HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/03/19661
Roll Call:
Present:
City Staff:
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
October 3, 1966 - 7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL
Emmons Blake, Frank Gallagher, Arthur F. Spring,
Donald Q. Miller, Clell W. Whelchel'
Present_: B. Walter, Acting Planning Director; J. H. Fitzpatrick, City
Clerk; William-Flory, Park and Recreation Superintendent;
B. S. Grossman, Acting City Attorney; R. D.,Miller, Admini'stra-
'tive Officer;'D. F. Romero, City Engineer; L. Schlobohm, Fire
Chief; E. L. Rodgers, Police Chief.
On motion of Councilman Gallagher, seconded by Councilman Miller, the •minutes of the
meeting of September 19, 1966.were approved. Notion carried.
On motion of Councilman Blake, seconded ly Councilman'Gallagher, claims against the
City for the month of October 1966 were approved subject to the approval of the
Administrative Officer. Motion carried.
--------------------------------------------------------------------=------ - - - - --
1. Communication" from' Mrs. E.- Fresh6ur,.1144 Cypress Street, calling the City',s_
attention to the sidewalk placed in .front of her property under the provisions of
Resolution No. 1503 of December 6" 1965 which is now deteriorating and. -is full of
cracks in several places.:
Mrs. Freshour asked -that the City Council take steps to correct this matter as she
is r6q%iied to _pays for -the •woik ;enen though it ,is . unsatisfactory.
Mr. Romero, City Engineer;'reporied to-the City Council that he was aware of this
problem and that he had notified the contractor to make the necessary repairs prior
to the expiration of the guarantee date for the project. He stated he was, sure the
contractor would get to it as soon as possible.
On motion`.'of Councilman Spring, seconded by Councilman Gallagher, that the'.
contractor, C. S:.Construction Company, be notified to get this repair work done by
November 1, 1966 or the City will have the work done.and bill .the contractor.
Motion carried.
The City Engineer was requested to notify Mrs. Freshour of the Council's action.
2. Communication from M. F. Tisnerat of Fay's San Luis Obispo Beauty College,
requesting that the City Council remove the tree in front of her place of business
at 712 Marsh Street as the tree is beginning_to cover her signs which cost her.a
great deal.of money. She further stated she did not ask for the tree to be planted
in front of her property and felt it should be-removed.
On motion of Councilman Miller,, seconded by:Councilman Spring, that_the request of
Mrs. Tisnerat be .denied -and -the -City Clerk notify her .of the-Council's action.
Motion carried. Councilman Gallagher voting no.
3.. Traffic Committee Report, of_September 27,:1966:
66- 10 -4C. The Traffic Committee has reviewed.the State's proposal for installation
of red zones on both sides of Foothill Boulevard west of California Boulevard and
the railroad tracks in connection with the proposed traffic signals at California
and Foothill.Boulevarde and.feels ;that these red zones are necessary to make the
channelization and signallization effective. We recommend approval and suggest that
the City Clerk so advise the State.
66- 10 -4T. The Traffic Committee:has studied the operation-of the traffic signal at
South and Higuera and feels that it would work better if a turning pocket were
provided for south bound motorists on.Higuera making a left hand turn onto South.
To do this, 4 parking "Space's would.have to be eliminated on the west side of Higuera
running in a northerly direction from South Street to provide a through traffic lane.
However, we feel that the traffic benefits at this intersection would far exceed any
detriment caused by the loss of parking spaces at the curbing and so recommend.
City Council Minutes
October 3, 1966
Page 2
66- 10 -5T. The Traffic Committee has had a suggestion that parking be restricted-
on the west side of Broad in front of the Tropicana housing development but feels-
that a red zone at., this location would merely.shift the.problem to.the opposite
side of the street or surrounding ;residential area:: We 'do feel;, however, that a
stop sign should be placed on`Ramona Dride stopping traffic'- on`Ramona at Broad and
we feel that the yield sign on Meinecke at Broad should be replaced with a stop _ ..
sign.
On motion of.Councilmin Miller, seconded by Councilman Gallagher, the following
resolution :was' iritroduc'ed: " " "Re "soluEion'No. 1605,' a; resolution `establishing parking
restrictions "on'Higuera; Broad,`Ramong- and'Me'i ecke d' red red zones on
^r i v _ A•1 r jC.
Fo6"'t l Boulevard: "
Passed and.adopted on the following . roll call vote:
AYES' Emmons - Blake' Frank Gall a her Arthur Z.F. Spring, 1.
