HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/15/1969MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
September 15, 1969 - 7:00 P.M.
City Hall
Pledge
Roll call
Present: Emmons Blake, Myron Graham, Donald Q. Miller,
Kenneth E. Schwartz
Absent: Arthur F. Spring
City Staff
Present: R. D. Young, Planning Director; M. Austin, Secretary
to City Clerk; J. Stockton, Park and Recreation
Supervisor; H. Johnson, City Attorney; R. D. Miller,
Administrative Officer; D. F. Romero, City Engineer;
D. E. Englert, Police Captain; L. Scholbohm, Fire Chief
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Graham, the minutes of
the meeting of July 7, 1969 were approved as presented.
On motion of Councilman Graham, seconded by Councilman Blake, the minutes of
the meeting of July 22, 1969 were approved as presented.
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Graham, claims against
the City for the month of September 1969 were approved subject to the approval
of the.Administrative Officer. Motion carried.
1. City Clerk to present Certificate of Sufficiency of the referendum petition
filed against Ordinance No. 458.
H. Johnson, City Attorney, read the certificate, in the absence of Mr. Fitzpatrick,
which stated that the names on the petition had been checked with the affidavits
of registration in the County Clerk's Office and found that the petitions have
been signed by 12% of the registered voters of the City (1404).
Mayor Schwartz explained the background of the.petition; stating that the sig-
natures of 15% of the registered.'Aroters in the City were required in order to
have a special election. He also stated that the City Attorney had forwarded
an opinion to the City Council regarding the referendum petition.
Mayor Schwartz stated he felt that the Council should at this time act on one
of the following options:
1. Accept the petition and set a date for the matter to appear on the ballot.
2. Set a special election. .
3. Not recognize the petition.
Councilman Miller stated he felt that in fairness to the people -who circulated
the petition, the Council should take action tonight in order for these people
to know the direction the Council is taking on this matter.
Councilman Graham stated he felt the Council should follow the recommendation of
the City Attorney and reject the petition.
Councilman Blake stated that he was also in agreement with the recommendation of
the City Attorney, but he felt the Attorney's recommendation should be made public.
Mayor Schwartz briefed the significant points of the Attorney's opinion as follows:
Precedent-has been established in simple rezoning cases to make such a referendum
legal. In•view of an appellate decision in a Bakersfield case and because of
contracts entered into between the City and the Housing Authority and because
of the vote of the people of the City for low rent public housing, it appears
that the Council in approving rezoning for a low rent housing project is acting
in an executive capacity and should take action to determine that the petition is
City Council Minutes
September 15, 1969
Page 2
invalid. Whether or not the Council takes action to recognize the petition, the
City could be liable to suit.
He stated that copies of the Attorney's opinion would be made available to the
press and to interested persons.
H. Johnson, upon question, stated that the results of an election based on this
referendum petition could be challenged.
Councilman Blake stated he felt that since the results of an election -could be
challenged, the expense of such an election should be avoided by clearing the
air on the matter at this time.
Mayor Schwartz asked the City Attorney what
did not recognize .the referendum.
H. Johnson stated that if the petition were
order could be sought by those opposing the
this matter on the ballot. A suit could al
as to the motives behind the circulation of
the results of an election.. Therefore, the
before or after an election.
might happen if the Council did or
recognized and set for a vote, a court
petition restraining the placing of
so be brought, even after an election
this petition in an effort to annul
petition could be challenged either
He also stated that the petitioners have a right to seek a writ of mandate to
have the matter put on the ballot if the Council refuses to call an election on
the matter.
Mayor Schwartz asked if the Council wished to have the matter opened to public
discussion.
Councilman Miller stated he felt the people have a right to discuss the matter
and ask questions.
Councilman Graham felt the Housing Authority should have the right to be heard.
Councilman Blake agreed that the matter should be discussed with the public...
Mayor Schwartz opened the discussion to the public.
B. Dodson asked if this was to be an unscheduled public hearing.
H. Johnson stated that the Council could open discussion to the public on any
matter at any time.
No one appeared before the City Council on this matter.
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Graham, that the Council
follow the recommendation of.tbe City Attorney, and order the Building Department
to issue the building permit at the appropriate time. .
Councilman Blake moved that the motion be amended to state that the petition
would be declined.
The amendment died for "lack of a second.
H. Johnson, City Attorney, stated he felt the motion should state the reason for
declination of the petition.
