HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/16/1975Pledge
Roll Call
City Staff
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
MONDAY, JUNE 16, 1975 - 7 p.m.
City Hall
PRESENT: Myron Graham, T. Keith Gurnee, Jesse Norris, Steven '
Petterson, and Mayor Kenneth E. Schwartz
ABSENT: None
PRESENT: J.H. Fitzpatrick, City Clerk; William E. Flory, Director
of Parks f Recreation; R.D. Miller, Administrative Officer;
E.L. Rodgers, Chief of Police; A.J. Shaw, City Attorney;
Robert Strong, Community Development Director; D.F. Romero,
Public Services Director
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mayor Schwartz wished to acknowledge and thank the San Luis Obispo Elks Club
for a gift of a Bicentennial Flag to fly in front of City Hall. He also
wished to acknowledge on behalf of the City, the receipt of three Obispo
Beautiful awards granted to the City of San Luis Obispo.
X. On motion of Councilman Petterson, seconded by Councilman Graham the
following resolution was introduced: Resolution No. 2807 (1975 Series), a
resolution of the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo urging the Assembly
Committee on Governmental Organization to oppose Section 9 of Senate Bill 1
(Moscone) as amended May 20, 1975.
Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Graham, Norris, Petterson, and Mayor Schwartz
NOES: Councilman Gurnee
ABSENT: None
1. At this time the City Council held a public hearing on the adoption
of the 1975/76 budget for the City of San Luis Obispo.
Richard D. Miller, Administrative Officer, reviewed for the City Council the
highlights of the proposed 75/76 budget and also reviewed the memorandums of
understanding with the three employee organizations, the Police Officers'
Association, Firemen's Association and the General Employees' Association.
Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing open.
No one appeared before the City Council for or against the budget.
Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing closed.
On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Graham the City Council
approved the 1975/76 budget, subject to arithmetical or - clerical errors and
final acceptance of the three memorandums of understanding by the employee
groups. Motion carried on the following roll call vote: '
AYES: Councilmen Graham, Gurnee, Norris, Petterson and Mayor
Schwartz
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
1
City Council Minutes
June 16, 1975
Page 2
On motion.of.Counci-lmari. Gurnee.,_ seconded_- by_Councilman..Graham . the.following
resolution was introduced: Resolution .No.:- .2810.(1975...Series), a resolution
of..the.Council..of..the:City of.San.Luis.:.Obispo:authorizing health insurance
contracts with Pacific Mutual.Insurance Company.
Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Graham,.Gurnee, Norris, Petterson and Mayor
Schwartz
-NOES: None
ABSENT: None
At this time the City Council.held.a_public hearing,on.the.General Revenue
Sharing-planned :use.report no: 6 for--the fiscal year 1975/76 in the amount
of 487,573.. The planned expenditure by-the :City of=San -Luis Obispo was for
water improvements.
Mayor-Schwartz declared the public hearing open.
No one appeared before the City Council for or against the revenue sharing
planned use for 1975/76. .
Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing closed.
On motion:of Councilman Graham,..seconded . by Councilman Petterson the.following
resolution was introduced:. Resolution_No. 2765 (1975-Series), a resolution
of the Council of.the City of San-.Luis--Obispo approving General Revenue Sharing
Planned- Use-Report No. 6 for .fiscal year. 1975/76.
Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Graham,'Gurnee, Norris, Petterson and Mayor
Schwartz
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
----------------------------------------------7----------------------------------
On motion of Councilman Graham, seconded by Councilman Norris CONSENT ITEMS C -1,
C -2, C -3, C =4'1 C -5; C -6; C -8, C- llj`C- 12,.0 -i3, C -14; C- 15, -C -16; C- 1.7..and C -18
were approved as recommended. - . --
C -1 Claims..against the City_of_San..Luis Obispo-were-authorized-payment
subject to approval-by the Administrative.Officer:
C=2- - . The City Council Minutes of..February.5,-18 and 24.,-,19:75 were acknowledged
and approved. I • .:: , -
C -3 Memo from Mayor Schwartz regarding Lopez Wilderness Area.
On motion of Councilman Graham; seconded- :by..Councilman-Norris the..following
resolution was introduced: Resolution.No.:2813.(1975 Series), a resolution
of. the Council of the City of Sari Luis, Obispo supporting the designation
of the Lopez Canyon Area as a Wilderness Area.
