Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/15/1976M I N U T E S REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO MONDAY, MARCH 15, 1976 - 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS,.CITY HALL Pledge Roll Call Councilmen PRESENT: Myron Graham, T. Keith Gurnee, Jesse Norris, Steve Petterson and Mayor Kenneth E. Schwartz ABSENT: None City Staff PRESENT: J.H. Fitzpatrick, City Clerk; Art Shaw, City Attorney; Rob Strong, Director of.Community Development.; Wayne Peterson, City Engineer; D.F. Romero, Director of Public Services; William Flory, Director of Parks and Recreation 1. The City Council held a public hearing on the report of the Superin- tendent of Streets to hear.objections or protests by the Southern Pacific Transportation Company for being assessed for.installation of curb and gutter on the 200 and 300 blocks of California Blvd at a cost of $4,689.30. Mayor Schwartz declared.the public hearing open. No one appeared before the City Council for or against the sidewalk assessment. Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing closed. On motion of.-Councilman Petterson, seconded by-.:Councilman Graham, the follow - ing resolution was introduced: Resolution No. 3016 (1976 Series)., a resolution '. of the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo confirming costs of curb and gutter improvements constructed pursuant to the Municipal Code. Passed and adopted on-the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmen.Petterson, Graham, Gurnee, Norris and Mayor Schwartz NOES: None ABSENT: None 2. The City Council held a public hearing on the proposed dwelling unit construction tax.ordinance for park purposes:. Memorandum from Jeff Jorgensen, Aid to;the City Attorney;.presenting_ the recommendations of the Planning Commission and the Parks & Recreation Commission for the need of a new source of revenue for park purposes since: 1) The:bulk of.development.activities of the city involved multi - family con - struction without subdivision; and . . 2) There are inherent.-inequities in.charging.only.subdivision activity to meet general community - needs. The proposed ordinance was a revenue measure only, not intended for regu- latory purposes..- The ordinance.:as.drafted, applied.only to.dwelling - units and receipts-from-the tax would be used.exclusively for parks.and.recrea- tion purposes. However, it should be clearly noted, that this reflected a.policy decision and:not a limitation required by law.. Therefore, a con- struction tax may be levied on all.construction, residential, commercial or industrial unless specifically exempted.by law. The ordinance was intend- ed to apply to the four major development situations: 1) new construction; 2) mobilehomes; 3) condominium conversions; and.4) conversion from motel to apartment use. The ordinance was designed to make issuance of a permit or other entitlement dependent upon payment of the tax. This would help to avoid delinquency and-collection problems as experienced -under various other city ordinances. City Council Minutes March 15, 1976:' Page 2 A provision for credit for dedication..or in- lieu::fee payment under the "Quimby Act ".had been included. It had been suggested that-the Quimby Act remain in effect until such time..as it could be amended. City Attorney Art.Shaw spoke in support of the city adding this new tax in an effort to have the people who are causing the need for parks pay a portion of the necessary cost for this development. Rob. Strong,. Community.Development.Director, spoke..in.support of.adopting the , proposed tax in order to realize some development of parks within the City of San Luis Obispo. The City Council discussed with the staff various elements of the proposed ordinance prior to public hearing. Mayor Schwartz declared the-public hearing open. D. Ingersoll stated he.was opposed to.imposition of an- additional tax on build- ings to add park lands to the city when:provisions were.not made for annexing just acquisitions. He felt that the new tax would only add.to the cost of buildings and development on people who could hardly afford to buy land for housing at this time. Mike DeNeve, Manager of the Building Contractor's Association, asked that this matter be continued so the builders, contractors, financial operators, etc. could get some input into this ordinance for the Council's consideration and also the Council should continue this consideration until after the 1974 -1975 General Plan-had been adopted and the.citizens had had an opportunity to see where the new parks will be located. He felt that this was unfair as only new construction and newcomers to the community would pay the bill. .Robert.Leitcher.felt_ that some form:of..tax should.be._levied..on.new construction .in order have the new people pay for.a _ portion:of.the - flood.control of the community: Jack Foster, developer, opposed the new tax on development for parks by a.con- struction tax on.new buildings. He felt that this tax was unfair to the minority. He felt the city should be divided into zones of benefit and the cost of park maintenance, etc. assessed to developers within each zone. Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing closed. Rob Strong again spoke in support of the new proposed construction tax on buildings in order to attempt to develop new parks within the city. Councilman Gurnee spoke in support, of the tax on new constructions in the city in order to acquire land for new parks. He felt new subdivisions and constructions were the-ones causing the need for parks and he would support adoption of a construction tax. Councilman Norris stated he would .support the construction tax. He felt the ordinance did spread the costs of parks and recreation over larger areas and he also felt it should be levied-against mobile homes, etc. Although he would oppose adoption as it only added to the cost of dwellings in the city. He felt the city seemed to constantly do all they can to add costs to new housing construction which he felt only kept development down. Councilman Petterson stated he agreed with..the.request of Mike DeNeve to refer this matter to a Study Session for review and consideration by the contractors, developers, and financial institutions. He stated that he was not in opposition to the concept of the construction tax although he felt that city parks were poorly maintained at the..present time and the city should not add more acreage to the city inventory if they were not going to take care of it. Councilman Graham felt that insufficient funds were now being levied for park purposes. Even with the great inflow of utility tax funds, he would still support this construction tax and would also.agree that the matter be referred to the contractors and architects of the community for study and /or amendments and suggestions. 1 1 1 City Council Minutes. March 15, 1976 Page 3 Mayor Schwartz felt the tax was needed.at this time. He would not object to a delay to allow the contractors and architects to make recommendations although this matter had.been before the Council several times with input by contractors. On motion of Mayor Schwartz,.seconded by Councilman.Petterson, that the matter be continued to April.X0 1976 Council meeting with the staff to meet and make copies of the.proposed..ordinance available to.the contractors, architects, financial institutions, etc. Motion.carried. 3. The.City Council considered the final adoption of Ordinance No. 662. Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing open. No one appeared before the City Council. Mayor Schwartz declar'ed'.the public hearing closed. On motion of Councilman..Graham, seconded by Councilman Petterson, the following ordinance was introduced for.final passage: Ordinance No. 6'62 (1976 Series), an ordinance amending the official zone map of the City of San Luis Obispo to rezone property at 1110 Orcutt Road.at the property line at 1130 Orcutt Road. Finally passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmen Graham, Gurnee, Petterson, Norris.and Mayor.Schwartz NOES: None ABSENT: None 4. The City Council.considered the final passage of Ordinance No. 663. Mayor Schwartz declared the public.hearing.open. No one appeared - before the City Council for or against the ordinance. Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing closed. On motion of.Councilman Graham, seconded..by Councilman Petterson, the following ordinance was introduced for final passage:.. Ordinance No. 663 (1976 Series), an ordinance of the City of San Luis Obispaamending certain provisions of the Municipal Code related to excavation and grading, adding Article IX, Chapter 4 to the Municipal Code:.and repealing certain previous Municipal Code provisions concerning taxation and grading. Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmen Graham, Gurnee, Norris, Petterson and Mayor Schwartz NOES: None ABSENT: None 5. The City Council considered the final passage of Ordinance No. 664. Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing open. No one appeared before the City Council for or against the proposed ordinance. Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing closed. On motion of Councilman Petterson, seconded by Councilman Norris, the..following ordinance was introduced for final passage: -Ordinance No..664 (1976 Series), an ordinance of the City of San Luis Obispo.adding.Sections to Article III.V, Chapter 10 of the.Municipal Code prohibiting parking of certain vehicles near intersections.and prohibiting nighttime parking near dwellings of certain large vehicles and certain vehicles operating air conditioning-equipment. Finally passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmen Graham, Gurnee, Norris, Petterson and Mayor Schwartz NOES: None ABSENT: None City Council Minutes March 15, 1976. Page 4 6. The.City- Council considered.the final passage-of Ordinance No. 665. Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing open. No one appeared before the City Council for.or against..the..proposed ordinance._ Mayor..Schwartz declared the public hearing-closed. Councilman Norris stated that he was opposed to any.increase.in.parkitig fines in the City of-San Luis Obispo. He'felt that-the parking meters were unfair and did not allow the.housewives- enough time to shop.within.the community. On motion-of Councilman Graham, seconded-by Councilman.Petterson, the following ordinance was introduced for final passage: Ordinance No. 665 (1976 Series), an ordinance of the City of San Luis Obispo amending the Municipal Code to add a separate section establishing fines for parking violations to increase $1.00 fines to $2.00-and to.provide- for more..than one. offense.for parking violations subject to minimum fines. Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmen Graham, Gurnee, Petterson and Mayor'Schwartz NOES: Councilman Norris ABSENT: None 7. The City Council considered the final passage of Ordinance No. 666. .Mayor Schwartz-declared the public hearing open. No one appeared before the City Council for or against the ordinance. Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing closed. On motion of Councilman Petterson, seconded.by Councilman Norris, the following ordinance was introduced for final passage:-.Ordinance No. 666 (1976 Series), an ordinance amending the Municipal Code to.establish a speed limit on.Higuera_Street._ . Finally -..passed on the following roll- ..call- vote:. AYES: Councilmen Graham, Gurnee, Norris, Petterson and Mayor Schwartz NOES: None I ABSENT: None. 8. Planned Development Application PD 0528, Brent Dickens, to rezone 668 and 672 Serrano Drive -and 88 through 98 Palomar Drive from R-1-to PD R -1 to construct 18 condominium single family units and five single family lots. (continued from March 1, 1976). Rob-Strong, Director of Community.Development, submitted .a series of driveway alternatives to serve the proposed development. All of the entry /exit align- ments have been reviewed by staff and in the staff's opinion, alternatives D, E and F are most acceptable. Each of the alternatives present a different set of-problems which affects a particular group of adjacent residents. The- planning staff .recommended that D or E (both of.which were acceptable to the City Engineer and Director of Public Services) because ..they had adequate site distance, rela- tively small amounts of .grading, were relatively short, and provided anaestheti- cally pleasing.residential character for development. Fraser Neil, 120 Serrano Heights, opposed to the proposed development by Brent Dickens as he felt that the traffic generated by this development would make living here intolerable. He suggested that the entrance /exit for these apart- ments should be at the Broad and Murray intersection. If not, he would support access from the-development to PalomarrDrive. Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing open. i I 1 City-Council Minutes March 15, 1976 Page 5 Brent Dickens,.developer, stated that_he .would agree that Scheme E as recommended.by staff was the best access_to.Serrano Drive from his development. A. Ingersoll.was opposed to putting more.traffic on Broad.Street or Serrano .Drive. He favored an intersection at Broad and Murray. Harold Wilson,.Serrano Drive, stated that his neighbors.still objected to Schemes C,'D and E aud.they favored B or.F which would prohibit access to Serrano Drive. He questioned the city staff objective in not stating when lots A and F were sold.and not considered part of this development. He .felt that this was dishonest as he felt.that the-owners-of both developments were the same. Bill Troutner, Broad Street, stated that Scheme A was originally a part of this development although he would support F for a better intersection.at Murray and Broad. He, too, objected to pouring all the traffic onto Serrano Drive. Jerry Houser, Palomar Drive, opposed to P1an.A and- B.due.to the grade, as she felt.that the traffic would go either along Serrano Drive and Palomar regard- less of where the access was. Keith Houser, Palomar Drive, objected to Schemes A and B as he felt- that they were no longer under consideration or a part of this development. John King, property owner, stated that at one time,:roverdtwo years ago, he owned all the land but since that time he had disposed of lots with Route A, B and F and they were not included in the Brent Dickens' proposal as his was a separate development. Mrs..Arthur Swain,. Serrano.Drive;.objected to. proposed.access as.she felt this would devalue her property. Mayor-Schwartz declared the public hearing closed. Rob Strong, Director of Community Development, again reviewed city action to date in proposing this planned development-for Brent Dickens and that the city staff felt that the Scheme E was the first or best choice for access to the development. Councilman Petterson stated that the Traffic Committee's first priority to this development was access to Broad Street. He continued that he felt that access F would be his first choice with A second and he was opposed to C, D and E. Councilman Graham stated he could support Scheme E with access to Serrano Drive. Councilman Gurnee stated that access to Palomar was not a viable alternative as the property was not owned.by the developer.. He felt that Scheme.F had not been published for public hearing and if the Council felt it should be con- sidered then it should go back to the Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Commission to consider this alternative. Finally, he stated he would support D in order to save what.he.felt was a fine residential development. Councilman Norris stated that he.could support Plan A with access.to Palomar. If -.this access was not feasible, then.he would.support F with access to Broad and Murray Street intersection. He would oppose.any access to this develop- ment onto Serrano Drive which was a.aubstandard street.in width and construction. Mayor Schwartz stated he felt that this planned development was well done acid should be saved, if possible, and:he.hoped that this property would not develop into conventional track housing. He felt that.with all the.alternatives pre- sented that E was the best, but due to the nei'hborhood.protest he would object to C, D and E would then be forced to accept Scheme .F with access to Broad and Murray Streets-although he felt he could live with either A and B if realigned. City Council Minutes March 15, 1976 Page 