Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/03/1972Pledge Roll Call MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA January 3, 1972 - 7:00 P. M. City Hall Present: Emmons Blake, John C. Brown, Myron Graham, T. Keith Gurnee, Kenneth E. Schwartz City Staff Present: J. H. Fitzpatrick, City Clerk; W. Flory, Park and Recreation Director; R. D. Miller, Administrative Officer; D. F. Romero, City Engineer; E. L. Rodgers, Police Chief; L. Schlobohm, Fire Chief; A. J: Shaw, City Attorney; R. D. Young, Planning Director. C -1. The City Council approved payment,of claims against the City subject to approval by the Administrative Officer.. C -2. The City Council approved the minutes of the meetings of November 15, December 3 and December 6, 1971. C -3. The City Clerk reported on the bids received for supplying chemicals for the calendar year 1972.. See exhibit "A ". The City Council accepted the low bids in all instances. C -4. The City Clerk reported on the bids received for petroleum pro- ducts in 1972 through a joint purchase agreement with the County. See exhibit "B ". C -5. The City Council approved the following contract payments and change orders: R. Burke Corporation Est. #2 $ 5,723.10 Meadow Park, Phase I -City Plan 5 -72 C. S. Construction Est. #1 $ 2,064.60 Prefumo Cyn. Rd. and Los Osos Valley Rd. Widening City Plan 7 -72 Conco Engineering Contractors Est. #3 $ 2,287.89 St. Widening, Johnson Ave. Est. #4 $ 2,749.62 and Foothill Blvd. City Plan 24 -71 Change Order #1 $ 573.80 0. K. Industries Est. #4 $ 3,391.47 _. Center Street Culvert Est. #5 (Final) $ 3,489.46 City Plan 15 -71 Change Order #1 $ 2,236.70 Walter Bros. Construction Est. #4 $ 2,057.39 Drainage Channel Lining Est. #5 (Final) $ 6,059.34 City Plan 6 -71 W. G. Watkins Est. #2 $12,433.23 Parking Lot No. 12 City Plan 28 -71 City Council Minutes January 3, 1972 .11 Page 2 C -6. On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Graham, the following resolution was introduced: RESOLUTION NO. 2259, a resolution increasing the 1971/72 budget for maintenance of water pumping equipment. Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote: AYES: Emmons Blake, John C. Brown, Myron Graham, T. Keith Gurnee, Kenneth E. Schwartz NOES: None ABSENT: None C -7. The City Council referred a communication from the Chairman of the Citizens' Advisory Committee, advising the Council that other duties kept Bea Von Stein and -Rex Bowlby from attending meetings on a regular basis and recommending they be replaced, to the Council sub - committee to select new appointees if in fact these members were no longer interested. C -8. A communication from P. G. & E. regarding funds available for undergrounding utilities during 1972 was referred to the.Underground Utilities Committee. C -9. A communication from the City of Pomona regarding a conference of the United States /Mexico Sister City Association was received and filed. C -1•1. A report from the State Highway Commission on its November 18 meeting at which the Commission adopted a conventional highway to be constructed between Edna and High Street in San Luis Obispo was received I and filed. C -10. A communication from the Division of Highways informing the Council of revisions in functional classification of certain sections of Highway 1 was received and filed. C -12. A communication from San Luis Coastal Unified School District thanking the City Council for its action in supporting a free swimming program at Nuss Pool through June was received and filed. C -13. A communication from Roark and Elizather Weber of Chico, former residents of San Luis Obispo, complimenting the City on the completion of Mission Plaza and the positive effect it has had on the downtown area was received and filed. The City Clerk was asked to forward a copy of the letter to the Downtown Association. C -14. The City