Councilman Miller stated he would place in his motion the statement that the
recommendation of the City Attorney was based on the Lockhart v. City of Bakers
field case.
Mayor Schwartz stated that based on the legal investigation by the City it would
be inadvisable for the City to recognize the petition since it would make the City
subject to suit either before or after the election. Therefore, he would support
an action by the Council to order the petition received and filed based on
Opinion 69 -3 of the City Attorney.
City Council Minutes
September 15, 1969
Page 3
Councilman Blake called for a rewording of the motion. ,
Councilman_ Miller asked that the recommendation of the City Attorney be read.
The Council felt that due to its length and extensive legal wording it would not
be necessary to read the recommendation.
The'motion'was reworded as follows: '
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Graham,.that the City
receive and file the petition requesting a referendum election on the matter of
Ordinance No. 458; that such action be taken in light,of Opinion 69 -3 presented
by the City Attorney which points out that referendum action "on a rezoning which
involves property to be used for a project under the Housing-Authority law is
not subject to referendum. Motion carried.
2. At this time the City Council held an informal hearing on the formation of
an assessment district for street improvements with the property owners and
residents: of Brook street and that portion of South Street from Higuera Street
westerly to the creek.
Mayor Schwartz explained the purpose of this hearing was to find out if the
formation of the improvement district was possible.
D. F. Romero, City Engineer,reviewed the history of the property.and the action
taken so far on the formation of the assessment district.- He stated that the
City requires a 60% sign up for the formation of an assessment district under
the 1911 Act. Thus far.the total sign up was 42.5% on Brook Street only. This
figure does not count the frontage;on the property owned by St.'Luke's Baptist
Church or the City owned parcel.
Mayor Schwartz opened the hearing to allow any property owners on Brook Street
who have not signed the petition to do so at this time.
No property owners appeared before the Council to sign the petition.
Mayor Schwartz then asked for additional signatures from property owners on
South Street.
No property owners from South Street appeared before the Council to sign the petition.
Mayor Schwartz stated he felt the Council should decide whether it wished to
deviate from precedent and accept the petition without the 60% sign ups or let
the matter drop due to insufficient signatures.
Councilman Miller stated he felt the Council was faced with the problem of the
smaller property owners wanting the improvement district but were being held up
because the larger property owners do not want the cost of the improvement district.
Councilman Blake felt that the City was offering the property owners an excellent
improvement plan at a reasonable price.
Councilman Graham asked Mr. Romero to review the plan more fully.
D. F. Romero reviewed previous Council decisions relating to the improvement plan
as follows:
1. The City would not contribute to the cost of the improvements.
2. The City would pay for the engineering.
3. The improvement district would be financed,throught the 1911 Act, and repayment
could be made over a three -year period at 3% interest per annum.
4. The City would not hire a bonding attorney.
5. 60% sign up would be required.
He stated that the improvements included full curb, gutter and sidewalks on
South Street but no sidewalks on Brook Street.
City Council Minutes
September 15, 1969
Page 4
Mayor Schwartz stated that the improvements would be installed and paid for by
the property owners, not by the City. He also stated that because standards have
chanked over the years, the City now finds there are certain portions of the City
which do not have what is now considered to be proper: - standards. He stated.it was
the responsibility of the property owner to install these improvements. The
1911 Act provides that the cost will be paid for by the City and then repaid by
the property owners over a three -year period. He stated this program could only
be enacted if there was enough desire bn the part of the property owner.
Mayor Schwartz declared the informal hearing open.
Rev. E. C. Smith, St. Luke's Baptist Church, appeared before the Council on-
behalf of his congregation stating that he was in favor of the improvements be-
cause of the hardships now suffered by the people living in the area.
D. F. Romero stated that the Church would be subject to assessment, although they
were not counted on the petition as a yes vote.
B. Dodson stated he felt the democratic process was being disruoted.: in this
matter and felt it could be handled most fairly by using a majority vote of the
residents and not on the frontage basis.
H. Johnson stated that the 1911 Act required frontage basis is to be used.
T. Dunn, property owner on Brook Street, asked why St. Luke's Baptist Church
property could not be counted as frontage and why the Church cannot build on
the abandoned portion of Brook Street.
H. Johnson stated that if the cul -de -sac were installed, the improvements could be
counted, but otherwise improvements could not be included on the abandoned portion
of a dead -end street.
T. Dunn stated that the parking lot would have a double driveway which would
allow for turning around.
H. Johnson clarified that the basis for assessment was the frontage on the
street as stated in the petition.