.Donald. Q...Miller, ,Clell W. Whelchel
NOES:' None'
ABSENT: None
66- 10 72C._ In,.accordance with the Council's request,. the Traffic.Committee has
studied the revised traffic', p'atterh "at.Orcutt'= and•:Broad -_and_ -has'; d'iscussed-the'."
matter with the resident 'engineer for the' Division of Highways;. ;We . feel "'that the
..
situation would' be im °proved if the shoulder on the'northerly coiaer:-of "the inter-
section accommodating right hand turning movements for vehicl'e's traveling west on y
Orcutt were widened and paved. We also feel that the shoulder.on the west side of
Broad should be ' paved : 6ut .'as far as .possible to 'make" a more 'comfortable-- through . - .
traffic lane for south bound "m'otorists on.:- Broad:` If'th'e Council concurs, we suggest
that.,.the, Mayor.•be authorized;to address ,a letter.to•the State requesting these.
improveme`nf s _ t _
.. ... _ _ _. _ - -. f:� � 1, : J :� _. .. t .•(� - .
Recommeadatiori'appro'ved.
66- 10 -3T. At t_he_ request.of Mayor Whelchel, the Traffic Committee has studied the
signallization -at High'_- Pismo`; = Higuera; 'iaitli' particular reference to cars entering
Bianchi Lane. We feel' that `the suggestion' 'for•'moving 'the horth`erly ,cro'sswalk towards
.. ... .:...... .. _ _ r
Marsh Street so "than'cars'enteiing -and`-1`eaving "Bianchi Iarie' could "clear the inter-
section would inconvenience the vast majority of motorists to help a'few-cars
entering and•leaving this_roadway and, therefore, recommend against changing the
present installation.- However, =we 'do 'feel "that- through traffic wou'ld"be aided if'
the first car space .south of the southerly crosswalk on the west side of Higuera
would 'be:-' grated 'as "a•red`No °Parking `Zone.' --------- " - - -• -- --
Communication fromiiAlie •Madonna Construct -ion, Comp atry requesting `th'at' the . City . Council
make -an effort "to 'rel'ieve 'the _probl_em 'to the' construction company "for access `to� '
and from Bianchi Lane onto Higuera Street: °{
Midonna'•Construct`ioii Comp any..st"ated._th'at sYnce flie'instaTlati'on- of=_tfie Eraffi'c'
signals-, it. "is extremely-difficult to-'get onEo-Higuera `Street from their access
road. �,_ .•r_...:. _. - -- - _ .
The City Council ordered the crosswalk -in front'of'the` cafe'moved north" on Hi .1 `
Street to the front of the blacksmith shop_so that traffic would stop at that point
acid 'allow -ingres`s an& egress =' from Bianchi -Lane. ' .The =•Council . approved Ehe recom-
mendation
On" motion of .Council6aii7G4i Imo, seconded by:'Counci-lman Blake, the' fol'1 "owing
resolution was introduced: Resolution No' 1609,` °'a "resolution establishing -a'red
zone on Higuera Street. Motion carried.
Pa'ssed"_aiid - -adopted -on the= following roll! call vote
"AYES: =Emmons Blake; Frank Gallagher ''= Arthur :-F "Sprlig, .-I.
`
Donald' Q: Miller,' }Cl'ell' Wr Whel "c fie l' -
. NOES:' None
f•..;..
ABSENT: None
1
1
1
City Council Minutes
October 3, 1966
Page 3
66- 10 -6T. The Traffic Committee has received A letter addressed to the Council
from the President of the Mission High School Parents Club, asking that four -way
stops be installed on Broad at Peach and at Mill to protect the school children at
the parochial school. However, we feel that this would tend to snarl through
traffic and would be contrary to.prevailing City policy.. We therefore recommend
that the traffic pattern be left'as is. if the:.Council - concurs, it is suggested
that the City Clerk be asked to write to•Dr. Tedone, advising him of the City's
feelings.
Communication from Mrs. Tietje, President of
Club, asked that the City Council reconsider
to the Mission Grammar School;in the interest
This matter was re-referred to�the-Traffic Committee for additional study by the
City Council.
the Mission Grammar,School Parents
the installation of stop signs adjacent
of safety to•the children.
66- 10 -7T. The Traffic Committee has received a letter from W. Hewitt G: Wight who
lives on Sydney, requesting traffic signals at Sydney and Johnson. According to
the City Engineer, this intersection would fall far,short of the necessary traffic
flow.count to justify..a signal and we .recommend against this suggestion. Jf•,ihe' -,
Council concurs, it is suggested that the City Clerk be asked to write a letter io
Mr. Wight, telling him of the City's decision.
Recommendation accepted on motion of Councilman Gallagher, seconded by..Councilman
Blake. Motion carried.
u
4. At this time the City Council continued their discussion of complaints regarding
the patrons of the Pizza Pantry located`at 486 Marsh Street.
Mr. John Seitz, Attorney representing some of the protesting property owners against
the operation of the Pizza Pantry, appeared before the City Council stating that his
clients felt that conditions have•improved immensely since the original complaint
and it proves that the management of the Pizza Pantry.can -_take care of the problem
if they'so desire.. _ He further-feli that his clients..were satisfied that the matter
could be taken care of and asked that the'City'COuncil take no action on this matter,
but drop it from the agenda and see how things work out in the future.
