last two years. That, pursuant to the contract, the City should demand complete canvassing of the town for collection of dog--licenses: Mts. Lee, upon question of Councilman Blake i"Sitated °that if-the- City',-would increase the contract fee to $900.00, she would.guarantee that extra .work would be done;in the City,by shelter personnel., On motion of Mayor Whelchel, seconded by Councilman Spring, that the contract .fee be increased from $750.00 -to $850.00 for one year to see if the license fees can'come up, and .allow less stray dogs. in the City. lbtion,carried, . Councilmen Blake and Miller'voting.ao. _ Mrs. Lee thanked the Council for the $100.00 a month increase, but felt that the,eatra $50.00 would have helped more and would �allow,the shelter to`do 'a better - job. _ B. Mr. Peter M. Kardel, President of the Chamber of Commerce, appeared before the City Council on. behalf of .requested financial support for the Chamber of Commerce from the City funds. Mr. Kardel` felt that the Chamber ' had lived up to the contract in all ways and hoped that the Council would go along with the increased financial program being requested by the Chamber. Mayor Whelchel stated that it was the consensus of opinion of .the Council that the City Council would continue some.sort of financial support for the _ Chamber from City funds, but that any additional request for funds would not be well received unless the _request was well documented and under control of the City-Council. _ Dr- Paulsen, Chamber Manager; appeared before the Council and presented for the Council's consideration a general advertising and promotional budget for the Chamber of .Commerce through the use of public funds from the City.,. Dr. Paulsen stated that the Chamber's request of $20,000.was very conservative for-this City compared with many other cities in California. Dr. Paulsen then explained in detail exactly what.he was,_rec_ommending for the Chamber Board for spending- ehe:$20;000. He stated that he could_fionestly, state in . public that if the $6,000 had not been granted by the City in -the past, then there would not be a Chamber of Commerce in the City, as they need this financial support in order to continue to operate. Dr. Paulsen then presented to the Council samples of promotional material given out by the Chamber of Commerce: a. Community data form b. . Linger jonger brochure = C. San Luis Obispo vacation land d. Hotel and motel reservation sheets e. City and county:location map Mr. Richard Mohler, member of the Economic Development Committee, appeared before the Council listing some of the achievements of the Economic Develop- ment Committee since its inception. He listed as achievements, the publica- tion of the RERC Report for future economic development of the community. He continued that the Committee has spent many hours answering and meeting with representatives of industries making inquiries to settle businesses in the community. He continued that he felt that the EDC had kept faith with the City and hoped that the Council would look with favor upon increasing the public contribution to the Chamber of Commerce operations. City Council Minutes June 21, 1965 Page -8- Mr Kardel stated that he felt that the amount of money being requested ' .=wais conservative and he felt that he would agree that the expenditures must be controlled and that a Council Committee could be appointed to screen the items being spent,, were within the requirements of the contract with the City. He hoped that the City would continue to allow the Chamber to represent it in its advertising and promotion. 'V Mayor )&-1 c-hdl �g ti;it6d -that'he "hoped that the thdd]&6'r'-Fae6ber6 fint would pres_. _ .reffeFr@6df-t1!;W$29..0O0 was legaily the-maucidum abioiiht-'tliai--co-U*l,d� Fie -spent activities'-- S666ndlk; �that-the bed-tax was '-a­hdW n Ux a -11, d 'that he fUl1 -re'venu6 would not be realized until"it. his .been .�,-31.'n --operation or year. Dtiyoi!Whe.1-chel',, declared -the ' c ' public c 9peh'i Administrative Officer Miller presented.the following letter dated.June-..21., "Prior'-to ton s official ; . hearing on . -the 1965 -66 "Biid'g6t-- ,the Cbiihcil'has held several study sessions `a;n­d__h"a's'_' aiiaid-ze' 's-6me­'cilts. 