HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/16/1977MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1977 - 12:10 P.M.
HEARING ROOM, CITY HALL
Roll Call
PRESENT: Councilmen Graham, Gurnee, Petterson and Mayor Schwartz
ABSENT:
City Staff
Councilman Norris
PRESENT: J.H. Fitzpatrick, City Clerk; R.F. Romero, Director of
Public Services; Wayne Peterson, City Engineer; Rob Strong,
Director of Community Development
1. Council consideration of possible acquisition or abandonment of a
portion of Rockview Place northwest of Perkins Lane continued from the
February 15, 1977 Council meeting.
Rob Strong, Director of Community Development, reported that the.Planning
Commission had unanimously rejected the request of Mr. Robert Newby to
abandon a portion of Rockview Lane northwest of Perkins Lane. The unimproved
right -of -way in this segment was only 15' wide, contained an underground
gas line, and appeared essential to provide future access to the undeveloped
acreage to the northwest. He continued that the City had received
preliminary plans for a residential subdivision of this acreage which would
warrant the future extension of Rockview Place and perhaps.a secondary
connection to Lawrence Drive (by extension of Chandler Avenue) as indicated
on a displayed map. Rather than recommend abandonment of the right -of -way
' to enable the construction of a Duplex on the 50X120' Newby property, the
Planning Commission suggested the City acquire this property for future
street purposes. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council
authorize City staff to commence appraisal for right -of -way acquisition
in order to protect this potential access to a otherwise limited access
property.
Robert Newby, property owner, spoke in support of his proposal to construct
a duplex on his property, and stated that the only -reason he had asked for
abandonment of the 15' lane was to avoid puttin.a in street improvements
along that side. He stated he would not resist the City if they wished
to purchase the property" at fair market value for street purposes.
Councilman Gurnee stated that he felt that the Planning Commission's and
staff's recommendations were reasonable and that the City should not
consider abandonment.
Councilman Petterson stated that he, too, agreed.
Councilman.Graham stated that he agreed with Councilman Gurnee and felt
that the City should acquire the property in order to avoid further the
limited access problems on the adjoining property.
Mayor Schwartz agreed that the staff should pursue estimated costs of
acquisition, appraisals, and return to the Council for future C.I.P.
' On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Petterson, that the
City not abandon this portion of Rockview Place, and instead direct the
staff to have appraisals made to include acquisition of this property
in the C.I.P. list for 1977/1978. Motion carried.
8.A Petition from Business Owners /Operators on Broad Street asking
relief from the City Council from the recently imposed no- parking zones
on Broad Street.
Champ Massey, owner of Pacific Motor Imports, 2436 Broad Street, appeared
before the Council to speak on behalf of 26 businesses on Broad Street
regarding the recently installed no- parking zones established as a part of
this street. He stated that most of the businesses along Broad Street
City Council Minutes
February 16, 1977
Page 2
were small-business and had a meed for curb parking as the properties
were quite small. The fact that there was no parking on the east side and
the residents across Broad Street were parking in the bicycle lanes was
quite absurd. In the heavy business hours, the residents were unable to
park in front of their houses due to customers who parked on the west
side and walked across Broad-Street to do business in the various stores.
He urged the City Council to reconsider their action and take down the signs
Paul Landell submitted a memorandum to the City Council stating that if the
City Council wished to restripe Broad Street to allow parking on both
sides, the alternatives would be a chip seal to obliterate the existing
striping, the mast arms altered, new signal loop detectors installed,.
engineering and traffic control costs considered and new striping done
by state forces, the estimated cost would be between $40,000 and $50,000.
He stated that the other alternative would be to lay an one -inch blanket
which would require the above work plus raising sewer and telephone manholes,
valve wells, survey points, cleanouts, etc. This alternative is estimated
at about $75,000.
He concluded by stating that sandblasting and slurry and fog sealing of the
old stripes would not be tolerated by the State of California.
R. Maddalena, 2551 Broad Street, objected to the no parking restrictions
recently installed on Broad Street.
R. Estrada stated he was opposed to the new no parking restrictions on
Broad Street. He claimed he was losing business due to these restrictions.
Ruth Bogard, Hobby Shop on Broad Street, stated she was losing business due
to the no parking restrictions and that her customers could not park in
front of her place of business.
Shirley Hatley, 2251 Broad Street, State Farm Insurance, felt that if the
Council were to continue to insist on the no parking restrictions it would
definitely affect his business and he would lose clients if the Council
persisted and would not allow his people to park near his office.
Skip Hodges, locksmith, also opposed the no parking restrictions. He
stated.he was really losing business due to the time involved for customers
to park a block away and walk back.
Robert Leitcher was opposed to the parking restriction on Broad Street,
stated they were really causing the businesses in the area to lose business.
Mike Morgan, CB Warehouse, 2306 South Broad Street, objected to the no
parking restrictions in front of his business on Broad Street. He stated
that there was no question about it; he was losing business. If something
was not done, he would be forced to close up in a short..time.
Karl Johnson, Auto Body Collision, 2450 Broad Street, was opposed to the
present no parking restrictions on Broad Street.
Mayor Schwartz reviewed for the people present, the 1974 Council decision in
establishing the traffic lanes, their widths, etc. and the reasons for the
Council's actions. Less land take was required on the residential side
in order to minimize damages to homes. The widening was to take place on '
the east side which was zoned for business purposes and whose land owners
were well compensated for loss of parking by the State in acquiring the
land for widening, therefore, the City Council took action in 1974 to
notify the property owners of the City and State action.