Mr. Seitz stated that he disagreed with the City Attorney as he felt that the City
does have jurisdiction over this.type of nuisance under:the provisions of the penal
codes of the State`of California. .,
Mr. Rademacher, 539 Marsh Street, stated that he disagreed and did not feel that the
situation was any better, that beer cans and other debris are still being tossed
around by the patrons of the Pizza Pantry,
The Council then.discussed with several other neighbors•of the Pizza Pantry various
problems caused by people patronizing this.establishment.
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded -by Councilman Gallagher, that-the Police
Department Ve- requested to..keep.•this area under,close surveillance and to . :report
back to the City Council the results of this surveillance. Motion carried.
5. At this time.the,city Council,.cousidered.the abandonment of:Monterey;Street . in
front of the Motel inn.
The City Clerk reported that the Title Company was having difficulty running down .
the chain of titles on this particular problem and they hoped a report would be
forthcoming - in,the. near future..),..
On motion�of Councilman-Gallagher, seconded by Councilman Miller, the matter was.
continued. Motion carried.
6. The-City-Council received:a resolution from the San Luis Obispo County Building
and Construction Trades Council commending the PG&E for selecting the Diablo Canyon
area in San Luis Obispo for construction of a nuclear powered electronic generating
plant which would help the economy and the continued growth of the County..
On motion of Councilman Gallagher.. seconded -by Councilman Miller, the following
resolution was introduced. Resolution No. 16062 a resolution commending PG&E for .
City Council Minutes
October 3, 1966
Page 4
selecting.Diablo Canyon as the site for construction of their nuclear powered
electric generating plant.
Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Emmons Blake, Frank Gallagher, Arthut F. Spring,
Donald Q. Miller, Clell W. Whelchel
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
7. At this time the City Council held a public hearing on the notice of intention
to abandon a portion of Henderson Street between Abbott Street and Garfield Street
as published in Resolution No. 1594 (1966 Series).
Mr. Romero, City Engineer, presented a sketch to the City Council showing the area
to be abandoned.
Mr. Romero also presented a request from the PG&E Company who requested that the
City Council reserve'an easement over this abandonment for future utility rights
of way.
The City Council discussed the request of the PG&E Company and felt that there were
enough safeguards for the utility company under the existing franchise and therefore
denied the request.
Mayor Whelchel declared the public hearing open.
No one appeared before the City Council.
Mayor Whelchel declared the public hearing closed.
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Spring, the following
resolution was introduced. Resolution No. 1607, a resolution abandoning a portion
of Henderson Street.
Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Emmons Blake, Frank Gallagher, Arthur F. Spring,
Donald Q. Miller, Ciell W. Whelchel
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
8. At this time the City Council considered sale of surplus property on Buena
Vista Street near Garfield Street to adjacent property owners.
Mr. Romero, City Engineer, presented a sketch of the property previously approved
for sale and asked whether the Council also wished to include the parcel at the
corner of Buena Vista and Garfield.
Mayor Whelchel stated he was opposed to selling any of this property at this time
as it might be needed for future widening or realignment of Highway 101 and he felt
that the City Council should hold this property for future use, particularly the
northerly strip of Abbott Street.
On motion of Councilman Gallagher, seconded by Councilman Miller, that this matter
of sale of property be continued until the City receives comment or recommendations
from the Division of Highways -regarding future use of this land. Motion carried.
9. Continued consideration by the City Council of the recommendation of the
Planning Commission to. rezone 2225, 2231,2241 and 2251 Broad Street from R -2 to
R-0.
Mr. Romero, City Engineer, stated that the agreements and deeds are being prepared
for the street widening and that his office is negotiating with the property owners
for acquisition of the necessary land for street widening.
City Council Miniutes
October 3, 1966
Page 5
Oa motion of Councilman Gallagher, seconded by Councilman Spring, the matter of the
rezoning was continued.- Potion carried.
10. Communication from the Planning Director stating that the Board of Adjustments
granted a use permit to the Phillips Oil Company for a new sign at 1108 Monterey
Street, a replacement for the Tidewater sign at that location.
The use permit was limited to final approval and acceptance by the City Council to
allow a rotating sign greater than 36 square feet in area.
Mr. B. Walter, Acting Planning Director, stated:that the proposed sign is approxi-
mately 49 and 8 /10 square feet and therefore was in violation of the emergency
ordinance recently adopte4 by the.City Council.
Mr. McCarthy, Modern Neon Sign Company, appeared before the City Council urging
that an exception be allowed for the sign at 1108 Monterey Street.
Mr. McCarthy stated that this sign is a standard shape, used nationally by the
Phillips Oil_ Company and felt that due to the peculiar: location of the station that
this particular size sign.was.required.
The City Council stated that in keeping with the spirit of the emergency ordinance
recently passed by the City Council, that this sign was in violation and that the
smaller sign which is also a standard size.of the Phillips Oil Company should be
used.