'and-addiii6n's 'to�' the" orgij?al prqppsal.. '`'There has _Beery -a' -netreduction in' -thi -tot'al.budk6t of .$8- 958:!40:- The r'h4w 43 2'453,9 7550'65"_:Tfie 6piratingbu get p 'ex6ludive of revolving and - bond monies, has been reduced_.by $72-313' :40' 'Vo ;i "nek total of - $2'961: 19_40;'58 e There Vii-11 Probiftj b6-some further aritfihitieal''changes'to-'dbrrect-any- . . _ - clerical errors 'which." may ha-VWoccured--atdFin r ain c as es . to o re'f lect the exact amount of year end balances in revolving accounts'* etc'� At the oonclusiorr of the public hearing - on'the btidget','-if--the Council -wishes ado0t the bVdget- - - the • f ollq"i ifig "si-e-Ps 'would -be - in order s, 1-;, ..-'�Pa's-s"-E' : motion .ad*6piizig- -the . - -bud . gqte 11 -2 0 3. Adopt.the equipment replacement resolution. ­7. The b"ic- qj:fjF.'o--rdia'nde- on tares -provides 1_thdt-thb.:66uncii must finally".' adopt a 't -: - Li He firdt."Tu6sday_!fi:6e# 'emiberj 'af t6 i -'intro- -diding the , tax-:rate 'brdigiide a t -a prbfious - meeting; - jii%suioa 4 -the '36a6n`d meetingin Aguust. However,, the budget has been basect-'oni-a,proposed. 'ax,- rate of $1.50 per $100 of assessed valuation2 and it is urged that the Council .�.takes. -final* acti6h"on' the!budget -: P pr ior to) July.: lj -if,_.atJa3.1'_podsib'1:d, It has: beefi! a:•7pleasure• working --the Coiincil-during'-'tlie °budget`study sessions, and I feel that the changes made by the Council were in order 'and .7Y On . ddiian. 'of P.Goiincilraan',Springy - seconded by'Coun6 Giligglidr; j:, that `the ' $l3,,'750,O0%'CbZber!of , Cohmerbe request' be t6 -the it1f �i UnbUdgeted" ing $43 750XO'�r -M ionpReserve maki 'an Resdrve,' ot - -T Councilman Miller moved that - the 1965/66-sidget, 156- approved but 'deletd, the $6,000 for thehamber of Commerce. Motion died for a lack of second. On motion of Councilman Blake, seconded b3rlCbxihci-1man-ballaghert':that -the 1965/66 Budget be approved as amended. Motion carried* On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilmah'BlAk-i6,,Pthat,the.,- motion be amended so that no City money :b6 spent-for:printiifg:' Motion carried Councilman Spring and Gallaghdrvo-6ing -no,: City Council Minutes June 21, 1965 Page -9- Original motion as amended passed by unanimous vote of Council. On motion of Councilman Blake, seconded by Councilman Spring, the following resolution was introduced. Resolution No. 1439, a resolution tabulating equipment replacement appropriations for the fiscal year.1965/66 and total accumulations for-each-piece of equipment. -'- Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote: AYES.:'. Emmons B1ake,.Arthur F. Spring, Frank Gal la gher, Donald Q. Miller, Clell W. Whelchel NOES: None ABSENT: None On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Gallagher, the follow- ing resolution was introduced.. Resolution No. 1440, a resolution establish- ing salary ranges for employee classifications, assigning city employees to classifications and salary steps.within the respective pay ranges, describing methods of advancement within said salary.ranges and repealing all previous salary resolutions. Passed and_adopted on the following roll call vote:. AYES: Donald Q. Miller, Fraaiu Gallagher, Emmons Blake, Arthur F..Spring,.Clell W. .Whelchel NOES: None ABSENT: None 6. At this time;ltkie City- "Council.held•a public- .hearing on'the recommendation of the Planning Commission Eo rezone a portion_of the.area known as the Industrial Annexation, from "U" to "M -P". Mayor Whelchel declared the public hearing open. The following communication was received from the Planning Commission: "Resolution No. 79 -65 of the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council rezone an area south of Orcutt Road from U to M:P as shown on the attached map. The ec_onom_ic_Development Committee have received a number.'of requests in the last year from-people interested in developing industries-adjoining the railroad. Currently there are two proposals, one.of which, according to the EDC, will definitely go ahead if the property is zoned M. The Planning Commission,.in order-to-avoid piecemeal applications for rezoning, 1 decided to initiate the rezoning of a substantial area in conformity with the amended General Plan to encourage industrial development. The P combining district was.added to ensure