D. F. Romero stated that the plan included the placement of curb and driveway
ramp on the stub end of Brook Street. He stated that if the Church was counted
as a yes vote on the petition it would bring the total sign up on Brook Street
to 47.2 %.
Councilman Miller asked what the percentage would be if the City frontage was
counted as a yes vote on the petition.
D. F. Romero, City Engineer, stated that with both the City and Church property
both being counted as yes votes, the total sign up would be 53.8 %.
Councilman Blake stated he would like to hear from the residents as well as the
property owners in the area.
Alice Bowers, property owner, and former resident, stated she was against the
improvement district as she felt that by „the time the improvements were paid
for, the houses would be in poor condition as the property owners were.not
allowed to make improvements. For this reason she felt the improvements would
not be worth the expense.
Mayor Schwartz closed the hearing.
Councilman Graham asked why improvements could not be made on these houses.
R. D. Young, Planning Director, stated that the homes in the area were in an
M Zone and were therefore non- conforming structures which could only be main-
tained, not rebuilt.
Mayor Schwartz stated he felt the following options were open for the Council:
1
C
1
City Council Minutes
September 15, 1969
Page 5
1. Set a public hearing for the improvement district.
2. Drop the matter because of insufficient signatures.
D. F. Romero stated that by State Law a 51% sign up was all that was required.
He stated the 60% sign up was a City requirement.
Councilman Miller felt that there was sufficient interest in the improvement
district and suggested that a public hearing on the matter be set for October 6,
1969, and if necessary, force an improvement district for South Street.
D. F. Romero stated that an improvement district could be forced by declaring
that public necessity and convenience require the construction of the improvements.
Councilman Blake felt this would place a financial burden on the property owners.
H. Johnson stated that at present the property owners do not know the exact amount
they would have to pay for these improvements which is one reason a public hearing
should be held.
-Rose Barger, property owner on Brook Street, asked for clarification on the matter
of.sidewalks, and asked if she could have her name removed from the petition at
the public hearing.
H. Johnson stated her name could be removed at the public hearing.
Dr. Field asked whether the streets in question were critical for access to the
church:
The Council agreed that they were.
Councilman Blake asked-..if the improvement district could be advertised under the
1913 Act and then later switched back to the 1911 Act.
R. D. Miller stated that a bonding attorney would probably be required under the
1913 Act.
D. F. Romero explained that under the 1913 Act the public hearing is held after
the receipt of competitive bids. 'Under the 1911 Act the hearing is held before
the call for bids.
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Graham, the following re-
solution.was introduced. Resolution No, 1975, a.resolution setting a public
hearing on the formation of an improvement district on Brook St. and South St.
Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Emmons Blake, Myron Graham, Donald Q. Miller, Kenneth E. Schwartz
NOES: None
ABSENT:. Arthur F. Spring
3A. At_this time the City Council held a public hearing on the recommendation of
the - Planning Commission to rezone from R -1 to PD R -2, that property located at
3217 Johnson Avenue, on the west side of Johnson Avenue between Laurel Lane and
Southwood Drive.
R. D. Young, Planning Director, presented the recommendation of the Planning
Commission as follows:
1. The subject property is 127,500 square feet in area. It is presently zoned
R -1; bounded on the north by an R -1 subdivision, by a C -N-S District to the south
which is partially developed with a supermarket, and an R-0 District to the west
with a convalescent hospital and apartments.
2. The General Plan proposes low to medium density residential uses for this
general area. The applicant is requesting PD R -2 zoning to allow the development
of 40 two -story townhouse units; 28 units to be two bedroom; 86 parking spaces
will be provided in accordance with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
City Council Minutes
September 15, 1969
Page 6
3. The density of the proposed development is one unit for each 3, 188 square
feet of land area. The ground coverage of structures is 18% as compared to.
50% allowed for the R2 District. 57.6% of-the area has been set aside for private
and public open space and recreation.
4. The Commission was of the opinion that the proposed planned development would
provide a proper transition between the adjoining commercial and residential -
office district and the residential district to the north. It was also their
opinion that the proposed design would be compatible with adjacent propertihs
and,that the density of the development would not be detrimental to the sur-
rounding neighborhood.
The recommendation by the Plannign Commission for approval of the requested
rezoning is subject to the following conditions:
1. A City standard hydrant with street shut -off valve shall be installed at
the north corner of the Johnson Avenue driveway entrance.