Council received the financial report from the Environ- mental Center of San Luis Obispo for the month of December 1971.. C -15. Council consideration of the San Luis Obispo County Open Space Plan was continued to the end of the meeting. On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Graham, the con- sent items were approved as indicated. Motion carried. City Council Minutes January 3, 1972 Page 3 1. The City Council discussed the recommendation of the Promotional Coordinating Committee to allow Maynard Marquardt to take a one -month leave of absence from the Committee in order.to apply for the position of Promotional Coordinator for the City for an annual salary of $6,000 plus expenses not to exceed $100 per month. Councilman Graham asked what were the new Promotional Coordinator's responsibilities. R. Dunin, Chairman of the Committee, stated that under the new plan of advertising and promotion of the.City, the Committee itself would handle advertising and the Promotional Coordinator would handle promotion and public relations under the direction of the Committee. Mayor Schwartz stated that he felt the problem before the Council was whether to allow Mr. Marquardt to take 'a leave of absence for one month rather than resign from.the committee.in order to apply for the Pro- motional Coordinator position. If he resigned from the Committee and was not retained as the Promotional Coordinator, he could be reappointed to the Committee but with a leave of absence, he could return to member- ship as soon as the position had been filled if he.were not chosen. Councilman Blake asked if the Promotional Coordinator.would be equivalent to the work done in the past promotional budgets: R. Dunin stated it would be similar to past programs. Councilman Gurnee was opposed to the advertising and promotional program in general and felt that the matter of Mr. Marquardt resigning or taking a leave of absence under the condition that he was appl.ying for the Pro- motional Coordinator position was very embarrassing to the City Council. ' and he felt it looked very bad to the public. Councilman Brown suggested as an attempt to alleviate some of the criticism of the Promotional Coordinating Committee for interviewing a former member that the Council sub-committee interview the applicants for Promotional Coordinator who would actually be employed by the City Council. On motion of Councilman Graham, seconded by Councilman Blake, that.the City Council accept the recommendation of the Promotional Coordinating Committee and grant a one month leave of absence to Mr. Marquardt. Motion carried. 2. At this time the City Council considered the final adoption of Ordinance No. 540, an ordinance amending the official zone map of the City to rezone property-located along Higuera Street between Prado Road extended and Elks Lane extended from R -1 AH to R -2 -S AH, R -H -S AH and C -H -S AH. The matter was continued as the advertising was .placed in the press less than three days prior to the final consideration. 3. J. Stockton, Park and Recreation Supervisor, presented plans and specifications for the construction of lights for Sinsheimer Baseball Field as prepared by William Hastrup, architect. He explained the types and number of lights to be installed and the type of towers needed. The ' estimated cost would be .