Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/03/1970MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA August 3, 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 8 Recreation Supervisor; H. Johnson, City Attorney; R. D. Miller, Administrative Officer; D: F. Romero, City Engineer; W. H. Woodward, Battalion Fire Chief; E. Rodgers, Police Chief; Price Thompson, Water Department Director. ----------------------- -------------------=----------------------------------- CONSENT ITEMS: On motion of Councilman Graham, seconded by Councilman Blake, 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. R. D. Miller, Administrative Officer, announced the following new appoint- ments beginning August 1, 1970: Terry Neil Young, Patrolman, beginning at Step 1 or $660 per month. Kathleen Hughes, Dispatcher /Clerk, Beginning at Step 1 or $438 per month. Kathleen T. Michel, Stenographer, Clerk's Office, at Step 1 or $466 per month. B. Communication from the Design Review Board announcing a vacancy and request- ing the Council to appoint replacement for same. The City Clerk was authorized to advertise for interested citizens and refer to Council subcommittee for recommendation to the Council by September 8, 1970. C. Mayor Schwartz was authorized to accept and record the Grant Deed and Street. Widening Agreement from Frank F. Garcia,.corner of No. Broad and Lincoln Street. D. Notice of Public Hearing by the Local Agency Formation Commission on the proposed annexation of "South Hiquera Street Annexation No. 2" to be held on August 6, 1970 at 10:00 A.M., was ordered received and filed. The staff was directed to attend and to advise that the City does not object to the proposed annexation. E. Report of the City Clerk on Bids received for Johnson Avenue Widening, City Plan No. 27 -70, opened August 3, 1970 at 10:00 A.M. . J. A. O'Kelley 8 Son $10,265.00 M.. J. Hermreck, Inc.. $11,806.94 Burke Construction Co. $12,051.10 Madonna Construction Co. $12,448.20 W. G. Watkins $15,617.05 Engineer's Estimate $11,430.80 The Council accepted the low bid, awarding the contract to J. A. O'Kelley 8 Son. City Council Minutes August 3, 1970 Page 2 F. Approval of the following contract payments: Walter Bros. Construction Est. #1 $ 1,639.44 Sewage Pond Sludge Removal City Plan 1 -71 Walter Bros. Construction Est. #2 $55,514.41' Waterline Improvements City Plan 15 -70 Madonna Construction Co. Est. #2 $23,733.00 Mission Plaza, Phase I. City Plan 12 -70 G. Council consideration of acceptance of Tract No. 374, requested by Daniel Oxford of Paragon.Homes, was continued to August.17, 1970 for report from the City Engineer. H. Communication from the Attorney for Bill'.s Donut Shop, 686 Higuera Street, requesting that the City Council amend the present no overnight parking on this block and allow parking from 4:30 A.M. to 5:30 A.M., was referred to the Traffic Committee for recommendation'. J. Council consideration of the final agreement between the City; Cal Poly and Division of Highways for Highland Drive extension and entrance road to Cal Poly. D. F. Romero, City Engineer, urged the City Council to sign the agreement in order to proceed when funds were available. However, the matter was received and filed due to unknown future costs. It was generally agreed by the Council that the Mayor should sign the agree- ment at this time. K. A meeting with the Cal Poly Administration to discuss common problems of housing, transportation, traffic congestion, etc. when the college begins its fall quarter was approved and the staff was authorized to contact college officials for the earliest appropriate meeting date in August. L. The amended ordinance regulating the construction, alteration, demolition, and /or repair of any retaining wall within the City of San Luis Obispo, State of California, '.providing for the issuance of permits and collection of fees therefor; and providing for the violation thereof, (Continued from 7/6/70 and 7/20/70) was set for public hearing on September 8, 1970. . M. Communication from the Southern California Gas Company notifying the City Council.of the merger of the two gas.distributing companies of Pacific Lighting Company and asking that the existing Franchise be continued in the new corpor- ate name, was received and approval was granted to continue the existing franchise under the name of Southern California Gas Company. N. On motion of Councilman Graham, seconded by Councilman Blake, "the following resolution was introduced. RESOLUTION NO. 2084, a resolution determining that the public interest, convenience and necessity of the City of San Luis Obispo requires widening of a portion of Foothill Boulevard and the acquisition through eminent domain proceedings of a portion of the real property located:-at. 166 Foothill Boulevard together with the privilege and right of temporary use of an adjacent working area, and directing the City Attorney to commence an action in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of San Luis Obispo for the purpose of acquiring said parcel of real property, together with the privilege and right of temporary use of an adjacent working area. Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote: AYES: Emmons Blake,.Myron.Graham, Arthur F..Spri.ng Donald Q. Miller, Kenneth E. Schwartz NOES: None ABSENT: None City Council Minutes August 3, 1970 Page 3 I. Communication from the Boy Scouts of America asking permission to place a time capsule in the Mission Plaza to be opened in the year 2000. They are also requesting that the Boy Scouts be allowed to "adopt" a planter in the Mission Plaza and maintain it as a BSA planter. Councilman Miller objected to the placing of the time capsule or turning over a planter to the Boy Scouts. On motion of Councilman Graham, seconded by Councilman Spring, the matter was referred to the Mission.Plaza committee. Motion carried with Councilman Miller voting no. 0. Mayor Schwartz requested the Council's permission to leave the State from August 4 to 'August 16, 1970. The request was approved. P. Councilman Spring recommended that The Reverand George Aki be appointed to a four -year term on the City Housing Authority effective August 5, 1970. On motion of Councilman Spring, seconded by Mayor Schwartz, the appointment was approved. Motion carried. Mayor Schwartz nominated the following as members of the Promotional Coordin- ating Committee for the City: Ronald Dunin,.Lachlan P. MacDonald, Maynard F. Marquardt, Charles W. Quinlan, Thomas G. Smith On motion of Mayor Schwartz, seconded by Councilman Blake, the nominations were approved. Motion carried. Q. .Council consideration of the final acceptance of Tract No. 351 & No. 352, including all off -site improvements. D. F. Romero, City Engineer, explained to the Council the small amount of work that still must be done to complete the subdivision, but felt that suf- ficient funds were on file with the City to guarantee completion of all im- provements. The Council was in general agreement that a contract with a landscaping firm for tree planting woul.d be-sufficient compliance with the tree planting requirement. On motion of Councilman Graham, seconded by Councilman Blake, the following resolution was introduced. RESOLUTION NO. f078, .a resolution accepting the off -site improvements.in Tracts 351& 352. 