2. A six -inch domestic main from the street throught a four -inch Hersey FM meter
to a street shut -off valve and a City standard hydrant shall be extended 300 feet
within the property. The location to be approve d by the Fire Department.
3. A ten -foot sewer easement shall be dedicated along the westerly boundary of
the property. Said easement shall be left free of grading or construction.
4. The creek channel shall be improved to a high esthetic standard: Said im-
provement shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer and Planning Director.
5. The subject property shall be completely fenced with the exception of the
property line abutting the C -N -S District to the south.
6. A precise development plan shall commence within six months from the date of
approval and construction shall commence within six months from the date of
approval of the precise plan.
Mayor Schwartz explained the background of the proposed rezoning and develop-
ment in connection with the Planned Development program. He also reviewed the
Planned Development program and asked that discussion be limited to the rezoning
as stated.
Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing open.
E. Oldham appeared before the City Council on behalf of his requested rezoning
and stated that he preferred to hold his comments for the rebuttal.
W. Bearce , realtor representing the owner and developer, stated he felt there
were two choices for this land, R -1 or R -2. He felt that R -1 was economically
unfeasible for this property. He felt that R -2 would-be-the Best use for the
land. He stated the R -H zoning had been requested in the first place but the
developer was now requesting R -2. He stated that the proposed plan calls for
a lesser density than could be used in an R -d District. He felt the plan would
be an asset to the area and urged the Council to approve the requested rezoning.
T. Gingg, 3126 Rose Avenue, appeared before the City Council objecting to the
requested rezoning. He presented a plan for the use of the land under R -1 zoning.
He stated that this plan could be developed for approximately $2,100 per lot
which is less than the $3,000 per lot cost of the requested plan. He stated that
his plan would add about 12 or 15 additional cars to the traffic on Johnson Avenue,
whereas the requested plan would add approximately 88 additional cars. He stated
that Tract #83, on file•in the City Engineer's office, shows that this property
can be developed as R -1. He further stated that under the provisions of Resolution
No. 1640 (1967 Series) rezoning of this property cannot take place at this time
because arrangements have not been made for street widening on Johnson Avenue.
P. Guy objected to the requested rezoning on the basis that it would add to the
congestion in the area.. He stated he agreed that it might be economically un-
feasible to develop this land as R -1 from the developer's standpoint as he could
receive a greater profit if developed under R -2 zoning.
L. Souza, 1319 Kentwood Drive, urged the Council to deny the requested rezoning
as he felt it would be better to have one displeased developer rather than many
displeased residents. He felt the developer should look elsewhere for another
parcel for this development. He added that he would not object to low rent'
housing in this property.
City Council Minutes
September 15, 1969
Page 7
J. Bassi read a letter from N. H. Colby,-3111 Richard Street, objecting to the
requested rezoning. The major objectionsin the the letter were 1) Residents in
an R -1 zone should be protected; 2) There is other land in the City available for
development of apartment- complexes; 3) Drainage problems resulting from the
higher density of the property; and 4) the resulting traffic problems on Johnson
Avenue.
J. Cooper stated he was opposed to the rezoning as he had bought his home in an
R -1 zone in good faith that the adjacent properties would remain zoned as R -1.
He felt the City should not jeopardize the trust of its citizens by rezoning
this property.
T. Manier asked if the letters supporting the rezoning were from residents of
the area. He felt they were not. .
R. D. Young, Planning Director, read the names and addresses of those persons who
wrote letters in support of the rezoning.
D. Kelly, 1337 Oakwood Court, objected to the density of this planned development
as he felt it was too much for the area. He stated.that in view of the rent to be
asked for these apartments, no family could afford to live there which could mean
the apartments would develop into student housing, causing an even higher density.
Further, he felt that this development did not employ any new concepts or excep-
tional design, therefore he did not feel it conformed properly to the planned
development program. He also stated he would invite low rent housing in the area.
M. Flemmons state he felt the people in the area should have a right to decide
whether the property should be rezoned.
D. Stickler, developer, stated he has met with the Planning Commission and has
tried to cut down on the density of his development. He felt he has tried to put
a density which is correct for this parcel and one which would be a family type
development.
M. Polin,owner of the property, stated that he did not feel the requested rezoning
was spot zoning. He felt the development would be very compatible with the sur-
rounding neighborhood. He did not feel that this development would add substantially
to the traffic on Johnson Avenue. He stated that he felt this development would
help many people besides the developer as it would provide much needed housing.
