Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/21/1957144, Comm. from the Salvation Army requesting permission to have solicitation of funds in the City of San Luis Obispo on November 12, 137 14, 1957. On motion of Nels Beck, seconded by Kenneth W. Jones, permission was granted. Mr. Houser, City Attorney, reported to the City Council oh the progress of the litigation for the water rights in connection with Whale Rock Project. On motion of Nels Beck, seconded by Kenneth W. Jones, the meeting adjourned. Approved this NgZF day of 1957. CityoUerk OCTOBER 21, 1957 - 7:30 P.M. - City Hall The City Council met in regular session with Mayor Fred H. Lucksinger presiding. Pledge Invocation by Rev. Wm. A. Kendall of the San Luis Obispo Methodist Church. Roll Call: Present: Nels Beck, Kenneth W. Jones, Richard G. Sleight, Fred H. Lucksinger Absent: J. Barry Smith The minutes of the regular meeting of October 7, 1957 and the adjourned meeting of October 14, 1957 were approved as presented. The claims against the City for the month of October, 1957 were ordered paid, subject to the approval of the Administrative Officer, on motion of Kenneth W. Jones, seconded by Nels Beck. At this time, Pair. E. C. Adams and Colonel Hoass, representing the Board of Fire Underwri of the Pacific and Mr. R. C. Stevenson, Manager of Pacific Fire Rating Bureau appeared before the Council regarding a new fire rating class and insurance premium for the City of San Luis Obispo. Mr. Adams and Colonel Hoass explained the purpose of the Board of Fire Underwriters in making the inspection and survey necessary for the rating bureau to rate the City's fire protection services and to allocate fire insurance rates. Mr. Stevenson explained the function of Pacific Fire Rating Bureau relative to setting the fire insurance rates within a given area. Mr. Stevenson said it was with great pride that he announced the City of San Luis Obispo had advanced from Class 4 to Class 5 fire rating, which would grant an average reduction of 8% in insurance for householders. he further explained in detail the methods to be used in making a survey of the mercantile district to take advantage of this fire rating class reduction. Mayor Lucksinger, on behalf of the City of San Luis Obispo and the City Council, thanked Colonel Hoass and Mr. Adams for their help in allowing the City to receive this new fire rating and he also thanked Mr. Stevenson for the reduction in fire insurance. Mr. Miller, Administrative Officer, asked the Council to thank the Board of Fire Underwrit and Pacific Fire Rating Bureau on behalf of the administrative staff and department heads for their help in granting the City a new fire rating. Ordinance No. 57 (1957 Series) An Ordinance Authorizing Lease of Corporation Yard was frinally passed and adopted on motion of Richard G. Sleight, seconded by Nels Beck, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Nels Beck, Kenneth W. Jones, Richard G. Sleight, Fred H. Lucksinger NOES: None ABSENT: J. Barry Smith Resolution No. 296 (1957 Series) A Resolution to Accept and Record an Easement for Street Water, Sewer and Similar Public Purposes from the General Fireproofing Company, was passed and adopted on motion of Kenneth W. Jones, seconded by Nels Beck by the following roll call vote: AYES: Nels Beck, Kenneth W. Jones, Richard G. Sleight, Fred Hi Lucksinger NOES: None ABSENT: J. Barry Smith Resolution No. 297 (1957 Series) A Resolution to Accept and Record an Easement for Street Water, Sewer and Similar Public Purposes from Elmer Moody, was passed and adopted on motion of Kenneth W. Jones, seconded by Richard G. Sleight by the following roll call vote AYES: Nels Beck, Kenneth W. Jones, Richard G. Sleight, Fred H. Lucksinger NOES: None ABSENT: J. Barry Smith Resolution No. 298 (1957 Series) A Resolution to Accept and Record an Easement to Maint and Operate a Public Storm Drain Line from S.A., Jr. and Lilabelle Price, was passed and adopted on motion of Kenneth W. Jones, seconded by Nels Beck by the following roll call Vote: AYES: Nels Beck, Kenneth W. Jones, Richard G. Sleight, Fred H. Lucksinger NOES: None ABSENT: J. Barry Smith .s s L 1 C n 45 Resolution No. 299 (1957 Series) A Resolution to Accept and Record an Easement to Maintain and Operate a Public Storm Drain Line from John B., Jr. & Catherine M. Miramon, was passed and adopted on motion of Nels Beck, seconded by Richard G. Sleight, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Nels Beck, Kenneth W. Jones, Richard G. Sleight, Fred H. Lucksinger NOES: None ABSENT: J. Barry Smith Comm. from the City Planning Commission notifying the City Council that they had approved both the tentative and final maps of Tract 117, Ferrini Heights No. 2, subject to the erection of a 6 foot chain link fence in the rear of Block D. ' After some discussion by the City Council, Mr. Felton Ferrini- subdivider, and