HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/03/1963�II
�J
REGULAR MEETING OF C111- COi ,;CIL
September 3, 19u3 - 7:30 P. X.
CITY HALL
Invocation was given by Mayor Clay P. Davidson.
Roll Call
City Staff
Present: Clay P. Davidson, Miss Margaret McNeil, R. L. Graves, Jr.,
Donald Q. Miller, Clell W. Whelchel
Present: P. Chapman, Director of Planning & Building; J. H. Fitzpatric
city %leak; W. Flory, a�p2riateadent of F::xke u Recreation;
1. M. Mouser, City Attorney; R. D. Miller, Administrative
Officer; D. F. Romero, City Engineer; L. Schlobohm, Fire
Chief; W. Schofield, Police Chien.
The minutes of the meetings of August 12 and 19, 1 1163 were held over.
Claims against the City for the month of September, 1963, were approved and
ordered paid, subject to the approval of the Administrative Officer, on motion
of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Whelchel.
1. R. D. Miller. Administrative Officer, announced the appointment of
N. Arlene Grice as Parking Enforcement officer (Fzmale) for the Police
Department, effective September 1, 1913 at $350.00 per month.
2. Communication from Barbara Ryan, Typist - Clerk, in the City Library, requesting
that she be allowed one week's vacation prior to her anniversary date.
R. D. FSiller, Administrative Officer, and Miss Patricia Clark, City Librarian,
recommend approval by the City Council.
On motion of Councilman Graves, seconded by Councilman Miller, the request
was approved.
3. On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilwoman McNeil,_the following
contract payments were approved and ordered paid:
TED WATKINS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
Street Repair Program, Phase 11M" Est. 'k3 $528.32
Est. #4 (Final) $569.85
MIRAFLORES CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
South Higuera Sewer Trunk Line Est. #3 $5,852.59
Est. #4 (Final) $6,343.38
C. S. CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
Foothill Blvd., Stenner Creek to
California Blvd. Street Improvement Est. #2 $5,779.57
NORTH BAY CONSTRUCTION COMPA11Y
Sewage Treatment Plant Enlargement Est. #12 $539076.64
4. J. H. Fitzpatrick, City Clerk, reported to the City Council the following
bids received for the improvement of Municipal Parking Lot No. 1, City Plan.
No. 3 -64.
C. S. Construction $9,523.10
General Engineering & Construction 72995.35
Ted Watkins Construction Co. 10,564.05
Madonna Construction Co. 119597.00
R. D. Miller, Administrative Officer, recommended that the low bid of
General Engineering & Construction Company be accepted as it is well under
the Engineer's estimate and within the budgeted funds.
On motion of Councilman Graves, seconded by Councilman Whelchel, the low bid
of General Engineering & Construction Company was accepted.
City Council Minutes
September 3, 1963
Page -2-
4a. J. H. Fitzpatrick, City Clerk, reported on the following bids received for
the Fire Truck with 1250 G. P. M. Triple Combination Pumping Zngine:
LESS TRAD3 LESS TRADE
TOTAL 1939 I-ACK 1941 AMER LAY. NET
33,477.60 19050.00 450.00 31,977.50
36,290.80 250.00 250.00 35,790.80
34,223.05 425.00 575.00 33,223.05
R. D. Miller, Administrative Officer, recocmended that the low bid be held
over two (2) weeks so that the Fire Chief and the Administrative Officer could
investigate this matter, since tae bids were over the budgeted funds.
On motion of Councilmar Graves, seconded by Councilman Miller, Mr. Miller's
recommendation was approved. Motio_i carried.
5. J. H. Fitzpatrick, Citv Clerk, reported on the following bids received for the
widening of Madonna Road, City Plan No. 2 -64:
Madonna Construction Company $5,507.00
C. S. Construction Company 52786.50
Guido 0. Ferini 5,960.00
General Engineering & Const. Co. 5,990.00
Ted Watkins Construction Co. 6,156.50
R. D. Miller, Administrative Officer, reco=ended that the low bid of Madonna
Construction Company be awarded. Cost of construction: $5,507.00.
On motion of Councilman miller, seconded by Councilman Graves, the low bid of
Madonna Construction Company was approved.
6. Agreement between the Shell Oil Company and the City of San Luis Obispo, to
install curb, gutter and sidewalk and driveway ramp across Shell Oil Company's
eighty foot (80') frontage lying along 4x1196 Foothill Boulevard.
7. Agreement to install curb, gutter and driveway ramp across Mary E. Taylor's
fifteen foot (15') frontage lying along Foothill Boulevard between the
Southern Pacific right -o£ -way and the Shell Oil Company Distributing Plant.
8. Grant Deed from Frederick and Rosemary Julien for property located in the
California Park Subdivision along the southerly line of Foothill Blvd. a
distance of 150.00 ft.
Mr. W. M. F:ouser, Cite Attorney, stated that the two (2) agreements provide
for the property owner to reimburse the City for their pro -rata cost of curb,
gutter and :;idewalk improve:aents across their frontage.