that-off-street parking would be provided for any development. At the public hearing, one property owner opposed the rezoning on the grounds that commercial or residential uses would be more appropriate. Other property owners and representatives.of the EDC strongly supported the rezoning. The Planning Commission therefore recommends that the City; :Council adopt the rezoning from U to I +-P as shown on the map." Mayor Whelchel declared the public-hearing closed. On motion of Councilman Blake, seconded by Councilman Spring, the following ordinance was introduced. Ordinance No. 315, an ordinance rezoning a portion of Industrial Annexation from U to M-P. City Council Minutes June 21, 1965 Page -10- Introduced and passed to print on the following roll call vote: AYES: Emmons B1ake,Arthur F. Spring, Frank Gallagher, Donald Q. Miller, Clell W. Whelchel NOES: None , ABSENT: None 11. At this time Mr. Graves, representing the California State Highway Patrol, appeared before the Council requesting that the City amend their Ordiance No-394 that limits access to their property on California Boulevard and stated that on the basis of additional uses of the property, that would include the Department of Motor Vehicles and Highway Patrol, that the Council allow three accesses to the property from California Boulevard. City Engineer Romero stated that he had no objection to the three driveways on California Boulevard. However, he suggested that the access driveways in front of the Department of Motor Vehicles and California Highway Patrol building be closed off to eliminate internal traffic conflicts on the property. The Planning Commission presented the following recommendations: "The Commission has reviewed the latest plan of this development which shows the addition of the Division of Motor Vehicles' office and provides three access points to California Boulevard. In view of the additional office space proposed, the Commission felt that three accesses would be reasonable in place of the one required by the deed. However, the Commission recommends that circulation between the deed. However, the Commission recommends that circulation between the double driveways be omitted to reduce conflicting traffic movements." Mr. Graves saw no difficulty in complying with this condition. On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Spring, the following ordinance was introduced. Ordiance No. 314, and ordiance amending Ordiance No. 280 (1964 Series). Introduced and passed to print on the following roll call vote: AYES: Donald Q. Miller, Arthur F. Spring, Emmons Blake, Frank Gallagher, Clell W. Whelchel NOES:- None ABSENT: None 14. The following communication was received from Councilman Miller regarding driveway-standards and connection of existing driveways to streets when grades are changed. "Two problems arise involving (1) driveway standards and, (2) the connection of existing driveways to the street when the street grade is changed by the City. ' Policy for item (1) is established. Policy for item (2) is not. Statement of problem Driveway connection problems arise in areas where homes were constructed prior to the City or County curb and gutter standards. Subsequently, the street grades in these areas are sometimes changed. The reconnection of the driveway to the new street grade has caused some diffuculty in aligning the old driveway with the new street grade. City Council Minutes June 21, 1965 „. Page -11- Apparently the City policy is: 1. Where the driveway is unimproved, the City grades into the-private- property to give proper' transition; or 2. Where.a driveway.is improved, the City does not disturb-the-private portion of the improvements. An improvised transition is constructed which is not satisfactory; in the opinion of some-property owners. Suggested recommendation 1. When it property owner initiates change of street grade,.the property owner will pay for realigning his driveway to meet the •new street grade. 2. When the City initiates a change in a street grade, and if the affected .driveway does not.'-ramp into the street permanent way, the City will pay for 'reconnection.. 