Further, he stated he could not see how this development would hurt the people in
the neighborhood that much. He also stated he felt it would be good planning
practice to_rezone this parcel to act as a buffer zone between the commercial zone
and the low density residential zone. He added he felt that most of the neighbors were
in favor of this rezoning. He reminded the Council that the Planning Commission was
in favor of this rezoning.
E. Jennings, Architect for the development, felt that the plan had been studied
very carefully by the staff and the Planning Commission, therefore the Council
should uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to approve.the rezoning.
Rev: E. C. Smith, St. Luke's Baptist Church, reminded the Council of the housing
shortage in San Luis Obispo and stated he felt this development was necessary so
that people in the City could have a place to live.
E. Oldham brought to the Council's attention the fact that the trend in American
housing is changing towards multiple dwelling, which makes more housing available.
He felt the development would be an asset to the City. He urged the Council to
uphold the decision of the Planning Commission in this rezoning.
Miss E. Lewis asked if R -1 zoning permitted restriction as to occupancy. She stated
she was in.favor of the R -2 zoning as it would provide more housing in the City and
would .provide more housing for black people in the community.
Mayor Schwartz stated that zoning does not place restrictions as to the people
T,ho may live in that area. 1.
City Council Minutes
September 15, 1969
Page 8
Rev. Banks, Springfield Baptist Church, stated he felt San Luis Obispo is a great
place to live and he would urge the Council to approve this requested rezoning.
He felt this rezoning would be beneficial as it would relieve the housing short-
age in the City.
P. Guy stated he was in favor of multiple dwellings in the City but felt they
should be developed on land already zoned for this use.
T. Dunn asked if this property was related to low rent public housing.
Mayor Schwartz stated it was not being considered for low rent housing.
L. Souza stated he felt the statement made by Martin Polin that the majority of
the neighbors were for this rezoning was untrue. He asked to have the number of
letters supporting this rezoning verified.
R. D. Young stated that four letters had been received in support of this rezoning.
T. Gingg stated he felt that R -1 development was economically feasible on this
property. He felt there was plenty of land available in the Laguna Lake, area
for apartment development.
J. Bassi felt that there was some knowledge of the type of apartments proposed.
He felt that due to the rent that would be asked for these apartments, they
definitely could not be considered low rent. He also stressed the fact that only
four letters had been received supporting the rezoning, whereas there were over
200 signatures on the petition opposing the rezoning.
T. Peterson stated that although he was not in favor of this particular-devel-
opment, he was in favor of some type of development for this land. He felt the
proposed development left a lot to be desired, particularly where drainage was
concerned.
M. Blank asked if this property had to be developed. Also she asked if it
were possible to build low rent housing on this land.
Mayor Schwartz stated that the development of the land was up to the owner.
R. Born, County Hydraulic Engineer, asked permission to comment on general
subject of discussion although he was neither for or against this rezoning. He
stated that he -was concerned over the housing shortage facing the City and felt
that additional multiple zoning was needed. He stated he hoped the Council would
sometime in the future take action to re- examine the General Plan.
Mayor Schwartz stated that the City Council and Planning Commission would be
meeting in a joint study session on September 23 to•discuss among other items,
re- evaluation of the General Plan.
R. Born stated that zoning changes were needed in order to allow development of
more housing. He felt that zoning was the basic issue in housing shortages and
development rates not only in this City but throughout the Country.
Mayor Schwartz stated he did not agree that zoning was responsible. He felt
there were many other factors involved including the tight money market.
G. Hopkins, 690 Sandercock Street, asked why this property had to be rezoned to
R -2 to allow multiple dwellings: He also asked why low rent housing had to be
in an R -2 zone.
Mayor Schwartz stated that because of the density involved in multiple dwellings
the General Plan requires higher density zoning. In regard to the second question
Mayor Schwartz stated that the Housing Authority had made a determination in
working with the-housing problem that they would build their developments in
Rn2 zones.
Mayor Schwartz asked the developer, Mr. Oldham, what specifically makes this
land economically unfeasible for R -1 development.
City Council Minutes
September 15, 1969
Page 9
Mr. Oldham replied that every layout he had tried had been economically un-
feasible, because of the terrain, the cut of the property, and the configuera-
tion of the land.
Mayor Schwartz asked what this plan,accomplished in terms of better living
environment for the tenant.
Mr. Oldham asked that Mr. Jennings, architect for the project be allowed to
answer this question.