On motion of Councilman Graves, seconded by Councilman 1:4:elchel, Mayor
Davidson was authorized to accept and ssi�,'n thr agreements on behalf of the
City and to accept and record the Grant Deed.
9. !,t this time an agreement wit': ths: Cit j Neon to place a free standing sign
located at 1347 Monterey Street and remove same if and when the City wideps
the street, was introduced.
City Attorney Houser explained the conditions of the agreement.
On motion of Councilman Graves, seconded by Councilman Hiller. the Mayor was
authorized to sign th.- agreement on behalf of the City.
10. On motion of Councilman Hheichal, seconded by Councilman Graves, the following
ordinance was introduced for final passage. Ordinance No. 268, an ordinance
amending Sect ?on 9200.5 of the San Lu:'.r: Obispo Municipal Code to change the
zoning of a parcel of property from '11411 to
Finally passed on the following roll call toLp :
PLUS
NAME
PRICE
SALES TAX
'
Mack Trucks
NO BID
P.E.Van Pelt
329190.00
1,287.60
Seagrave Corp.34,895.00
1,395.80
Crown Fire -
coach
32,911.59
1,316.59
LESS TRAD3 LESS TRADE
TOTAL 1939 I-ACK 1941 AMER LAY. NET
33,477.60 19050.00 450.00 31,977.50
36,290.80 250.00 250.00 35,790.80
34,223.05 425.00 575.00 33,223.05
R. D. Miller, Administrative Officer, recocmended that the low bid be held
over two (2) weeks so that the Fire Chief and the Administrative Officer could
investigate this matter, since tae bids were over the budgeted funds.
On motion of Councilmar Graves, seconded by Councilman Miller, Mr. Miller's
recommendation was approved. Motio_i carried.
5. J. H. Fitzpatrick, Citv Clerk, reported on the following bids received for the
widening of Madonna Road, City Plan No. 2 -64:
Madonna Construction Company $5,507.00
C. S. Construction Company 52786.50
Guido 0. Ferini 5,960.00
General Engineering & Const. Co. 5,990.00
Ted Watkins Construction Co. 6,156.50
R. D. Miller, Administrative Officer, reco=ended that the low bid of Madonna
Construction Company be awarded. Cost of construction: $5,507.00.
On motion of Councilman miller, seconded by Councilman Graves, the low bid of
Madonna Construction Company was approved.
6. Agreement between the Shell Oil Company and the City of San Luis Obispo, to
install curb, gutter and sidewalk and driveway ramp across Shell Oil Company's
eighty foot (80') frontage lying along 4x1196 Foothill Boulevard.
7. Agreement to install curb, gutter and driveway ramp across Mary E. Taylor's
fifteen foot (15') frontage lying along Foothill Boulevard between the
Southern Pacific right -o£ -way and the Shell Oil Company Distributing Plant.
8. Grant Deed from Frederick and Rosemary Julien for property located in the
California Park Subdivision along the southerly line of Foothill Blvd. a
distance of 150.00 ft.
Mr. W. M. F:ouser, Cite Attorney, stated that the two (2) agreements provide
for the property owner to reimburse the City for their pro -rata cost of curb,
gutter and :;idewalk improve:aents across their frontage.
On motion of Councilman Graves, seconded by Councilman 1:4:elchel, Mayor
Davidson was authorized to accept and ssi�,'n thr agreements on behalf of the
City and to accept and record the Grant Deed.
9. !,t this time an agreement wit': ths: Cit j Neon to place a free standing sign
located at 1347 Monterey Street and remove same if and when the City wideps
the street, was introduced.
City Attorney Houser explained the conditions of the agreement.
On motion of Councilman Graves, seconded by Councilman Hiller. the Mayor was
authorized to sign th.- agreement on behalf of the City.
10. On motion of Councilman Hheichal, seconded by Councilman Graves, the following
ordinance was introduced for final passage. Ordinance No. 268, an ordinance
amending Sect ?on 9200.5 of the San Lu:'.r: Obispo Municipal Code to change the
zoning of a parcel of property from '11411 to
Finally passed on the following roll call toLp :
City Council Minutes
September 3, 1963
Page -3-
AYES: Clay P. Davidson, R. L.-Graves, Jr., Miss Margaret McNeil,
Donald Q. Miller, Clell W. Whelchel
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
' 11. On motion of Councilman Graves, seconded by Councilwoman McNeil, the following
ordinance was introduced for final passage. Ordinance No. 270,_ an ordinance
of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo authorizing an amendment
to the contract between the City Council and the Board of Administration of
the California State Employees' Retirement System.
Finally passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Clay P. Davidson, R. L. Graves, Jr., Miss Margaret McNeil,
Donald Q. Miller., Clell W. '-;zelchel
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
12. On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Whelchel, the following
ordinance was introduced for final passage. Ordinance No. 269, an ordinance
levying a tax for the current fiscal year 1963 -64 upon all taxable property
within the City of San Luis Obispo and fixing the rate of such tax.