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 1. At this time the City Council considered the request of Robert M. Jones, Attorney for James E. Hazard, regarding an order by the City to abate a drain- age channel obstruction in San Luis Creek on Mr:Hazard's property. Mr. Jones stated that he advised his client to cooperate with the City in any way that ' made a permanent solution to the flood problem as long as it was reasonable and compatible with the value of the property and the damage that might be done to the property, but that he had advised his client against any temporary solution to.the flooding problem. H. Johnson, City Attorney, explained the legal ramifications of the Jones' letter as follows: Mr. Jones appears to wish to place the City on notice that his clients are willing to participate in any plan that is developed for per- manent channel clearance and improvement on an area -wide basis, but that he has advised his clients that any work of temporary nature should not be under- taken at the expense of his clients. He also apparently is skeptical of the authority of the City to determine what constitutes a public nuisance. City Council Minutes August 3, 1970 Page 4 D. F. Romero, City Engineer, presented information on steps taken to date to. remedy the flood problem on the Hazard property. He presented sketches showing what could be temporarily done to alleviate the flooding problem. H. Johnson, City Attorney, stated that he felt the action taken to date by the City Council was a proper` one in relation to the Hazard problem. Robert M. Jones, attorney, stated that he had urged his client not to take any temporary action but to cooperate with the City on a permanent solution so as not to prejudice the property owner's rights. Further, he stated he did not feel that his client should be required to pay for improving the channel which he felt should be paid for by the City. He had advised his client not to bear the full cost of improving the creek on-his property. H. Johnson, City Attorney, commented on Mr. Jones' statement and suggested the matter be continued so that he could review the action to date regarding the Hazard property with the Hazard attorney. The matter was referred to the City Attorney-to meet with Robert::'M. Jones, Hazard attorney, as soon as possible and report to the City Council. D. Cheda hoped that the City Council would make a complete survey of any flood problems in San Luis Creek before picking on any further property owners to repair their property. Further, he felt that before the City ordered the property.owners to repair their property the City should repair its own property, particularly narrow bridges. 2. Report from the Underground Utility Coordinating Committee notifying the City Council that they were of the opinion that funds were available for the requested conversion along,Madonna Road and Los Osos Road adjacent to Tract 393, and that this area would have a lower priority in the future and should not be given consideration until the undergrounding in.the down- town area and major thoroughfares leading to downtown had been completed. The Committee further suggested to the City Council that consideration be given to requiring future subdividers to place facilities which were ad- jacent to proposed subdivisions underground when it was considered by the Subdivision Review Board to be economically feasible. On motion of Councilman Blake, seconded by Councilman Spring, that the re- quest of Ronald L. Benzer be denied. Motion carried. 3. At this time the City Council considered the final passage of ORDINANCE NO. 497, an ordinance amending the municipal code to establish a fifty MPH speed limit on Los Osos Road from Madonna Road to the North City Limits. On motion of Councilman Blake, seconded by Councilman Spring, ORDINANCE 497 was 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 4. At this time the City Council held a public hearing on RESOLUTION.NO. 2060, a resolution requiring sidewalk improvements on portions of Serrano Drive in the City of San Luis Obispo. D. F. Romero, City Engineer, reported the purposes for installing curbs, gutters and driveway ramps and presented sketches showing the proposed im- provements. Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing open. City Council Minutes August 3, 1970 Page 5 Harold Wilson, 777 Serrano Drive, objected to the proposal on the basis that the street would be narrowed and that further land would be needed from the property owners to adequatley widen the street and place the improvements. D. F. Romero pointed out that the Wilson property was not included in the list requiring improvements. D. Hofemeister, 553 Serrano Drive, objected to the requirement of improving Serrano Drive stating he felt this was a nice country lane and a charming place to live. He felt that improving and placing two way traffic through the area would ruin the environment and would be detrimental to the people living on Serrano Drive. Stan Forden, 89 Broad Street, objected to the requirement of installing curbs, and gutters on Serrano Drive on the basis of additional cost to the property owner on top of their recent increased assessments and subsequently higher taxes by the County and on the basis of the high cost of construction and tight money available to the property owners. He further questioned the need of these improvements in view of the eucalyptus trees on the north side partly on his property and partly on the City street. He continued that the cost of keeping these trees was too much to pay for either the property own- ers or the City. He felt that the cost of protecting the trees and street would be prohibitive. He continued that if the City wanted to save the trees then they had better be prepared to spend great sums of money for their maintenance which he;felt would be a waste of public funds. Mayor Schwartz answered that he felt the City would like to keep the trees and that one plan proposed by the City Engineer calls for a narrow parking lane on the north side of Serrano Drive in order to protect the trees. Councilman Spring stated that if the trees were actually in the City's. right ' of way then it was the City's responsibility to maintain them and keep the area clean. Councilman Graham agreed that all the trees that are in the street right of way should be maintained by the City. Councilman Blake felt it was the City's intention to keep the trees if at all possible. Stan Forden stated that he would like to have the City take the trees out as they are old, dirty, messy and extremely difficult to maintain. Councilman Miller agreed that if the trees were in the street the taxpayers should pay for their removal or maintenance. D. F. Romero, City Engineer, stated that it was his opinion that these trees under discussion were in the sidewalk side of the curb line and would normally be the responsibility of the property owner to clear and maintain, under the curb, gutter and sidewalk ordinance. Councilman Miller stated he did not wish Serrano Drive to be narrowed and felt that the trees should be removed as they were a nuisance. They should be taken down and the cost shared equally by the City an.d property.owners. ' J. R. Ross, 580 - Serrano Drive, urged the City to stop the proceedings at this time, leave the trees alone, and just fill in the chuck holes and let the people live in peace and quiet. D. Cheda objected to the Council's plan to leave Serrano Drive as a narrow country lane and he felt that the full street width should be put in at this time. It the trees were in the way, they should be removed. Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing closed. City Council Minutes August 3, 1970 Page 6 Councilman Spring also objected to requiring curbs and gutters as proposed unless the full street width were put in properly now. Councilman Blake felt that if the property owners felt that they could live with Serrano Drive as it was in its present condition, he did not feel he could force the improvements on the property owners. Councilman Miller was ilin favor of ordering the improvements place, removing the trees in the right of way, cost to be shared with the property owner, putting in the full width right of way and that all trees not in. the right of way should be topped. Councilman Graham stated that he was for the preservation of the trees but felt that the improvements were needed and would go along with a narrow street section due to the light usage by the public. He felt the City tax- payers should help pay to construct necessary abutment to hold fill on the north side of Serrano Drive. Mayor.Schwartz stated he saw the Council's choice of action as follows: 1. Defer action to a later date; 2. Decide that curbs and gutters are necessary to protect the new street; 3. Place curbs and gutters on the street side of the trees and save the trees; 4. The City share expenses with the property owners to remove all trees in the right of way. On Motion of Councilman Miller that the City order the curbs, gutters and driveway ramps installed, that the street'width.of Serrano Drive be thirty - four (34) feet, and that those trees in the street right of way be removed with the City sharing the cost of removal with the property owner, and that the balance of the trees in the right of way be topped. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. On motion of Councilman Graham, seconded by Councilman Blake, that public convenience and necessity requires the curb, gutter and driveway improve- ments, that the City preserve the trees, the City share the cost of fill in the north side of Serrano Drive across the Forden property and the City to pay for any future realignment of curbs and gutters. The motion lost (four affirmative votes required) on the following roll call vote: AYES: Myron Graham, Emmons Blake, Kenneth E. Schwartz NOES: Donald Q. Miller, Arthur F. Spring ABSENT: None On motion of Councilman Miller., seconded by Mayor Schwartz, that public con- venience and necessity requires the curb, gutter and driveway improvements, that the trees be preserved; that the City share cost of fill across the Forden property on the north side of Serrano Drive, the City to pay for any future realignment of curbs and gutters; and that any trees removed be re- moved in accordance with City policy. The motion lost (four affirmative votes required) on the following roll call I vote: AYES: Emmons Blake, Donald Q. Miller, Kenneth E. Schwartz NOES: Myron Graham, Arthur F. Spring ABSENT: None City Council Minutes August 3, 1970 Page 7 On motion of Councilman Blake, seconded..b.yCouncilman Spring, that Serrano. Drive be removed from the 1970 -71 street improvement priority list and that only normal street maintenance .be performed. Motion carried on the following roll' call vote: AYES: Emmons Blake, Arthur F. Spring, Donald Q. Miller, Kenneth E. Schwartz NOES: Myron Graham ABSENT: None 5. At this time the City Council held a public hearing on RESOLUTION NO. 2076, a resolution setting date for public hearing to consider possible rezoning of property at 3217 Johnson Avenue. The.purpose of the public hearing was to determine if the precise planned development for this property was substantially changed..from'the preliminary plan approved by the City Council when they rezoned the property to PD -R -2. R. D. Young, Planning Director, presented the report of the staff '.to the Planning Commission which recommended the approval of the precise plan for the Stickler development at 3217 Johnson Avenue. Councilman Blake stated one purpose of this hearing was to bring out all staff action in regard to the final approval of the final.precise plan of the Stickler development.. B. F. Romero, City Engineer, reported on the topographical . problems in the proposed area of.the STickler development in the preliminary and precise plan. He explained that the plan just submitted still did not meet all re- quirements. Councilman Blake presented for the Council's information the sketches ap- proved by the Planning Commission and the City Council for the preliminary planned development which showed the trees on the location, the recreational areas, parking proposals, etc. He then showed a sketch of.the precise plan which was approved by the City staff .which he felt was substantially different from the plan approved by the City Council and.Planning- Commission in the pre- liminary plan. He continued that in the precise plan the trees were not shown, the buildings had been. moved, the recreational areas had been reduced in size, and the location and the parking planning had been changed and he felt that the precise plan was much different from the preliminary plan approved by the City Council and he .would not wish to guess how the Council would have voted on this rezoning had the precise plan been presented to the City Council in- stead of the preliminary plan. H. Johnson, City Attorney, commented on the Council's.action on this rezoning as follows: By setting this matter for a public hearing to determine whether the developer was proceeding .with the project along lines which met the basic standards established by the approval of the original preliminary plan, the City Council expressed its desire to hear evidence both pro and con the precise plan currently applicable to the project. At the conclusion of. the hearing, the City Council can either approve the proposed precise plan, approve a revised version of the precise plan or adopt a resolution initiating rezoning of the concerned real property. Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing open. Robert Wendt, Attorney for Oldham and Stickler, stated that he felt the ques- tion before the City Council at this time was whether the precise .plan presented by Mr.. Stickler differed substantially from the preliminary plan approved by the City Council.. He continued that a.review of the Planning Commission minutes and City Council minutes did not show any conditions or discussion as to trees but that the key discussion hinged on traffic on Johnson Avenue and the density proposed by the developer. City Council Minutes August 3, 1970 Page 8 Mr:.Wendt read the City Engineer's statement on the topography in the Council's hearing that approved the.planned development. He also read the sections of the Zoning Ordinance dealing with planned development (Section 9200.18.3 G) "Any part of the proposal. which would normally require a Use Permit or Variance shall be indicated on the plot plan and explained in the written.description." Mr. Wendt continued that Mr. Young and Mr. Romero, in accordance with the City Ordinance, stated that they felt that the precise plan was in substan- tial conformity with the preliminary plan approved and without any major changes in the plan. He stated he felt the City Council, by ordinance, had delegated the final approval of the precise plan in the development to the Planning Director and City Engineer.with final action taken by the Planning Commission and that upon approva'I by the Planning Commission and the City staff, the developer then went ahead with the necessary "preparations of plans for the off -site improvements, including sewer, water, etc: He con- tinued getting back to the planned development discussion, that after the approval of the plan was received, Mr. Stickler, the developer, had the trees along the property boundary Inspected by a competent tree surgeons to determine which trees were dead, dying, or diseased. The subject trees were over 80 years.old.which appears to be the maxi.mum age for this type of eucalyptus .tree . After.the tree inspection was made, Mr..St.ick.ler was noti- fied by the tree experts that a number of trees should be removed as they were dangerous and diseased. He then removed those so shown by the tree surgeons. Mr. Wendt continued that he felt the developer had attempted to .live up to all the conditions set by the City Council, Planning Commission and Ordinances of, the City. He. stated that the decision the Council must face now is whether the precise plan is substantial.ly'different from the approved preliminary plan. He continued that some. of the changes from the preliminary plan to the pre- cise plan were caused by the drainage study and the driveway access to the site. He felt the development had been done in good faith and did not feel that the developer should be penalized for following the City. Ordinance dealing with planned development. He stated that some of the trees which were removed were not even on the Oldham - Stickler property.but actually were on an adjacent property. He con - tinued he felt that the planned development approved by the Planning Commission and staff was not found by them to be substantially different from the prelim- inary plan and he cannot see how..the Counci.l can now retry the entire 'planned development issue. . Mr. Wendt felt that the developer had complied with the conditions of planned development approved by the Planning Commission and with the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance. Councilman Blake felt that while..the minutes do not show any Council discussion on retaining or removing trees, the preliminary. development plan did show the trees in a.schematic way.. At no time In the discussion did the developer state he was- p.(anni.ng on remov.ing any trees or'making any changes from the preliminary precise plan of 'development. . Councilman Blake then asked the.City staff if all required reports for the precise development in seciton 9200.18.3 B had been complied with and filed with the City. Precise Development Plan is as'follows: 1. Within the time limits specified in the approval of the Preliminary Plan, a Precise Development Plan of each stage shall be submitted to the Plan- ning and Building Department, accompanied by the following plans to scale and supporting documents. ;Three (3) copies of the plot plan shall be submitted and an 8 -1" x 11" transparency or tracing. a. .Location of buildings and structures and uses conta.ined-therein; locations of exits and entrances; height, number of.floors and gross floor area of each building. b. Existing and proposed contours at two (2) foot intervals. c. Surface drainage, sewer and water lines, fire hydrants,.and related calculations. Street lighting, gas and electric mains. d. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, street construction plans. C J i City Council Minutes August 3, 1970 Page 9 e. Details of off street parking and loading facilities. f. Open, spaces., landscaping, fences and walls. g. Detailed design of free- standing signs. General indication of signs on buildings. 2. The Precise Development Plan shall be reviewed by the City Engineer and Planning Director for conformity with the approved Preliminary Plan and time schedule. If satisfactory, the Plan shall then be referred to.the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission for approval. No build- ing permit shall be issued for any part of the development prior to ap- proval of the.Precise Plan by the Planning Commission. 3. No change other than minor adjustments, may be made to an approved Precise Plan until the revision has been approved by the Commission and the Council. Nat Colby, 3111 Richard Street, stated on behalf of his neighbors that he had continued to follow the Stickler development on Johnson Avenue and that it was his opinion as a civil engineer that the precise plan was substantially different from the preliminary plan approved by the City Council in December of 1969. He continued that the recreational area shown in the preliminary plan had been reduced by. over 2,500 square feet which he.felt was a substan- tial change in the plan. He objected to the reduction in the recreational area as at the December public hearing one of the key points that the dev- eloper emphasized in trying to,sell the planned deve.lopment to the City Council was that a large recreational area would be supplied for the resi- dents of the planned development. Further, he felt the reduction-of individual patios behind each unit and their removal from the precise plan took away an amenity on which the.preliminary plan was sold. He continued that he felt that the grade. of the parking lot.was so steep that it would be impossible to use. He then presented various.other items that he felt differed on the precise plan from the preliminary plan including such items as entrance to the development, the row development of the buildings rather than the cluster development, etc. Mr. Colby stated that on behalf of the residents of the area he urged the City Council to rezone from PD R -2 to R -1 because he did not feel that the planned development in the precise plan lent the amenities required for a planned development. Councilman Blake presented a sketch from the development plans'of the STickler development showing that eight trees were