The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04/20/1970MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA April 20, 1970 - 7:00 P.M. City Hall Pledge Roll Call Present; Emmons Blake, Myron Graham, Arthur F. Spring, Donald Q. Miller, Kenneth E. Schwartz City Staff Present; R. D. Young, Planning Director; J. H. Fitzpatrick, City Clerk; H. Johnson, City Attorney, R. D. Miller, Administrative Officer; D. F. Romero, City Engineer; E.P. Thompson, Water Department Director. ------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 1. On motion of Councilman Blake, seconded by Councilman Spring, the follow- ing items were approved or resolved on the following roll call vote: AYES:" Emmons Blake, Myron Graham, Arthur F. Spring, Donald Q.-' Miller, Kenneth E. Schwartz NOES: None ABSENT: None A. Minutes of the meeting of April 6, 1970 were approved as corrected. Claims against the City for the month of April 1970 were approved and ordered paid subject to the approval of the Administrative Officer. C. The Mayor was authorized to sign and record on behalf of the City a Covenant from E. 8 W. M. Gifford and D. A. and C. A. Oxford for a re- taining wall on Ella Street. D. The Mayor was authorized to sign and record on behalf of the City a Deed of Easement from Home Sales Corporation for a sewer easement on Oceanaire Drive. E. The Mayor was authorized to sign and record on behalf of the City a Deed of Easement from Dorothea Meinecke, Margaret M. Weant, Marie M. Taylor and Elsbeth M. Giorgi for a storm drain on Meinecke Avenue. G. The following salary step increases were approved. Pinedo, Paul - Groundskeeper From Step 3 or $515 to Step 4 or $545 Blell, Nancy - Account Clerk I From Step 4 or $460 to Step 5 or $485 White, Harold M. - Police Officer From Step 3 or $697 to Step 5 or $740 Dulaney, Paula - Typist Clerk II From Step 2 or $410 to Step 3 or $435 Headley, Donald -.Utility Plant Operator I From Step 3 or $545 to Step 4 or $572 H. The Council approved a request from Gaylord Galleries, No. 5 Mission Mall, for permission to use the Mission Mall Plaza for an outdoor student art sale from April 23 through April 26, 1970. 1 r� City Council Minutes April 20, 1970 Page 2 I. The following resolution was passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 2036, a resolution establishing new procedures and specifications for weed abatement by City forces. Council Discussion was Requested on the Following Items: B. Communication from the Chief Building Inspector regarding a construction ,.shack in the 100 block of Chorro Street. On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Spring,, that the con- struction shack in the 100 block of Chorro Street be removed from the property J. Commun within 60 days unless construction is started. Motion carried. ication from D. F. Romero, City Engineer, suggesting the Council adopt a re be used fo solution stating that the 1969 -70 TOPICS allocation to the City r necessary consulting fees for the TOPICS study and for the widening o f the north side of .Foothill between Chorro and Santa Rosa. Mr. Romero $40,497 in that these stated tha substantia the Counci be used fo Boulevard explained that the City of San Luis Obispo had been awarded the TOPICS program for the fiscal year 1969 -70. He continued funds must be spent or allocated prior to June 30, 1970. He t these funds could not be expended prior to.that time .without I planning in cooperation with the County, so he suggested that I adopt a resolution stating that the 1969 -70 TOPICS allocation r consulting fees and for widening:of.the _ north._si.de of Foothill between Chorro and Santa Rosa Streets.' On motion of Councilman Blake, seconded by Councilman Spring, the following resolution was introduced. RESOLUTION N0. 2037, a resolution designating use of 1969 -70 TOPICS allocation. Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote: AYES: Emmons Blake, Myron Graham, Arthur F. Spring, Donald Q. Miller, Kenneth E. Schwartz NOES: None ABSENT: None K. Commun City Counc ication from D. F. Romero, City Engineer, recommending that the il determine that public convenience and necessity require that curb and gutter be installed along Mission Street between Broad and Chorro and along Mr. Romero ments on M Serrano Drive. explained the problems involved in placing curb, gutter improve- ission Street between Broad and Chorro and recommended that these improvemen will be pr On motion ts be installed prior to the street paving so that the paving otected from damage. of Councilman Spring, seconded by Councilman Miller, the City Engineer w and.sidewa as authorized to proceed with the installation of curb, gutter lks along Mission Street between Broad 8 Chorro. Motion carried. D. F. Rome curb and g ro brought to the Council's attention the necessity of placing utter along Serrano Drive in order to hold the proposed street improvements to be made during fiscal year 1970 -71. The Counci necessity what could The matter discussed with Mr. Romero the width of Serrano Drive, the of placing curb and gutter along both sides of.the street, and be done to save the trees along the street. was continued for further discussion at the May 11, 1970 study session. City Council Minutes April 20, 1970 Page 3 L. Communication from t City Council instruct th tatives of the Employees and working conditions. e City Employees Association requesting that the Employees-Relations Team to meet with represen- Association