6 Brent Dickens upon question stated that he felt Scheme F was unacceptable to him and he would not pursue the development with it. He felt the same with A and B and if the Council required any of these three alternatives, he would withdraw his application and ask the Council to drop it from con - sidecation. On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Graham, that the City Council approve the planned development with access D and with trees to be placed to the rea of the development protecting Palomar Drive. , Motion lost on the following vote: AYES: Councilmen Graham and Gurnee NOES: Councilmen Norris, Petterson and Mayor Schwartz ABSENT: None On motion of Councilman Norris, seconded by Councilman Petterson, that the matter be continued for 30 days to April 19, 1976 and refer the matter to the Planning Commission to study and recommend other access to the develop- ment rather than Serrano Drive. Motion carried on the following vote: AYES: Councilmen Norris, Petterson and Mayor Schwartz NOES: Councilmen Graham and Gurnee ABSENT: None 9. Communication from Rob Strong dealing with the temporary closure of Broad Street at Monterey between Palm and the Museum parking lot. He proposed ' that an experimental, temporary closure of a portion of Broad and Monterey Streets adjoining Mission Plaza and the Museum might give the public an oppor- tunity :to express their opinions of the potential success or failure to eval- uate. The planning staff and Design Review Board wished to test what happened when this dog -leg was closed to through traffic to analyze actual impacts of the possible extension of pedestrian and parking improvements of Mission Plaza. He stated that the Community Development staff had completed traffic counts and would conduct parking utilization studies prior to the temporary closure. They wanted to test where diverted traffic went and what unanticipated problems were created by making this short segment of street into a plaza and /or parking lot. He continued that before this matter could even be outlined to the Design Review Board, the City Traffic Committee opposed the concept without explanation unless a permanent "S" curve was installed through the block to facilitate through traffic. He stated that before he could even explain to the Traffic Committee, the Downtown Association and BIA unanimously decided that the closure of any streets within the downtown core area would be detrimental to business and traffic, joining the Traffic Committee's approach of an "S" curve. Conversely, the people who would be most affected, the residents and the owners of property on Broad Street, were contacted and did not object to the closure, either temporary or permanent, but strongly opposed the "S" extension. He continued that if an apparently good idea, extending Mission Plaza, could not be conceived, coordinated, explained and evaluated, before three advisory committees who prematurely opposed even the experimental concept, he stated it would be very difficult to complete studies. Therefore, on behalf of the City Community Development Department, he strongly recommended and requested the Council authorize this experiment and evaluation so they could coordinate with the interested groups and provide factual data on what happens with the street "as is" and what might happen if the closure was pursued as a permanent feature. The experiment could be postponed but he recommended that it be conducted while the design consultant was available for Mission Plaza. He hoped it would not simply be dismissed due to misunderstand- ing, misinformation and premature prerequisites. City Council Minutes March 15, 1976 Page 7 Wayne Peterson, City Engineer, stated that on behalf of the Traffic Committee, that they were opposed with the concept of closing the dog -leg to permanent traffic, but they would not disagree if it were to be just a temporary closure for study purposes. Ron Dunin, President of the Downtown Association, submitted a communication stating that the BIA and Downtown Association wished to go on'recdrd as strongly opposing the permanent closure of any street in the downtown court area of San Luis Obispo for any purpose whatsoever. The only exception being temporary closure for community events or necessary public works projects. It was their feeling that the vitality and welfare_ of the downtown depended on easy accessibility to all business and professional offices, through open streets and proper parking facilities. Councilman Norris stated he was opposed to the closing of Broad and Monterey Streets for any reason as recommended unless a substitute number of street parking spaces were included to allow people to park downtown. He felt that without substitute parking or routing to the city, he would be opposed to this operation. On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Mayor Schwartz, the following resolution was introduced: Resolution No. 3017 (1976 Series), a resolution of the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo authorizing the temporary closure of portions of Broad Street and Monterey Street for study purposes. Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmen Gurnee, Graham and Mayor Schwartz NOES: Councilmen Norris and Petterson ABSENT: None 10. Memorandum from the Waterway's Planning Board regarding Application No. 106 - Drainage Improvements - Highland, Princeton and Stanford Streets Area recommending that the City Council 1) order the Public Services Depart- ment to construct insect abatement measures; 2) City crews were to remove the parapets from the culverts; and 3) the City Council should examine the situation in one year and, if necessary, place channel improvements on the capital improvement program. D.F. Romero, Public Services Director, reviewed for the City Council the effort expended by city forces in attempting to maintain a continuous flow line in the subject drainage channel. Due to size of channel, all work must be done-by hand using shovels, boards, wheelbarrows, etc. Whatever clearing work is done it lasts only a few weeks due to fast growing weeds in the channel bottom. A regular insect abatement program was carried on as well as responding to all complaints. The Waterway's Planning Board recommenda- tion was to eliminate all stagnant pools and maintain this channel in this condition would require perhaps one 3 -man crew for three weeks to do the initial cleanup and then one man full time one day per week thereafter. Mr. Romero felt this was an ineffective use of manpower to maintain this small area of channel. He suggested that the City Council improve this channel to the same standard as has been done below Felton Way or if this was not possible, he recommended that at least the channel bottom should be lined with concrete or gunite in order to minimize this never ending main- tenance problem. The City Council discussed with Councilmembers on the Waterway's Planning Board and staff the extent of the problem and estimate of cost tQ correct. 1) . , . . ,, On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Mayor Schwartz, that the matter of drainage improvements in this channel be referred to the 1976/1977 Capital Improvement Program for possible inclusion in the 1976/77 city budget. Motion carried, all ayes. City Council Minutes March 15, 1976 Page 8 11. Jack Kellerman, Chief Building Inspector, brought to the Council's attention, the problem of the Obispo Theatre Demolition which was progressing at a very slow pace. He stated that this was causing concern and displeasure amongst the downtown businessmen and staff personnel. This in turn, prompted him to request guidance from the City Council as to what they believe to be a reasonable period of time to allow for the demolition contractor to continue to clutter up and use the public streets, sidewalks and parking lots. He stated the initial permit for demolition .was.issued..on._January 27, 1976, and revoked on February 4, 1976. The work was stopped from February 4, 1976 until February 11, 1976, on which date a.new and amended permit was.isstied. Since the second permit.was issued,.the contractor has had various problems, both real and imagined, which seemed to have delayed, what he believe to be, diligent progress on the project. He continued that it was unfortunate that-in their efforts'to corporate with the contractor, no time period for completion was stated,-either verbally,or in writing, or as a condition of the demolition permit. Because of this omission;,, and the unsightly mess that it had developed, plus loss of revenue from parking and-inconvenience to shoppers, he stated he felt obligated to request guidance on the continuation of the project.. He recommended that the city notify the contractor that he had until_March.31, 1976, to remove all building debris and.rubble from city property,.make_necessa.ry repairs and return such public property to public use.. The only exception he would recommend, would be permission to occupy the side- walks and vehicle lanes alongside the property on Monterey and Osos Streets. This would allow the contractor to load at these two street fronts and continue his demolition and cleanup. Mr. Bordan, contractor, spoke of harassment by the Building Inspectors and City Engineers in trying to prosecute.the demolition of the Obispo Theatre Building 1 for the property owner and trying to salvage material. He expected to be done by March 31, 1976. On motion of Councilman Graham, seconded by Councilman Norris, that the City Council accept the.recommendation of the Chief Building Inspector and to guide him to get the contractor off the property by March 31, 1976 except allow the contractor to occupy the sidewalks and vehicle lanes along the property on Monterey and Osos Street and if not done by the 31st of March, for the city to clean up the public parking areas. Motion carried,.all ayes. 12. Ron Dunin, President and Chairman of'the.Business Improvement Area City of San Luis Obispo, urged the City Council to adopt the recommendafion of the Joint Parking Committee, BIA,.DTA and city staff, which would involve .changing the parking meter zones; parking meter rates, etc. (continued from the March 15, 1976 meeting). Bud Idler, Idler's Appliance and member of.the'Board of.the the provisions of the.BlA, DTA and city staff in increasing rates, time periods, etc....He felt that.-if the City Council it would be the ruination of downtown and would run the cus and Santa Maria. He hoped the City Council would take some its action if it proceeded with these idiotic changes. BIA, objected to parking meter fines, pursued this program, tourers to.Atascadero responsibility for Councilman.Graham agreed that all-the recommendations should not be initiated. He felt .lOC an hour was too much for the customers in San Luis Obispo. Councilman Petterson stated he agreed with Idler's comments.. He felt it was a mistake for the City Council to take this action as it would hurt business downtown. He agreed that it would force customers to Santa Maria and to other shopping centers. D.F. Romero stated that the majority of the Downtown Association and'the BIA members and Police Department and Public.Services Department employees were making this request to try to improve the parking problems in Downtown San Luis Obispo. 