On motion of Councilman Spring, seconded by Councilman Blake, that the request of
Modern Neon Sign Company for an oversized sign at 1108 Monterey Street be denied.
Motion carried.. Mayor Whelcbel and Councilman Miller voting nos
' 11. At this time We Romero, City Engineer, presented to the City Council exceptions
to the subdivision agreement requested by the developers of Tract 317, Ann Arbor
Estates,
Mr. Romero stated that landscaping was not required for erosion control and that
gunite lining of the channel was not needed for erosion control since the excavation
was made in rock; therefore he had be objection to granting the exception..
Communication from B. Walter, Acting Planning Director; stated that the Planning
Commission had recommended that an exception be! granted to the developers of Tract
No. 317 from placing landscaping on the cut slopes in the tract: The reason being
that the cut slopes are solid rock. 30 feet high and that the engineers stated that
it would not present an erosion problem.. Future planning would be extremely diffi-
cult since holes would have to be dug in the rock, dirt brought in and the bushes
planted approximately 5-feet apart.
Further, irrigation would be a problem since no buildings have been constructed.
The Planning Commission recommends that this applicant be given an exception to the
landscaping requirement.
Mr. Knuthson, developer of Tract 317, appeared before the City Council stating that
he had taken the tract back for completion and they planned that within the next few
months he would complete the subdivision in accordance with requirements, clean up
the tract and have it ready for acceptance by the City Council.
' On motion-of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Blake, that an exception to
the landscaping-requirement and the requirement of guniting the drainage channel
along the easterly boundary of Tract 317 be granted. Motion carried.
12. Communication from the Planning Commission regarding parking at the Tropicana—
Village and Islander,' student housing developments.
The following report received from the Planning Commissions
The matter of-a traffic parking problem at'Tropicana was presented'to the Planning
Commission by Mr. Romero, City Engineer. Mr. Baker, the developer, was present.
In leasing Tropicana units this fall, Mr. Baker stated that he had rented to 364
City Council Minutes
October 3, 1966
Page 6
men and 278 women. This differed from the 200 men and 446 women which was the
tenancy approved by the Planning Commission when an amendment to the Tropicana
Planned Development was approved in February, 1966. Mr. Baker stated that his
action was based on economic conditions. As a result of this action, parking
and traffic have become very congested and neighbors have become quite concerned.
In reviewing this matter the Planning Commission unanimously agreed that: '
(1) The basis of the approved planned development amended plan was reasonable
and that plan should in no way be altered. All emenities should be
preserved.
(2) The developer should submit for Council consideration a time schedule
which would indicate when the tenancy would be brought back into
conformity with the approved planned development.
(3) The developer should submit a plan which would provide temporary parking
in the presently undeveloped Palomar Street area which would drain off
the excess parking and serve to alleviate the parking problem in terms
of the time schedule presented in Item (2).
The Planning Commission presents these suggestions to the City douncil for their.
consideration as a possible temporary solution to the problem. The primary concern
of the Planning Commission is that the occupancy be brought back within the limits
of the approved planned development as quickly as possible.
The City Clerk reported to the City Council that the precise development plan for
the Dover Development Company, developers of Tropicana Village, was approved by
the Planning Commission on December 15, 1964 and by the City Planning Commission on
January 4, 1965.
The parking requirements approved on the precise plan were as follows:
Phase 1 110 Units 222 Parking Spaces
Phase 2 82 Units 119 Parking Spaces '
Phase 3 30 Units 40 Parking Spaces
TOTAL 222 Tiniti 3=arking 5paces
Mr. Baker, developer of the Tropicana Housing Development, appeared before the
City Zrouncil stating that he proposed to developea parking lot on his property
west of Palomar Street to handle excess autos in the development now that the
ratio of male and female students had changed. He further stated that after this
lot was developed they would attempt to have their tenants park on their property
and not on the City streets in front of private residences.
Mr. Sam Morris appeared before the City Council opposed to the operation of the
over Development and stating that he felt that the Baker Brothers, operators of
the Tropicana Housing Development, are in violation of the precise plan approved
by the City Council as the ratio of parking to tenants is now out of line with
the orginal approval.
Mrs. Forden, 89 North Broad Street, objected to the Baker Brothers changing the
T ancy in the Tropicana Development from female to male residents with the result-
ing overcrowding in the parking lot which forced the residents to park their cars
on the streets adjacent to this development which caused conjestion and prohibited
the residential occupants from using the street in front of their property for
parking.
Mrs. Forden continued that she felt that the Planning Commission and City Council
were derelict in their duties in protecting the residents of the area by allowing
the Baker Brothers.to change the occupancy as approved and increase the student
population.
Mrs. John objected to the expanded occupancy of the Tropicana Building which causes
increased traffic and parking problems in the reighborhood and she was afraid the
high speed traffic in the vicinity was a danger to the residents of the neighborhood.