We Jennings stated that this plan 1) eliminates wasted space, 2) provides more
open space, 3) provides professional landscaping for the tenants, 4) provides
more parking spaces, 5) provides an abundance of greenery and trees, 6) pro-
vides the tenants with private yards and patios, and 7) utility and operation
costs would be less for the tenants.
Mayor Schwartz asked what this design would do for the adjacent neighbors.
W. Jennings stated he felt the design would be compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood.
Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing closed.
Councilman Blake stated he felt this rezoning was spot zoning, but the Planned
Development ordinance permits such zoning if the other criteria of the program
is met. He stated that the scope of permission for a planned development by
the Planning Commission is quite wide. He stated that the City does have con-
trol over the number of occupants in a dwelling other than members of the'
immediate family.
Councilman Graham stated he felt development of this land under R -1 was feasible.
He stated he felt that if the cost of development were less, the rent'should'also
be less. He also stated that he favored cluster housing instead of row housing.
He stated that he was not against the rezoning to PD /R -2 but he felt that the
density should be less, and he would hold out for a lesser density.
Councilman Miller asked to see a map showing street configueration in the area.
R. D. Young, Planning Director, provided a street map of the area.
Councilman Miller stated he felt that zoning does cause.problems in housing,
especially racially. He stated that he did not feel the General Plan was the
final word regarding rezoning. He felt that R -1 zoning is generally phasing
out. He also felt that this rezoning was not spot zoning. He stated that he
recognizes that this property has disadvantages. He felt that this plan is log
ical and reasonable for this parcel and he would vote for the rezoning.
Mayor Schwartz stated that as land is becoming more valuable, it should be used
to the best economic benefit. He stated that the planned development program
was developed in recognition of the change in living patterns, therefore it was
possible to mix types of development. He stated that when considering a parcel
for rezoning under the planned development program the Council must consider if
the proposal is one that makes a contribution in design and concept. Also the
density should be considered as outlined in the General Plan. He felt that the
amount of people on this parcel was too much. He felt that PD /R -1 would be most
compatible for this land.
He stated he was concerned about the use of this land as a buffer zone. He stated
that piactically-•every time an undesirable use is developed, the thing to do has
been to put more people next to it rather than less people. He stated he did not
agree with this idea.
He stated that a better design was needed for this land, with a lesser density.
City Council Minutes
September 15, 1969
Page 10
Councilman Graham stated he would like to compliment the developer for saving.
the trees on this land in his proposal.
Councilman Blake stated he agreed with Mayor Schwartz's comment about buffer
zones, but he felt that PD /R -2 was a correct use of this land. He.stated•he
was concerned about the traffic situation on Johnson Avenue.
On motion of Councilman Blake, that the decision of the Planning Commission'
for approval of this requested rezoning be upheld, following the conditions
of the Planning Commission and those of the City Engineer and Planning De-
partment.
The motion died for lack of a second.
On motion of Councilman Graham, seconded by Mayor Schwartz that the re-
quested rezoning be denied on the basis of density.
Motion carried on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Myron Graham, Emmons Blake, Kenneth E. Schwartz
NOES: Donald Q. Miller
ABSENT:: Arthur F. Spring,
4. ,On motion of Councilman Blake, seconded by Councilman Graham, that
M. E: Willeford continue to act as indepent auditor for the City for the
current fiscal year and that the Mayor be authorized to sign the agreement.
Motion carried.
5. D. F. Romero, City Engineer, presented plans and specifications for_ -
Highland Drive- Ferrini Road intersection. He stated that the estimated
cost would be $16,000 plus $9,000 for the City's share of the traffic " .
signal, plus engineering costs for a total cost of $28,000. He explained'
that the Department of Architecture had requested these funds be de-
posited prior to call for bid of the entire Highland Drive Project.
R. D. Miller stated that as this cost had not been anticipated, there.
were no monies in the budget for this project.
D. F. Romero stated that gas tax funds could possibly be used for_ this pro-
jest.
R. D. Miller brought'to the Council's attention that due to the President's
and Governor's order regarding"a slow down in construction projects,.it.was
possible that state funds for this project could be up.
Councilman Blake asked if this project could be accomplished using progress
payments.
D. F. Romero suggested that the plans and specifications be approved.and.a
representative be authorized to negotiate the project with the state.
R. D. Miller asked if the state had set a limit on the cost of the project..
D. F. Romero suggested that the City Attorney review the offer of the state.
Councilman,-Blake stated he would like to see a firm figure on the cost of
the project.
