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