the City Engineer, the final map was adopted on motion of Kenneth W. Jones, seconded by Richard G. Sleight, subject to the following: 1. filing of the subdivision agreement 2. deposit of the required inspection fees 3. filing of the construction bond 4. final approval of construction plans by the.City Engineer Comm. from the.First Baptist Church inviting members of the City Council to attend the dedication of the new church on November 10, 1957 at 3:00 P.M. was ordered received and filed. The City Clerk was instructed to.notify the Council members about this open house. Minutes of the regular board meeting of the Chamber of Commerce for September 9, 1957 and the financial report of.the Chamber of Commerce for the month of September was ordered received and filed on motion of Kenneth W. Jones, seconded by Richard G. Sleight. On motion of Kenneth W. Jones, seconded by Richard G. Sleight, the following salary step increases were approved: Donald L. Martin, Police Officer - From Step 1 $317 to Step 2 $336, effective Nov. 1, 1957 Scott D. McCaskey, Police Officer - From Step 1 $317 to Step 2 $336, effective Nov. 1, 1957 Grady L. Prescott, Police Officer - From Step 1 $317 to Step 2 $336, effective Nov. 1, 1957 On motion of Kenneth W. Jones, seconded by Richard G. Sleight, the following contract payment was ordered paid: Hermreck & Easter Essex Street Bridge Project ESTIMATE NO. 5 $ 92379.15 1 At this time a public hearing was held on the setting of plan lines on Foothill Blvd. as per advertised announcement. Mayor Lucksinger announced before the public hearing actually started that he would like to read a statement of the Council, who had been studying this problem of street widening for many months: "For some time, the City Council and Planning Commission have been studying the traffic needs of the city and the desirability of setting plan lines for the major streets of San Luis Obispo.. The purpose of such setback lines would be to prevent construction of improvements within designated rights of way thus eliminating the necessity of condemning buildings as well as acquiring land before the street could be widened. One of the questions which has been asked many times is the method to be used by the City in compensating the property owner for the dedication of rights of way in connection with such street widenings and how long the City would wait before it undertook the widenings. For many months, the Council has been investigating the practices of other California cities, weighing the various alternatives and attempting to arrive at a policy which would be fair to all concerned. At this time, we are announcing the results of this investiagtion. It is our plan to work out agreements with individual property owners on the following basis: if the property owner will dedicate the necessary right of way for the street widening and agree to install his sidewalk, the City will install the curb and gutter and pave out to such curb and gutter at no expense to the property owner other than the cost of the sidewalk. This work would proceed as soon as the property owner and Citv could reach agreement and provided that the City had sufficient moneys to keep the program going. The dedication would, of course, be conditional upon the City completing the curb and gutter installation and widening the roadway. The policy would not apply to the commercial or industrial areas of the City or to undeveloped land, but would apply to existing residences or lots about to be built on as evidenced by the application for a building permit and substantial start of constructiol It would apply only to the normal residential frontage. The City's policy would remain the same on lot splits, subdivisions, variances, etc. where the practice has been for the property owner to make the necessary dedication of right of way and installation of curb, gutter, sidewalk and other improvements as a condition to the requested permits. The City plans to adopt a new policy on all major streets requiring a 6 foot sidewalk back of the curb line but with no parkway. We anticipate that this will greatly simplify the plan line procedure and will make possible the widening of our streets without undue hardship to any individual. The right of_yay width back of the curb line would be reduced from eleven feet to six feet on each side of the street, thus reducing the total width from 86 to 76 feet. 441 It is anticipated that in some residential subdivisions, particularly where the lots do not face on a major street, the subdivider may be given the option of installing four foot sidewalks with parkway between the sidewalk and curb and gutter or going to the six foot sidewalk installed flush with the curb. Where a residential property owner does not agree to dedication of the right of way, the City would have no alternative but to wait until it had the financial resources to