Finally passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Clay P. Davidson, R. L. Graves, Jr., Miss Margaret McNeil,
Donald q. Miller, Clell i,'. Whelchel
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
13. On motion of Councilman Miller. seconded by Councilman Whelchel, the following
ordinance was introduced for final passage. Ordinance No. 272, an ordinance
approving the annexation of certain uninhabited territory, designated "Perozzi
Annexation No. 2" to the City of San Luis Obispo.
Finally passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Clay P. Davidson, R. L. Graves, Jr., Miss 1�largaret McNeil,
Donald Q. Miller, Clell W. Whelchel
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
14. At this time Ordinance No. 271, an ordinance amending Section 9200.5 of the
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, to change the zoning of a parcel of property
from "R -1" to "C -1 ", was presented for final passage.
Councilman Miller stated that one problem is that the "S" classification shoo::::
be on all shopping areas so that the Council could control the noise, drainagr
etc.
City Attorney :Mouser stated that this would be more restrictive and the Counci:
should set a time for a public hearing so that the property owners would have
the opportunity to be heard before a new ordinance could be passed to print
to "C -1 -S".
Councilman Miller asked if Commissioner Lenger of the Planning Commission was
the dessenting vote on the rezoning.
Commissioner Lenger stated his was the dissenting vote.
Peter Chapman Director of Planning & Building, stated that the vote was
five ayes, one noe and one absent on the motion to deny the rezoning.
City Council Minutes
September 3, 1963
Page -4-
Councilman Miller stated that the Council has had this problem with other
properties because the property was not classified with "S ". He stated
further that the Planning Commission has required "C -1 -S" on all shopping area
properties and that this had been an oversight by the Council.
He suggested that thePlanning Commission and City Council should get together
and discuss this matter before the meeting of September 16, 1963.
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilwoman McNeil, that the
City Council and Planning Commission meet to study this matter on September
10, 1963 and then have a public hearing on this rezoning and that the public
hearing be set for September 16, 1963, at 8:00 P. M. Motion carried.
15. At this time a public hearing was held on the planned development of
Dollie Adams for student housing.
Mayor Davidson explained that the proponents and opponents would be given
fifteen (15) minutes each to speak in order to save time and then each side
would have seven (7) minutes for rebuttal.
Mr. Evans, spokesman for the opponents, appeared before the City Council
stating that he did not believe fifteen (15) minutes was long enough to
present material on this matt.. ^_r.
Mayor Davidson opened the public hearing.
Peter Chapman, Director of Planning & Building, stated that in June of this
year the Planning Commission received an application for rezoning of an
area between Frederica Street and Bond bounded by Motley and Hathway Streets.
He then presented sketches showing the area involved.
He stated that the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this
application, but before it was acted upon, another application was received
for a planned development area to acco- =odate between 1600 to 2000 students.
At the hearing on the rezoning, a signed petition of protest was received
with 243 signatures and letters were also received from local residents
protesting the development. The Commission suggested that the planned
development be amended to 300 students. The applicant was not willing to do
this and the Planning Commission recommended that both applications be
denied.
Mr. Dean Soape, Attorney representing Mrs. Adams, stated that the property was
zoned "R -2" and that he is requesting a planned development in the "R -2"
zone. He stated that after learning of the need for Cal Poly housing,
Mrs. tdams engaged the architectural firm of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill to
make a study of this property for development to student housing.
Mr. Walter Costa, Architect
He stated that the main rea
the Council consider the ap
for the proposal of 300 stu
required that there be a on
the Planning Commission vas
the one to two parking from
for Mrs. Adaas, presented slides of the project.
on that the applicant, Mrs. Cdams, requested that
lication rather than the Planning Commission
ents, was because the Planning Commission also
to one requirement in the parking and that what
recommending.-was excessive and they would requesE
the City Council as originally requested.
He stated that this property is ten minutes from the campus. The site would
consist of a series of buildings facing in to contain the activity within
the area itself. Underground and surface parking was proposed. There
would also be a dining facility coming off Bond Street on the Fredericks side,
He stated that he believed the first thing that must be dons is to provide
an adequate area for the students. He then showed various slides and explain :
each of them. He stated that they would be willing to work closely with the
City on tais project.
He further stated that his client wished to complete this project with as
much satisfaction to everyone concerned and hoped that an opportunity would
be afforded to discuss these proposals further.. lie believed that this was
a fine protect and one that was needed for college students and that the.City
in general would benefit from this development.
City Council Minutes
September 3, 1463
Page -5-
m . Grans appeared before the City Council stating that a packet was
presented to the Council prior to the meeting and that this packet contained
their four (4) main objections to this development. They are listed as
follows:
1. The proposal violates the basic precepts of the general plan wherein
it symbolized the subject area as medium low density.
2. The placement of a large number of people in a small area would upset
the safety, convenience and general welfare and undermine property
values in an otherwise predominately single - family area.
3. The creation of a large concentration of population would disperse
traffic in all directions from the subject area where there are
local streets, all of which lends itseli to congestion, confusion and
accidents.