kept.on the plan as shown by the pre- cise plan and he stated that these had now been removed. Dr.. Lawrence Field, 1750. Alta Street, stated that much discussion was made at the December meeting which approved the.planned development for Mr. Stickler which was to protect adjacent property from high density development by allow- ing trees on the sight to remain as a buffer to protect the adjacent R -1 property.. He continued that.it.was obvious that the developer found after approval of his plan that due .to the topography he could not build thirty -five units. Therefore, he rearranged the plan 'in order to continue with thirty, .five units for..economical reasons. He.further stated that he was in -,agreement with people who claim that the precise plan was substantia.11y.different from the approved preliminary plan.as he said an inspection of both plans showed very little relationship and that the precise plan did not contain the amenities required of a planned development or promised by the developer. Ethan Jennings, Architect, stated.that'he had prepared the preliminary plan for this development by Stickler but,d.id not p'repare.the precise plans which were approved by the staff. He felt that whoever did prepare them did not review the environmental amenities of the site that were preserved in the preliminary plan. He. further felt that. the precise plan differed substantially from the preliminary plan as follows: 1'.. trees were to be retained; 2. the buildings were to be clustered and not placed in rows; 3. lots were reduced in size in order to get more lots in the adjacent R -1 Subdivision; 4. the density of the property had been increased due to smaller area.development; City Council Minutes August 3, 1970 Page 10 5. there was a loss to children in.the play equipment area; 6. the preliminary plan was to compliment the R -1 .Living but the precise plan was strictly a high density development; 7. other amenities were lacking on the precise plan that had been shown on the preliminary plan. Mrs. Rose McKean felt that the precise plan approved by the Planning Com- mission was substantially different from the preliminary plan approved by the City. Council. She continued that she felt that the trees that were shown on the preliminary plan approved by the City.Council., had now been_re- moved-and were a natural barrier to divide the.property uses of the area. She felt -that the precise plan as approved must be reviewed and a proper plan resubmitted for consideration. R. L. Graves, 291 Motley Avenue, asked what were the boundaries of. the Stickler development that were rezoned and what was the description of the property. D. F. Romero, City Engineer, answered that they had- not.received from'the applicant, a record of the survey showing the.entire property under the Stickler ownership. John Kerr, 1130 Leff Street, stated that as he looked at it.the preliminary plan showed thirty -five units and the precise plan.showed thirty -five units so he could not see what all the talk was about as he felt.that Stickler was trying to make a good development. Claude Miller, 3198 Rose, felt that if it is true that the trees in this area were diseased and were dangerous, and that if the City Council pre- vented Stickler from taking them down, he would hold the City Council responsible:if the trees fell on his home and damaged the property or residents. Mayor Schwartz declared the.public hearing closed Councilman Graham felt that both the preliminary and the precise plan met the intention of the development and felt that if the trees were diseased, they should come down. Also, he. agreed that-the precise.plan was different from the preliminary plan in many respects. Councilman.Blake stated what he was opposing or investigating at this time was not the removal of the trees as this was just one part of the problem. What he was questioning was.the planned development approval given by the City Council was based on.a plan pre.sented.and for which he voted and he. based his vote on the plan that was presented. He continued that the ques- tion was whether there were substantial differences. between. the precise and the preliminary plan, and if there were major differences, could the City staff approve the major changes without bringing the matter back to the Council for its consideration. He felt that with the changes that had been made to the plan after approval.by the Council such as the increased den- sity, line -up of the buildings, loss of recreational area, etc. substantial changes.had taken place and -he urged the Council to consider this plan very carefully. Councilman Spring telt that there had been some changes made in the precise plan from the approved preliminary plan and felt that if the-trees were . removed because of disease or possible damage the plan should.be changed to compensate for this problem. Councilman Miller stated he felt that'the removal of the .trees was caused by the possible danger and disease. He felt that looking in detail at the precise plan dramatic and drastic changes had been made to the preliminary plan approved by the Council. The living environment for the residents in the proposed.area were not the same as approved by the Council in the pre- liminary plan. He felt that the density had been changed and the recreation area had been reduced and he .would oppose further development on this project until the precise plan became more in concurrence.with the preliminary plan approved by the Council. 1 r L 1 City Council Minutes August 3, 1970 Page 11 Mayor Schwartz explained that while he was opposed to all the development in this planned development by this developer, he felt that-once action was taken by the City.Council that.he would follow the majority decision. He felt that the preliminary plan was approved by the Planning Commission and City Council at public hearings after which the City Council has delegated the approval of.the precise plan'to the City staff and Planning Commission and now the City Council has been asked to decide whether-the precise plan is different from the preliminary.plan already approved. Mayor Schwartz then read Section 9200.18.1 of the Municipal Code dealing with planned development districts. Section 9200.18.1 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS A. Intent: The Planned Development procedure is intended to permit and encourange the use of new concepts of land development and flexibility of planning with appropriate safeguards and controls, by allowing: 1. Rezoning for a specific use or uses subject to a time schedule, where a permanent change in the zoning designation would not be appropriate; to avoid excessive areas of undeveloped land in particular zones and to minimize the rezoning of land for specu- lative purposes. 2. A mixture of compatible uses meeting the principles of the General Plan. 3. Variations from the standards specified -elsewhere in this Ordinance, based on Section 9100.4., Optional Design and Improvement Standards; with further relaxation of lot sizes, yards and density requirements, when in the opinion of the Planning Commission and approval of the City Council, the proposed development will enhace the area in which it is proposed; by exceptional design and arrangement of buildings, provision of open space and recreation.facilities and landscaping, and the protection of the welfard and privacy of adjoining properties. 4. Condominium developments. B. Scope: The Zoning Ordinance may be amended to permit Planned Developments in any land use District. C. Combination of Land Uses Permitted: Two or more land uses may be'allowed in a Planned Development when such combination of uses is deemed by the Planning Commission to be in keeping with the principles and goals.of the General Plan. D. Minimum Land Area Required: Planned Development Districts may be permitted on any parcel or contiguous parcels of.land capable of subdivision into six (6) or more normal lots, as specified by the Zonign Ordinance for that land use District. (U Districts shall be considered R -1 Districts for the prupose of this section) E. Time Limitati.on: A Precise Development Plan shall be submitted within the time period speci- fied by the City Council in-their approval of the Preliminary Development' Plan. Failure to submit a Precise Development Plan within this time period shall result in the zoning of the property reverting to its original desig- nation. Failure to commence construction according to the time schedule specified in the approval of the Precise Development Plan and completion thereafter with due diligence shall result in the zoning reverting to its original.designation. Mayor Schwartz questioned.whether the developer,.staff'or.Planning Commission had actually considered the intention of the planned development as listed. He continued that the matter of the trees being removed was only the catalyst that brought the matter of the change in the precise development plan from the pre- liminary plan. He stated that he.felt there had.been substantial. change from the approved preliminary plan to the precise plan that the developer is now working under. City Council Minutes August 3, 1970 Page 12 H. Johnson, City Attorney, stated that the Council had the following options in dealing with this matter: 1. refer it to the Planning Commission for reconsideration; 2.. hold a conference between. the Council, the Planning Commission and the developer to.work out.ah adjustment; 3. the Council could determine that the deve.lopment was substantially different from that approved but felt that revocation of zoning was severe for future development; 4. initiate rezoning even though the developer had expended funds on this development and nobody would know how much could be salvaged for a.new development. Mayor Schwartz suggested that a Council committee, Planning Commission com- mittee, and staff members meet with the developer to work out an acceptable plan for the development. Councilman Blake suggested that the precise plan of the planned.development be declared unlawful under Section 9200.2.1 B, and that the Planned Develop- ment be revoked in the hope that some of the work could be salvaged for the off -site improvements. On motion of Mayor Schwartz, seconded by Councilman.Spr.ing, that based on the testimony presented at this public. hearing it was determined by the City Council that there was a substantial difference found between the pre- liminary plan and the precise p.lan, but that a conference committee consisting of two Planning Commissioners, two City Councilmen, the Planning Director, the.City Engineer, and the City Attorney meet with the developer and attempt to revise the Plans to coincide with the approved planned development and make.report to the City Council and Planning Commission. Motion carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: Emmons Blake, Myron Graham, Arthur F. Spring, Donald Q..Miller,.Kenneth E. Schwartz NOES: None ABSENT: None Mayor Schwartz appointed Councilmen Blake and Graham as the Council represen- tatives, and Chairman Evans and Vice Chairman Franklin as the Planning Com- mission members of this committee, with Councilman Blake as chairman. 6. At this time the City.Council held a public hearing on the recommendation of the Planning Commission to rezone from R -2 -S to R -2'; R -H -S to R -H. and R -O -S to R -0, that property lying on the southwest side of Los Osos.Valley Road and Madonna Road extended. . R. D. Young, Planning.Director, presented the recommendation.of the Planning Commission as.follows: 1. The Planning Commission approved R -2 -S, R -O -S, R -H -S and R -1 zoning on the subject property in October 1970. Since the property was not subdivided at that time, the Commission attached.the "S" (design control) designation in order to control development of four large parcels. The Commission stated that at such time as a subdivision map had been.approved and.recorded, the applicant could ask that the "S" designation be removed.. 2. A final map has been recorded and it is the opinion of the Commission that the'subdivisi.on regulations and the standards set forth in the respective zone districts will insure compatible development. Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing open. No one appeared before the City Council.for or against the rezoning. Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing closed. 1 1 City Council Minutes August 3, 1970 Page 13 On motion of Councilman Graham, seconded by Mayor Schwartz, the following or- dinance was .introduced.and passed to print. ORDINANCE NO. 498, an ordinance amending the Official Zone Map of the City of San Luis Obispo.. (to rezone from R -2 -S to R -2; from R -H -S to R -H; and from R -0 -S tp R -0, that property lying'on the wouthwest Side of Los Osos Valley Road and Madonna Rd. extended) 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 7. At this time the City Council held a public hearing on the recommendation of the, Fi re. Department to adopt amendments to the .1967 edition of the Uniform Fire Code. Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing open. Mr. Jack Kellerman, Chief Building Inspector, and W. H. Woodward, Battalion Chief, requested that the City Council continue consideration of this matter so that the two departments could review the proposal for Council consider- ation. No one else appeared before the City Council for or against• the amendments. Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing closed. On motion of Councilman Spring seconded by Councilman Blake, the matter was continued to September 8, 1970. Motion carried. 