acquire the right of way by negotiation or condemnation. In the meantime, that portion of the roadway would not be widened. The reason for encouraging sidewalk improvements in connection with street widening is to provide more safety for our children and pedestrians in general. It is also felt that by installing the sidewalk and curb and gutter at the same time, lower unit costs could be obtained initially and future maintenance costs would also be reduced because the two improvements would tend to hold together." Mayor Lucksinger then declared the public hearing open and called on Larry Wise, Planning Consultant, to briefly explain to the people present the reasons and purposes for plan lines and their adoption. Mr. Wise proceeded to explain the reasons and purposes for plan lines and the basis on which Foothill Blvd. was picked as a major street. David Romero, City Engineer, then explained to the people present, using the official plan line map, the width, distances and design of the plan lines on Foothill Blvd. Harold Gorman asked when would plan lines be marked off so that property owners would know exactly where the front property line would be for their future development? Mr. Zanchuck questioned the City Engineer at length regarding the plan lines on Foothill Blvd. and also of Chorro Street where it connects to Foothill Blvd. Mr. Vance Lewis asked if the installation of the new plan lines or street widening would eliminate the dangerous jog at Chorro and Foothill Blvd? Mr. Joseph Maes commended the City Council on their decision to widen Foothill Blvd. as there was no doubt that more lanes of traffic were required on this busy street. He further asked whether a 4 or 6 foot sidewalk would be required in accordance with the announced Council policy? Mr. Wise answered that on major streets 6 foot monolithic curb, gutter and sidewalks would be required. Frank J. Helmes asked what renumeration would be given to the property owners whose property was being taken for street widening, particularly when the property is below street grade and rather expensive new driveway approaches would have to be installed? Mrs. Dillon Wanted to know why a 25 foot setback was required at that time for her property when two years ago a 10 foot setback was required? She further asked why weren't property owners notified by letter or post cards of these proposed property acquisitions and also what was the policy for purchase of property taken? Mr. Houser, City Attorney, answered Mrs. Dillon by saying that the property would be acquired by the City either by gift of the owners, outright purchase by the City, or purchase by the City through condemnation. Paul Dillon asked the Council why they didn't require new streets to be constructed rather than put all the traffic on Foothill Blvd. and then require the adjacent owners to give land for street widening? Martin Polin protested the widening on Foothill Blvd. particularly as it affected the southwest corner of Santa Rosa St. and Foothill Blvd. as the proposed street widening would eliminate parking at Clark's store and remove one of the two pump islands at the service station on this corner. Mr. Polin stated that he believed an equal amount of property taken on both sides of Foothill Blvd. at this corner would be more equitable as the present property take would practically eliminate this corner for business operations. Mr. Polin also asked that the Council consider allowing the 76 foot proposal to be used in the C -1 zone instead of $6 feet as shown on the plan line map. Mr. Helmes asked the Council that in the future the City mail all property owners a little 2 post card notifying them of the plan lines study in which they might lose their property. . Mr. Stan Nelson asked for clarification regarding the Council proposed policy on street widening as to the terms "improved" and "unimproved" property for the basis of cooperation between the City and property owners for off -site improvements. W. E. Steward, representing Texas Oil Co., asked the City Engineer to review the dimensions of the service station corner after the proposed plan lines have been set. Mr. Bennell, operator of the service station at Santa Rosa and Foothill Blvd., urged compassion of the Council and to allow as much property as possible on his station corner so that the Texas Oil Company would not cancel the lease and he could continue to make a living. Mr. Carl Lownes asked what was minimum setback allowed by the City for residential buildings? Also he asked what would the City do to buildings which are only set back one foot from the street lines after the plan line or street widening? He also asked if in the future could the property owners be notified of these hearings by a post card? Richard Willett asked what provisions have been made for compensation of owners for land taken willingly or unwillingly? I�] 1 1 1 1