$48,000. R. D. Miller, Administrative Officer, explained the financial arrange- ments for payment of the proposed field lighting at Sinsheimer Park. $30,000 had been accumulated in the reserve fund and an additional nine or ten thousand might be diverted from the parking lot paving item. The Council received a communication from the San Lu.is.Coastal Unified School District stating that upon the sale of the school district property at Los Osos Valley Road and Madonna Road, it would contribute $10,000.to the lighting project. City Council Minutes January 3, 1972 Page 4 The Advisory Committee on Joint Recreational Use of School District Property recommended that the City Council approve the plans for lighting the baseball field and authorize a call for bids. Donald Q. Miller, 2324 Johnson Avenue, objected to the City Council con- sidering the use of public funds to place lights on a baseball field owned by the school district. He did not feel that the baseball field served enough people relative to the number of youth in San Luis Obispo. He felt the City had other recreational needs that would better serve the citizens of the community. He felt that the baseball field served only a very small segment of the population. Councilman Blake felt that without lights little use would be made of the baseball field, but with lights, he felt that more utilization could be made by both participants and spectators. He concluded that the field had been partially built and he hoped the City Council would grant sufficient funds to complete the project. H. Henderson, Advisory Committee on Joint Recreational Use of School District Property, stated that with this last project, the baseball field would be completed. It-would be one of the best on.the coast and should be completed as contract had been negotiated for a base- ball tournament to be held in the field starting June 28, 1972. He felt this type of tournament would bring many visitors to San Luis Obispo to support the tournament. He urged that the City Council allocate the necessary funds so the baseball field could be com- pleted and could be used. Councilman Brown felt the Council should complete the baseball field as he was sure the public would support good night baseball. Councilman Graham agreed with Donald Q. Miller that there were other ' recreational needs and requirements in the City, but he felt this pro- ject should be completed so the City could move on to meet the other needs. Councilman Gurnee agreed with Donald Q. Miller on the loss of interest in baseball nationally and agreed that baseball served a very small segment of the public. This park had been under construction for some time.and he felt it should be completed. When it was completed, he hoped the Council would reconsider the recreational priorities for the City of San Luis Obispo. On motion of Councilman Blake, seconded by Councilman Brown, the City Council approved the plans and authorized the call for bids for lights at Sinsheimer Baseball Stadium. Mayor Schwartz felt the field had progressed more rapidly than antici- pated and felt the Council should move ahead and put in the lighting and complete the complex. He then reviewed citizen participation in putting this field together. The motion carried. 4. At this time the City Council held a public hearing on the recom- mendation of the Planning Commission to rezone property bounded by Lawton, Funston, South and Meadow Streets from M to R 71 to C -H -S and R -2 -S. R. D. Young, Planning Director, presented the recommendation of the Planning Commission as follows: 1. The applicant is requesting to rezone an entire block from M and R -1 to C -H and R -2 -S. 2. The Planning Commission felt that the C -H zone would be appro- priate because it was down zoning from the M zone. They further felt that the street yard setbacks required in.the C -N zone would City Council Minutes January 3, 1972 Page 5 be too restrictive and the C -H zone does provide for C -N uses subject to use permit approval. The Commission was also of the opinion that the C -R and R -2 zone should carry an "S": design control designation. Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing open. L. Blazer, developer, asked the City Council to support the recommendation of the Planning Commission. No one else appeared before Mayor Schwartz declared the Councilman Gurnee felt thi Councilman Brown also felt "S" disignation allowed the buildings, design, etc. the City Council for or against the proposal. public hearing closed. a would be a good use of the land. it was a good use of the land and that the Planning Commission to control location of On motion of Councilman Blake, seconded by Councilman Graham, the follow- ing ordinance was introduced. ORDINANCE NO. 541, an ordinance amending the Official Zone Map.of the.City of San Luis Obispo. Passed to print on the following roll call vote: AYES: Emmons Blake, John C. Brown, Myron Graham, T. Keith Gurnee, Kenneth E. Schwartz NOES: None ABSENT: None 5. The City Council received a communication.from Donald Q. Miller which asked the following questions: (1) "What is the condition of the master land use plan being pre- pared by Eisner and Associates ?" R. D. Young, Planning Director,. replied the consultants will make a progress report to the Commission and City Council on January 25. Several alternate preliminary plans will be presented for discussion. (2) "Will there be any.public input before the plan is presented to the public ?" R. D. Young anwered yes. The Planning Commission will hold a joint meeting with the Human Relaitons Commission on January-11, for the pur- pose of establishing goals. The public is invited to. attend : and to participate. The public is also invited to attend the meeting on January 25th. (3) "Does the Council plan to urge the County to hold public hearings on flood plain zoning in'the Los Osos Valley ?" Councilman Gurnee explained that the County Planning Department was presently holding hearings on the Open Space Plan which inc.luded flood plain zoning in Los Osos Valley. . Mayor Schwartz agreed that the hearings::were. now being held and that several more hearings would be held. He felt this was the best time for the public to make its feelings known prior to the adoption of the plan. City Council Minutes January 3, 1972 Page 6 (4) "Now that the State Legislature has passed a 5% sales tax on gaso- line (commencing July'1,.1972), wi[I our Council take the leadership in suggesting to the Board of Supervisors they hold public hearings to deter - mine the desire and need of the County to establish a County -wide trans- portation district? If the County has such a district then part of the sales tax on gasoline can be used to operate a county public transportation system." R. D. Miller explained the legislation as it affected the City and County of San LuT Obispo. Mayor Schwartz also stated that this would be a matter for discussion at a future meeting of the County Mayors' Association devoted to a county -wide transportation system. (5) "What has happened to the bike routes for the City ?" D. F. Romero, City Engineer, reported that bike routes had been approved and were now awaiting final Design Review Board approval prior to installation. 6. Traffic Committee Report of December 9, 1971 71- 1:2 -.1T The Traffic Committee has received several expressions of concern over the hazard to pedestrians and household pets caused by the rather reckless manner in which some northbound motorists on California negotiate right -hand turning movements on to Hathway. The Committee was somewhat at a loss in arriving at a recommendation which they felt would be effective. However, one suggestion was the.City Engineer should contact the Division of Highways to see whether or not they could loan us a portable amber flashing light which could be ' placed on Hathway slightly north of California to alert motorists to the potential problem. If the Division of Highways does not have one available, private rental sources should be contacted. We so recommend on a 60 -day trial basis. On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Brown, the recom- mendation was approved. Motion carried with Councilman Graham voting no. 71 -12 -2T The Committee was equally undecided on how to approach a. similar problem of speeding on Santa Barbara south of Osos by southbound motorists on Osos making a right fork maneuver on to Santa Barbara. This was called to our attention by a petition signed by 36. We feel that we would like more time to look at this, especially since the gas company is about ready to start a construction project in the area. It may also be possible we will benefit from our observation of the flashing light on Hathway. The matter was continued as recommended by the Traffic Committee. 