4 City Council Minutes March 15, 1976. Page 9 Councilman Gurnee felt the City Council.should accept the recommendations of the:BlA, DTA.and city.staff':and try and alleviate the parking problems in the community. Councilman Norris felt he could support some of the recommendations but not all of them and he would like to go through them one by one. Mayor Schwartz.questioned what the BIA and DTA really want the Council to do with money increases in fines, rates, etc. The City Council again considered item by item the joint report.of the city staff and Business Improvement Area Parking Committee, Items l thru.15. After discussion, it was moved -by Councilman Graham, seconded by_CQuncilman Petterson, that the matter be referred to a Wednesday study meeting. Motion carried. 13. Communication from some six businesses.in the Monterey /Garfield Streets area requesting that the City Council approve an engineering map changing the present entrance to Monterey Street which would allow easier access. The business-people concerned stated that.all the traffic from the north bypassed these business establishments completely and there-was a tremendous business loss because of traffic dispersement as was now shown. J.H. Fitzpatrick,-City Clerk,.read an extract from.the Traffic Committee report of October 29, 1975, No: TC- 3T =11 -75 of.a request by Dan Smith, Community Development - Department, to review intersection modifications in Buena Vista and Monterey Streets. The attached plan indicated that the proposed modifi- cation at-the- intersection to eliminate the free right turn onto Monterey Street:.: The Traffic Committee staff, in reviewing the intersection, found that there was no justification in spending city funds for this modification. If a property owner- developer wished to be responsible for.the costs involved in new construction -ofw curb, gutter and sidewalk and extending driveways from the service station as well as additional landscaping, the city.staff would'be.happy to review the - .proposal at the appropriate time. The Committee, therefore, denied the request. without prejudice. Councilman - Petterson stated he was opposed to spending city funds on this pro- ject but otherwise.-did not object if the property owners wished to do it although, in his mind, it was a low item in the CIP priority list.-- Councilman Graham agreed with the petition that there was a problem and what the cost might be. Wayne Peterson, City.Engineer,.stated the estimated construction cost was $5,000. On motion of Councilman Norris, seconded by Councilman Petterson, that the city do the engineering at no cost to the property owners if the property owners put up the construction cost on the project. Motion.carried, all ayes. 14. Wayne Peterson, City Engineer, brought to the Council's attention, the matter of Leonard Lenger., on behalf of the property owner Mr. Rick Wilson, that the city..dispose.of some.excess public property adjacent to Loomis Street and allow it to become attached to their lot 23 of the Monterey Heights tract. He stated the existing right -of -way for Loomis Street was somewhat irregular because of the underlying subdivision of land and the fact that the right -of -way was purchased in part.by the "State for the construction of Highway 101. The city now had fee title to Loomis Street including the area which was apparently not needed for street purposes. The last time the Council considered this, the Council made the following findings: 1) A portion of the right -of -way for Loomis Street should be abandoned by the city for street purposes because it was excess -for said purpose. City Council Minutes March 15, 1976 Page 10 2) The property in..question.should..be combined ..with_adjacent.property.owners in order-to permit:the.lot.to become conforming.in.lot area to the zoning ordinance minimum lot size. There were other lots contiguous to the city property which-might have the right to.bid on the property although it appeared unuseable to them. 3) If the City.Council.indicated.an intent to dispose..of -the excess property, the applicant had agreed to pay fora survey of the property. 4) If the survey was conducted, a report should.be submitted to the City Council from the City Engineer indicating precisely that:portion of the street right -of- way.needed for street purposes including curb, gutter, sidewalk and slope easements and that portion which was excess. 5) Any sale of the property should result in the construction of curb,- gutter, and sidewalk along the entire frontage of the property; the cost of con- struction might be.included in the bid price. The applicant for this..request, Rick Wilson, stated he would :be willing to buy all the excess property if they would not be required to install curb, gutter -and sidewalk.across both.portions.of the property -they wouldn't be using directly. The city staff felt that all excess property should be disposed of and that the improvements should be installed.. They also felt that if-the property were sold, a parcel map should be recorded'showing.the combination and stating that the new portion of the property were not to be considered as.a separate building site. Rick Wilson, property owner, appeared before the City Council stating that he had purchased Lots 24 and 25 and that he wished to purchase the surplus prop- erty but to be required to install curb, gutter and.sidewalk on all that strip of Loomis Street would be prohibited. After.discussion,.it was moved by Councilman Petterson, seconded by Councilman 1 Gurnee, the following .resolution'was.introduced: Resoluticrn::No._3018 (1976 Series), a resolution of the.Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conditionally authorizing transfer of certain city -owned real property-to the adjacent property owners. Motion carried on the following roll.call vote: AYES: Councilmen.Petterson, Gurnee, Graham, Norris and Mayor Schwartz NOES: None ABSENT: None 15. Memorandum from Paul Landell requesting council consideration of his status supporting the activities of the Zone 9 Advisory Committee was continued. 16. Memorandum from D.F. Romero, Director of Public Services, requesting council consideration regarding certain items discussed at the Mass Transportation Committee Meeting of March 10, 1976 was continued. 17. Wayne Peterson, City Engineer, stated that the city staff had met with a delegation from the Nazarene Church on Johnson Avenue regarding the agreement between the city and the church. He stated they were unhappy with that portion of the agreement which would require them to install one -half of Flora Street whenever the city decided to.build the other half of the street. They are proposing that the agreement be modified to say "They will pay for their half of the street when then develop the adjacent property if the street has already been constructed by the city. If the street has not been constructed when they apply for development of the adjacent, property they will construct one half of Flora Street." City Council Minutes March 15, 1976 Page 11 Wayne Peterson stated that he felt this proposal was reasonable and acceptable and urged the council to approve the recommendation. On motion of Mayor Schwartz, seconded by Councilman Graham, that the city accept the recommendation of staff, but that any development beyond the existing use permit issued to the church would require the installation of one -half of Flora Street. 18. Council consideration of the WATER LINE IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS, ORANGE DRIVE AND STORY STREET, City Plan No. 16 -76 was continued for consideration. 19. Communication from Joyce Levin, Parks & Recreation Commission, stating that she had made arrangements with Linda Chape to hold the Grassroots II Fund Raising Dance on Saturday, April 3 at the Recreation Center on Santa Rosa Street. But she now requests, in the name of Grassroots II, to be placed on the City Council Agenda to seek final council approval permitting the fund raising event and also to waive various fees for putting on the dance. On motion of Councilman Petterson, seconded by Councilman Graham, the City Council approved the dance for Grassroots II and waived all city fees. I- lotion carried, all ayes. CONSENT ITEMS: C -1 On motion of Councilman Graham, seconded by Councilman Gurnee, claims against the city for the month of March, 1976, were approved subject to the approval of the City Clerk. Motion carried. C -2 On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Graham, the minutes of the following council meetings were approved as presented: November 5, 1975 November 19, 1975 ' November 11, 1975 December 15, 1975 November 17, 1975 November 18, 1975 Motion carried. C -3 On motion of Mayor Schwartz, seconded by Councilman Norris, the following resolution was introduced: Resolution No. 3019 (1976 Series), a resolution of the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo approving the Final Map of Minor Subdivision No. 433 - E1 Cerrito Court (Leonard Blaser). Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote: AYES: Mayor Schwartz, Councilmen Norris, Graham, Gurnee and Petterson NOES: None ABSENT: None C -4 On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Graham, the Mayor was authorized to issue a proclamation launching Grassroots II Month as a fund raising effort for the acquisition of a permanent facility to house Grassroots II. Motion carried. C -5 Request from Linnaea Phillips, Plaza Events, for permission to use ' the Mission Plaza on May 1 for the presentation of May Day -Kids' Day and use of the adobe for art display and permission to close Broad between Palm and Monterey Streets. On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Graham, the request was approved based upon the past excellent activities of this applicant and authorized the City Clerk to approve future applications for the 4th of July and Christmas in the Plaza activities. Motion carried. City Council Minutes March 15, 1976 Page 12 C -6 On motion of Mayor Schwartz, seconded by Councilman Norris, the following resolution was introduced: Resolution No. 3020 (1976 Series), a resolution of the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo approving maps from the State of California Department of Transportation indicating the urban limits for the City of San Luis Obispo (SAU). Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote: AYES: Mayor Schwartz, Councilmen Norris, Graham, Gurnee and Petterson I NOES: None ABSENT: None C -7 In accordance with city policy, the request of Warren Dolezal, President of Garden Homes Lmtd. asking that the City Council approve the Los Verdes Park Subdivision Improvements was continued to the next council meeting. C -8 On motion of Mayor Schwartz, seconded by Councilman Petterson, the request of the Community Development Director for a study session for the 1976 281 - Capital Improvement Program was approved to be held on March 22, 1976. Motion carried. C -9 On motion of Councilman Petterson, seconded by Mayor Schwartz, and due to the fact that the Arroyo Coatings Inc. have not filed the bond required for the Terrace Hill- Bishop Street Water Tank Project, the council rejected all bids and authorized preparation of further bid calls. C -10 On motion of Mayor Schwartz, seconded by Councilman Graham, that the memorandum from Rob Strong, Community Development Director, notifying the City Council of the Post Office Services plan for a customer service and distribution center at Madonna Road Plaza is under consideration and the staff recommended that the council wait until the developer -owner is ready ' to submit the required documentation. Motion carried with Mayor Schwartz voting no. Mayor Schwartz stated that he was opposed to the additional traffic that would be placed on Madonna Road. C -11 On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Graham, Public Services Director was authorized to approve installation of a street light at the intersection of San Luis Drive and Andrews Street. Motion carried. C -12 Petition from 14 property owners along McMillazAvenue, Orcutt Road and Broad Street requesting council consideration for.the construction of improvements by Special Assessment and Assessment Bond Acts for sewer service and waiver of proceedings under Division 4 of the Streets and Highways Code, was referred to the city staff to outline the procedure, procure estimated costs and be continued to the March 17, 1976 study session. C -13 On motion of Councilman Norris, seconded by Mayor Schwartz, the following resolution was introduced: Resolution No. 3021 (1976 Series), a resolution of the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo expressing the council's intention to cooperate with the County of San Luis Obispo in establishing rates for solid -waste disposal at landfill sites in the unincorporated areas. Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilman Norris, Mayor Schwartz, Councilmen Graham, Gurnee I and Petterson NOES: None ABSENT: None City Council Minutes March 15, 1976 Page 13 C -14 Communication from the Parks & Recreation Commission and from the San Luis Obispo Coastal Unified School District asking council consideration to appoint Mr. Larry Meek to replace Robert Neal on the Advisory Committee on Joint Recreational Use of School District Property. On motion of Councilman Norris, seconded by Councilman Gurnee, recommendations were accepted and Larry Meek was added to the Advisory Committee on Joint Recreational Use of School District Property. Motion carried. C -15 Memorandum from Mayor Schwartz requesting council consideration to authorize J.H. Fitzpatrick, Acting Administrative Officer /City Clerk, to advertise for a new full -time City Attorney was continued to the March 17, 1976 study session on motion of Councilman Norris, seconded by Mayor Schwartz. Motion carried. C -16 On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Graham, the claim against the city by AFCO Financial Services, Inc., for damages incurred by sewer backed up in front of their office was denied and referred to the insurance carrier. Motion carried. C -17 On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Graham, the claim against the city by Tony Gomez for damage incurred when sewer overflowed in her front yard was denied and referred to the insurance carrier. Motion carried. C -18 On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Graham, claim against the city by P. Evans for $244 worth of damage incurred when hitting a fire hydrant placed in the middle of the only driveway to 2550 Broad Street was denied and referred to the insurance carrier. Motion carried. C -19 On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Graham, claim against the city by Adam Thomas Knapp for damage to real property and business was denied and referred to the insurance carrier. Motion carried. C -20 On motion of Councilman Gurnee,-seconded by Councilman Graham, the following salary step increases were approved: Darrell W. Bardos - Utility Plant Operator I From Step 1 or $752 to Step 2 or $794 Marcia S. Collins - Account Clerk I From Step 1 or $618 to Step 2 or $654 Lurinda DuFresne - Dispatcher -Clerk From Step 2 or $684 to Step 3 or $728 Yvonne E. Hampton - Dispatcher -Clerk From Step 4 or $768 to Step 5 or $814 Susan M. Hoover - Typist Clerk II From Step 2 or $654 to Step 3 or $688 Robert G. Mote - Utilities Engineer From Step 4 or $1570 to Step 5 or $1660 Sherri Ripa - Secretary From Step 2 or $710 to Step 3 or $752 ' Janet D. Rude - Detective From Step 2 or $1012 to Step 3 or $1072 Motion carried. City Council Minutes March 15, 1976 Page 14 C -21 J.H. Fitzpatrick, Acting Administrative Officer /City Clerk, announced the fol owing...appoin ents to City Employment: Vicki L. Ashby, Typist Clerk I, Step I, $550 per month, effective March 4, 1976. Roger Reyes, Maintenance Man II, Step I, $752 per month, effective March 1, 1976. There being no further business to come before the City Council, Mayor Schwartz adjourned the meeting to 12:10 p.m., Wednesday, March 18, 1976. . Fitzpatrick, City Clerk 1 F