8. Communication from Obispo Beautiful Association requesting that the City Council consider amending the Municipal Code to protect and preserve the trees in San Luis Obispo. The communication stated "the wanton and wholesale destriction of trees (in the past several months) could decimate the scenic beauty, cause erosion of topsoil, create flood hazards, etc." The Obispo Beautiful Association requested that the City Council enact an ordinance that would prevent. removal of trees without permit and without good reason. Mrs. Helen Drumm. Vice Chairman of the Association, suggested that the City Council request the City ATtorney to look into the .ordinance of the cities of Monterey, Carmel, Santa Barbara and Palo Alto who have excellent ordinances controlling the removal and maintenance of trees within their cities. Dr. Brown, a member of the Obispo. Beautiful Association,: urged the City Council to seriously consider amending the Tree Ordinance to'make it more restrictive particularly in the wholesale removal of trees without permit. On motion of Councilman Blake, seconded by Councilman Miller, that the request of Obispo Beautiful Association be referred to the Tree Committee for study and suggested amendments to the City Ordinance. Motion carried: 9. Communication from Hal Bankston, realtor, requesting Council cooperation in installing an 8 -inch water line on Phillips Lane for a multiple development. He ' also asked permission to pay the water charges with the excrow rather than in advance. Mr. Bankston appeared before the City Council on behalf of his request stating that he felt the 4 -inch line presently in the street was adequate and he could see no reason why he should extend across adjacent property in order to adequately serve his development. He felt the City should contribute 175 feet of 8 -inch water main and the hydrant. He would pay the other 100 feet in front of his property and he did not feel that he should pay for the pipe line not in front of his property. City Council Minutes August 3, 1970 Page 14 P. Thompson, Water Department Director, stated that the nearest point of ade- quate service for this property was in the middle of the intersection of Toro and Phillips Lane and that the property owner, in accordance with City Ordin- ances, would have to pay for the extention to serve his property. He estimated the cost of 265 feet of 8 -inch pipe, fire hydrant and 2 =inch meter would be approximately $4;580.00. He continued that there was no way in the ordinance that he could relieve the developer from the cost of required services and the acreage charge. Councilman Blake felt that the City Council could not go along with the request of the developer for the City to contribute to the water installation as the property was rezoned to a higher use and the owner must have realized that at some time in the future he would have to supply adequate service for the higher density received by the rezoning and he felt that the developer should pay for connection to the nearestpoint of adequate service. H. Bankston, realtor, urged the City Council to cooperate with the developer and to pay a portion of the water extention charge in order to help develop housing in San Luis Obispo which is desperately needed. He felt that the Water Department must cooperate with developers if housing is to be provided. On motion of Councilman Blake, seconded by Councilman Spring, that the request be denied and that the developer connect to the nearest point of adequate ser- vice in accordance with City Ordinances. Motion carried, Councilman Graham voting no. 10. Communication from John H. Deeter requesting that the City Council approve his proposed annexation to the City of San Luis Obispo of property located at the southwest corner of Los Osos Valley Road and Prefumo Canyon Road. H. Johnson, City Attorney, explained that'John Deeter was not asking for ap- proval of the City Council for any developement on this proposed annexation, but only a statement to LAFCO that the City had no objection to his applying for annexation which would speed up his annexation precedure. On motion of Councilman Spring, seconded by Councilman Blake, the City Attorney was authorized to notify LAFCO that the City had no objection to his applying for annexation. Motion carried. 11. Communication from Francis R. Scott requesting that he be issued .a permit to build on h-is property at the corner of Pacific and Broad without setting back to the new street line as the City is not now purchasing right -of -way for street widening and the State Division of Highways have not completed their plans and not buying right -of -way at this time. D. F. Romero, City Engineer, explained that ever since the building set -back line had been established on Broad Street his office had been purchasing_ land for widening but that since the Division of Highways began their studies of alternate routes for the Edna Throughway, the City Council had instructed his office to no longer purchase land as it would not be reimbursed by the STate. Councilman Miller stated that the City should negotiate and purchase the nec- essary land for the building set -back line on Broad Street and not allow devel- opment which will require acquisition by either the City or state to include improvements at a later date. D. F. Romero, upon questioning, stated that this property was zoned C -2 which required zero feet for the building set back line. On motion of Councilman Blake, seconded by Councilman Miller,.that the City adhere to the building set -back line ordinance for C -2 property and require ,dedication:, prior to issuance of building permits. Motion carried. 1 1 1 City Council Minutes August 3, 1970 Page 15 12. Brad Brown appeared before the City Council asking that they take some action to either write or pass a resolution to Newsweek Magazine objecting to a story in the magazine regarding treatment given to hippy types by the resi- dents of the City and County. He felt that the story was not ture and gave the wrong impression about San Luis Obispo and its residents. It was the common opinion of the City Council that each individual Councilman who felt strongly about the subject should write to Newsweek giving his opinion of the story. ' 13. Report of Councilmen Graham and Miller on what measures may be taken to mutually assist the motel owners in alleviating the problem of transients in- terferi'ng with their business operation. Further, the committee was asked what measures could be followed to assist and expedite the flow of hitch- hikers through the City. 1. The committee recommends three designated pick -up areas: a. End of Olive Street where roadway turns left at 90 degrees toward southbound on -ramp to freeway. b. Northeast corner of Foothill and Santa Rosa Street approxi- mately 300 feet toward town on Santa Rosa Street. At this location there 'is no curbing. There is a wide graveled area for cars to pull off when picking up hitchhikers. c. Directly across San Luis Creek, Marsh Street Bridge which leads to on -ramps of freeways. 2. Location. "a" will be on public property. Location "b" will have to be negotiated with the property owner. Location "c" with the . State Division of Highways. 