Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/11/1961The City Clerk was requested to codntact Dr. Harper to arrange a luncheon meeting with the City Council on this matter. 1 - -1 Communication from Mr. F. R. Kalloch, Jr., notifying the City Council that he would not be responsible for installation of curb, getter, and sidewalk along Foothill Blvd., if the City does not pave the required street width before he places his improvements. Mr. Houser stated he would notify Mr. Kalloch that the City is not respon- sible for any improvements placed by the subdivider until the time the City has accepted the offsite improvements. 14. The City Council discussed the possibility of having a survey made for a revised numbering system in the City due to the confusion at the present time caused by expansion of streets and duplication of numbers on the same streets. It was suggested that a proposal be solicited from a firm special - izing in this work to see what would be involved in a revised house number- ing survey and recommendation. It was moved by Mayor Davidson, seconded by Councilwoman McNeil, that this proposal be deferred at the present time due to lack of money. Motion lost on following roll call vote: AYES: Miss Margaret M. McNeil, Clay P. Davidson NOES: R. L. Graves, Jr., Df.nald 0. Miller, Gerald W. Shipsey ABSENT: None It was moved by Councilman Graves, seconded by Councilman Shipsey, that the City contact a firm for proposal of revised house numbering system. It was moved by Mayor Davidson, seconded by Counciltan Shipsey to amend the motion as follows: That the proposal be referred to the Planning Commission for study prior to contacting a firm for proposal to make a survey to conform with-the county numbering system. Motion carried as amended. ' 15. Petition from the residents in the vicinity of Johnson Highland No. 3, protesting the dust and dirt being raised by the developer of said tract in the rough grading operation. Referred to the City Engineer to contact subdivider Leonard Blaser and seek his cooperation. 16. R. D. Miller, Administrative Officer reported that he had been contacted by a representative of General Services Administration stating they wished to withdraw the cancellation of their lease for office space at the City's Recreation Building as they needed space, and a letter would follow on this matter. On motion cf Councilman Shipsey, seconded by Councilman Miller, the meeting adjourned at 11:30 P. M. Approved this 18th day of December, 1961 City erk SPECIAL CALLED MEETING CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION December 11, 1961 - -- 7:30 P. M. CITY HALL Invocation was given by Mayor Clay P. Davidson. Roll Cali PRESENT - Miss Margaret M. McNeil, R. L. Graves, Jr., Donald Q. Miller, Clay P. Davidson ABSENT None Planning Commission Present - Emmons Blake, Stanley Cole, Leonard Lenger, Clell Whelchel CITY STAFF PRESENT - R. D. Miller, Administrative Officer, William M. Houser, City Attorney, D. F. Romero, City Engineer, J. W. Abraham, Plan- ning Director, W. Flory, Park & Recreation Superintendent,- F. L. Skiles, Building Inspector. ------ --- - - - - -- 1. Communication from Wickenden's Mens Store requesting a variance from the Uniform Building Code to allow installation of a new awning on Chorro Street to be placed 7' above the public way. The City Council discussed this request to allow a 1' variance in the height of an awning on Chorro Street. Mr. Houser, City Attorney explained the legal steps that would be required in order to allow the applicant to install his awning 7' as requested. He stated it would take a change in the ordinance amending the Uniform Building Code to allow this variance. As there are no provisions under the Uniform Building Code to grant variances, the only way to handle this matter of height would be to amend the ordinance. Mr. Abraham, Planning Director read section 104- b,c,d, and e, for the Council's information listing the requirements for remodeling of buildings, etc. Mayor Davidson stated he believed the applicant was within his rights to ask for a variance of the requirementsof the Uniform Building Code as all the awnings in this block are 7" above the sidewalk or lower. The Mayor stated he believed the applicant should be allowed to place his new awning at the same height as the one being replaced. ' City Attornev Houser stated that if the Council decided to pass an ordinance to amend the Uniform Building Code that in the interim the building department would follow the intent of the council in passing the ordinance. On motion of Councilman Shipsey, seconded by Councilman Graves, that the request for the variance be denied was carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: R. L. Graves, Jr., Donald Q. Miller, Gerald W. Shipsey NOES: Miss Margaret M. McNeil, Clay P. Davidson ABSENT: None 2. At this time the City Council considered proposed ordinance providing for regulation of grading and excavating operators in the City of San Luis Obispo and discussed and studied the proposed ordinance section by section with the City Planning Commission. Members of the City Planning Commission present explained to the Council some of their reasons and thinking in requesting the adoption of this type of an ordinance by the City. On motion of Mayor Davidson, seconded by Councilman Graves, it was moved that the Planning Commission proceed with informal hearings on this ordinance. Motion carried. Mayor Davidson called a recess at 9:50 P. M. The Meeting reconvened at 10:00 P.M. All Councilmen present. 6. Mr. Houser, City Attorney explained the following problem regarding the low cost housing program: In discussions with the federal housing attorney, the Mayor must appoint five housing commission member, subject to confirmation by the City Council inasmuch as the City Housing Authority must be in existence before an election can be called. It was also recommended that the Commission hold their organization meetings and meet with the federal housing economists for verification of the housing needs prior to the election. The the San Francisco Federal Housing Administration had further stated that an election in June would be adequate to qualify the City for the City's portion of the 100,000 units authorized by the Federal Government for this year inasmuch as there was no reason to believe that the units would be allocated prior to that time. Also, the housing attorney explained that some housing elections had been lost by pushing too fast and not convincing the electorate of the actual need. Mr. Houser, Citv Attorney recommends that the City Council, if they so desire, appoint a City Housing Commission, allow them to meet and organize, and then set the election date for the low cost housing issue. The Council Committee recommended to the City Council that each Councilman submit names of prospective Housing Commission Members at the next meeting and make the appointments at the January, 1962 meeting in accordance with the recommendations previously given. Mr. Houser recommended that the City Council, in their appointments, consider the appointment of one for one year, one for two years, and one for three years, and two for four year terms, and one of the five to be chairman. On motion of Councilman Graves, seconded by Councilman Miller, that the Council be instructed to present names of prospective Housing Commission members at the Council Meeting of December 18, 1961. 7. At this time, Mavor Davidson brought up the matter of incorporating a I Laguna Lake Park Development bond issue with the special election for low cost housing and stated as follows: "The City Of San Luis Obispo is now on the threshold of a development which has never been seen before in the whole life of this city. Those of us who have been here for many years can remember this as a fine small conservative town which has advanced as the need arose. We can remember people saying San Luis Obispo is a nice town but there is no future for the children. They must go away to find their calling in life. Thru the development of Cal Poly and the education facilities we are slowly growing away from this. The young people can stay here and become educated. Then there is the limit on industry on jobs for these young people. As you know we are working on a sewer plant and water plant development which will surely be placed on the ballot in June. These, I am sure you agree, are absolutely necessary items for the development of San Luis Obispo and must be presented to the people. The main question is how should they be presented. Should we use Revenue or General Obligation Bonds? Revenue Bonds are more expensive interest '�ise, but they do two things. First, they are more fair in that they collect the costs from the users and more important distribute it in such a manner that the property owner ' will actually pay less under the Revenue Bond then he would under the General Obligation. For instance, at last count there were 7,275 housing units in San Luis Obispo. Of these 3,820 were owner occupied and 3,455 are rented under the revenue system. This would mean that 3,455 house- holds would help to pay the bill instead of taxing the property owner. The user will support the revenue bond and it only requires a simple majority to pass. The second, and most important issue is the Revenue Bond does not apply against the City's total bonded indebtedness and leaves the City free to use that money for other good projects. I firmly believe we have such a project in Laguna Lake Park. The people of San Luis Obispo have for years starved for recreational facilities. Laguna Lake Park offers tremendous values to the City, its people and will attract visitors. A large, clear,.fresh water lake in the midst of the City of the future will be an incomparable asset in beauty, climate modification, enjoyment and increased property values. As you know we have been able to get some preliminary grading work done on this project and there is tremendous public interest in the development of this par. I firmly believe the people of San Luis Obispo are ready to step out oft.the conservative ways that have beer, forced upon them. Don't you believe they deserve the opportunity to decide whether they want to have a beautiful recreational facility such as Laguna Lake Park? I propose that a bond issue in the amount of $1,700,000 be placed on the ballot with the low cost housing proposal for Laguna Lake Park development." R. D. Miller, Administrative Officer commenting on the Mayor's proposal said that Stone & Youngberg, financial consultants, had been retained by the Council to prepare an analysis comparing the relative merits of general obligations vs. revenue bond financing for the sewer and water plant im- provement projects. Unitl this report was received sometime in January, he advised against the Council closing the door on general obligation financing in case this turned out to be more feasible a method of paying for the improved facilities. Mr. Miller said he believed that bond service costs on general obligation bonds could be paid from the proceeds of a sewer ser- vice charge but that the charge would not have to be as high as it would for a revenue bond issue. The Administrative Officer acknowledged the Mayor's point.concerning the fact that the sewer and water projects could be financed from revenue bonds, whereas the Laguna Lake project would have to be paid from general obligations bonds or on a pay as you go basis. The Council's final decision would un- doubtedly take this point into consideration and assign considerable weight to it. Councilman Graves commended the Mayor on his enthusiasm for development of Laguna Lake as he agreed with the development of a park in this area but wondered if the City was moving ahead too rapidly, as the Council has not had time to study the financial. feasibility of such a bond issue nor the type of issue that would be required for the sewer and water plant expansion. Before an addition bond issue was added, he believed the City Council should study these problems fully so as not to jeopardise the sewer and water plant issues. Mavor Davidson stated that he believed the citizens of San Luis Obispo could afford to pay for the development of Laguna Lake Park and from his discussions with the people, they were more than willing to assume these obligations, but he believed they should have the right to decide if they wished to have such a park or not, by an election. Mr. Miller, Administrative Officer suggested that if the City Council went ahead with a bond issue for Laguna Park, that they also place a proposition on the ballot to amend the charter to allow a tax increase for operation of the park. Revenue bonds would be more expensive in true cost and even more so as far as the sewer and water system user was concerned. The interest rate ' would be higher, and interest would also have to be paid on the one year's reserve for bond interest and redemption which would be necessary with revenue bonds. Some coverage factor would also have to be built into the sewer service charge and water rates to cover bond service costs (probably 35% to 50% over and above the estimated service costs.) Finally, at least some maintenance costs would have to be provided for. The Administrative Officer acknowledged the Mayor's point.concerning the fact that the sewer and water projects could be financed from revenue bonds, whereas the Laguna Lake project would have to be paid from general obligations bonds or on a pay as you go basis. The Council's final decision would un- doubtedly take this point into consideration and assign considerable weight to it. Councilman Graves commended the Mayor on his enthusiasm for development of Laguna Lake as he agreed with the development of a park in this area but wondered if the City was moving ahead too rapidly, as the Council has not had time to study the financial. feasibility of such a bond issue nor the type of issue that would be required for the sewer and water plant expansion. Before an addition bond issue was added, he believed the City Council should study these problems fully so as not to jeopardise the sewer and water plant issues. Mavor Davidson stated that he believed the citizens of San Luis Obispo could afford to pay for the development of Laguna Lake Park and from his discussions with the people, they were more than willing to assume these obligations, but he believed they should have the right to decide if they wished to have such a park or not, by an election. Mr. Miller, Administrative Officer suggested that if the City Council went ahead with a bond issue for Laguna Park, that they also place a proposition on the ballot to amend the charter to allow a tax increase for operation of the park. Councilman Shipsey stated he would also like to commend the Mayor for his efforts, however, he felt the City Council should study this matter with the financial consultants first in order to get the best advice on the best method to proceed with. Mayor Davidson stated he was sure the people of San Luis Obispo would supportthe proposal and everyone he has talked with agreed that the Laguna Lake Park development was a good idea. Councilman Shipsey stated that the Council should not on this program until all the facts have been presented and all alternatives discussed I by the City Council. Mayor Davidson stated that this matter of the bond issue for Laguna Park should be placed on the ballot as he firmly believed the people of San Luis Obispo are ready to vote favorably on it. Councilwoman McNeil stated that she agreed the Council should receive the financial reports from the consultants before a decision is made on any bond issue for the City. R. D. Miller, Administrative Officer suggested that possibly the City Council would wish to appoint a Citizens Committee to help acquaint the peoplewith the need for the sewer and water plant expansions, and possibly, the Council would wish this committee to be in on the original discussions of the program. The Council could be thinking of names of members for the Citizen's Committee so that they can be appointed and be in on -the ground floor of the proposal. Councilman Miller stated there are many questions that have not been answered regarding the rates to be charged for sewer rental and increase in water rates in order to pay for the sewer and water plant expansion and until all the facts are known it would be difficult for the Council to make an intelligent decision, as a high sewer rate or water rate in- crease might make the issues impossible to pass, but a reasonable rate would encourage passing of revenue bonds and suggested that the City Council wait and see what- the facts are and which way it is going. R. D. Miller, Administrative Officer was:-:authorized to contact Stone & Youngberg to find out the date when the final report will be ready for the City. 3. The Citv Council and Planning Commission discussed the amendment pre- viously proposed by the Planning Commission to change certain zoning districts of Laurel Lane, Orcutt Road, and Bullock Lane. Mr. Abraham, Planning Director reviewed the proposal as recommended by the Planning Commission to change the zoning from M to C -1 -S and R -4 which was denied by the City Council on November 6, 1961. Councilman Miller made the following statement: "My reasons for voting against the Orcutt- Laurel Lane rezoning. 1. Unreasonable. Rezoning the Olson Egg property to a zone that would preclude future expansion, oe rebuilding in the event their present plant was destroyed is unreasonable. Why C -1? Why not C -3? This is the proper zoning for the Olson operation. 2. Discrinimation. Is there something special about the Petrick property? Why doesn't the Freeman parcel receive similar ' treatment? Both parcels are vacant, both property owners indicated before the commission a commercial use. Petrick is granted C -1 while Freeman is denied C -1. The only apparent difference between the two parcels is part of the Petrick property is adjacent to R -3. My recommendation: The area should be rezoned. The suggested rezoning of property south of Orcutt Road from M to R -4 is good. The property north of Orcutt could be rezoned from M to C -3 with an R -3 buffer between the R -1 and C -3." Mayor Davidson stated he was opposed to rezoning of any property south of Orcutt Road to any residential use zone and suggested that the zoning should be U-- unclassified in order to make that property adjacent to Orcutt Road available for future industrial development and access to the area south of this property. ' Members of the Planning Commission present gave the Council their views on the rezoning as originally approved and recommended by them. 4. Councilman Graves suggested Councilman Miller make his report first and he would then express his views. Councilman Miller read the following statement: "My position in favoring the use of 50' lots for R -1 zone. (to dedicated lots presently in city) The question is: Should the City's ordinance restricting the use of 50 foot lots for homesites be continued? As a council member of the Mayor's Committee to investigate this question I recommend the ordinance be repealed to allow the use of presently dedicated 50 foot lots only. My reasons are as follows: 1. The state and many cities recognice 50 foot lots as adequate for residential building sites. 2. Residential lending institutions consider 50 foot lots as ample width for homesites. 3. This city in its 1950 subdivision ordinance recognized 50 foot lots as minimum, is it right to prohibit the use of those existing 50 foot lots? 4. The number of lots under consideration is about 130. This is a negligible number. Their use would not be deter-mental to the orderly growth of the City. In conclusion I would like to say this. The development of land is a long term program. Those contemplating investing capital in land improve- ment- presuppose that once they have conformed to basic city standards, the city will allow them to operate under these standards. The city did recogniz minimum to 60 in 1958 on the utilization of just penalty on those and developed 50 foot repealed." B 50 foot lots as minimum in 1950. Changing the may have been justified but placing a prohibition existing 50 foot lots was wrong. This is an un- citizens who accepted the original city standard lots. The penalty as it now stands should be Councilman Graves stated the basic intent of the present ordinance is proper regarding lots of record and that as time goes on and conditions change they will find that 50 foot lots are not considered adequate and that a new standard of 60 feet is accepted. Also, under the present ordinance avone owning a single 50 foot lot can use this lot if he so desires, ' but that if a person owns two or more lots he would be required to resub- divide in order to comply with the ordinance and believed that this was all right. He also asked if it were possible for the City to resubdivide groups of substandard lots at no expense to the property owner. Mr. Houser, City Attorney, stated he knew of no provisions of a law that allowed the City to resubdivide private property for property owners. The City Council discussed the proposal regarding the use of lots of re- cord less than 60' in width.