71 -11 -3C You will recall that the Council recently asked the City Clerk to write the Public Utilities Commission saying that the City was not interested in'cros'sing gates at Marsh Street at this time. Subse- quently, Mr. Romero received a second letter from the PUC asking that the City reconsider its position and advising us that it was asking the SP Company to prepare an estimate of cost for the proposed gate instal- lation. It is suggested that we wait for the report on costs before giving this matter any further, consideration. The Council approved the recommendation and requested that the City. Clerk write a letter to the PUC. 71 -12 -3T The engineering department has noted an obstruction to : visibility at the southeast corner of Higuera and Toro which makes it very difiicult for northbound motorists on Toro to get across Higuera. City Council Minutes January 3, 1972 Page 7 Mr. Romero has recommended that we eliminate 60 feet of parking on the south side of Higuera extending easterly from the Toro Street intersection. We so recommend. 71 -12 -5T With constantly increasing traffic flows on Los Osos Valley Road and more and more people living on the westerly side of that thoroughfare, the engineering department has recommended that crosswalks be installed across Los Osos Valley Road at Madonna Road, Prefumo Canyon Road and at Royal Way. The Traffic Committee feels that the need is great- est at Madonna Road and Prefumo Canyon Road and recommends that we start with these. The latter would be painted yellow in recognition of the nearby school. We so recommend. 71- 12 -6T. The engineering department has been analyzing the.traffic pattern in the vicinity of Ramona Drive and South Tassajara and feels that flows on Ramona Drive are presently exceeding those on South Tassajara and will continue to do so in the future. They therefore recommend that the present stop signs be switched and.that traffic be stopped on South Tassajara instead of onrRamona. This should be done on a gradual. "phase" basis. They also recommend that Verde Drive traffic be stopped at Ramona. We recommend "yes" on both suggestions. On motion of Councilman Blake, seconded by Councilman Brown, the following resolution was introduced. RESOLUTION NO. 2258, a resolution establishing parking restrictions on Higuera Street and establishing stop signs on South Tassajara and on Verde Drive. Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote: AYES: Emmons Blake, John C. Brown, Myron Graham_, T. Keith Gurnee, Kenneth E. Schwartz ' NOES: None ABSENT: None 71 -12 -4T The engineering department has been making continuing speed zone studies on Los Osos Valley Road and feels that 45 miles per hour would be more appropriate thatn the present 50 mph, extending from the southerly end of the Lakewood Tract to Prefumo Canyon Road. We_have reviewed his findings and so recommend. On motion of Councilman Blake, seconded by Councilman Graham, the follow- ing ordinance was introduced: ORDINANCE NO. 542, an ordinance amendi.n.g the municipal code to establish a speed limit on Los Osos Valley Road. Passed to print on the following roll call vote: AYES: Emmons Blake, John C. Brown, Myron Graham, T. Keith Gurnee, Kenneth E. Schwartz NOES: None ABSENT: None 71 -12 -7T The study of the