3. Where'the driveway ramp.extends into the•stree.t permanent way, the City will negotiate. with the property owner for sharing of cost:" The following letter was received from City.Engineer Romero: "1. If a property owner installs a driveway within the street right"of'way he mast build it of concrete, to construction standards-and grades set.by the City. The property owner makes all arrangements to revise his own -' _ private driveway to meet the driveway constructed in the street, and the City improves the public,street to the edge of the new driveway. 2. If the City improves the street within the present street right of way, it attempts to conform private driveways as well as,possible without conducting work outside the public street right.of, way.,. 3. If the City changes an officially adopter( street grade (this has not occurred in the ".mite years-I have:.been with the City );•,or if the street line is widened as on setback line streets, the City bears all cost in replacing private driveways in as good a condition as existed prior to,the widening. We have experienced little difficulty in enforcing policies I and -3; since under policy 1 the property owner has initiated the improvement and realizes that he must make modifications to his.own facilities. Under.policy ,3. -the City bears all cost. _. We have experienced- some,.though not.a great deal, difficulty with policy 2. This is often caused by the fact that a property orzner.has a critical private driveway which encroaches out into the public street right of way. _ When the roadway is widened to the.-gutter line at a proper grade, the ,critical private driveway becomes impossible.. It has always been our view that the driveway,encroaching.into the public right of way•has been constructed by the property owner for his convenience, and that necessary revisions should be made at his cost., However, in the interest of.maintaining.good public relations, we do quite commonly make grade adjustments to the.driveway within the street right of way. We do not adjust the driveway on private property, nor do we remove and replace permanent driveway improvements constructed within the street right of.way." City Engineer Romero explained that the street grades at the Taylor property were set for the first time with the current improvement and that the construction involved lowering of the pavement at the street end of the Taylor driveway encroachment approximately 2 inches. He explained that the Street Department had planned to reconstruct the Taylor driveway within the street right of way in as good condition as existed prior to the starting of the work, but that Mr. Taylor had removed a pipe under the driveway and had refused to allow the City to replace the driveway in its original condition. He presented a cross section taken at the driveway showing the previous construction and the designed grades at this location. City Council Minutes June 21, 1965 Page -12- Councilman Miller stated he disagreed with Mr. Romero(s presentation as he felt that his sketch was exaggerated in favor of his presentation. Councilman Miller then presented a sketch of how he remembers the situation prior to the lowering of the street by the City, which makes the driveways on the high side of Rockview Place. City Engineer Romero stated that the sketch represents a true picture of the situation and was based on field survey notes.. City Attorney Houser reported his views on this problem in general. That if the Council changes an official 'street grade, it is liable for any damages caused to the adjoining property owners. But, that most of the problems have arisen from property owners using unimproved portions of the street for their driveway approaches without permits from the City in such cases, the City is not liable. The property owners have, in effect, chosen to use portions of the ungraded street for their own convenience rather than to obtain a permit and have the official grade established when the driveway approach is installed. Also, a part of the problem at the Taylor residence arises from the fact that the Council did not use the authorized 1911 Act in making substantial improvements to the street. Under the 1911 Act, the City, any time it makes a substantial improvements as distinguished from maintenance and repair of a City street, can form a district and assess the adjoining property owners for all of the cost involved including some adjustments of adjoining