Mr. Kenneth Schwartz, Chairman of the Planning Commission, upon question, stated
that he felt that t Baker Brothers were in violation of the orginal plan permit
granted to them as the permit was granted in relationship.to the number of male
and female students in the development.
City Council Minutes
October 3, 1966
Page 7
Further, Mr. Schwartz stated that his first knowledge of a change of occupancy in
the Tropicana Building was when it was brought to the Planning Co_mmission's.atten- .
tion at it's meeting of- September 27, 1966.
Mr. Baker stated that starting in July they considered renting.space to male students
in the Tropicana Building due to the low demand for rooms by female students. and. a-
great demand for space by male students.. Therefore due to economic pressure, he
felt that no one would object to this arrangement and therefore went ahead with
this plan.
He continued that he did not feel that he was in violation of the original permit
as he felt the total student residents would balance itself out:
Mr. Forden stated that the reason all the people in the neighborhood were attending
the City Council meeting this evening was to find a solution to the problems which
were a nuisance to the residents in the area. _
1. Parking on the streets in front of the residences.
2. The high speed by motor vehicles on Broad Street,
3. Constant noise and racket in the.area of'the 'development which was caused
by residents and visitors to the Tropicana Village.
Mr. L. Graham objected to the excess speed and ..noise caused by students racing
around the Tropicana Complex on Broad Street.
Mr. Moskiman, 85 North Broad Street, appeared before the City Council and objected
to the high speed on Broad Street and further that the residents'and visitors to
the Tropicana Development park in front of the iesidenaes on Broad Street which
does not allow the property owners to have visitors'or'to park their own cars near
their homes.
Mr. Hoskiman explained to the City Council that due to physieal= ailments he is
unable to work and to make a living he and his wife babysit for working mothers
during the day but because of the traffic and parking in the area;'_the- ladies -who
bring children to their home are taking them somewhere else because of fear of being
involved in an auto accident on this street.
Mr. Roberts, 76 Broad Street, objected to the residents and visitors of Tropicana
Village Development parking their cars on Broad Street and prohibiting the residents
from parking in front of their homes or-using the driveways on their property...
Mr. Cheda, 28 North Broad-Street, complained about the high speed traffic on Broad
Street, North Chorro and intersecting 'streets'
Mrs. Cardoza, North Broad Street, objected to high speed traffic o. n Broad Street by
students - living or visiting Tropicana Development,
Mrs. Cardwell, 64 North Broad Street, objected to the high speed traffic and parking;
problems brought about by the Tropicana Development.
Councilman Blake asked would it-be-possible to piacic9 rms or- 'gutters at each park-
ing lot entrance to Broad Street 'to slow down the'exit speed of cars leaving the- -
development.
Mr. Baker stated that they have considered this and would possibly place berms-to
force all tars to stop before exiting from the development:.
Tom Spaulding, resident of the Tropicana Development, stated that he agreed with
some of the comments and complaints which were made by the residents and.. neighbors
--
of the Tropicana Student Housing and stated he was sorry that they'were being
Inconvenienced but hoped some solution could be found to"this problem to make every-
one happy with the students living in this development.
John Evans, Member of the Planning Commission, stated that he felt that the Baker
Brothers were trying Ito. do.. a good. job with the student :housing and - 'stated he felt
that they'had done a good job and that this was one of the finer student housing
developments in the City and hoped that the City Government could work with Mr.
Baker to arrive at the parking problem for the residents -of this complex and also
hoped that the City could cooperate with the speed and other complaints made by
City Council Minutes _
October 3, 1966
Page 8
the neighbors this evening.
.. •. .... , r .. ;
Councilman -Galls
gher.•ssked: the. Acting:.City.Attorney if, he•.,felt that;tlie. Baker:::.. /
Brothers were in violation of the planned development,permit•granted, them for.:
student housing. "
Mr._,Crossman, Acting;;City {Attorney,LState. that - rwithout knowing,a4Ahe;.facts_��and_,`�
condi ions of the planned: development�gpproved ggr,15 ker Brothers that •he felt that'
the project was ;in. violation of the permit .granted••for_ student housing.,..
Councilman Gallagher then suggested that this matter beheld over until the City
Attorney,ean.look-into:,the de.tails�and; prepare a.:-legal ,opinion_for• the .City_ Council
as to violations, if ate,, to, the planned development.
Ma,or;Whelchel agreed�w th:Councilman,Gallagher that, -the matter- should•be.held•over-
: '
- - .. -• _
until -the :facts ware, made available to the Attorney.foi his an • ;
• -,'. _.. •...,fir:. >•., .,.. C,_`. ?r.:_ :..:...;.. - On motion of Mayor Vdhelchel, seconded by'Councilman Gallagher, that City Council '
accept the recommendations. of.,the,
�{ommiss on as: fellows:
..`. r,.. .•art'.• ,•': f, I /�.! •ri �
:(1).:The basis _of she .approved:planned..development amended plan, was, reasonable
c{ . , . •.:
and that plan.should.in:no way,,be_alte.red, _ A31: amenities;should,be,pi`6served.