almost intolerable traffic congestion on Foothill between California and Carpenter Lane has been going on for several years. The public works department has concluded that we should make some major changes at this time in order to ease traffic congestion and particularly to help the rising numbers of bicyclists using Foothill. They recommend and we agree that all parking should be eliminated in-this block, thus providing for one eastbound and one westbound traffic lane, and in the westerly direction, a holding pocket and a separate lane for left hand turns and straight ahead (or right turn) movements near the California Boulevard intersection. We so recommend. City Council Minutes January 3, 1972 Page 8 On motion of Councilman Blake, seconded by Mayor Schwartz, the recommen- dation was accepted with a public hearing to be set for May 1972 with the new parking restrictions to go into effect July 1, 1972. Motion carried with Councilman Graham voting no. C -15. Discussion of County Open Space Plan. Councilman Gurnee suggested that the.City Council request the Planning staff and the County Planning staff to study the Open Space Plan and he hoped the City Council would meet with the Board of Supervisors to implement portions of the plan that would have an impact on the City of San Luis Obispo. He hoped the City Council would somehow adopt or endorse this open space plan to help its endorsement by the County Board of Supervisors. He also felt that if adopted by the City Council it would guide the Planning Consultant to the Council's feelings rela- tive to open space. He hoped.the City Council would study the report and set a study hearing to see if some agreement could be reached for endorsement prior to the next public hearing by the- County. Councilman Blake agreed that the City Council Open Space Report but felt that no action.sho February 2, 1972 public hearing to be held by felt would bring out additional good and weak plan. Councilman Graham hoped that the City Council study session to go over the plan in detail. should study the County ild be taken prior to the County which he points in the proposed would set a one item Councilman Brown felt before adopting the Open Space Plan as a council approved document, they should hold a public hearing for input by the citizens of the City. ' Mayor Schwartz felt the City Council should be very careful in endorsing the entire open space plan as much of the plan covered areas over which the City had no control of knowledge. He felt the Council could be criticized for approving the plan covering areas beyond the limits of the City. He felt that a'strong statement on the plan as it effected the area immediately surrounding the City over which the City had some expertise would be an asset to the plan. He suggested that the City Council study and discuss the report at the next study session, and after arriving at a consensus, hold a public hearing for citizen input. Councilman Graham suggested that the City Council set one noon session to study and discuss the open space plan. . It was the consensus of the Council that a study session on the Open Space Plan be set for Thursday, January 13, 1972. 7. D. F. Romero, City Engineer, presented for the Council's consider- ation Change Order No. 1 on the Laguna Lake Park Barriers, an increase of $450 for the enlarging of the diameter of poles since the original size specified by grade number is too small. On motion of.Councilman Brown, seconded by Mayor Schwartz, the City Council approved Change Order No. 1, Laguna Lake Park Barriers.' Motion carried with Councilman Graham voting no. 8. The City Council adjourned to executive session. 9. The Mayor adjourned the meeting to 7 :30 P.M. Wednesday, January 5 to meet with the Human Relations Commission. APPROVED: February 7, 1972 ATRICK, CITY CLERK January 3, 1972 c O + L m Cl. OD Ln N C) U L d r O` 41 u X LU N L N Y L L N N (0 > O E - a — c N O a) + t[1 O O O O r O m r�1 co �O V F-- CO V ON M + L(l lf'1 LP1 U) O b9 b4 b9 U) N L — ON O O (0 F- "O L O L n ON �O 0 0 F— N N N N N N `F- v m b9 tf� b9 m — N (0 U ON + C -C .0 O L QlF- U) + O• -M N L t 3 L m a LL CL L U (0 U) C 7 (n (0 C fo — L -., (n U O (a X ' H U) s c n. U) = O O L D_ O O a• O V O O U) N (D F- v- •— + m m v m r L O N cc� O O N O N N N c m Z bq Z b9 �bq 1.14 4-O N — a O N -i — c -0 C c c U U) C m FO- F- O 0 N N N U) T U m C 3 O — C N C — (0 E O L (0 LL m Z C — (0 U 1 + (0 U E E O r a O U U U ¢ U E 0 m o co V U U U N U O E - U N Od E (n Ln L (A U) U) U) t a) } U O N N N U U U c m (0 L N N N M (O N 0) - m m' Of m O L Q t 4- ¢ 3 Q _0 - -F- M O O o — c (n M (0 cn c (n (n N m Q Cl) J N U) J > J d d January 3, 1972 c O + L m Cl. OD Ln N C) U L d r O` 41 u X LU O L } O N } a N } (p L 4 O 7 cn — N E (0 r- =7 U O c E } 7 — M — 3 Q A N L C C 7 7 10 C C.D. O U O) U L C N — a_ c O O L n 0 7 U) •+- — N &- -0 O N 4- N c N d N J O — c Ul N (0 a U (n — N m L 4- Ut O T a— U Q) C 3 O O LL O Un n N N O x cn (0 F c (D F } f0 L � N c m (0 E L (0 m 2 L O r M O bs Ln R rl O O) O b9 O O r N O r O M LC1 O ll'1 �n N rn e» 0 n O r- +» V � rn N rn r — O %O m •o • M M M O O m �o F- rA rq C V M - O N UI (0 F- (n U1 } _• C O L I� r F ) O t» IL F- 4- C F- F- s O n O Ln Lr) N O L N O L N N N LL d N b9 N O x cn (0 F c (D F } f0 L � N c m (0 E L (0 m 2 L O r M O bs Ln R rl O O) O b9 O O r N O r O M LC1 O ll'1 �n N rn e» 0 n O r- +» V M 111 N co In N N N Il • M M M O �o n 69 b9 +A b9 psi N UI UI (n U1 c c C C C O O O O O F- F- F- F- F- U') n in Ln Lr) N N N N N N N N N N January 3, 1972 c O } L O a 0 N r b4 N U L d r rn Q F= m 2 X W 1 'J L_ U U O E U r a — O U L (a U U7 O U L X21 U ¢ — N U E m m a — N U G O 2 O< (o - -CQ -U of L) NU U O U U E N - U N ed E M UI L U1 UI M U1 N •- m N U O (n N N N L U — } L — _ — U c N (0 L N N O -0 -0 O L c 4- �7 (0 C Cf Of NLL ¢} 32 7� O O — (0 O O } O (o O (a (o Q (n J U7 (n J ] J d d January 3, 1972 c O } L O a 0 N r b4 N U L d r rn Q F= m 2 X W 1 'J L_ u 1 1 January 3, 1972 U) 0 U) O L L L r O a) m C v 'o _0 O c C C F > r N U) O O O 0. U U U O O w O O O O O 00 a) N (D v U) N N M 7 7 7 O M l0 F bq c L O in — N r 0 .a (P) 'O a) L — O L m to U a CO vv L 4- •L c O L (a (0 T T T d O } co ru — r — — a) m E a) (n CO O (a - r` O O O C> ON CT CT ^ m O O O O O r 0.0 a) F O O -O U) O O } r` N — (0 ; L M > r N U) O O O O O -0 O O O a) •— c N L 7 (2) > a U) J d } C c N O (1) } .— O M l0 F M c L O in — N r 0 .a (P) 'O (0 O — O F- m to w a CO vv L 4- O CT c O L (a (0 3 T O U c — (1) O } — r — — a) m E a) (n CO O (a - U (0 c a) L O O ¢ O U N — O (0 O co U O F- U (n L) — (n n E L — U — U > E c r` (1) •- 7 } .— O U) (1) C Ul . U) r- (n L > Ul •3 (0 (L O (1) c a) (n O m a) a) U a) ^ (L — • — i— b9 b9 to J M (D-0 (o a) a) r O -0 L } a) N (a (0 (0 4- -0) L CD } (P O m O a) c CA Cn U T •— UM: O c¢ (a cn c K O O c C C L 0).— S r 3 Q w N G — (0 (0 L E (n T O M O O 0 0 r _0 7 U) U) V 7 c kO U) U) — (a O (n N L c O X m (a M O (o • m CO Q (P (2) U N U J d" (n >^ J M (L CL N Ul J ()� F- O O O L =7 O cg L •— c O (o E L (O co Z L a) ri' (L CD O O O O to U) C O F- O O (n (D c O O O V M to U) C O F- O O o_ O O O 0.0 a) F U -O U) O i— O r` N — (0 ; L M > r N Of ::a) O — 0 E T m U Ut (1) a) •— c N L 7 (2) > U) U) J d } C c N O O O O O (a } F F- •— a7 Uf C — N r 0 .a (P) 'O (0 O O L U m O O a CO C> ^ O CT c O L (a (0 3 T U ¢ U c — (1) O } — — U — a) m E a) (n CO O (a - - U- a) L O ¢ (1) c O (o E L (O co Z L a) ri' (L CD O O O O to U) C O F- O O (n (D c O O O V M to U) C O F- O O o_ X W O (0 C: IqT U O O C) O O U E T N ON L > C-) O (L U V d 7 O co O c E C O d 0-0 S — N r 0 'O M O a) O L L U (O O (n U m c (T U> m O O CT U +- CT L (a (0 Q U ¢ U c — (1) (D a) — L) — a) m E a) (n CO -0 (a - - U (n :3 U a) L O ¢ (1) ¢ U •- U O Y N N U (n L) — (n n E L — U — U > E c r` (1) •- E U) U (a 2 E U) (1) C Ul . U) r- (n L > Ul a) •- (0 (L O (1) c a) (n O m a) a) U a) L U 0- }U — • — i— LCn — — X— r — U (D-0 (o a) a) r O -0 L } a) (a (a (0 (0 4- -0) L CD } (P O m O a) c CA L •— UM: O c¢ (a cn c K O O c a) LL 0).