D. F. Romero stated that Cal Poly was the key figure in the project and
suggested that negotiations be conducted through their representative.
Mayor Schwartz asked if it were possible to accomplish this project inde-
pendently.
City Council Minutes
September 15, 1969
Page 11
R. D. Miller stated he felt it would be advisable-.
Mayor Schwartz stated he felt the City should negotiate with the state agencies
on this project.
On motion of Councilman Blake, seconded by Councilman Graham, that the City
Council approve the plans and specifications and direct the City Attorney and
the City Engineer to negotiate with the state agencies on this project for a
progress payment plan, or separate City job for part of the work, etc. Motion
carried.
10:35 P.M. Mayor Schwartz declared a recess.
10:45 P.M. the meeting reconvened with all Councilmen present.
6. D. F. Romero brought to the Council's attention the matter of establishing
setback lines on Osos Street between Higuera and Monterey Streets. He stated that
in 1965 the City Council had introduced an ordinance to establish this setback
line but the ordinance had never been finally passed, therefore the matter had
to be presented again to the Council.
D. F. Romero explained the plans for the setback lines.
Councilman Miller explained that the original reason for establishing this set-
back line was that Greyhound had been planning to enlarge their depot and the City
wished to reserve street widening rights.
Mayor Schwartz stated he felt the matter should be referred to the Planning
Commission.
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Graham that the matter of
establishing setback lines on Osos Street between Monterey and Higuera Streets
be referred to the Planning Commission for a public hearing. Motion carried.
Councilman Graham asked it if would be possible to consider establishing set-
back lines on Morro Street:-at the same time.
D. F. Romero explained the difficulties in establishing setback lines on Morro
Street because of the big buildings located on the street.
7. R. D. Miller, Administrative Officer, announced the appointment of Johnny
M. Johns to the position of Janitor effective 9 -16 -69 at Step L.or $410 per
month, with a one year probationary period.
8. R. D. Miller, Administrative Officer, announced the appointment of William
N. Ramirez to the position of Maintenance Man II in the Public Works Department
at Step 1 or $485 per month with a one year probationary period.
9. On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Graham, the follow-
ing salary step increases were approved. Motion carried.
Post, Paul - Mechanic I
From Step 3 -or $590 to Step 4 or $623
McChesney, Harold M. - Police Officer.
From Step 3 or $697 to Step 4 or $740
Costa, Anthony L. Jr. - Police Officer
From Step 2 or $660 to Step 3 or $697
Wilson, Lane - Park Foreman
From Step 2 or $680 to Step 3 or $715
City Council Minutes
September 15, 1969
Page 12
10. At this time Councilman Miller presented his proposal to the Council for
a comprehensive medical program for the citizens of the community. He stated
that he had met with an insurance agent and the agent felt that the plan had
merit and was worth exploring.
He pointed out that a similar plan was that of General Motors in the town of
Flint, Michigan.
Councilman Miller felt the greatest advantage to such a program would be
broader coverage at low rates. He suggested that the matter be referred to
a Council Committee or the Citizens Advisory Committee for study and to meet
with insurance companies to propose a program.
Mayor Schwartz asked if the City would be eligible to act as an agency for
collective insurance in the same manner as an employer does its employees.
Councilman Miller stated he could see no reason why it couldn't.
Mayor Schwartz asked if there were any other cities conducting such a pro-
gram.
Councilman Miller stated he was not sure but if there weren't he could see
no reason why this City.could not be the first.
Mayor Schwartz asked if the City would be obligated to contribute in any way.
Councilman Miller answered that the City would act only as a vehicle in the
program and would not be obligated.
Councilman Blake asked if the City would act as collection agency for this pro-
gram.
Councilman Miller stated he was not sure how the collection would be'handled, .
but one possibility was that payments could be made at the same time as the
water bills.
Councilman Blake asked how non - payment would be handled,. and -how payment
would be insured.
Councilman Miller stated he was sure this could be handled by the insurance
company.
R. D. Miller stated he-felt it might be difficult to arrive.at a plan which
would suit everyone.
Councilman Blake stated he felt any individual was eligible for insurance,
and questioned why the City should step in and introduce an.aura of re-
spectability to the program if they were not going to act as the collection
agency. Further, he asked what was the difference between individual and
City group insurance if the City were not the collection agency.
Councilman Miller stated that through City leadership individuals could
have broader coverage with lesser rates.
Councilman Blake stated that if the City sanctioned such an insurance pro -
gram, it might cause employers to cancel health insurance for their employees.