4. The excessive vacant or under - developed amount of land already zoned
R -3 located in San Luis Obispo, much of which lies in close proximity
to Cal Poly, would be deprived of normal development if this proposal.
were approved.
Dr. Ric:.ard tells, 1632 rredericks Street, protested to this proposal as a
home owner and a resident. "rae presented the following summary:
"Included with this, of course, is a letter from ;vs. 3enry Case who is a
traffic engineer. His letter shows the total inadequacy of the proposed
plan in regard to the amount of parking being provided. An overlay which
will be shown will show how our residaur-!.al area would be affected. There
is inadequate parking space at this proposed site, the streets in our area
would of course become the parking space for these extra cars. If, under this
plan, 55% of the students had cars, 100 extra cars would have to be parked
on our streets. If 60% of them owned cars, then there would be 300 extra
cars spilling over into our streets, taking up parking space in front of
our homes and obviously creating quite a nuisance problem:
I wish to stress that, according to i%w. Case's statistics, at the present
time at the Univer. ^,ity of California in Santa Barbara there is approximately
1 car per student who is living OFF campus: Ue see no reason why this would
not apply here. In addition, we wish to stress again that none of us are in
a position to predict what will happen in 10 or 20 years from now. Provision
must be made for the future; not to do so would be gamblin3 with the only
ones to 6e hurt -- the property owners and residents of our area. This would
be totally unfair to us.
The proponents have made much ado about the fact that the students could walk
to school. However, this does not prove that they WILL walk to school. The
fact that they have cars means that they may very well use them, and again
create quite a congestion problem in the early morning and at other times they
would be driving through these streets. A look at the map would indicate that
these cars and /or pedestrians would be driving or walking through Orange,
Kentucky, and Longview Lane, inasmuch as these would be the streets providing
access to the college. If this proposed dormitory would be allowed, you
would be substituting one problem for another- -the problem of increased
"t critical point in our opposition to the Dollie Adams housing proposal
concerns proper planning for our City and the question of population density.
This application, in essence, requests approval to crowd some two thousand
persons into a small area in the midst of an established low- density family
residential district.
We contend that this proposal is completely incompatible with the approved
1
General Plan for the City, that it is therefore in viclation of the Ordinance
covering Planned Development Districts; that it would disrupt a neighborhood
and be inisicai to the welfare of a substantial number of home - owners and
tax - payers, and therefore not be in the best interests of the City. 'tie
submit that no individual promotion or special interest group has a right
to violate the principles'of sound planning on *.which our citizens should be
able to depend."
Dr. Louis Tedone appeared before the City Council objecting to the planned
development proposed by Dollie Adams and presented the following summary:
"Included with this, of course, is a letter from ;vs. 3enry Case who is a
traffic engineer. His letter shows the total inadequacy of the proposed
plan in regard to the amount of parking being provided. An overlay which
will be shown will show how our residaur-!.al area would be affected. There
is inadequate parking space at this proposed site, the streets in our area
would of course become the parking space for these extra cars. If, under this
plan, 55% of the students had cars, 100 extra cars would have to be parked
on our streets. If 60% of them owned cars, then there would be 300 extra
cars spilling over into our streets, taking up parking space in front of
our homes and obviously creating quite a nuisance problem:
I wish to stress that, according to i%w. Case's statistics, at the present
time at the Univer. ^,ity of California in Santa Barbara there is approximately
1 car per student who is living OFF campus: Ue see no reason why this would
not apply here. In addition, we wish to stress again that none of us are in
a position to predict what will happen in 10 or 20 years from now. Provision
must be made for the future; not to do so would be gamblin3 with the only
ones to 6e hurt -- the property owners and residents of our area. This would
be totally unfair to us.
The proponents have made much ado about the fact that the students could walk
to school. However, this does not prove that they WILL walk to school. The
fact that they have cars means that they may very well use them, and again
create quite a congestion problem in the early morning and at other times they
would be driving through these streets. A look at the map would indicate that
these cars and /or pedestrians would be driving or walking through Orange,
Kentucky, and Longview Lane, inasmuch as these would be the streets providing
access to the college. If this proposed dormitory would be allowed, you
would be substituting one problem for another- -the problem of increased
City Council Minutes
September 3, 1963
Page -6-
pedestrians and cars passing over narrow, curved streets that were not meant
for such usage. These are streets that are in private-, residential areas.
Once again, these streets were NOT meant to carry this type of traffic.
Kentuck.Street is, at the present time, a direct access route to the
Freeway. The residents of this area are already troubled and have a certain
amount of nuisance from the present traffic going through this street. The
proposed building plan would increase tis_s load tremendously. Fe would be
virtually putting 0 to 10% of the City population in a two -block area.
In final analysis of this particular problem, we would notice that both becaus:
of the tremendously increased pedestrian traff -c, vehicular traffic, and
parking problems that would arise from this plan as it is now contemplated,
we can safely say that tae City would be creating a problem for its citizens
to try to meet a stated need of a neighboring institution. This is totally
unfair to the present residents to allow a commercial venture of this type
to be completed _n an area that was never designed or intended for such usage.