driveways, all of the cost of which must be paid by the property owners. The City has the right, under the 1911 Act, to contribute part of the cost. The Council certainly should consider, in the future, using the 1911 Act where there is any substantial improvement to the street and benefit to the adjoining property owners. Mrs. Laura Hoover, Rockview Place, stated that she had put in her driveway ten 10 years ago when the street was under County control and when annexed five (5) years ago, no comment was made by the City and they put their drive- ways in to the existing street, and then the City in the last year came along and lowered the street, making their properties inaccessable from the street. Mayor Whelchel suggested that this matter be referred to the Council Committe studing this matter for furthur study. 8. Communication from David F. Romero, Acting Planning Director, regarding application for a trailer park for Dominica Touchstone at the intersection of South Higuera and Prado Road. Mr. Romero presented the following conditions for approval of this app 'cation: "10. CountgsNo, 8107 shall be improved between lots 46 and 61 with curb and gutter, full depth base for a major street, and a prime coat to provide a dust free surface for a full half - street width. Expense to the developer will be limited to that cost he would have incurred in fully improving of a local City street. 11. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council grant a side- walk exception alongside lots 46-65. The applicant will covenant with the City to install this sidewalk at a future date when so requested by the City. 12. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council abandon street property on Higuera Street in excess of that needed to meet the requirements of the Higuera Street setback line." Mr. Romero recommended that the Planning Commission's recommendations be approved. 1 --I 1 City Council Minutes June 21, 1965 Page -13- On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Spring, the recommenda- tions of the Planning Commission were approved. Motion carried. 9. Mr. J. T. Cook, 1292 Svdnev Street, requests permission to develop the back of his property which faces Reba Street with a carport and that the City Council relax the street setback on Reba Street so this improvement can be made. Councilman Miller presented the problem as it exists, with a sketch and suggested that all the properties with their rear line on Reba Street be granted a variance from the rear lot setback. Councilman Blake suggested that this matter should go to the Planning Commission for their consideration and recommendation. After discussion by Council and staff, it was suggested that Mr. Cook be instructed to file his request with the Planning Commission for a variance, under the provisions of the ordinance. 12. Communication from Security First National Bank regarding their request to widen the Osos Street ramp to the bank parking lot. On motion of Councilman Blake, seconded by Councilman Gallagher, the matter was referred to the meeting of July 6, 1965. motion-carried, 13. Discussion of financing problems in connection with major street widening, particularly a bond issue to do a one time program before the cost goes up,- was held over. 15. Discussion by the City Council on the use of City -owned property on Monterey -Broad Street, was held over. 16. The following communication from Planning Director Chapman regarding Mission Plaza parking lot sign was presented: "Parking Lot Sign The attached sketch shows a parking lot sign recommended for use in the Mission Plaza and perhaps for other City lots. I have discussed various ways of making this sign with the Freeman Sign Company and their preliminary estimates are as follows: 1. Supply board only with sign painted on both sides $75. 2. Supply two boards mounted back to back on redwood post with sign painted and edges framed $125. The disadvantage of the above signs is that they would have to be repainted every two years. Mr. Freeman recommends gold leaf as being a more permanent finish, which would last up to 20 years. 