to discuss salaries, fringe benefits Paul Landell, representing the City'Employees Association, appeared before the City Council demanding the Employee Relations Team meet with represen- tatives of the Employee Association immediately in order that salary prob- lems may be resolved prior to any consideration by the City Council of the balance of the 1970 -71 budget. He continued that by waiting until deli- berations are started on the regular City budget, the employees are always short - changed when their needs.are placed against the balance of the budget. R. D. Miller, Administrative Officer, and head of the Employee Relations Team,.stated that it would be difficult if not impossible for him to in- terrupt detailed work on the budget and launch into salary negotiations. Also, he doubted that the Council would be in a position to give guidance to the management negotiations team until it got a feel of the budget. On motion of Councilman Blake, seconded by Mayor Schwartz, that the City Council appoint R. D. Miller, J. H. Fitzpatrick and H. Johnson as the Employee Relations Team and that negotiations begin on May 5, 1970 with the management team to receive the demands of the employees. Motion carried. 2. Communication from Mrs. N.W. Carmack, 119 Beebee Street, requesting that the City Council reconsider the final adoption of ORDINANCE N0. .48.1, which was finally passed on April 13, 1970. Mrs. Carmack stated she didn't realize that the City Council would consider this ordinance at an adjourned meeting and therefore made no attempt to appear in opposition. She continued that she protested the aciton of the Council in rezoning the property at 129 and 141 Beebee Street from R -2 to R -H. She felt the City Council might not have been aware of what a nice neighborhood this Beebee area represented, and that the people living in the area take good care of their homes. She felt the intrusion of multiple dwellings in the area would downgrade the entire area by placing people in the area who wuld not have the same pride of own- ership. Mrs. Carmack also felt that high density in this.development.. "wool:d cause traffic problems and cause more on- street parking as the proposed development did not have sufficient parking for tenants. MRS. Carmack hoped that the City Council would reconsider its decision and keep.the area zoned R -2 district. Mr. Sam Corab, applicant for the rezoning, stated that Mrs. Carmack did not own property in the area but was only a tenant. He presented a letter from the property owner who rents to Mrs. Carmack. The property owner stated he was in favor of the rezoning and would at some time in the future like to rezone his property for multiple development. Mr. Corab continued that he planned on building a six -unit studio apartment complex which would be leased to the Housing Authority for elderly low income tenants. Mrs. Carmack stated all he neighbors were elderly people who hoped they would not be-forced out of thier homes due to the high density development on Beebee Street. She presented a petition from property owners and residents in the area opposing the rezoning. Mr. Aaron Corab stated that the purpose of the rezoning as requested by his father was to develop housing for elderly people in the vicinity of the neighborhood shopping center to the west. On motion of Councilman Graham, seconded by Councilman Blake, that theCity uphold their prior action and file the request for reconsideration. Councilman Miller stated he was now going to vote against the rezoning as he now felt the area should not be changed so that the people living in the:area could be protected from the intrusion of high density use. He also felt that rezoning the property would force the people now living in the area to move out so that the property could be used for higher density uses. He again stated he hoped that the Planning Commission would restudy this area as soon as possible to determine its proper use and development. He stated he would vote for keeping the area zoned as R -2. City Council-Minutes April 20, 1970 Page 4 Councilman Blake stated he would continue to support the Council's action in rezoning this property to R -H and would further support the Planning Commission's recommendations. Mayor Schwartz stated he was still opposed to this rezoning as it increased the density in this neighborhood. He agreed the buildings in the area were old but felt they were well maintained, which showed a pride of ownership by the people living in them. He felt this neighborhood reflected a fine living environment- for this section of the City. Mayor Schwartz felt that the City Council's action to rezone this property to R -H was premature and this fine residential neighborhood should be protected. Motion carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: Emmons Blake, Myron Graham, Arthur F. Spring NOES: Kenneth E. Schwartz, Donald Q. Miller ABSENT: None 3. At this time the City Council considered the final passage of ORDINANCE 485 an ordinance revising the business license fees and making appropriate changes in classifications. J. H. Fitzpatrick, City Clerk, presented a letter from Jack Chinn protesting the amendment to the Ordinance which would require property owners of four or more apartment units to pay a business license fee. Councilman Spring reported on the work done by the Council Committee in re- viewing the existing Business License Ordinance. He stated that after study- ing ordinances from twenty two other cities and attending several meetings in Southern Call.fornia on business licenses and administration, the committee felt that only certain sections of.the ordinance should be amended in an attempt to equalize the business license fees and update some of the flat rate fees. He felt the amendments would equalize the fees paid by the various businesses in the City. Ernie Shreffler, realtor, asked the City Council whether he and his partner would both be required to take out a business license. He felt one license would be sufficient as he and his partner do business together under a part- nership and not as individual brokers. Councilman Blake read the provisions of Section 6100.24 in the existing ordi- nance and proposed ordinance whoch places these businessmen on individual license requirements. H. Johnson, City Attorney, stated that if a State licensed.broker were acting as a salesman for another broker, and did not act as a managing broker, and the operating broker furnished a statement to that effect, the broker function- ing solely as a salesman would be included as a salesman under the broker's license. Richard Willett stated he represented some thirty other real estate brokers and if the City's interpretation of the ordinance was as stated by the City Attorney, they would have no objection to the proposed.ordinance. Rose Mc Keen, realtor, stated she was a state licensed broker operating as a saleswoman but she felt that salesmen should be licensed as individuals and not just the operating broker. She felt that the proposed change in the or- dinance was unfair in granting exemption to salesmen. Bill Borah, representing Arnett and Broadbent, questioned the proposal to license the business of renting apartments. He. stated his firm represents many apartment operators as manager and on their behalf he objected to the proposal to tax apartment owners. Robert Ward objected to the proposal to license apartments as he .felt he is paying too much now on City property taxes, water, sewer, etc. City Council Minutes April 20, 1970 Page 5 Mrs. Nadelle, Ferrini Road, objected to the proposal of requiring apartment operators to pay a business license. F. E. McNamara, realtor, objected to the City's proposal to license apartment houses with four or more units as he felt this was just another tax to burden the property owner. He felt it would hinder housing development in the City. D. Tannenbaum objected to being required to take out a business license to an apartment complex. He stated that any additional cost for the license would be passed on to the tenant. D. Lewetzow questioned the need of adding additional taxes for property owners and objected to the new license for apartment house owners. Jim Jones objected to any license tax by the City for revenue. He felt this type of tax is unfair. He stated he would not object to a license for regu- lation but objected to any new means of taxation. Dan Law objected to the enactment of a business license fee for apartment owners. He suggested that the Council defer action on this matter for some future date. Burt Polin objected to a license tax on apartment house owners and felt that they were being treated unfairly. Mrs. Bonnie Toth objected to the proposed license for apartment owners as she felt the additional cost would be passed on to the tenant. She continued she felt that rents were high enough for the young people to pay. Robert Leitcher stated he was opposed to the proposed addition of apartment houses to the business license ordinance. He .continued that the City Council should eliminate all license taxes and study the enactment of a City income tax. He stated, however, he would favor a minimum license tax for control. He stated he did not agree with a tax on any business, gross receipts or net. Clell Whelchel stated he objected to the proposed increase in trucking license fees as he estimated his license fees would more than double for his operation. Mrs. Dale Walker objected to the license fees for apartment houses as she felt it would be a hardship on her tenants. Councilman Blake stated'he felt that the action of the Council was not in . amending the entire ordinance but was an attempt to try to equalize the lic- ense fees paid by the various businesses. He felt that by adding businesses not previously included such as apartment houses, the license fee burden was being equalized. Dan Law stated he did not feel that the propsoed business license ordinance was fair as he felt the City Council was using it to increase their funds. He felt if more revenue were needed the property tax rate should be increased. Councilman Miller stated he felt that the real estate profession and apart- ment operation are businesses and a license tax should be required as it is with all other businesses under the provisions of the ordinance. Councilman Graham felt that the license fees and taxes should be equalized with all other businesses in the area. He agreed that apartment operations are businesses and should be required to pay a license tax on that business. He felt that possibly the minimum of four units might be too small. Councilman Spring stated he was for the ordinance which was the result of a ten -month study. He stated that the areas being changed had not been re- vised since 1953, while other businesses on gross receipts had increased due to the higher economy and inflation. He felt that the license taxes in the community were fair and should be supported by the Council and the people. Ll 1 City Council Minutes April 20, 1970 Page 6 Mayor Schwartz_ reviewed comments made by the audience and the Council. He stated that the City did not license for regulation.but only for revenue. He felt that the ordinance was being updated to 1970 :costs and problems. Further, he felt the updating was fair.and equitable to all businesses re- quired to have a license. He agreed that possibly further study might be made by the City to determine whether the license ordinance.should be con- tinued in its entirety, but.felt that until such a decision was made, the proposed ordinance should be adopted. Councilman Graham suggested that possibly the City.Council should carry this matter over for further study to discuss the questions brought up at this meeting. Mayor Schwartz asked if the Council felt additional study should be made on Seciton 6100.24, licenses on professions, in view of the comments made at this meeting? On motion of Mayor Schwartz, seconded by Councilman Graham, that Section 6100.24 be amended by adding the word business or profession in lieu of the individual. Motion lost on the following roll call vote: AYES.: Myron Graham, Kenneth E. Schwartz NOES: Emmons Blake, Arthur F. Spring, Donald Q. Miller ABSENT: None On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Spring, the following ordinance was introduced for final passage. ORDINANCE NO. 485, an ordinance revising the business license fees and making appropriate changes in classifications. Finally passed on the following roll cal,l.vote: AYES: Emmons Blake, Arthur F. Spring, Donald Q. Miller, Kenneth E. Schwartz NOES: Myron Graham ABSENT: None 4. At this ti:me. the .City Clerk reported on the following bids received for Mission Plaza, Phase I, City Plan No. 12 -70: Note: Alternate Bid No. 1 - Omit Item 4 - Pole lamps and concrete foundations (stub out electrical and cap off above ground at each location) Alternate Bid No. 2 - Omit pool, stone walls around pool, fountain, .. underwater lights and pump equipment (stub out utilities for pool and cap off @ pump pit location) Architect's Estimate $68,407.00 Madonna Construction Co. Base 'Bid $67,900.00 San Luis Obispo Less Alt. #1' 3,000.00 Less Alt. #2 200..00 _ =Burke Engineering Co. Base Bid $75,000.00 San Luis Obispo Less Alt. #1 31600.00 . Less Alt a #2 3,200.00 O.K. Cement Contractors Base Bid $79,000.00 Santa Barbara, CA Less Alt. #1 3,525.00 Less Alt. #2 2,500.00 Volny Construction Co. Base Bid $85,450.00 San Luis Obispo Less Alt. #1 31690.00. Less Alt. #2 3,200.00 Gus Howie Base Bid $86,497.00 San Luis Obispo Less Alt. #1 3,100.00 Less Alt. #2• 2,450.00 City Council Minutes April 20, 1970 Page 7 Collishaw Sprinkler Co Santa Clara, CA James F. Sunderland Base Bid ' ' Less Alt. #1 Less Alt. #2 Base Bid Less Alt. #1 Less Alt. #2 $86,666.00 4,120.00 3,125.00 $87,210.00 3,050.00 2,500.00 R. D. Young, Planning Director, recommended to the Council that the low base bid of Madonna Construction Company be accepted. R. Taylor, Landscape Architect for the project, also recommended to the Council that the base bid of Madonna Construction Company be accepted as he felt that the City had received an excellent bid and should proceed with Phase I contruction. Councilman Blake agreed that it was a good bid and wished to thank Alex Madonna for what appeared to be a contribution by him for the pool in the Plaza. He stated he made this assumption based on the fact that Madonna Construction Company bid $200 for the pool and the other developers bid from $2500 to $3500 for the same thing. On motion of Councilman Blake, seconded by Councilman Spring, that the low bid of Madonna Construction Company be accepted and the contract awarded for the base bid price of $67,900. Motion carried. 5. At this time the City Council held a public hearing on RESOLUTION 2018, a resolution requiring sidewalk improvements on Hathway Street in the City of San Luis Obispo. D. F. Romero., City Engineer, presented sketches showing the work to be accomplished and the property involved. Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing.open. No one appeared before the City Council objecting to the proposal from the east side of Hathway between Fredericks Street and Slack Street, or from the west side of Hathway between California Blvd. and Orange Drive. R.H. Ward, 131 Hathway Street, asked the City Council how they planned to handle the storm drain on his property and also how will the City put side- walks on his property due to the.terrain.: D. F. Romero stated that the drain would continue to discharge as it always has at this location. He recommended that the roadway be narrowed approxi- mately four to six feet along this very steep bank, thus permitting property owners to make a normal installation, while still allowing two -way street traffic,and parking. Mrs. Wright, 110 Orange Drive, questioned the proposal to move the sidewalk six feet easterly. She felt this would affect her property. D. H. Thomson, 1335 Foothill Blvd., stated that he was not opposed to the installation of sidewalks but wondered if the City could help by providing fill for the sidewalk construction on his property which was on the west side of Hathway Avenue. He felt that a full street would be better than eliminating a parking lane. D. F. Romero explained the width of Hathway from curb to curb, when the sidewalks are completed. He stated that a wider street would require ex- pensive filling and retaining walls in the west side of Hathway in order to hold the sidewalks. He stated that parking would not have to be elim- inated if the street is narrowed by only four to six feet. Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing closed. 1 1 1 City Council Minutes April 20, 1970 Page 8 Mayor Schwartz stated that there had been no objections to the installation of sidewalks but there were questions on two problem, areas. 1) the.storm drain on the Ward property and 2). the width of the street and construction of sidewalks along the gully. D._ F. Romero stated that he planned to save trees where feasible and not detrimental to pedestrians or vehicular traffic. The Council asked theCity Engineer to present his proposal for handling the Ward, Noble and Thomson problem along the.gully. D. F. Romero explained that if the Council passed the resolution requiring sidewalk installation, the next step would be to notify each property owner to have the work done. If the work is not accomplished within the specified time, then it would be done by theCity with the property owners to pay over a three -year period at a minimum rate of interest. On motion of Councilman Blake, seconded by Councilman Spring, the following resolution was introduced. RESOLUTION NO. 2038, a resolution overruling pro- tests and ordering the superintendent of streets to proceed with installation of public improvements on Hathway Street. Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote: AYES: Emmons Blake, Arthur F. Spring,. Donald Q. Miller, Kenneth E. Schwartz NOES: Myron Graham ABSENT: None 6. At this time theCity Council held a public hearing on the appeal of ' Foodmaker, Inc. from a denial by the Planning Commission on their request to rezone from R -0 to R -C that property located at the southwest corner of Santa Rosa Street and Foothill Boulevard. 1. The applicant is requesting rezoning from R -0 to R -C on the east side of Santa Rosa Street from Meinecke Street extended to Foothill Blvd..and has filed a use permit to .allow development of a drive -in restaurant on a portion of the property. Said use permit will be heard in conjunction with the rezoning application. 2. The General Plan proposes high density residential and office uses for this general area. Several new offices have been estab- lished along Santa Rosa Street between the existing C -N shopping center at Santa Rosa and Foothill and the highway commercial dis- trict contiguous to U.S. 101 Freeway. 3. The Planning Commission, in July of 1968, studied the area along Foothill Boulevard between Tassajara Street and Santa Rosa Street and. it was their consensus that the existing commercial district located at the intersections of Broad and Foothill and Santa Rosa and Foothill is adequate to serve the neighborhood and should not be expanded. 4. The Commission was of the opinion that the subject property is properly zoned in accordance with the General Plan and that con- ditions have not changed since the 1968 study of this area. 5. The Commission was also of the opinion that rezoning of the subject property could encourage similar applications on Santa Rosa Street to the north and.south leading to the eventual strip zoning of the street. Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing open. Robert Harvey, representing Foodmaker, Inc., appeared before the City Council presenting information which he felt was necessary for the approval of this rezoning. He stated this was the third attempt his company had made to place a drive -in restaurant in San Luis Obispo. City Council Minutes April 20, 1970 Page 9 Mr. Harvey felt that the property proposed fits their planst perfectly due to the location and the fact that the sidestreet allows access to the property. He continued that his firm's operation is orientated to the motor vehicle and this location would receive its best and highest use through a drive -in operation. He also felt that the location was most suitable for a drive -in restaurant as there was a highway on the west., a large apartment complex on the east; and was bordered by a creek with a steep bank on the south_. He felt this creek would make a good buffer and a nece setting for the develop- ment. He also stated that the entire development would be landscaped and he felt it would be an asset to the neighborhood and to the City. He con- tinued that the price of the land for development made it necessary to put in a high profit commercial establishment. He hoped the City Council would approve his appeal for the re- zoning. Rod Levine, representing the Zion Lutheran Church, stated the Church was opposed to the development of this restaurant across from them due to the traffic that would be going in and out of the property and the noise gener- ated by this operation. He stated its primary objection was to the increased traffic created by the development. Bob Williams representing Foodmaker, Inc., presented for the Council's con- sideration, information regarding the traffic now on Santa Rosa and Foothill and stated that if the proposed drive -in restaurant was put in he did not feel it would add too much more to the traffic already there. Bob Barrows, Meinecke Street, objected to the proposed rezoning as he did not feel that the commercial area on Foothill should be extended across Santa Rosa. He felt that the residential neighborhood along Foothill from Santa Rosa westerly had expanded beyond anyone's dreams and felt there was too much commercial development in the area now. Dr. Field. 