(2).The., develop er•.should submit fo.r Council consideration_ a- time:schedule.vhich
would indicate when the tenancy would•be! brought back into•conformity:,with"
_... .
the approved planned development.
(3) The._ developer .:;should ..,submit:a_;plan• Which= KOUld_provide.•:temporary.park ng•."
in,, the = present 3�undeveloped•_Palomar Street area - which. would draincoff,,the:';.
ex ess;pa3: g andrserve!to alleviate :the_parking probleni;in.;tenns'of� the _
time sbhedule presented in Item (2)
and continue this.hearing:until;_the; je&1.opinion.;is!received from:the City. Attorney.- ,
Mr. Senneth_'$chwartz - Plarnsing, :Commission Chairman,, stated tbat -if his understanding';
was :correct,.t : -a ded, parking by :the•,_Dover•DevelopmentXcmpany, would amend the
approved precise plan and if so then this whole planned develop gnt;should.;b.e re-
considered at a publicchearing as.this is an amendment to the approved plan.
Motion- .carried:
!!Mr Whelchel•declaredrA - recess,at 10: 20. P. M.-.,- The .- meeting;reconvened,at:10:.5 P.M. with ouncilmen present, -
13 & -7 Lt The consideration by the City Councildf am6nding..the� on ng,ordiance "to
require a parking ratio of 1 to 1 for student housing developments, and consideration
by the..City Council_of; requiring all student.housing to.be, granted- by,City- permit,:
only was referred to a joint meeting of :,the ;Plinning- Commission -to be held on`
October 11, 1966. _ ` ._"
15, Mr; Romero, City Engineer, stated;;that.he: had :investigated- v.arious.inethods of.
cleaning sidewalks in the downtown area and found that gum can be removed by use of
an- aerosol. can, product -. called- "FTeg4jAnd that sidewalks can c be -cleaned.;by use
-of.
tri- sodium. phosphate : sai th trotary wire :brushing, or ;_sc;j; b . g .with use ,' f specs al .
detergent'such as "Cakite" and possibly steam cleaning.
Mr. Rcmero.suggested,that,_he :be. allowed_to experiment with these :various; methods;
and then recommend to the property owners she _best ,way,of.- cleaning;.off the various '
substances on the sidewalks.
Councilman Blake statedthat,he did -not- feel -.that the ::' City-- shgnld- do- the`sirkeaalke;' ,
c eaning, as ,:this ,was._ the - responsibility.. -of the::.property- owners: _and.:suggested ,that
once, the City ]3nginee-r has : completed, =his experiments, tklat .this.. information , be• - given - '
to the various janitorial services in.the.-'City,:who could.,then.solicit: business from
the various properties with•.dirty sidewalks.
On motion .of�Ceuncilman. Miller.,; seconded -by : Councilman; Gallagher,. the ;City.Engineer_ -:
was authorize _;to,.conduct _ ' ,::exper mental,prbgram of - sidewalk cleaning, in, i'oit
the pity .parking •lots_ :using -City forces ;or ,contracting rwith, janitorial :services as
he sees fit., :Motion carried.,-
City Council Minutes
October 3, 1966
Page 9
16. On motion of Councilman Gallagher, seconded by Councilman Blake, the following
resolution was introduced. Resolution No. 1602,•a resolution determining it to be
in the public interest to grant a right of way over certain real property in the
City of San Luis Obispo to the Union Oil Company of California and authorizing the
Mayor to execute deed granting said right of way.
Passed and adopted on the following roll call. vote:
AYES: Emmons Blake, Frank Gallagher, Arthur F. Spring,
Donald Q. Miller, Clell W. Whelchel
J
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
17. On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Gallagher, the follow-
ing resolution was introduced. Resolution No. 1603, a resolution of application of
the City of San Luis Obispo to the San Luis Obispo County•Local Agency.Formation
Commission relative to a proposal to annex territory to the City of San Luis Obispo.
Passed and adopted on.the.following roll call vote:
AYES: Emmons Blake, Frank Gallagher, Arthur F. Spring,
Donald Q. Miller, Clell W. Whelchel
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
18. Communication from the Division of Highways notifying the City Council that the
' correction to the existing south bound off ramp and the connecting frontage road at
the Los Osos Road interchange was being worked out in cooperation with the County
of San Luis Obispo. .Dice to the low priority of this particular project, there was
very little that could be done by the State but the State would revfte the off ramp
going to the overcrossing as necessitated by the- frontage road relocaciuu. Com-
munication received and filed.