Also, he asked if such a program wouldn't be considered a restraint of-trade,
thus causing disturbance with other local insurance agencies.
He asked why the City should get into the insurance business.
Councilman Miller stated he did not feel the City would be getting into .
the insurance business. He felt the Council should make a.determination
on the program to give it consideration.
City Council Minutes
September 15, 1969
Page 13
R. D. Miller stated he felt it would be difficult for such a large group to
reach a determination as to coverage, rates, etc.
Councilman Blake stated he felt such a program would stifle competition in
the insurance business.
Mayor Schwartz stated he felt the proposal was intriging and worth investiga-
tion. He stated he felt that once the program was set up, the City wouldn't
be that involved as the insurance company would take over.
Councilmaa.Graham asked how such a large group could be coordinated into a
unit.
H. Johnson stated that if the Council wished, he would inquire about other
cities who might have such a plan when he attended the Municipal Officers
Meeting.
Mayor Schwartz stated . he felt it was advisable to have the Citizens.Advisory
Committee explore the idea.
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Mayor Schwartz, that'the proposal
be referred to the Citizens Advisory Committee along with Councilman Miller
and an insurance representative for investigation. Motion carried with
Councilman Blake voting no'.
11. Councilman Graham brought to the Council's attention the matter of the
Thursday night youth dances. He suggested that the money all_ottedfor =these
dances be turned over to the Park and Recreation Department.
R. D. Miller stated that'as yet no money has been designated for this program.
He stated that since the City is audited, the funds should be handled-through
normal City procedures.
Councilman Graham stated that perhaps if the money were allocated to the Park
and Recreation Department, they could report to the Administrative Officer on
the use of the funds.
Mayor Schwartz suggested that a plan should be set up as to the amount to be
allotted.-for- :tliese dances.
The Council discussed the need for the presence of a uniformed policeman at
these dances.
H. Johnson stated that according to the Municipal Code (Section 6100.40)
dances conducted by charitable organizations do not require the presence of
a uniformed officer.
It was the decision of the Council that spot checking by uniformed officers
would be sufficient.'
R. D. Miller brought to the Council's attention the fact that the Recreation
Building was reserved for another use for this Thursday night.
Councilman Graham suggested that the dance be held in the Mission Plaza. The
Council agreed to this suggestion.
' Mayor Schwartz suggested that $900 be alloted for these dances for six weeks,
and that the revenue be handled through the City books.
On motion of Councilman Blake, seconded by Mayor Schwartz that the City allot
$900 for the furtherance of teen dances, six in number, with the revenue from
said dances to be put in a special account to be used by the teen group for
further dances. Motion carried.
City Council Minutes
September 15, 1969
Page 14
12. R. D. Miller, Administrative Officer, presented to the City Council a
summary of Park and Recreation expenditures for the past five years and also
a list of capital improvements and a suggested approach to the development
of an updated C.I.P.
Mayor Schwartz suggested that the Council study the report and add their
thoughts so that the matter could be discussed at the joint meeting of the
Planning Commission and City Council.
13. Mayor Schwartz presented for the Council's information the proposed
agenda for the joint study meeting of the City Council and the Planning
Commission to be held September 23, 1969. He asked for the Council's
comments on the proposed agenda.
Councilman Graham asked if there would be audience participation at this
meeting.
Mayor Schwartz stated he felt discussion could be limited to members only.
Councilman Miller asked to have the matter of public transportation added
to the agenda.
14. On motion of Councilman Blake, seconded by Councilman Graham, the
following resolution was introduced. Resolution No. 1976, a resolution
expressing appreciation to Swift Aire and supporting the addition of a
flight stop in Fresno for Swift Aire Lines.
Passed and adopted on the following roll call:vote:
AYES: Emmons Blake, Myron Graham, Donald Q. Miller
Kenneth E. Schwartz
NOES: None
ABSENT: Arthur F. Spring
15. Mayor Schwartz brought to the Council's attention a communication from
J. Stockton, Park.and Recreation Supervisor, regarding a meeting with the.
Park and Recreation Commission.
The meeting was set for October 22, 1969.
16. R. D. Miller, Administrative Officer, brought to the Council's
attention a memorandum from the League of California Cities regarding a
hearing to be held on Proposition 3.
The matter was continued for further study by the Council.
17. The City Council adjourned to executive session.
18. t 12 :10 P.M. the meeting adjourned.
APPROVED: October 6, 1969 F TRICK
CITY C