3. The cost of supplying a sign consisting of gold -leaf lettering on a redwood board, fixed to a redwood post; with wrought iron work, 'as indicated on the sketch, would be $225. (Additional signs would be $200 each)" Mr. Chapman was instructed to get additional information and quotes on cost of signs for Council consideration. On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Blake, a Council Committee was appointed to study moving bridge from Sinsheimer to mission Plaza. Motion carried, Councilman Gallagher voting no. Councilmen Blake and Miller were appointed by the Mayor to the Council Committee. 17. Discussion of proposal to landscape property adjacent to Pepper Street along the Southern Pacific Railroad Company right of way, was received and filed. City Council Minutes June 21., 1965 Page -14- 18* Request from Communication Workers Union requesting guidance from the Council On Some community activities that can be performed by the Union., was -Jl-r:.-..received'.and-filedw,-. 19.* At this time the City Council considered the appointment to Commissions and nCom "Atees mJ -..of--, persons: whose:: terms;,expire-...June -3P.,-.--l965,*-; J a Councilman,-Blake: nominated% -Wesley:. , nnors:'! ­W-the -Sark; ,& Recreation, Commission* The,.Counctl:• was, vinformed: :that, the f.o..11.p.wing,:memberq -of- the-.Park. ,&.Re_creAtion Commission Aid. not mish -rQappointment-,for�. Another, term': aden and Howard O'Daniels. Mrs. Qret;� hen -Dalbeck_ hap, jkf_t: tkq. qkty, knd. theref ore � her position was declared vacant and the Council will consider a replacement for her-.on the;Commissiondf;,- The City Clerk, J. H. Fitzpatrick., was requested to contact Mrs. Gladyce Forden. -and.-Mrs. --Mel Zebastian,,:,aytmb!e;!s•of the 'Library -Boar.d-to..see.if.-they ..were intrested.,in, ,qer.v.ing, _ another, term-•qR.- the.,Boarde ............ After discussion by the Council regarding the Police Advisory Board., it was moved, by Councilman. Miller... seconded - - ' by -Councilm-an-.Spring -ithat, the. Police Advisory Board be discontiiued--tfdttiVq.July, 1. l9§.-Notion, carried;. Councilman man Blake and Mayor Whelc el voting' no. councilman t-6 the Shedter-'B6&rd:ai`the- Council, representative. 200,.Jurthur discussion'.of a. .,qte_for to fire -station in Laguna? Lake area,�.:was held he'6ve"re_ 21. City Engineer.Romero..was.-to.present alternate.routes.-for.access.road.,into Laguna lake Park plus pailcln_g� aii-ei-i' sp-�e-'ei-f. ic-ai'ti'ons Mr. Romero. - presented, sketches.•of alternate routes,.f or-.road access- to Laguna Me and reVidired -t46-previots-.Councill:s.-considerations;.i-n. t s -iiRrj7ement. . Which Iii - id. . ". - _­ ". f ".' -,. - I - : He outlined a new improvement whic would correspond'i-IL'th the - latest tfiihking of the Park & Recreation Commission which would involve ponstruction of.-an access road between th e lake and the school property anii-'�as--"n'-ear-tfie��'school property -as. possible.... The.. f ollowing. communication,yas received from -the' 4k±k mission .�_: .-. �..' I., I , o ' ' � _� L ' .< �.,- .the'. the access road t Itadbuie Lake- "The-Park & Recreation Commission makes the following recommendations • regarding access road into 1.agund,I;ii9e­-Par­k':- 1. Access road be located betw6'en the and the lake shore. 2. TbFe access road, � b�e, of a­ par k serty ce 'type ksecondar idad two lanes if possiblef3.nclfdirig parking dri&A. 3. Yb�e­jr�d"dd t6 be bdilt- should­'ioifbii tIKCitY.ehg­in­eers 'standards and "specifications.' .4 22. City Engineer Romero reported to Cbui3c'1:1--'n':ifie:-stzitus-6f Richard Street extension project and presented plans and specifications for the construction -and- -r;6qGfft;bd`aCutIi6f ity 'to °ad-Vertlse for'bid's. On. motion of Councilman Gallagher., seconded by,Councilman Miller authorization -bb ene -on '61,--=1965-i' 'Motl6n-caxried. Estimated -c . osta 'iS.Vi-000 23. Request of ti 11irds'tbr or a non -fee`' license f6r' a: b6nbfit'-mt1sic9l variety show for-the children's hospital of the local Shriner's Club. I I I City Council Minutes June 21, 1965 Page -15- On motion of Mayor Whelchel, seconded by Councilman Gallagher, approval was graiged subject to the approval of the City Attorney. Notion carried. 24. Ganges and corrections to the 1964 -65 Assessment Roll•were approved on motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Gallagher. Notion carried. 