It would appear completely and morally wrong to fill a so- called need of
neighboring institutions by jeopardizing the safety of children, the convenient.
in everyday 'Living of the immediate residents who built and invested with the
knowledge that they were being protected by their City."
Mr. Evans again appeared before the City Council and presented Mr. Gray.
Mr. Arthur Gray, 1631 Fredericks Street, appeared before the City Council
stating that the developers will not have to live with this project, but the
property owners in the surrounding area will. He presented the following
summary:
"Proponents of the Dollie Adams project have presented a package priced at
' $69000,000.00. We have been shown some architectural drawings of a princely
palace, we have been reminded that Dollie Adams does not lose money on her
business ventures, and we have been told this is for the good of the City.,
Nothing offered below should be construed as implying that we favor this
package, since it is our position that any developmeut that makes such a
drastic change in the density pattern of our neighborhood is not a healthy
growth, but a cancer.
We feel that, among other considerations, an examination of the practical
matter of water and sewage will show that this is not for the good of the
City. We humbly urge the City of San Luis Obiapo to look into the following
points:
1. Has the impace on existing water and sewage systems been investigated?
2. What is the capacity of the installations now in use?
3. t• ?hat would be recuired tc meet the needs of an additional 2,000
residents, all situated in such a limited area?
4. What would these requirements cost, and who would pay for them?
We believe that these points warrant serious study, since any failure to do
so now could result in disastrous inconvenience, to say nothing of heavy
charges to be borne by the community at large, in the event of faulty planning.
It is commonly said, in non - technical magazine articles available to the public
that sub - divisions are subsidized by all the taxpayers, because of charges for
additional police protection, street - lighting, paving and other items which are
not paid for by the developers.
Is there not an equally strong possibility that the tax benefits that the City
would derive from this project might soon be cancelled out by improvements that
would end up by being added to the tax bill of all of us?
It is certain that the project would pay for interior utilities. Who is going
to pay for the exterior water and sewage improvements that the heavy load of
2,000 additional users will demand?
Storm drains outside the project may be another unforeseen expense that the
community will have to pay for. Solid surface creates more run -off by a
City Council Minutes
September 3, 1963
Page -7-
good deal than the same amount of bare ground, and this too will become the
problem of us all with the coming Winter's rains.
A building worth $6,000,000 would presumably have a tax base of $1,500,000
which at the present City tax rate of $1.50 /hundred would yield $22,500 in
revenue. Given the probably cost of installing larger and /or more water,
sewage, and surface drainage facilities in the future, is it reasonable to say
1 that construction of such a project is going to be a real benefit to the City ?'
Mr. Evans stated that this concluded the presentation of the opponents. He
concluded that Hahn, Wise & Associates, Planning Consultant:,, had stated that
it would be a drastic change on the part of the City to have thin project
developed. He stated that if the areas properly zoned for this type of use
were developed, then his group would support the development.
Mr. Costa, architect for Mrs. tdams, stated that Mrs. Adams was requesting
that the Council approve this application for planned development for student
housing. He believed the proper procedure would be to approve the planned
development and then work out any problem such as parking, density, etc.
Councilman Graves stated that the Council was considering the approval of
a planned development, and asked Mr. Houser, City Attorney, if the Council
could approve the planned development even though the parking requirements
had not been established.
City Attorney Houser stated that the Council could appra
final at this time by, (1) indicating their intention to
number of students to be worked out later in approving a
(2) to make a conditional approval subject to conditions
submittal for approval to the Council. Either one would
being completed until this plan is worked out.
7e a plan that is not
consider the maximum
precise plan,
of density and
prevent the project
' Councilman Whelchel asked how low a figure of students would be acceptable
Mr. Costa stated that they would like to get together with a Planning Depart-
ment representative to discuss this matter. He believed 300 is too low, and
they felt that the best way to arrive at a number is to meet and discuss this
with a group of planners.
Councilman ffi elchel stated that he believed that 300 students was acceptable
to the opponents.
Mr. Costa stated that they were usiag this as a counter proposal to bring
the matter back to the Planning Commission as they did not have ample
authority at that time for negotiation. He stated that they had discussed
1,000 students and he dd not believe that a public hearing was the place
to arrive at an exact figure.
Councilman Miller stated that he had made a tour of the state to see if other
cities were having the same problems. He visited five (5) campuses, four of
which were state owned and one was private. They were: Fresno, San Jose,
Claremont, Long Beach, and San Fernando. All but Claremont College are in the
state college system.
He stated that housing facilities are not being built on these campuses, that
all the money is be4.ng used for education. Types of off campus housing are;
' small apartments, fraternities, soriorities, and off campus student housing.
Long Beach had a Chandler- O'Meira project which was being protested by the
property owners. It was located two (2) miles from the campus and was the
exact design of the Meinecke property proposal which was up before the City
Council awhile ago.
Of the five (5) schools, each one has a different policy dealing with local
problems regarding off - campus student housing.