19. Communication from L. Schlobohm, Fire Chief, requesting permission to reduce
shoF towel and dish cloth rental by 50% and substitute bi- monthly- lm-,.ndry of sheets
for or. -enty shift personnel on a trial basis.
On motion-of Councilman Gallagher, seconded by Councilman Sorin the request of
the Fire Chief was approved. Motion carried.
20. The City Clerk reported on the following bids received for the Recreation
Building
Parking Lot•Lmprovements,.City.Plan
2 -67. .
1.
O'RELLEY & SON
$2,129.00
245 Tank Farm Road
San Luis Obispo, California
2.
C. S. CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
29665.00
Post Office Box 24
Pismo Beach, California
3.
RAINEY CONSTRUCTION.COMPANY
. 2;734:99_._.
1144 Paso Robles Street
Paso Robles, California
\ .
4.
MADONNA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
2,745.00
Post Office Box 910
San Luis Obispo, California'
5.
TED WATKINS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 3,535.00
Post Office Box 1380
San Luis Obispo, California
6.
GUIDO 0, FERINI
41156.00
Post Office Box 558
Santa Maria, California
City Council Minutes
October 3, 1966
Page 10
7, BUM CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 51285900
Post Office Box 957
San Luis'Obispo, California
Mr..Romero, City Engineer, recommended that the low bid of OlKelley and Son be
accepted.
On motion of Councilman Gallagher, seconded by Councilman Miller, the low bid
of O'Kelley and Son was accepted. Motion carried.
21. The City Clerk reported on the following bids received for Street Resurfacing
Project
1. R. H. BEECHAM
Post Office Box 110
�oan L pouu Obispo, California
2, C. S. CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
Post Office Box 24
Pismo Beach, California
3, MADONNA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
Post Office Box 910
San Luis Obispo, California
4. GUIDO 0. FERINI
Post Office Box 558
Santa Maria, California
5. TED WATKINS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
Post office Box 1380
San Luis Obispo, California
6. BURKE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
Post Office Box 957
San Luis Obispo, CalifronisL
7. RAINEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
1144 Paso Robles Street
Paso Robles, California
028,471.25
28,881.00
29,597.00
30,894.25
34,252.50
39,012.50
43,093.75
Mr. Romero City Engineer, reported to the City Council that the contract specifi-
cat ons ca ed for alternate bids for extra work and that the low bidder, R. H.
Beecham, did not complete this portion of the contract documents, probably because
the bid sheet was not entirely clear.
Mr. Romero explained that after the bid opening, he had the contractor complete
this section of the contract in order to assure the City a fixed figure for extra
work should the contract be awarded to Beecham. He explained that the Council
could either waive the irregularity or reject the bid as it saw fit.
On motion of Councilman Galla r seconded by Councilman Miller, that the bid of
R. H. Beecham a rejected for incompleteness and irregularity. Motion carried.
Councilman Blake and Mayor 'Whelchel voting no.
On motion of Councilman Galla0 er seconded by 'Councilman IAi}ler,_thzt the contracts
be awarded to Construction Company. Motion carried
22. The City Clerk reported on the bids received for Recreational Facility Study
at the Whale Rock Reservoir.
1, Kenneth R. Anderson Company, Inc.
Recommends that the study be divided into two parts.
Part 1 Study to determine if the Whale Rock Reservoir has a recreation
potential based on realistic estimates of recreation types and man days
of use.
1
1
1
1
1
City Council Minutes
October 3, 1966
Page 11
Estimated cost for Part 1
$3700 to $4800
Part 2 Study.of the capital improvements and annual maintenance -
operation costs and the benefits of developing the recreational potential
of Whale Rock Reservoir.
Estimated cost for Part 2 $5000 to 18000
Engineering Consulting Firm: Clair A. Hill & Associates
2. Fred'L. Hector & Associates
Total cost to perform the necessary studies and to prepare the report in
accordance with specifications in the notice to bidders will be approsi-
mately 2$ 9,000
Engineering Consulting Firm: Metcalf & Eddy of Palo Alto
3. Koebig & Koebig
Unable to submit bid due to engineering ethics, but if selected by Council
for the project,.will be prepared to negotiate.a firm fee for services.
4. Tudor Engineering Company
Unable to submit bid due to engineering ethics; but.:if selected.by Council,
will be willing to enter negotiations with City or State based on prevail-
ing rates used by consulting engineers.
On motion of Councilman Gallagher, seconded by Councilman Miller, that the City
Council recommend that the proposal of Kenneth R. Anderson 'and Company be accepted.
Motion carried.
23. The City Clerk reported on the following bids received for supplying 1
vibrating roller to the City of San Luis Obispo.
1. VIBRATING ROLLER
A - Dearth Machinery Corp. $2,403.00
No deviations from specifications.
B - Francis Mueller 22259.30
Deviation as follows:
Roll; V -Belt Drive; 22a" dia. x 28" wide, will roll within 3z!' of curb,
vertical clearance 7 ".