25. City - Engineer Romero requested authorization to-advertise plans and specifications for High Street, road, water, curb,gutter and sidewalk improvements. On motion of Councilman Spring,.seconded by Councilman Miller,`authorization was given to advertise for bids, to be opened July 6,.'1965. Notion carried. Engineering estimates are: water.estimate - $41,000. Street estimate - $60,000. 26. Administrative Officer Hiller requested authorization to advertise for purchase of two (2) pick -up trucks, one for the Water Filtration Plant and related facilities and the other one for the Director of Parks and Recreation. On motion of Councilman Blake, seconded by Councilman. Spring, authorization was given to call for bids. Notion carried. 27. At this time J. H. Fitzpatrick, City Clerk, reported on bids received.-for Highland Drive repair to water and sewer line, etc. They were as follows Burke Construction Company.' ..$5,154.20 J. A. O'Kelley & Son $51193,19.• West Coast Construction Company $51481.07 Ted Watkins Construction Company $5,529.00• Madonna Construction Company $60338.50•. City Engineer Romero recommended that the low bid of Burke Construction Company be accepted. On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Gallagher, the low bid of Burke Construction Company was accepted. Motion carried. 28. J. H. Fitzpatrick; City.Clerk,_reported on Bids: received,1or. employees ' blanket bond. They were as follows: $5,000 Honesty Blanket Position $2,500 Faithful Bond Performance Bond Total Aetna Life Insurance Co. $ $ $645.00 Ralph C. Kennedy 302.00 412.00 714,00 L. B. Murrell Agency 395.00 218.00 613.00 William A. Nelson 302.00 412.00 714.00 San Luis Insurance Agency $ $ 500.00 Fred L. Gist Insurance 315.00 417.00 732.00 On motion of Councilman Blake, seconded by Councilman Gallagher, the low bid of San Luis Insurance Agency waa accepted. Motion carried. 29. On motion of Councilman Blake, seconded by Councilman Miller, the following resolution was introduced. Resolution No. 1441, a resolution increasing the 1964 -65 Budget. (Account No. 1, Capital Outlay - Street Widening Program, be increased by $5,531.17) Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote: City, Council Minutes June 21, 1965 Page ;-164..' - AUS: Emmons Blake., Donald Q. Millers Frank Gallagher., 1611 W:,!'Whelchel NOES: None 'ABSENT, 30. On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Blake, the following Deed-bhd-Cd-�endbt-ria:6-aEcdcipted-a�.n'd.-'t-.h'-e.;"f4a[y.'or*iras --aii4,#ooea--T.o-record-same-'.d oil- te;,h_dl,f,-,of- the'City:.: A. Quitclaim-Deed from Lilliam P. Smith to the City of San Luis Obispo to straighten out---a- transaction,-in`Parkibg Lot- 17, B. Grant Deed from , Gerald W. Shipsey and John L. Seitz., for installation of curb "Ade, a- id - s', tre e t -wid-en ing f: oii - j ail; s 6i A�i&61r::,._ s gutter and- 4alk L - - - 7 C. - Covenant from Charles Mp Baker and William E. Baker for extension of R;: imo'na bA - ve lloiij�g-, appointft�nts,an& promotion: 32. Ad'mi*misirative'Officei announciCthi- f _ 0 A. Promotion of Fireman Donald J. Kay to Fire Captain, effective July 1. c`1965 t J 2 ... at�the�-3rd:-stbp�,--'.si�bje,.-.5t�to -a- one, year,!iHp#bA ionary,peft6d B. Appointments of Gerald L. Arnett, Richard J. Fritz, and John S. Overbey, _�,pe month',:':,.iilbjei�,t,.�-'to:-'a'.-j�r.obatiot,�ry period` as -Fir­em`a-n'�., � te 1-19 it $48 0 1 r_-� of one year. 33- Reminder to the Council of the Division of Highway's public= hearing: regarding rerouting of Highway No. 1 which is set for Thursday., June 244 1965, at 10:00 A. M. and of thele aigue;-� "'meeting to be held.-id-Moriro-;Bay- oif"Thursdays June 24, 1965, at 6:00 Per M's, A general discussion ok'fr_e'iwa­y' routes took.,± place-' with; ar. generkll donbensus in favor of the Marsh Street route. However, it7-was.agrde&that-• "the Gity-should take no official position on route preference until after Thursday's hearing it2ihi6h-time'-f&th& in"formitio-n i4bii-ld',I)e7obtained-.--on'the-wishesi-- of -the citizenry. The Council did feel, however that it wai-important that--sbme decision be made in the near future so that local plans could proceed accbkaing'ly.1�', On motion of Councilman Blake seconded by Councilman Gallagher., the meeting.-;adj6aimed'at,1*15,P. M: --June-22 Motion Eg, H-. )nTZPATRICK.9 CITY CLEM Approved: July 6. 1965 lak JU ry 10-.: