Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/20/1970MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA July 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; J. Stockton, Park and Recreation Supervisor; H. Johnson, City Attorney; R. D. Miller, Administrative Officer; D. F. Romero, City Engineer; Elton Hall, Fire Department; E. Rodgers, Police Chief; Price Thompson, Water Department Director CONSENT ITEMS: On motion of Councilman Blake, seconded by Councilman Graham, the following items were approved by motion or resolution 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. Communication from the San Luis Coastal Unified School District, notifying the City Council of the appointment of Mr. Lewis Cryer and Mr. Richard Burke to the Advisory Committee on Joint Recreational Use of School District Property to fill vacancies on that committee, was in concurrance with Council feeling. B. Communication from the City Housing Authority regarding acquisition of the County Housing Authority facilities in the City of San Luis Obispo, was re- ceived and filed. C. Council approval of the following salary step increases: Blackburn, Charles - Police Officer From Step 1 or $666 to Step 2 or $706 Reitz, Richard - Police Officer From Step 1 or $666 to Step 2 or $706 Healy, Linda - Parking Enforcement Officer From Step 3 or $552 to Step 4 or $584 D. On motion of Councilman Blake, seconded by Councilman Graham,the following resolution was introduced, calling for a public hearing on abandonment, RESOLUTION NO. 2081, a resolution of intention to abandon a portion of California Boulevard. 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 E. Communication from E. D. Gerard, Executive Dean, Cal Poly, notifying the City Council that due to budget revisions, the new entrance road to Cal Poly cannot be constructed until funds are reappropriated in July 1971, was re- ceived and filed. F. Report of the City Clerk on Bids received for the Santa Rosa- Meinecke Sewer, City Plan 21 -70. 1 Blois 8 Cardoza $15,208.00 Smee's Plumbing $15,237.20 West Coast Construction. $15,700.00 Walter Brothers Const. $20,500.00 W. M. Lyles Company $21,990.00 Engineer's Estimate $15,230.00 City Council Minutes July 20, 1970 Page 2 The City Council accepted the low bid and awarded the contract to Blois.. and Cardoza. G. Report of the City Clerk on bids received for Sewage Treatment Plant Oxidation and Pond Sludge Removal, City.Plan No. 1 -71. Walter Brothers Construction $5,692.50 Wesley G. Watkins $6,975.00 Burke Construction Co. $7,200.00 Engineer's Estimate $4,950.00 The City Council accepted the low bid and awarded the contract to Walter Brothers Construction Company. H. Report of the City Clerk on bids received for the Los Osos Valley Road and Perfumo Canyon Road Paving, City Plan 2 -71. C. S. Construction Co. $15,879.50 M. J. Hermreck, Inc. $15,916.20 Madonna Construction Co. $16,105.50 Burke Construction Co. $16,346.00 J. A. O'Kelley 8 Son $17,041.50 H. D. Peterson $18,171.00 Walter Brothers Construction $18.,813.00. Wesley G. Watkins $18,876.50 Engineer's Estimate $17,419.50 The City Council accepted the low bid and awarded the contract to C. S. Construction Company. I. Notice of acceptance by the Police Officer's Association of the Memoran- dum of Understanding dated June 17, 1970 as amended. J. Communication from the Police Officers' Assocation requesting that ef- fective August 1, 1970, $2.00 be withdrawn from their pay vouchers each month and forwarded to the Association. Councilman Blake objected to the check -off for the Association dues on the general principle that all check -offs are bad. All employees should receive their--full salary so that they know what they are receiving prior to any being taken for taxes, insurance, dues, etc. On motion of Councilman Graham, seconded by Councilman Miller, the request of the Police Officer's Association for a $2.00 per month check -off was:approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Myron Graham, Donald Q. Miller, Kenneth E. Schwartz NOES: _Emmons Blake., Arthur F. Spring ABSENT: None 1. At this time the Council considered the final passage of ORDINANCE NO. 496, an ordinance amending the Official Zone Map of the City of San Luis Obispo. (To rezone from R -1 to R -H that property known as 960 Higuera Street) R. D.. Young, Planning Director, aga.in.presented the recommendations of the Planning Comm. ission for rezoning this property. Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing -open. No one appeared before the City Council for or. against the final passage of this ordinance. Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing closed. 0 City Council Minutes July 20, 1970 Page 3 On motion of Councilman.Blake, seconded by Councilman Graham, the following ordinance was introduced for final passage. ORDINANCE NO. 496,. an ordinance amending the Official Zone Map of the City of San Luis Obispo. (To rezone from R -1 to R -H that property known as 960 Higuera Street) Finally passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Emmons Blake, Myron Graham; Arthur F. Spring, Donald Q. Miller, Kenneth E. Schwartz NOES: None ABSENT: None 2. At this time the City Council considered the final passage of ORDINANCE NO. 490, an ordinance of the City of San Luis Obipso approving the annexation to said City of certain uninhabited territory designated "Vista Grande Annexation ". D. F. Romero, City Engineer, presented sketches to the City Council reviewing the area to be annexed to the City. Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing open. No one appeared before the City Council for or against the final passage of this ordinance. Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing closed. On motion of Councilman Graham, seconded by Councilman Miller, the following ordinance was introduced for final passage. ORDINANCE NO. 490, an ordinance of the City of San Luis Obispo approving the annexation to said City of cer- tain uninhabited territory designated "Vista Grande Annexation ". Finally passed on the following rollcall vote: AYES: Emmons Blake, Myron Graham, Arthur F. Spring, Donald Q. Miller, Kenneth E. Schwartz NOES: None ABSENT: None 2A. At this time the City Council considered the final passage of Ordinance No. 489, Uniform Animal Control Ordinance. H. Johnson, Ctiy Attorney, reviewed for the City Council the basic regulations being considered by the Council. One of the major provisions was granting the pound employees authority as peace officers to issue.citations for..vio- lations of the code. Roy Finch objected to the City Council on dogs being allowed to run. free in the City and to kill livestock such as sheep, pigs and small cattle. He con- tinued that in several instances he has captured these dogs and turned them over to the animal shelter. The 'shelter then released them to their owners and back they came to harass the livestock. He continued that he felt that when a dog had been identified as one that attacked livestock, it should be picked up and destroyed because once a dog killed he would continue to do so. H. Johnson, City Attorney, explained for the Council's information the pro - visions of the City's'agricultural code dealing with protection of stockmen when protecting their flocks. Roy Finch stated he did not feel that the City and County taxpayers were receiving their money's worth for the money being paid to Woods Animal Shelter for animal control which he felt was virtually non- existent in this county. Dan Borradori stated that he had a hog killed by a dog from adjacent property and the pound refused to pick 'up the stray dogs when this was called to their attention. City Council Minutes July 20, 1970 Page 4 Councilman Spring urged the adoption of an emergency ordinance which would force Woods Animal Shelter to control dogs attacking livestock-. He stated that he again felt that as long as Woods Animal Shelter did the pound work for the City and County, he felt nothing would be accomplished because it seemed the more that was paid to them, the less they seemed to do. Manuel Simas of 2424 Osos Street, complained that there was no control of dogs roaming in the City. -He felt that the loose dog population was in- creasing and that the control was getting worse. He continued that several ' times he had captured loose dogs on his property, called the animal shelter, but they did not pick up the dog for three or four hours which he felt was wrong. He suggested that the City Council amend the proposed ordinance in- creasing the redemption fee to $15.00 for the first time the dog was picked up, $30.00 for the second time, $45.00 for the third time and if the dog was picked up again, it should be destroyed. Art Ludwig, 2505 Augusta, stated that he had lost sixteen (16) sheep to dogs in the past few months and hoped that the City Council would have the ordin- ance enforced and have stray dogs picked up. Councilman Blake stated that he did not feel . that killer dogs were covered in the new ordinance but urged that Ordinance No. 489 now being considered, be adopted, and that if. changes for killer dogs were needed, they could be added at a later date. Dan Borradori stated that regardless of how well a new ordinance was written, if the law.was not enforced, it was worthless and a waste of time to pass the new law. Councilman Blake stated he felt that the new ordinance had strict rules and felt that it would do a better job in most circumstances. Councilman Spring felt that the proposed ordinance was a good one but without City control of the pound employees he did not feel it would work, as appar- ently no one told them what to do. Joe Brown stated that in February 1970 two dogs owned by citizens in the City, killed thirty -two (32) sheep in. his pen and although the dog owners had paid for the sheep that were killed, he felt that there should be some control of loose animals in the City and that no dog should be allowed to run wild with- out any control or supervision. On motion of Councilman Blake, seconded by Councilman Graham, ORDINANCE 489 was finally passed as an emergency ordinance to go into effect immediately due to reports of dogs killing livestock. Finally passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Emmons Blake, Myron Graham, Arthur F. Spring, Donald Q. Miller, Kenneth E.. Schwartz NOES: None ABSENT: None The City Attorney was requested to review Section No. 4113 of the new ordinance and make a recommendation to the.City Council as to the best approach to amend the ordinance to control killer dogs. 3. At this time the City Council considered the tentative map of TRACT NO. 401 ' Ferrini Ranch Estates. D. F. Romero, City Engineer, presented for the Council's information the ten- tative map of Trach No. 401 approved by the City Planning Commission. The approval of the City Planning Commission was with the following conditions: I. The final map shall contain a statement that owners of Lots 6, 7 8 5 shall be responsible for providing their own pressure system. 2. Sidewalk exceptions are hereby granted for this tract. 3. An exception to the requirement for underground drainage is granted for Lots 2, 3 8 7. City Council Minutes July 20, 1970 Page 5 4. An exception to the requirement for street tree planting is hereby granted for the Tract. 5. An exception is hereby granted to permit the roadway of Oakridge Drive to be twenty -six (26) feet rather than thirty (30) feet as specified in the Ordinance. D. F. Romero, City Engineer, then presented for the Council's consideration, the final map of Tract No. 401, which he stated was technically correct and meets all conditions of the Planning Commission and City Ordinances. He recommended that the final map be approved subject to the following exceptions to the conditions of the subdivision agreement: 1. Exceptions to the subdivision ordinance are hereby granted to eliminate sidewalk and tree planting requirements, to the roadway width of Oakridge Drive, and to permit drainage traversing Lots 2 and 3 to be carried on the surface. 2. The subdivider shall pay the City the sum of $3,062.50 (8.75 net acres at $350 /acre) connection charge to the City water system in accordance with Section 7410.5.1 of the Municipal Code. Councilman Graham questioned the lack of sidewalks in Tract No. 401 which was accepted by the Planning Commission. Mayor Schwartz also felt that sidewalks should be included in the subdivision. Felton Ferrini, developer, explained that the condition of sidewalk exception had been granted in prior and adjacent subdivisions due to the topography of the area and width of the streets being put in. Further, the size of the lots and the distance precluded much pedestrian use. He stated that as far as the trees were concerned, the only exception was that he would put in the trees at the time the buildings were developed. Further, he felt that due to the steep terrain, it would be nearly impossible to hang a sidewalk along the street without extensive retaining walls and build -up to hold them. Councilman Blake stated that he agreed with the Planning Commission with the ' exceptions of the sidewalks. Councilman Spring agreed there was no need for sidewalks due to the size of the lots and to the steepness of the terrain. Councilman Graham stated he did not feel there was a need for sidewalks.but he just asked the question for clarification on why the exception was granted so that the public would know why no sidewalks were required in this tract. H. Johnson, City Attorney, read for the Council's information, that section of the Municipal Code in the subdivision section on granting deviations from requirements based on hardships (Section 9100.6). R. D. Young, Planning Director, explained why the Planning Commission granted an exception to the sidewalks in Tract No. 401. .Mayor Schwartz stated that he felt the Council action at this time was to: a. Approve the final map of Tract No. 401 with exceptions and conditions listed; . b. Delay the approval for further study, c. Approve the final map of Tract No. 401 with additional conditions or exceptions. Councilman Blake stated he felt the special conditions for the subdivision were met and that the exceptions granted by the Planning Commission were logical. D. F. Romero; City Engineer, stated that the City had received a report from a soils engineer, that although the area was unstable geologically, it would be suitable for subdivision if an analysis were made of each site prior to issuance of a building permit. City Council Minutes July 20, 1970 Page 6 F. Ferrini stated that a soils engineer.will prepare.a report.on each lot as they are developed to be submitted with the building permit application. . On motion of Councilman Blake, seconded by Councilman Spring, the following resolution was introduced. Resolution No. 2082, a resolution approving the .final map of Tract No.. 401 subject to special cond.itions outlined and subject to inclusion in the subdivision agreement requiring a soils report for each lot must be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit. - Passed -and adopted on the following roll call vote: AYES: Emmons Blake, Myron Graham, Arthur F.. Spring NOES: Donald Q. Miller,.Kenneth E. Schwartz ABSENT: None On motion of Councilman Blake, seconded by Councilman Spring, the following resolution was introduced. Resolution No. 2073, a resolution increasing the 1970 -:71 Budget.( Inspection Fees, Tract No..401 ). 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 4. At this time the City Council held a public hearing on RESOLUTION NO. 2059, a resolution requiring sidewalk improvements on portions of Mission and Oak Streets in the City of San Luis Obispo. ' D. F. Romero, City Engineer, presented a map showing the area to be improved and the scope of the improvements to be put in on each property. Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing open. The City Clerk read the following letters of protest: Mrs. Carolyn Gibson; 208 Almond,.objected to the requirement of installing sidewalks as she felt that the usage did not justify the cost of such installation.. Burton.C. Van, 1035 Oak, objected to the requirement of installing curbs, gutters and driveway ramps on Oak Street stating that the.use of this dead - end.street.by the public was nil.and.that the cost :of installing improvements far out- weighed the benefits to property., „owners and citizens of the community. L. F: Daniels, 723 Mission, also spoke on behalf of 716 and 735.Mission questioning the need of installing sidewalks on Mission Street,; He felt there was no need for such improvement, no one walked in the area and he felt it was just a waste of money requiring the property owners, at this time of high cost, to place the improvements. Councilman Miller explained the Council's program which.started in 1959 for the installation of sidewalks, curbs and gutters throughout the City of San Luis.Obispo: He felt that this had been a successful program, had improved the community, and felt that the City Council should proceed. E. F. Daniel vehemently objected to being forced by the City to place side- walks on his property at his expense for the use of people who might not even be taxpayers. D. F. Romero-, City Engineer, explained the reasons for requiring curb, gutter and sidewalks on Mission and curb and gutter on Oak Street. City Council Minutes July 20, 1970 Page 7 Mrs. Margaroli, 734, 740 and 764 Mission Street, objected to being required to install sidewalks due to the extremely high cost of putting in these improve- ments today. She continued that she did not object to curbs and gutters in or- der to protect the street but would object to sidewalks at this time. Per C. Mathiesen, 843 Mission Street, felt the sidewalks were needed on Mission Street for pededstrians and for children using this route to walk up Mission to Broad then north on Broad to Teach School. Councilman Graham suggested that the City Council. delay action on this.matter as he felt there was no need for sidewalks o'n Mission and he would oppose the proposal unless the sidewalks were .placed on only one side of the street. D. F. Romero felt the Council should at least order curbs and gutters on Mission at this time so that the street could be put in, and the sidewalks could be placed at a later date. L. Daniels did not feel that sidewalks on one side of Mission would be fair to the property owners as one side of the street would be-paying the bill and the other side would be getting a free ride. Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing closed. Councilman Graham moved that the City require.installation of curbs, driveway ramps, and gutters but delay sidewalk installation at this time. Motion died for lack of a second. On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Spring, the following resolution was introduced. RESOLUTION NO. 2083, a resolution ordering curb, gutter and sidewalk installation on Mission Street. 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 D. F. Romero, City Engineer, then presented sketches for the installation of curbs and gutters on Oak Street from Santa Rosa to San Luis Creek. He also explained the reasons for requesting the installation of curbs and.gutters was to eliminate water standing in the street and improve drainage. Burton C. Van, 1035 Oak, objected to the installation of curbs and gutters on the basis that there was no need for the installation at this time. Further, as the property was under consideration for change of.use, if.he were to place curbs and gutters at this time, he would have to tear it out and replace it for the new development. He felt that this was an unjust. burden on the property owner and was.unfair as the ultimate-development of the property had not been completed. Councilman Miller suggested that due to the existing conditions in the property that it is presently in a transitional condition that the City drop consideration of this development. Councilman Graham agreed, feeling that the new development will put in.the necessary street improvements. Mayor Schwartz stated that any development in the R =C zone would require full improvements and that the cost would be borne by the developer'. On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Graham, that the pro - posal be dropped from consideration at:this time. :Motion carried. City Council Minutes July 20, 1970 Page 8 5. At this time the City Council held a public hearing on RESOLUTION NO. 2061, a resolution of intention to abandon a portion of Ruth Street and a portion of Church Street. R. Young, Planning Director, presented a sketch of the proposed abandonment and a recommendation of the Planning Commission for such abandonment. Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing open. No one appeared before the City Council for or against the abandonment. Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing closed. On motion of Councilman Miller seconded by Councilman Graham, the following ES resolution was passed, RESOLUTION NO. 2089, a resolution finding and determining that portions of Ruth Street and Church Street are unnesessary for present or prospective street purposes and ordering the abandonment of same. 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 6. Councilman Blake brought to the Council's attention the matter of the ex- tensive removal of trees from the planned development R -2 property on Johnson Avenue developed by Stickll.er. . He continued that the final precise plan sub- mitted to the Council is not the one that is now being developed by Stickler. He then presented a sketch of the planned development as approved by the City Council for Stickler. Following that, he showed a sketch of the plan being developed at this time. Councilman Blake continued that he felt the new plan did not follow the spirit of the planned development considered by the City Council. He therefore felt that this planned development was not the one approved on the three to two vote by the.Council and was significantly dif- ferent than that approved by the Council. He felt that few.; of the trees were left on this property and were not removed as part of the planned ' development, but felt those fiemo.ved ^were logged off�for.prdfit:.;H .e:_said he'felt there was enough difference in the new plan from that approved by the City Council for the Council to revoke the planned development, and felt that this was a breach of the planned development ordinance. R. D. Young, Planning Director, reviewed for the City Council the planned development procedures from preliminary plan to the final precise plan. He then read his recommendations made to the Planning Commission for approval of the precise plan. He continued that it-was his opinion that the precise plan did not differ substantially from the preliminary plan approved by the City Council and Planning Commission. David F. Romero, City Engineer, stated that after preliminary plan was approved by the City Council in the approval of the preliminary .plan were that to be removed in order to conduct the grading and buildings fit. And on that basis he felt that the tially similar to the approved preliminary plan. Councilman Blake asked why in the precise plan to the that there was a map error the precise plan approved b planned development section features of special use of the meeting at which the he felt that the implications some of the trees would have to make the parking and precise plan was substan- the staff did not bring this matter of the changes attention of the City Council when they discovered in the development. Further, he does not feel that y the Planning Commission meets the conditions of the of the ordinance as there were no extraordinary the area. D. F. Romero, City Engineer, explained that he had informed the Council that the preliminary plan was giving an erroneous impression. City Council Minutes July 20, 1970 Page 9 Mayor Schwartz asked the City Attorney; (1) could the City Council revoke the planned development; (2) should the City Council set public hearings before taking any action; and (3) have any grounds been presented for cancellation of the planned development? H. Johnson, City Attorney, answered that the Council should not take action until a formal hearing had been set and that they should adopt a resolution of intention to revoke the planned development and rezone the property to R -1. Another option would be an informal presentation by the developer on his precise..plan. As far as the approval of the precise plan by the City staff, H. Johnson said he had no comment at this time although he felt that if the Council felt that the spirit of the planned development had not been met, then a public hearing should be held. And if the Council took action to hold such a public hearing then no permit should be issued or work done on,the development until after the public hearing with due notice to all parties. Mayor Srhwart7 asked the City Council if at this time they felt they had enough information to hold a public hearing on the revocation or if they felt the precise plan is substantially the same as the preliminary plan. Councilman Spring stated he would like to hear the developer's side of the controversy. Councilman Blake felt the matter should be set for a public hearing. Councilman Graham stated he was disappointed with the precise plan and would like a public hearing to determine if the precise plan was,.truly- an`asset to the area. Councilman Miller felt that a public hearing should be held so that everyone could be heard on the matter. Further, he felt that all action and discussion on this matter should be postponed until the public hearing. On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Graham, the following resolution was introduced for a public hearing on RESOLUTION NO 2076, a resolution setting a date for a public hearing to consider possible rezoning of.property at 3217 Johnson Avenue. 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 7. Communication from Alex Madonna .DBA Madonna Inn, appealing the decision of the Planning Department in denying him an addition to the exisiting sign at Madonna Inn. R. Young, Planning Director, reported on the existing sign as follows: The sign ordinance permits a maximum of 300 square feet of sign area for the Madonna property. The present sign is in excess of 900 square feet, therefore the department could not issue a permit to enlarge the sign. A. Madonna appeared before the City Council stating that the major additions to the sign presently existing for the inn were the addition of a ten -foot by thirteen -foot oval sign reading "Coffee Shop, Dining Room and Wine Cellar" and a five -foot square sign reading "Cocktails ". He continued that when the original sign was installed these additions were considered but due to the expense of the basic sign', these additions were not added. He felt that many people traveling along the highway did not realize that the Inn had a coffee shop, dining room and wine cellar, and he would appreciate the Council granting him the small additions to his sign. J 1 City Council Minutes July 20, 1970 Page 10 R. Dunin., President of the Motel -Hotel Association, pointed out that the Madonna Inn was a famous landmark in San Luis Obispo and that if attracted many visitors to the community and was an asset.to the entire city. He felt the small addition to the sign would be a.great help to the Madonna Inn and also felt that with the great acreage fronting.Hi.ghway 10.1 the sign was needed for their operation. He further felt that if the Council were to grant this request that the other-motels would not use it as.a precedent for future applications. H. Johnson, City Attorney, explained the-options open to the City.Councl on an .appeal for variance on signs. Councilman Miller stated that under the circumstances he .fe'It he would be willing to grant an exception to size of the sign at Madonna,lnn.as the. operation was a unique attraction and an asset to the community. Councilman Spring stated that he felt he could go along with the variance due to the value of the Madonna Inn-to the.community. Councilman Blake stated he would go along with the exception to the sign's size due to the asset that the Madonna Inn was to the rest of the community. Mayor Schwartz stated he felt the ordinance on size of signs should be followed and that no variances should be issued to Madonna Inn, but due to the circumstances of, the.origi.na'L si.gn.permit issued - by.the County and-the amount - of.open.space 6n.101- freeway, he felt ;_that the appeal -was deserving. R. Young, Planning Director, stated that he did.not feel there was any way that-anyone could grant an exception of the ordinance to. the area of a sign. H. Johnson, City Attorney, explained .that the only way the Council could. ' legally grant an exception was to consider the addition of these section's to the Madonna Inn sign as a completion of the original sign for which' a permit was issued in.1957 by the County of San Luis Obispo. On motion of Councilman Blake,.secgnded.by Councilman Sprinq, that the sign be permitted to be enlarged as specified on the original. use permit issued by the.,- County. Motion carried. Mayor Schwartz stated that he voted in support of the motion based on the fact of the large frontage.on Highway;101 and the ,fact that further building will not be placed along the highway for several years to come. 8. Communication from John Ross & Associates, Architects, requesting a variance . in the.driveway ramp for.the California Medical-Center on California Boulevard .from the standard sixteen.feet to twenty =four feet. D. F. Romero, City Engineer, stated that.he had no objection to this wider driveway ramp but that by ordinance he could not issue such a permit'. No one appeared before the. Council for'or against the request. On Motion of Councilman Spring, seconded. by Councilman Graham, the request was approved. Motion carried. 9. Communication from Garden.Alley.Merchants Association requesting permis- sion to close Garden:Alley .fora flea market on Saturday,. August 1.;'1970'. On motion of Councilman Graham, seconded by Councilman Blake, the request was approved.: Motion.carried. . 10. Communication from Chorro Lodge'No. 168, Independent Order of 06d Fellows, requesting permission to hold a'rummage sale or flea market'on their parking lot next to 520 Dana Street on August 29, 1970. On motion of Councilman Graham seconded by Councilman Blake, the request of the Lodge was approved. Motion carried. City Council Minutes July 20, 1970' Page 11 11. Communication from Martin.and Leona Hagen, owner - operators of the Homestead Motel, 485 Osos Street, bring'to the.Counc W s attention the matter of the hippy.hitchhikers who use the entrance of their motel'for a pick -up point for southbound rides on Highway .101. The.Hagens contin- ued that these.hitchh.ikers litter the area, annoy their customers,.asking. for rides, begging for money, etc. and they felt that their business had. been hurt by this situation. They urged that the City Police or someone make these people move from their area and quit annoying them. Communication from the Motel -Hotel Association.supporting the complaint of Mr. and Mrs. Hagen on the hitchhiking problem at the entrances and exits to the City which was a most unpleasant advertisement for the.City...They urged that the'City Council come up with some proposal to clear up this.. matter and move these people away. Communication from the President of the Chamber of. Commerce, Lee Balatti, urging that the City Council take whatever action was necessary to eliminate the problem of itinerants soliciting rides and annoying motel operators at Olive and Osos Streets. Communication from the Executive Manager of the Chamber of Commerce con- curring in the complaint of Mr. and Mrs. Hagen regarding the annoying acts perpetrated on their motel at Osos and Highway 101. Mrs. L. Hagen appeared before the. City. Council objecting. to the fact .that her letter addressed to the City Council'was treated lightly and in�a tunny way by the newspaper. She felt that she and her husband had been held up' to ridicule by some irresponsible person at the newspaper., She felt that they had been hurt not only by the story.but by the wa.y in:which it was handled. She again reviewed the comments in her letter stating that the people litter their motel entrance with paper, glass, bottles, cans, old clothing, rotten food, etc. She further stated that'she had personally seen these. itinerants using the bushes for toilets:,and who knows what else. She hoped the City Council would.take'some action to protect their property. George. White, Rancho San Luis Motel, agreed with the comments made so far stating that the'hippy problem on lower Marsh Street was just as bad as that at Osos and 101 Freeway. He said in addition to using..his bushes fora lava- tory, they stole everything that was not nailed down. It was a continuous policing problem.for him and his employees. He then listed specific problems brought to. his motel by hippy hitchhikers.. He hoped that the.City Council would do something to protect the .businessmen of their'community. Pete Evans stated that.he' felt that the Icoations of Monterey and 101, Santa .Rosa and 10.1. and Osos and 10.1 were the best locations for getting :out.of town by the transie.nt'hippy =type and .felt'that other locations would not be satisfactory.' He suggested that the litter laws should be enforced on'these transients.. He suggested that maybe .some place. could be set up . where these transient ypes could clean up,.etc., before.moving on. Mr. Galba, Manager of the Coachman Inn., stated that there were many things he could add'to what had already been said regarding the hippy types but the main thing was no one exercised any control over them. They were arrogant, pesty, dirty; and filthy, and they annoyed regular clients of his'motel by begging for money, food, rides, etc. H. Johnson, City Attorney, briefly reviewed for the.City Council.statutes that were presently available to police officers seeking to control hippy hitchhikers. E. L. Rodgers, Police Chief, commented that due to the joining-of Highway 1 and Highway 101, he felt the best approach was to get these people off the highway.and through the City to.their destination as rapidly as possible. City Council Minutes July 20, 1970 Page 12 Councilman Miller stated that it would be.:most difficult to stop the freedom of movement of people going from one part'of this country to another. He suggested that the Mayor appoint a.committee to study this problem and see what could be brought up to solve the problem of young people aimlessly mov- ing around the area. He felt that possibly one solution would be the estab- lishment of a youth hostel to.take care of the young peoples' need while in this community. Councilman Blake felt that if the City established a hostel for the hippy type transient, it would attract so many people of this type that it could not be handled and would become a simple hippy haven. Mayor Schwartz appointed Councilmen Miller and Graham.as a committee to study this problem and bring back a recommendation to the City Council. 12. Communication from Robert M. Jones, Attorney representing J.E. Hazard, regarding obstructions on the Hazard property at 546 Higuera Street was con- tinued to an earlier time on the August 3, 1970 agenda. 13. D. F. Romero, City Engineer, presented for the Council's consideration, plans and specifications for street widening on California Boulevard and on Johnson Avenue at Laurel Lane..(Mugler.property): He.explained/the scope of the work to be accomplished under the contract at an estimat4d cost of $22,000 for California Boulevard and $11,400 for Johnson Avenue. On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Blake, the plans and specifications for the street widenings were approved and the City Engineer authorized to call for bids. Motion carried. 14. The Traffic Committee Report of July 8, 1970 was continued..to the next meeting. 15. Council consideration of an ordinance regulating the construction, al- teration, demolition. and /or. repair of any retaining wall within the City of San Luis Obispo, was continued. 16. Communication from S..B. Stornetta regarding purchase by the City of his property at the corner of Prado Road and Higuera Street was continued. 17. Communication from the Board of Library Trustees requesting a joint ses- sion with the Council to discuss the Coolidge Report was set for 7:30 P.M., September 14, 1970. 18. Council consideration of the request of Housing Systems Company, (R.-C. Skinner), for acceptance by the City of the off -site improvements in Tracts No. 351 and 352; D. F. Romero, City Engineer, reported to the City Council that all work had not been completed in these tracts for acceptance. He recommended that final acceptance be held up until work had been completed. R. Skinner, developer, stated that he felt he was being picked on by the City on these small items that had not been completed and could be done in a very short time and he felt that the City Council should accept Tracts 292, 351, and 352 and go on to something more important. On motion of Councilman Graham, seconded by Councilman Blake, the matter of ' acceptance was continued to August 3, 1970 and the Council would not accept the subdivision until all the work had been completed. Motion carried. 19. Council consideration of a resolution ordering the City Attorney to com- mence condemnation proceedings for property on Foothill Boulevard was continued. City Council Minutes July 20, 1970 Page 13 20. On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Blake, the fol- lowing resolution was introduced. RESOLUTION NO. 2084, a resolution opposing redesignation of existing highway directional signs to San Luis Obispo. 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 - 21. Bulletin from the League of California Cities regarding action by the Public Utilities Commission in cases No. 8993 and No. 9015 pertaining to underground utilities and control of new generation and transmission facil- ities was ordered received and filed. 22. At this time the City Council considered Change Order No. 3 for the Mission Plaza Project regarding a change in the hydral underwater light . fixtures for the fountain in the Mission Plaza. Total increase in contract cost, $106.79. On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Graham, the Change Order was approved. Motion carried. On motion of Councilman Blake, seconded by Councilman Miller, the meeting adjourned. �• J 'Fit p trick, City Clerk APPROVED: September 21, 1970 1