84 Santa Rosa Street, objected to the rezoning as he felt it would be a detriment to his property and would cause hazards to his patients due to the increased traffic attracted to this dangerous intersection by the Jack - in- the -Box operation. Robert Harvey stated he felt that their proposal overcame all the objections listed this evening, particularly the traffic and access and egress to the proposed facility. He stated he felt the best and highest use of the prop- erty would be a commercial development due to the excessive cost of the land. Dc. Stanford objected to the proposed rezoning due to its bad effect on Stenner Creek if this development were allowed to proceed. Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing closed. Councilman Graham stated he would support the Planning Commission and deny the requested rezoning of this property from R -0 to R -C. On motion of Councilman Graham, seconded by Councilman Blake, that the appeal be denied and the City Council support.the findings of the Planning Commission. Motion carried. 10:00 P.M. Mayor Schwartz declared a recess. 10:10 P.M. The meeting reconvened with all Councilmen present. 7. At this time the City Council held a public hearing on the enactment of an ordinance requiring the compulsory colleciton of garbage, refuse and solid waste in the City of San Luis Obispo and to ban all outdoor burning with the exception of barbeque fires. J. H. Fitzpatrick, City Clerk, presented the following letters on the subject: 1. Communication from the Chamber of Commerce Ecology Committee urging the City Council to adopt compulsory or mandatory garbage collection within the City. City Council Minutes April 20, 1970 Page 10 2. Communication from Mr. & Mrs. Henry Rible, 1356 Avalon Street, notifying the City Council of their endorsement of the proposal to make participation in the City garbage and waste collection system mandatory. 3. Communication from the Obispo Beautiful Association notifying the City Council that the Board of Directors of the Association wished to go on record as being in favor of a Mandatory Waste Disposal for the City. 4. Petition from twelve (1.2) residents of the community supporting the concept of compulsory garbage collection and banning of outdoor burning within the City. 5. Communication from Mr. & Mrs. A. T. Stenner supporting the Council's efforts to curb air pollution by banning burning. They asked, however, if some consideration could be given to the property owners with large yards and unusual numbers of trees which cause a large amount of refuse and tree trimmings. 6. Resolution from the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors notifying the City Council of their initiation of an air pollution control district in the County of San Luis Obispo. Councilman Blake reported on behalf of the Council Committee studying this matter, he stated that the Committee had met with the various health authorities of the community and had come to the conclusion that compulsory collection of garbage, refuse and garden trimmings would be reasonable in cost, would make for a cleaner City and seems feasible from an administrative standpoint. The Committee felt that if a compulsory collection of garbage were initiated it would be possible to ban all outdoor burning in the City except home barbeque fires, and some limited weed abatement. He continued that the cost discussed with the garbage company representatives would be the same rate proposed in 1965 which would be $2.50 per month for a combined garbage pickup at the rear of the residence and garden pickup at the curb, both of these on a weekly' basis. Commercial rates would remain unchanges including apartment houses. The Committee's proposal included the collection of moneys by the City along with the water bill on a bi- monthly basis with roughly half the City billed one month and half the following month. To compensate the City for the extra work and expense, the garbage company franchise payment would be in- creased from 2 -3/4 % to 5% of their gross. Councilman Blake stated that the garbage company would realize some savings in not having'to prepare billing for the entire community. He stated that the customer would also realize savings in that he could write one check for water, sewer and garbage collection and would only have to use one stamp. this would result in a savings of approximately 21¢ per month for each customer. The Committee felt that an ordinance for the compulsory collection of garbage would result in a cleaner community not only along-our streets, natural water- ways and backyards, but also in the air we breathe. Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing open. Wayne Williams, 1440 Higuera, supported the imposition of a mandatory solid waste disposal ordinance in the City and hoped that the City Council would push ahead with enacting the proposed ordinance. He felt that the proposal was a good one; was fair to the people and was needed by the City. Dr. Kres_ja urged the City Council to enact the proposed solid waste dis- posal ordinance with its mandatory provisions. He stated it was not too late to save the environment of San Luis Obispo and hoped that the citizens of the City would support the Council on its proposal for compulsory waste colleciton and banning :iof all outdoor burning in the City. Joe Hample, 519 Brizzolara, stated he was in support of the compulsory garbage collection ordinance and hoped that the Council would pass the ordinance. - City Council Minutes April 20, 1970 Page 11 Douglas Donaldson, 1 Buena Vista, stated he was opposed to the present con- dition in San Luis Obispo of allowing individuals to burn in this valley and hoped that the City Council would ban all outdoor burning in the City and en- act a strict waste disposal system. Bill Loper stated he would support mandatory colleciton of garbage and solid waste in the City and would also support a ban on all outdoor burning. Mr. Marvin Dee stated he supported the mandatory collection of solid waste in the City but he hoped that all collection could be made at the back yard in order to keep the streets clean and clear from garden trimmings, etc. Mrs. Ormande objected to the mandatory provisions of the proposed ordinance. She felt she should not be required to pay for a service she does not need. She also objected to the banning of all outdoor burning. D. Lewetzow objected to the San Luis Garbage Company owners and operators and for this reason was opposed to the mandatory requirement of the proposed ordinance. He also objected to collection of garbage at his business and also at his residence. He did not feel he needed collection service at both places. He.felt that if the City Council wished to be fair, this matter should be put to vote by the City. G. Hewitt agreed with the need for an election on this matter. Patricia Flash objected-.to compulsory garbage collection by the City and a ban on all outdoor burning. She further objected to the San Luis Garbage Co.'s method of operation. Howard Brown stated he supported the mandatory garbage collection ordinance but felt some provision should be made to stop the service when people are on vacations. Douglas Donaldson felt that possibly San Luis Obispo is not ready to ban all outdoor durning. He felt some burning could be allowed on days when the wind is in the right direction. C. Nungarey objected to mandatory garbage collection and collection by the City for a private business. Gene Miller objected to the compulsory garbage collection ordinance. B. Brown objected to the City collecting fees for a private company and objec- ted to compulsory garbage collection, but stated he would support a ban on all outdoor burning. Arnold Volny stated he would support the ordinance for compul.sory garbage collection and banning of all outdoor burning. He asked the following questions regarding the proposal. 1) Who pays when a renter leaves the property? 2) Can the bills be prorated? 3) Is the owner responsible for unpaid garbage bills? Frank Gallagher asked who collects for garbage service if the owner now pays the water and the tenant pays for garbage service. He also suggested that the garbage company bill and collect its own fees. W. Vrooman felt that with a ban on outdoor burning an additional collection can would be needed in order to handle the trash that is now being burned by the residents. Bob Newhart asked why the City Council couldn't just ban outdoor burning and let the people handle their own garbage? Clell Whelchel suggested that the Council put the matter of a compulsory gar- bage collection to a vote of the people and not let the Council make this decision. Further, he questioned the need to ban all outdoor burning in the City. Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing closed. City Council Minutes April 20, 1970 Page 12 Mayor Schwartz stated that the following were some of the questions raised by the people regarding the proposed ordinance: 1. How are rates set for apartments and courts? H. Johnson, City Attorney, replied that these rates were set by the City Council in the existing ordinance. No changes were being made to the col- lection rate for apartments and courts using dumpster, containers. Those electing to use individual containers for each unit would be charged the single family rate. 2: Can.the garbage service be discontinued during the summer months when people are on long vacations, but need water service for their yards and gardens? H. Johnson stated this was an administrative problem and could be handled on that level, but an amendment to the ordinance could be prepared to out- line the proper procedure to be followed. 3. Is it legally correct for a private enterprise to contract for the work and have the City. collect the fees? H. Johnson stated that there are many communities in California and else- where who contract out governmental services such as,-.garbage collection, but collect the fees for such service along with other utility payments. A number of California cases have upheld such action by the City. 4.: Is is legally correct to put the billing for three services, sewer, water and garbage on one bill, and discontinuing all three services if one is not paid? H. Johnson stated that this is the practice followed by a number of cities in California and court decisions at the lowest level have upheld this method of enforcing payment. The only appellate case on the subject, which also up- held this practice, was in Kentucky. 5. Who would be responsible for collecting the garbage fees in multiple dwellings? H. Johnson stated that the garbage company would continue to collect both commercial and apartments or multiple dwelling fees because some monitoring of the quantities was necessary and this might cause billing problems. On motion of Councilman Blake, seconded by Councilman Spring, the following ordinance :was introduced. ORDINANCE N0. 486, an ordinance providing for a mandatory solid waste disposal service. Passed to print on the following roll call vote: AYES: Emmons Blake, Myron Graham, Arthur F. Spring, Donald Q. Miller, Kenneth E. Schwartz NOES: None ABSENT: None 9. Communication from Dale Hull, 652 Lincoln Avenue, requesting a variance to allow a twenty -five foot driveway approach on his property at 652 Lincoln in- stead of the usual sixteen foot approach. This request was made so that a travel trailer could be parked in the area adjacent to his garage and not be parked on the street. Also, the curb space between his driveway and his neighbors is too small to facilitate parking, and the larger driveway approach would make good use of the wasted curb space. D. F. Romero, City Engineer, stated he had no objections to this request for a twenty -five (25) foot driveway approach at 652 Lincoln Avenue, but he was not authorized to grant the variance. On motion of Councilman Spring , seconded by Councilman Graham, the variance for a twenty -five (25) foot driveway approach at 652 Lincoln Avenue was approved. Motion carried. City Council Minutes April 20, 1970 Page 13 10. Communication from A. C. Johnson appealing a decision.of the Planning Commission denying his request that a waiver be granted to the requirement for one -half street paving contiguous to Parcels A, B and C of Minor Sub- division 292. A. Johnson stated that the conditions for the small subdivision were that he place curb, gutter and sidewalk and one -half street improvements on Lizzie Street and one -half improvements on Wilding Lane. He continued that during the course of improvements to these three lots, the already paved streets had to be opened at five separate locations and he found that the street had more than 2" of paving over an ample red rock base. He did not feel he should have to remove this paving in order to put in one -half street improvements. In fact, the paving was so substantial that when the five tranches were dug, the contractors had to use jackhammers to get through the paving. He continued he felt that the existing street paving which meets and abuts the gutter was in satisfactory condition and should be ac- cepted by the City. He felt if any repaving were necessary it would be for maintenance purposes, and should be conducted by the City. D. F. Romero, City Engineer, explained the conditions of the small subdivision and requirements for paving on Wilding Lane and Lizzie Street. Frank Gallagher stated that he placed a temporary street consisting of a four inch base of red rock and one inch of blacktop on Lizzie Street and Wilding Lane for his subdivision. He felt that Allan Johnson should now be required to put in one -half street improvements for his small subdivision as is_done?by,�all other developers. D. F. Romero commented on the existing Street. He stated that they had never not at final established grade and.had except as partially improve streets. requesting that Mr. Johnson "tear out" bring the street to minimum standard. conditions on Wilding Lane and Lizzie been built to City standards, were never been maintained by the City de also pointed out that he was not anything, but that he "add on" to Councilman Blake stated that after studying the area under consideration, he saw no reason to grant a variance or deviate from existing City policy. Councilman Spring stated he felt that Allan Johnson should proceed and meet the conditions of the small subdivision granted him. Councilman Graham felt that the City should cooperate with Allan Johnson and put in one -half street improvements as these streets had been used for many years and it didn't seem fair for one developer to put in the entire improve- ments. Councilman Miller stated that it was his understanding and past City policy that a developer must put in an all weather street to connect to the nearest adequate street, and therefore felt that the street was all weather and should be maintained by the City. On motion of Councilman Graham, seconded by Councilman Miller, that the City approve the request of Allan Johnson; that this portion of Lizzie Street and Wilding Lane were City streets; and that the City pave to the curb and gutter to City standards. Councilmen Graham and Miller withdrew their motion. A. Johnson insisted that this is a City street as it has been used as a City street for over twelve years. He did not see why he had to tear out the old paving and install new paving. On motion of Councilman Blake, seconded by Councilman Spring, that the appeal be denied and'the developer of the small subdivision be required to complete it under the original conditions. Motion lost on the following roll call vote: AYES: Emmons Blake, Arthur F. Spring NOES: Myron Graham, Donald Q. Miller, Kenneth E. Schwartz ABSENT: None 1 `F7 J 1 City Council Minutes April 20, 1970 Page 14 H. Johnson, City Attorney, asked that this matter be continued until he has had the opportunity to see the Court Order settling the suit between Frank Gallagher and the Bowden Estate. The matter was continued at the Attorney's request. On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Spring, the meeting ad- journed to April 21, 1970 at 7:30 P.M. APPROVED: May 18, 1970 FIT ICK, CITY CLERK 1 1