3. The following accomodations• will be provided. At least two trash receptacles affi.xed to bus -type benches. It is suggested that at least two benches be provided. A water fountain at each location if practical. At location "b" and "c ".one chemical toilet. On the back rest of the benches a phone number for emergency use; giving location of the nearest pay phone; also, information as to location of police .station and medical facilities. Ron Dunin presented the Motel Hotel Association's request that due to the . lateness of the hour for adequate.consideration that the City Council con- tinue this matter for study. Also, he suggested that additional locations might be found that are more appropriate for hitchhiker pick -up stations. He asked for further discussion as a whole. The matter was continued to August 17, 1970. 15. On motion of Councilman Blake, seconded by Councilman Spring, the follow- ing resolution was introduced. RESOLUTION NO. 2079, a resolution re= establishing parking requirements on Pacific Street between Osos Street and Morro Street and between Garden Street and Broad Street. Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote: AYES: Emmons Blake, Myron Graham, Arthur F. Spring, Kenneth E. Schwartz NOES: Donald Q. Miller ABSENT: None 18. D. F._ Romero,.City Engineer, presented for the Council's consideration, plans and specifications for the Street Resurfacing Project, City Plan 24 -70, explaining the work to be accomplished and the areas that would be improved. He estimated the cost:of the project would be $43,600.00. D.F. Romero also presented plans and specifications for the California Boule- vard Construction Project, City Plan 5 -71, explaining the work to be accomplished under this contract, the method of improvement and the scope of the work, with an estimated cost of $21,600.00. On motion of Councilman Blake, seconded by Councilman Spring, that the plans and specifications for both projects be approved and the City Engineer authorized to call for bids. Motion carried. City Council Minutes August 3, 1970 Page 16 21. Traffic Committee Report of July 8; 1970 70 -7 -6T. The Traffic Committoe..has received several requests for us to look into the revised parking and traffic needs on Chorro between Monterey and Higuera in view of the closing of Berkemeyer's retail meat outlet. After looking at the situation, it is our recommendation that the two red spaces more or less in front of the Chamber of Commerce Office be replaced with red curbing to facilitate right hand turning movements and that the old yellow loading zone extending four car spaces to the north be replaced with four 36- minute time limit parking meter spaces. Mr. Dirkes has in- dicated no objection and in fact states he feels that it's a good idea. 70 -7 -7T. The cab company has requested three additional reserved cab spaces in addition to the two in front of the Greyhound Bus Depot, the one along- side Corcoran's.on Chorro and one in front of the Anderson Hotel. The additional spaces requested were one more in front of Greyhound, one across the street from the Bank of America on Higuera Street and one in front of the Economy Drug Store on Higuera. The Traffic Committee agrees that one is needed directly across from the Bank of America, but recommends against any additional spaces in front of Greyhound and recommends one additional space to the west of the hotel loading zone in front of the Wineman Hotel. 70- 7 -10T. The Traffic Committee has studied the traffic situation at the corner of Foothill and Chorro and feels that conditions would be greatly improved if a left hand turn prohibition were installed for westbound motorists on Foothill between 4 and 6.P.M., Sundays and Holidays ex- cepted. We so recommend. 70 -7 -117. It is recommended that stop signs be placed on Oceanaire and Royal Way stopping.traffic on these streets at Los Osos Road. On motion of Councilman Blake, seconded by Councilman Miller, the following resolution was introduced. RESOLUTION NO. 2080, a resolution rescinding green spaces on Chorro Street and on Higuera Street; rescinding yellow spaces.on Chorro Street; installing a no- parking zone on Chorro Street,Ltaxi ._zones on Higuera Street and a green zone. on Montalban Street; restricting left turns on Foothill Boulevard; and establishing stop signs on Oceanaire and Royal Way. Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote: AYES: Emmons Blake, Myron Graham, Arthur F. Spring, Donald Q. Miller, Kenneth E. Schwartz NOES:N None ABSENT: None 70 -7 -8T. At the request of Mrs. Levine, 3681 Johnson Avenue, for an additional street light in the area, the Traffic Committee has taken a look and recommends a light across the street approximately half way between Orcutt Road and Tanglewood. 70 -7 -9T. In connection with the discussion the other evening on Santa Rosa near Olive and.Montalban, the Traffic Committee at the parking situation on Montalban and feels that a useful served by installing two 36- minute green time limit spaces on Montalban, one at the corner and one between the two driveway the east. on the red zoning has taken a look purpose.would be the south side of ramps directly to On motion of Councilman Blake, seconded by Councilman Miller, the recommendation of the Traffic Committee was accepted. Motion carried. 1 1 1 1 1 City Council Minutes August 3, 1970 Page 17 24. On motion of Mayor Schwartz, seconded by Councilman Graham, Change Order No. 4, Mission Plaza Project, planter extention and temporary blacktop on Monterey was approved. Motion carried. 14. Consideration by the City Council of requirement of installation of curbs, gutter and sidewalks on Archer Street between Archer and Buchon Streets and on the south side of Johnson Avenue east of Sydney Street was continued to the meeting of August 17, 1970.. 16. The communication from S. B. Stornetta regarding his property at the cor- ner of Edna Road and Higuera Street was continued to the meeting of August 17. 17. The communication from the Attorney for.San Luis Obispo Savings and Loan Association, 1020 Marsh Street, expressing their concern with the potential flood problem existing on property adjacent to them and hoping that the City will proceed with correction prior to the next rainy season was continued to the meeting of August 17, 1970. 19. Communication from Lane Wilson, Park Foreman, concerning City policy re- garding the planting of street trees in subdivisions was continued to the meeting of August 17, 1970. 20. Communication from Lane Wilson, Park Foreman, regarding tree work on Branch Street between Broad and Beebee was continued to August 17, 1970. 22. Communication from Slate Senator R. Collier; again asking that the City of San Luis Obispo adopt a resolution opposing the diversion of state gas taxes to other uses was continued to the meeting of August 17, .1970. 23. Council consideration of the League Legislative Bulletin dated 7/22/70 and 7/29/70, was continued to the meeting of August 17, 1970. The following will be considered at that time: 70 -17 (7/22/70) SB 476 70 -18 (7/22/70) SB 371 70 -19 (7/22/70) AB 2131 70 -20 (7/22/70) AB 1904 70 -21 (7/29/70) AB 1155 70 -22 (7/29/70) AB 2182 25. On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Spring, the meeting was adjourned to August 10, 1970 at 7:30 P.M. Motion carried. APPROVED: September 21, 1970 FV Patrick, City Clerk