Councilman Miller stated in summary that he has given time and consideration
to this project and realizes the need of the school and the community, but
he does not agree with the proponents for a 1600 student development, as this
is much too high, but felt that there is justification for housing projects
City Council Minutes
September 3, 1963
Page -8-
going in the vicinity of the area under consideration, providing they were
adequately controlled. He suggested that the Council meet with a group of
the opponents and proponents and attempt to resolve this matter to compromise
and arrive at some sort of agreement. He believed that we need off campus
housing and everybody knows it.
' Councilman Miller moved that the Council and the committee meet with Mr. Costa
to come up with some sort of decision.
Mr. Evans stated that the opponents have not had their rebuttal.
Mr. Evans stated that he had the feeling that the proponents were asking for
a blank check with the Council's permission to do as they wished and bypass
the feelings of the property owners.
He stated that he would like to know what will be done at this time. He
stated that there was no concrete proposal before the Council and this group
was at this meeting trying to present a new proposal and not amend the old
one.
City Attorney Houser explained that the Council has the right to modify the
number of students, parking or any other restrictions of the planned
development. The application is for an indefinite figure, and the Council
has the right to allow as many as they deem advisable.
Mr. Evans stated that although the number was general, that he believed
everyone should keep to the application, and he felt that the basic problem
is still unsolved. He stated that the cities that Councilman Miller was
reporting on were in trouble now because they did not look into the future
and that San Luis Obispo has the opportunity now to look ahead, and the
' Council should be in the position to control this type of building. He believ_
that it is much better to use the general plan as static plan because at
least we have something to work with.
Councilman Graves stated that he believed everyone is interested in doing
what is right for the community, and possibly we could poll the Council
first to see if the Council is in favor of student housing. If the Council
is not in favor of student housing, then the matter is completely closed.
If they are interested, then he believed we should use suggestions of
Councilman Miller to form a committee consisting of: one member from the
opponents, one member from the proponents, one from Cal Poly, three members
of property owners being picked by the City Council, to meet with the Planning
Commission to resolve this matter.
It was moved by Councilman Graves, seconded by Councilman Puller, to poll
the City Council as to their feelings on the need of organized student
housing in this area.
Bert Fellows, Cal Poly instructor, questioned whether a person could be
heard before taking action on this matter.
Mayor Davidson stated that there should be a motion to see if this discussion
should be continued.
Mrs. Preston
objected to
the student
housing.
1 Lloyd Abbot
stated that
he objected
to student housing in residential areas.
Councilman Graves stated that the property is presently zoned R -2 and can be
handled with a public hearing.
Gladys Gray objected to the student housing. She believed that one cultural
aspect in the neighborhood has been on Orange Drive in their Christmas Lane
and if you change the character of this area, you will be changing the
cultural attributes of the community.
Mr. Costa stated that the Planning Commission proposed 300 students, but
the original request was for from 1600 to 2000 and that they were not given
an opportunity to negotiate the Planning Commission's proposal for 300
students.
City Council Minutes
September 3, 1963
Page -9-
Emmons Blake, Planning Commissioner, stated that before the Planning
Commission arrived at the 300 figure, they asked the proponents for
adjusted density and suggested that they contact their client for authority,
but they did not, so the Planning Commission arrived at the figure of 300
students.
Mr. Weix stated that he believed this public hearing was for the Council
' to make a final decision this evening.
Mr. Houser, City Attorney, stated that the Council has the right to impose
greater restrictions, etc., but that it is the Council that makes the final
decision, in that they have the authority to restrict the number of students,
noise, and problems they feel the project may create.
Lloyd E. Somogyi, 26C Chaplin Lane, stated that he believed the point should
be clarified by Mr. Houser because this is a specific plan and that it is
the purpose of the public hearing. He stated that he believed the proponents
were attempting to bypass the public hearing. He did not believe that the
proponents have a specific plan this evening. & dial not believe that they
were offering a plan so that the residents will know exactly what is going
in this area, and that they should prepare a specific plan and then have it
come before the Council.
Dr. Dunkiee stated that the Planning Commission pointed out that there was
properly zoned areas. for this housing, but were advised by Mr. Costa that
this is where they wanted to build as this is where Miss Adams owned the land.
Mr. William Preston stated that this is a faculty area, already zoned, and if
the Council approved the proposal, it would be a breach of contract with the
property owners.
Mayor Davidson stated that he went out to Cal Poly to see what their plans
' were for future buildings. They estimated that by 1975 there will be 12,000
students enrolled at Cal Poly, of which only 40% will be housed on campus.
He believed when this development takes place, that all land zoned R -3 and
R -2 in this area will be used for student housing, and maybe this is not the
time to make it this way, but if you study the area on the general plan, you
will see that it will not accommodate all the students. He believed that it
was best to build as near to the campus as possible and negotiate with propert;
owners who are willing now to sell their land for student housing.
Mayor Davidson then suggested several items that should be considered for
student housing developments.
Councilman Whelchel stated that he understood that at the Planning Commission
meeting, the opponents stated that they would be in favor of 300 students,
and he agreed with them.