Clutches; Driving & Vibrator Clutches controlled by 2 levers above
operators handle. Can be equipped with deadman shutoff on handle.if
necessary at no extra cost.
Brake; None, not necessary on these units.
Skids; Roller is equipped with 2 skids on each side to-preverit tipping
instead of rollers.
D. F. Romero, City Engineer, stated that the bid by the Dearth Machinery Company
met all the specifications and recommended that the award be granted to that firm.
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman.Gallagher, the bid was awarded
to Dearth Machinery Company. Motion carried.
24. The City Clerk reported on the following bids received for supplying one patch
truck and related equipment to the City per advertised specifications.,
1. Patch Truck
Hysen- Johnson Ford
No deviations.
$10,265.65
City Council Minutes
October 3, 1966
Page 12
On motion of Councilman seconded by Councilman Spring,the bid of
Hysen- Johnson Ford was accepted. Motion carried.
25..,.....On m_otion..of Councilman _.Gallagher,.,seconded.by Councilman Miller-:the
following contract payments were ordered paid:.
C. S. CONSTRUCTION=COMPANY Est. # 3 $ '•1196080
Street Resurfacing.:Project.
C. S. CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Est.1-.4_ _6,209.54..
Street Resurfacing Project Final
A= 1,EhEsCTRIC, : -.`,_ Est. #.5.. 1;362..99 .
Traffic Signal - Installation _
WEST COAST CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,,,. Est.. - #.4. 4,843.80..
Edna Road -Sewer Project
Motion carried.
26: �R� D� .
. .
-Miller, _ Administrative ''Cfficer'r_requested permission to "advertise
for - replacement' of 'four police-'car's for 'tk 6 = Police Department and-one '-pickup for
the Building Department.
On motion of Councilman,Gallagher, seconded by Councilman.Miller, the Admin.
.Istiative Officer was'authorized,to"'call for bids'as'requeste .`''Motion — carried.
On motion of Councilman S ,rin , seconded by Councilman Gallagher '`the - "'
Administrative Officer _was aut orized to call for bids for one. -ton dump
truck.' - Motion-' carried = ..:._. _ . „: �:_. '. :> `�_ .
It was agreed by the Council that the older truck would not be traded in' "but
would be retained. _
27. On motion of Councilman Gallagher secondedby Councilman 'Miller,the '
following salary step increase was approved:
CARMACK, Noel W., Police Officer, from Step 1 at 804 to Step 2
$521 per'in6hti.. effective October. 1, 1966; - -J
Motion carried. _
28. On motion of Councilman Gallagher,
was authorized to sign_om behalf of the
Coates,::Herfurth an'dEngland'for making
retirement system. Motion carried,
seconded by= CouncilmheMil -Jer, the Mayor
City the contract with the firm of
an actuarial' "study • of the' C' s
?9 Mr. 'Romero; City`Engineer, "reported'as 'follows= on'th`estatus=of the road to
service'the'indvstrial'aTea° east from-Edna Road: -' He e'xplained,tha_t plans and
specifications for sewer, water and service rbad�'woiil:d be°completed-for approval
at the next Council meeting.
30. Mr. Romero, City Engineer, presented for the Council's consideration a
sewer and. water: agreement'to' serve- the 4ighway:Patrol` Site on California
Boulevard. Mr. Romero explained that the Division- : "of;ArclAtebtuTe had prepared
a rather complicated agreement for water service with payment to be made after
installation of service':
Mr. Romero continued that the State also proposed the City set a maximum cost
for pr v ding' sewer ".and.,Jpayment'- j : arears= of• the work or .,progre "ss:- 'payments' in
arears of the work. Both proposals are contrary: to• City ordinance, "Mr-o' Romero
requested Council guidance in this regard. It was the general consensus of.the
'Council that the State`should,:be required.to'•follow City ordinance. ':There was-
some opinion =on the Council'thatzthe'-City should, not contract`- for"the sewer '
installation, however, no definite decision was made•
31. Mr. Romero, City Engineer,,.presented a status report on cuprent street widen-
ihLg
projects.
329 R. D. Miller,: Administrative Officer, presented a report to the City Council
recommending that John Somosna be appointed as building inspector Step. 39 $565
1
1
City Council Minutes
October 3, 1966
Page 13
per month effective October 17, 1966.
Recommendation accepted.
33. On motion of Mayor Whelchel, seconded by Councilman Gallagher, the following
1 resolution was introduced. Resolution No. 1608, a resolution authorizing City
participation in the Mustang Booster Club in the amount of $100.00.
Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Emmons Blake,.-.Frank Gallagher, Arthur F. Spring,
Donald Q. Miller, Clell W. Whelchei
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
On motion of Councilman Blake, seconded by Councilman Miller, the meeting adjourned
to October 11, 1966 at 7:30 P.M.
Approved: November 7, 1966
. H. FITZPATRICK.
CITY CLERK