— S r 3 Q w N G — L E (n T (n -} M O O O M. — C O (1) N -F U) V 7 c kO U) U) N (a O (n — m a) r v .— O (n O (a M O (o • Co } O O Q (P (2) U N U J d" (n >^ J M (L CL N Ul J X W O N N f6 - L � U L a) O N � c fU - O U L n N C Q } O O t0 3 N O N LO U + c (0 fs f0 c N - L n r O O N U •- U c f0 + L +l 7 c F - > L- L O fo O a — rQ v a � > c — m o 'ry ^ U 7 O N -L () L c c a) N f0 d -0(f) O -0 N- N C) m c Tm 3 - OU - a) O s U- } N Z O ❑ H � H } O t I- < ❑ } S L fT F N S L LL 0 to a) ` N O �F } m S c f � F L f m January 3, 1972 c O } L Q) CL 0 0 0 0 o n n o n N N O OD O n Ln v C c N f0 n r N (n N O N O v r �o 0 r s fT (S) to Ln Ln n to 69 4.4 b9 O O r- In 0 N Ln f O O N N N bq b9 W L (1) t CC) o n 0 L v fn o 0 — 0 r-: 0� i v v c Ln f0 U N (n (n (n C c C c 0 O O O O O 00 c 0 m C ";r CL - N O N O In n Ln Ln f O N N N N O U -- ON ¢ L (1) �6 t T fll c L v a) � fo } ro — 0 o U to Ln n O U L d r ON ¢ H m 2 X w 1 L 1 T c c a) — 0 o U (o d f0 U .(D rn V L U O 7 NO N O 00 c 0 L O C ";r CL - N O N O U O U Nl L m O U> 0% N (0 m m O U -- ON ¢ L (1) �6 U 2 - 0 - a) m U E a) (U - . 0) U •- C O a) ¢ (1) ¢ t0 t }¢ - 0)(-) � •- U (D U U O U v) U E L c U) Ln - U O •- od c r E N (n (2) L > (n O (n Ln r to fll - a) c (1) U. a) u( m O a) a) L U -= i- L- L - X- U c a) 'Q (0 L. 4- a) a) • a) _0 O (0 fT L CD a) = fs i- O m O m O. "O L c Q 4- O c (0 (n c Q of m i ¢ co ¢ 3 ¢ Ln � M 0 0 0 - c (n v z) (0 0 (n c O (n Ln Ln - fo O Ln O +-0 O o M O (o • (a to Ln n O U L d r ON ¢ H m 2 X w 1 L 1 1 L 1 C O U } N Q) E - O - p Q U N r` L 3 O N - U T LL c L R cu O a U L- 0 Q U -a U m � C O O a0 U) N O Cn o N c O L U) Q) Ln - C c J d L O c 0 O '0 L O 14-- m y- O "O T Q) } U) > --o - L) - Q) � U N Q) L L L } O Ln O } m C •3 O O LL January 3, 1972 CL T C) O O O C) r O - a 00 n1 O N (0-0 00 O N } - O\ O N O m C) O N N M M F O bq L O 4-1� b9 C - N O D0 U O L) M - O co O O cn (D Cn M O 0 H O L. (1) N M } - Q) - > Q) 0] O L N L C+ O W N ~ Q) ¢ N n7 s }¢ N Of •- 0 N U U O UO0 tR c b9 tH } c Q) 6) .15 c r s O U) Q) .0 L Ln O (n U) Cn F- O L X - L Q) M Q) O m O LL CL m. C N O U) c¢ O c (0 O c O Of Q) X ¢ O ¢ 3 ¢ - N Ln t M 00 O (0 r U) V 7 (0 O U) C �o U) U) U) O O n O -1- 0 0 (0 M O (0 CO ¢ U) J 1* O O > J M O c O N L(1 O n + ~ � Q1 L N N N of Q) b9 b9 b9 d } N UI N C2 c p c c } O O O c m H m H H 7 O N O N N Z Z ^ c O } L Q) CL O U•\ N Q) U L d r 4\ ¢ } t X w T O a n1 U ON L C) O N (3) V O O a) CD L O C C CL - N O D0 U O L) M L co O L) c� cn (D Cn Cn O Q) L. (1) U ¢ - Q) - > Q) 0] U N L ¢ U¢ O N¢ - Q) ¢ n7 s }¢ - L) Of •- 0 Q) U U O UO0 E -- c LO Ln - U Q) 6) .15 c r E U) U) Q) .0 L Ln O (n U) X - (.J M Q) O m O c0 m. C N O L c¢ O c (0 O c O Of ¢ O ¢ 3 ¢ Ln t M 00 O — c U) V 7 (0 O U) C �o U) U) U) — (0 O n O -1- 0 0 (0 M O (0 CO ¢ U) J 1* O (n L() J > J IL IL IL c O } L Q) CL O U•\ N Q) U L d r 4\ ¢ } t X w January 3, 1972 "EXHIBIT B" The following is a list of distributors and prices under the joint agree- ment for procurement of petroleum products for the calendar year 1972: Product Company and Distributor Price per Gallon Regular Gasoline Union Oil Company $ .212 Leo Bookless San Luis Obispo Premium Gasoline Union Oil Company .226 Leo Bookless San Luis Obispo Diesel Fuel Texaco, Inc. .132 L. M. Whitlock 3072 Main Street Morro Bay, CA Motor Oil Standard Oil Co. .59* (MIL- L- 2104B) A. L. Chapman San Luis Obispo *55 gal. drums Cases of 34 quarts 4.74 per case For Comparative Purposes: Product 1971 Prices Per Gallon 1970 Prices Per Gallon Regular Gasoline $ .219 $ .205 Premium Gasoline .23 .236 Diesel Fuel .132 .1265 Motor Oil (Drums) .51 .50 Motor Oil (Cases) 4.26 /case 4.26 /case 1 "EXHIBIT'B"