On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Graham, that the
City Council request the State to approve the temporary removal of signs in
City Cauncil Minutes
February 16, 1977
Page 3
order to relieve the problem at this time and that the staff prepare estimates
of cost on the various alternatives to restripe the street to allow parking on
both sides of Broad Street with the possibility of keeping the median for
future development of planting, and to request the State to cease all
striping at this time until this matter has been further researched. Motion
carried, all ayes.
8 -B Communication from the Tree Committee requesting that the City Council
approve Heritage Trees Numbers 2, 3, and 4 as follows:
#2) 2 Coast-Redwood trees at the Dallidet Adobe;
#3) The lemon tree at the Myron Angel home; and
#4) California Holly at 1556 Monterey Street.
On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Petterson, the request
of the Tree Committee was approved. Motion carried.
8 -C Communication from the Downtown Business Improvement Area recommending
that the City Council appoint John Korelich to the Advisory Board to replace
Erling Bjorklund who resigned from the Board.
On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Petterson, the appoint-
ment to the Advisory Board was approved. Motion. carried.
1 -A Communication from Councilman T. Keith Gurnee requesting Council
consideration of the formation of University - Community Relations Board.
He stated that such a Board could work not only for the success of our
City's growth policy but address other common problems as well.
He continued that Community Advisory Boards between the State University
' campuses and the communities were not unusual. In fact, they were required
under State law for all campuses except for California Polytechnic State
University. He stated he felt this law should be changed as there was
nothing but unwillingness to prevent the establishment of a joint University/
Community group on a voluntary basis.
He then listed for the Council's consideration several questions such as:
What should be the purpose of the board? What would the City expect to
achieve by establishing it? Who would compose the Board? How many mem-
bers should there be? From what disciplines, if any? How would they be
appointed? How often should meetings be held? To what extent should it be
served by City staff? What are the critical issues that should be addressed
by the Board? How should the City proceed in negotiating with Cal Poly
Administrators to bring about the establishment of the Board?
The Council then considered the communication from Robert Kennedy, President
of Cal.Poly, forwarding for the Council's information: 1) a Report of
Enrollment Trends and Institutional characteristics at the University; and
2) a pamphlet of Cal Poly and the Community, which he felt was one way that
the University could share factual information with.interested individuals
and agencies concerning the many facets of the University. He stated he
found that the historical data particularly helpful in planning and hoped
it would be of value to the City Council and their staff.
President Kennedy also stated that a similar proposal for the University
Community Relations Board had also been made to the University by the
County Board of Supervisors and stated that after several meetings with
Supervisor Kurt Kupper, that he had sought legal advice from the General
Counsel of The California State University and Colleges. He stated that
the same legal and technical complications which prevented my acceptance of
the "voluntary" plan as proposed Mr. Kupper would also prevent the
University's acceptance of the plan proposed by Mr. Gurnee.
City Council Minutes
February 16, 1977
Page 4
He did state that as President of the University he would continue to
study ways and means that could develop a workable University - Community
relations Committee plan. He submitted a concept which he.called a.
tripartite Liaison Panel which he said he was also.sending to the County
Board of Supervisors. Such a liaison panel could serve equally the.
concerns of the City, County and University. This plan would avoid the
legal and administrative difficulty in having a body exclusively advisory .
to the college with membership made up elected officials of the City or
County or their individually named representative. Finally, he stated
that the University Administration believed that there were many problems in
the area of relationships between the City government and County government
which deserved as much attention as did problems of relationship with the
University. If a Tripartite Liaison Panel were to be established the
recommendations of the nine (9) person panel (equally representative of all
three agencies) might propose actions to be undertaken by either one, two or
all three of the agencies and the recommendation might involve a problem
between the City and County, in which the University would be affected
peripherally. He stated that he felt that the Tripartite Liaison Panel of
nine members could be appointed legally so long as no elected officials of
the City and County or the President of the University were on the panel and
so long as the purpose of the panel were to improve coordination between
the City and County as well as between the University and either or both of
these political entities. If the University were to be the only agency
to receive advice then the President could not agree to a procedure which
permitted elected political officials to sit on or make appointments to such
an advisory group.
He then reviewed several other areas in which voluntary cooperative approaches
to problems between the City, County and the University could be solved
without getting involved in a large formal committee structure.
Councilman Gurnee stated after reading President Kennedy's letters that the
cooperative approach is a great step to get the City, County and the
University together to discuss mutual problems.
Councilman Graham agreed with the concept of a non - elected group working
together on some type of liaison panel.
Councilman Petterson agreed with the concept presented by Councilman Gurnee
and President Kennedy and hoped that we could proceed with the formation of
the two study groups as suggested.
Mayor Schwartz suggested that Councilman Gurnee and President Kennedy get
together to come up with a final proposal for both the City and the
Council considerations.
The Council then adjourned to Executive Session. The City Council then
reconvened in Regular Session to confirm action to purchase a portion of the
Anthony Brown Property at the corner of Broad and Monterey Street and that
the staff be directed to come up with funds from the Duvall Trust at this
time with the funds to be replaced from the 1977/1978 C.I.P. Program. Also
the staff was authorized to negotiate the final details with Anthony Brown
for acquisition, title insurance, parcel map and other terms and conditions.
On motion of Councilman Graham, seconded by Councilman Gurnee, the meeting -
adjourned at 2:15 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. Tuesday, February 22, 1977. Motion
carried, Councilman Norris absent.
APPROVED: May 17, 1977 ?1 �
Z/�I+ F Ezpatrick, City Clerk