Councilman Graves stated that if Councilman Whelchel is in favor of 300 student
then his vote would be yes, because he is approving organized student housing
no matter what the number.
Councilman Whelchel stated that he would be opposed to student housing in any
residential area.
' Mabel Dunklee objected to the planned development for student housing. She
stated that she was for Cal Poly, and in years past has demonstrated this
feeling, but she opposed student housing in this fine neighborhood.
Mr. Costa appeared before the Council stating that it seemed like the residents
feel that it is impossible for someone to come in their community and do some-
thing for the area. He believed that a study committee would be a good idea.
Miss McNeil stated that she was not in favor of any organized student housing
in the area.
The motion was finally acted upon.
AYES: Clay P. Davidson, R. L. Graves, Jr., Donald Q. Miller
NOES: Miss Margaret McNeil, Clell V. [,'helchei
ABSENT: None
City Council Minutes
September 3, 1963
Page -10-
Councilman Graves stated he voted yes on this vote because he is for
supervised student housing.
Mr. Evans appeared before the Council objecting to the formation of another
committee of citizens to study this natter, when 200 citizens here at the
public hearing objected to the housing in this area.
' Mayor Davidson stated that he believed fir. Evans misunderstood the committee
was to study this proposal and then it would be presented in another public
hearing.
Mr. Costa stated that they had originally proposed from 1600 to 2000 people.
It can not be in more detail until it is discussed with the committee, because
this is the principle of the planned development.
Councilman Whelchel stated that the Planning Commission was already appointed
to make studies and make recommendations to the City Council.
On motion of Councilman TAielchel, seconded by Councilwoman McNeil, that the
application be referred back to the Planning Commission for further studies
and report.
Councilman Graves stated that he believed it would be nice to have a committee
as well as the Planning Commission.
Mr. Evans stated that they had been to so many meetings and when will it
stop. He also would like to see a specific plan by the proponents, presented
to the City Council.
Councilwoman McNeil stated she could not see how the City Council could have
any more material presented on this matter and suggested that they vote now.
'
Lloyd E. Somogyi stated that he believed the Council is trying to
come
up
with a solution that will satisfy everyone. The residents should
have
equal
following vote:
representation on the proposed committee and it might be possible
that
a
solution could be arrived at by the committee, but the citizens'
group
did not
want to be in the position of being in the minority, because no objection soul':
be made and they could be in the position of being on a committee
that
was
approving proposals they objected to.
Councilman Graves stated that he would recommend a committee consisting of:
1 opponent, 1 proponent, 1 Cal Poly representative, 3 citizens, 1 member of
the Planning Commission and 1 member of the City Council.
The City Council then discussed the formation of the committee.
Mr. Dunklee stated that he believed that this hearing was very trite as he
thought the meeting was to be held to approve or disapprove the Planning
Commission's recommendation and the Council should decide on this proposal
now, and make modifications to future proposals presented by Miss Adams.
Councilman Whelchel and Councilwoman McNeil withdrew their first motion and
second, and moved to accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission.
Councilman Graves asked if his committee is to be eliminated.
City
Attorney
Rouser answered
yes.
The
motion was
carried on the
following vote:
AYES: Clay P. Davidson, R. L. Graves, Jr., Miss Margaret McNeil,
Donald Q. Miller, Clell W. Whelchel
NOES: None
P3SEh7: None
Councilman Miller suggested that the proponents come back and submit a new
proposal.
Mr. Costa stated that they would make a proposal to reduce the number of
students, and he would like to work with some committee to solve the problems.
City Council Minutes
September 3, 1963
Page -11-
Councilman Whelchel suggested that he set down with the Planning Commission
and solve it with them.
On motion of Councilman Graves, seconded by Councilman Miller, it was moved that
a committee be appointed consisting of 1 opponent, 1 proponent, 1 Cal Poly
representative, 3 citizens, i Planning Commission member and 1 City Council
' member.
Mr. Chapman, Planning & Building Director, stated that the Planning Commission
specifically studied the optimum number of students and unanimously agreed
to a figure of 300.
J
Dr. Eels stated that he believed that any select group making decisions was
never representing the feelings of all people concerned and should not replace
s proper public hearing on this matter.
Councilman Miller withdrew his second.
On motion of Councilman Graves, seconded by Councilman Miller, the motion was
amended that this committee be formed providing there is another application.
Councilman Graves explained that the committee will go into effect as soon as
the application is in effect.
Councilman Miller withdrew his second to Councilman Graves' proposal.
Letters and telegrams received from the following persons protesting the
establishment of student housing on the Dollic Adams property:
J. D. & Jan Avary
291 Motley Street
Dr. & Mrs. Robert S. Johnson
176 Kentucky Street
Marian & Thomas Ray
369 Chaplin Lane
Henry 0. Case
(Traffic Engineer)
244 Albert Drive
Axthur M. Gray
1631 Fredericks Street
Mayor Davidson closed the hearing.
10:55 P. M. - meeting recessed.
Councilman Miller left the meeting.
11:10 P. I.I. - meeting reconvened. All Councilman present, except Councilman
Miller.
17. D. F. Romero, City Engineer, presented plans and specifications for sewer
farm field reconstructions, City Plan No. 3 -64, to the Council for their
consideration and explained what work was to be accomplished.
This project is esti.mited at $45,000.
R. D. Miller, Administrative Officer, recommended approval of these plans and
specifications.
On motion of Councilman T1?helchel, seconded by Councilman Graves, the plans and
specifications were approved and authorization was given for advertisement of
bids.
18. At this time Ordinance No. 267, an ordinance amending the Municipal Code to
provide for taxicab stands, was pre::entad for further discussion by the City
Council.
City attorney Houser stated it was his intention to eliminate the other
provisions of the section, other than those proposed as they are meaningless
and do not add to the provisions of this section.
City Council Minutes
September 3, 1963
Page -12-
He then presented a list of changes presented by the cab company.
Mr. Jerry Warren, Yellow Cab Company, stated that he would rather have the
ordinance state the number of stands instead of having the Council determine
this.
Councilman Whelchel questioned Mr. Houser as to how a taxicab company could fine
out how many stands it could have.
Mr. Houser stated the Council will decide when and where these stands will be.
for the applicant. If there are not enough, the applicant will have to bring
it before the City Council. The ordinance will have to be amended before any-
thing can be done about it.
Mr. Houser did not Gee why it was necessary to designate the number of taxi
stands.
R D Miller Administrative offices suggested that this matter be held over
so that the Council can study this further.
Councilman Whelchel stated that he thought the taxicab committee was to
do this study.
On motion of Councilman Graves, seconded by Mayor Davidson, that this matter
be referred to the cab committee. kk)tion carried.
19. Mayor Davidson reported on a meeting held with representatives of Southern
Pacific Company regarding improvements to Mill Street Bridge and Foothill
Boulevard crossing and reported that the Cit3 representatives asked the
Southern Pacific Company to proceed as rapidly as possible with the improvement
at the Foothill - California overcrossing.
As far as the Mill Street crossing was concerned, the Southern Pacific Company
is still sticking to their original plan of making a full improvement of Mill
Street Bridge and remove the Phillips Street Bridge.
Mayor Davidson stated that the City's position was to keep both bridges and
have the railroad reconstruct the Mill Street Bridge.
The Southern Pacific representatives stated that the City could keep the
Phillips Street Bridge until major maintenance was required on this structure.
Mayor Davidson asked that this proposal be forwarded to the Council in writing.
R. D. Miller, Administrative Officer, stated that the Council had desired
4.
having a public hearing on this proposal to see what the opinion of the
citizens would be on the matter of closing the Phillips Street Bridge, but
instead the Planning Commission recommended that the City keep both structures.
The City Council discussed the report as presented by Mayor Davidson, including
possible alternatives to the Phillips Street Bridge and maintenance and
reconstruction of the Mill Street Bridge.
4.(continued)
' Mr. R. D. Miller, Pdministrative Officer, stated that he had said earlier that
the low bid of Ymnicipal Parking Lot No. 1 was under the budget fund of $8,000.
However, there was no provision for.engineering and inspection on the project.
$1,500 would be required. He suggested that one of the staff members be
instructed to proceed with landscaping of Parking Lot No. 1.
On motion of Councilman Graves, seconded by Councilman Whelchel, instruction
was given to Peter Chapman to proceed with landscaping plans for Parking Lot
No. 1 and No. 4. Passed on the following vote:
AYES: Clay P. Davidson, R. L. Graves, Jr.,
Miss Margaret McNeil, Cle'_1 TJ. Nhelchel
NOES: None
ABSENT: Donald Q. Miller
City Council Minutes
September 3, 1963
Page -13-
On motion of Councilman Graves, seconded by Councilman Whelchel, the following
resolution was introduced. Resolution No. 1175, a resolution increasing the
1963 budget. (Account No. 264.1, Parking District Acquisition & Improvement
Fund be increased by $1,500.)
Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Clay P. Davidson, R. L. Graves, Jr.,
Miss Margaret McNeil, Clell 1.1. Whelchel
NOES: None
ABSENT: Donald '% Miller
R. R. D. Miller, Administrative Officer, read a letter from Jack Carrington
requesting permission to take a six (6) weeks leave of absence.
On motion of Councilman Graves, seconded by Councilwoman McNeil, permission
was granted.
20. Planning Commission Resolution No. 130 -63 recommending to the City Council
denial of a request to abandon a portion of Venable Street.
On motion of Councilman Graves, seconded by Councilwoman McNeil, that the
Planning Commission Resolution No. 130 -63 be accepted. Motion carried.
Mayor Davidson proposed that the City Council and City Staff meet for lunch
on Thursday and then proceed with tho agenda.
On motion of Mayor
Davidson,
seconded
by Councilwoman McNeil,
the
meeting
was adjourned to
12:00 Noon,
Thursday,
September 5th, 1963 at
the
Motel Inn.
Approved: September 30, 1964 Ci
GT. H. FITZPATRICK, CITY CLERK