' Passed.and- adopted on the following-roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Graham, Gurnee, Norris, Petterson and Mayor
Schwartz
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
C -4 Memo from A.J. Shaw, City Attorney; regarding City prohibition of
mail boxes in curb areas - HR 5083.
City Council Minutes
June 16,_1975
Page 3
On motion -.of •. Councilman .. Graham.: seconded ..ty_.Councilman...Norris__the. following
resolution-:was-introduced: Resolution No.:.2814..(1975 Series):,.a'resolution .
of the= Council:.of the City of San Luis Obispo.sizpporting H. R.. 5083. concerning
mail boxes at-curbside.
Passed and-adopted on the following -roll.cali. vote:
AYES:_ Councilmen. Graham ,.Gurnee,.Norris,.Petterson and Mayor
Schwartz ,
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
C -5 Communication from.the. City - Clerk .,.J.H...Fitzpatrick,.regarding
improvements to internal . communications: between -the:..City Council; advisory
boards, commissions, committees and staff.
After -a number of informal meetings and discussions were held with staff and
commission members for suggestions--.on.how::best to improve -communications with
City: Hall .and not..add a. new level: of administration and /or management personnel,
it was the consensus -of.those interviewed. that the-suggestion by the Citizens
Advisory Committee that each advisory board, commission and committee submit
agendas of--all upcoming meetings, and.also submit.a copy of the action (minutes)
of each meeting to the City Clerk, who would arrange'to'post them in his office
for everyone's information. .
The recommendation from the City Clerk_was accepted.
C -6 Communication from the.City Clerk regarding.a:.rec{uest from the
Citizens Advisory Committee for better. identification of.the City of San
Luis Obispo's portion of the annual:.tax bill.
The City Clerk stated that he had contacted. Mr. Dean Berquist, County Treasurer/
Tax Collector. Mr. Berquist. stated he'..understood.the City's concerns and
promised -to discuss it with the appropriate County management group and would
get back to..the City as soon as-possible.
The communication was received and filed..
C -8 Memo from Wayne Peterson- regarding Local-Agency-Agreement for
construction of Marsh-Street rail road,. grade crossing protection with the
Department of•Transportatibn and recommending the.Mayor be authorized to
sign agreement and a new account be set up to cover matching funds.
On motion'of Councilman.Graham,.seconded by Councilman Norris,.the:.following
resolution was introduced: Resolution 'No': 2815:(1975 Series),.a resolution of
the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo approving an agreement with the
California Department of Transportation for construction of Marsh Street railroad
grade crossing.protection and authorizing the Mayor to execute same.
Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Graham, Gurnee., Norris,.Petterson.and Mayor Schwartz
NOES: -None
ABSENT: None
C -9 Memo.from.the Local Agency.. Formation ... Commission.submitting schedule '
of fees effective May 23, -1975.
On motion of-Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Mayor Schwartz the recommenda-
tion was approved subject to..LAFCO charging fees which would.cover. the actual
processing of the applications and the City Clerk was.authorized to so inform
LAFCO. Motion carried, all ayes.
C -10 Memo from Robert-Strong.regarding KDG.request for -final payment.
City Council Minutes
June 16, 1975
Page 4
On motion of Mayor Schwartz, seconded by Councilman Graham the City Council
approved the staff recommendation and authorized payment. Motion carried,
all ayes.
C -11 Memo from Paul E. Landell, Jr., regarding National Flood Insurance
Program (proposed criteria) was ordered received and filed.
C -12 Memo from Mike Alamo, Senior Recreation Leader, regarding upcoming
' skateboard contest, and requesting approval for use of Palm Street on June 28,
1975, from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. was approved.
C -13 Communication from Mrs..Thomas Shevlin, Board of Directors, San
Luis County Symphony Association, requesting the use of Mission Plaza on
October 12, 1975 for a fund raising event was approved.
C -14 Request from Judge Lindsey, Assistant Pastor, First Assembly of
God, for permission to use sound equipment on July 6 at Throop Park was
approved subject to control of the p.a. system.
C -15 Request for increase in the 1974/75 budget for elections of $7,100.
On motion of Councilman Graham, seconded by Councilman Norris the following
resolution was introduced: Resolution No. 2809 (1975 Series), a resolution
increasing the 1974/75 budget.
Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Graham, Gurnee, Norris, Petterson and Mayor
Schwartz
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
' C -16 Consideration of the estimated population of the City of San Luis
Obispo on January 1, 1975 (certification by the Controller) being 34,550 was
ordered received and filed.
C -17 Consideration of extending the contract with the State Cooperative
Personnel Services for personnel examining services for three years.
On motion of Councilman Graham, seconded by Councilman Norris the following
resolution was introduced: Resolution No. 2816 (1975 Series), a resolution of
the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo approving and authorizing the Mayor
to execute a three -year agreement with the Cooperative Personnel Services of
the State of California.
Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Graham, Gurnee, Norris, Petterson and Mayor
Schwartz
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
C -18 The Administrative Officer announced the appointments of the
following:
' Guy H. Bates, Richard A. McConaghay, and Michael Casteneda
all as fire trainees, effective June 1, 1975 at $600 per month
under SETA conditions.
Helen M. Varney as Account Clerk I to the Finance Department,
effective June 9, 1975 at Step I or $574, subject to a one -year
probationary period.
Marilyn R. York as Account Clerk I to the Finance Department,
effective July 1, 1975 at Step I or $574, subject to a one -year
probationary period.
City Council Minutes
June '16, 1975
Page 5
The City Council acknowl 'edged'these'.appointments.
C -19 The City Council..reviewed.:the draft of a letter to the..Board of
Supervisors of the County of San .Luis.Obispo regarding the recommendations
in the County Capital Improvement -Program.Citizens.Advisory Committee report .
and the corresponding 'recommendations:which had been taken:by the Capital,
Improvement-Program Committee for consideration by the Supervisors.
After discussion and correction.of..the:draft'letter, ii:.was moved:by--Coiincilman
Graham, seconded-by-C ouncilman.Norris that:the Mayor.be.authorized to sign the
letter:on behalf of the City Council and.present it to.the County Board of
Supervisors'at the C.I.P. meeting:on.June 17, 1975. Motion carried, all ayes.
2. At..this time the City Council held a.public hearing on-.a.draft
environmental impact-report for 9treet,:widening: rP oject:..on..Johnson Avenue
and -San Luis Drive for the widening of.a 725 foot street length located
generally between Lizzie Street and California Boulevard as:depicted in
the report.
The City Council reviewed said environmental impact report and all public
.comments appended thereto and.considered the Planning. Commission's:recommenda
tion'that• the subject'EIR be accepted.as sufficient to- comply with the California
Environmental Quality Act at the public hearing.,
A.J. Shaw, City-Attorney, announced•.that.a court.reporter would.be present
during the:.discussion of the.EIR and take testimony involved in the public
hearing (see transcript dated 6/16%75, Exhibit "A "'attached, Jeri Cain,
reporter).
On motion of Councilman Norris, seconded...by Councilman Petterson:the following
resolution was introduced: Resolution No. 2811 (1975 Series),.a. resolution of
the.Council of ihe._City of San Luis Obispo certifying-.completion 6f-.the
environmental.impact report for the San Luis Drive to:Johnson Avenue widening
project (Bilodeau'property, et al:).
Passed and adopted on the following roll.-call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Graham,•Gurnee,'Norris, Petterson,.and Mayor
Schwartz
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
2B. The City Council then decided.to.discuss and adopt a%plan for
widening Johnson Avenue just recently:.considered in the -EIR in .order to
move the project ahead.
Councilman Graham felt:that he would-continue-to support the so.= called plan
"F" which he felt would be the least expensive to the City-as no more land
would be acquired by the City.
D.F. Romero, Public Services Director,_ reviewed Plans A, E, F, and D as to types
of construction, height of wall, finish material, etc.
Murray Warden, - .property owner, objected to .the City:Council's.considering any
construction of development plan.for..this widening when.it -was not-on the
agenda for public input, but the meeting was called only.for consideration
of the EIR.
A.J. Shaw, City Attorney, stated that -it was in the Council'.s.full authority
to consider detailed.plans of the-project. He-stated it had.been before the
City.Council and public for.many years and no.one-could-claim that'the Council
had not been aware of the matter.
1
L
n
u
Counciiman,Gurnee felt the Council'.should make a decision based upon.the.recommenda-
tions of -.the EIR. He felt Plan.:''FII 'was':the. poorest and was a-short -term decision.
He felt that only Plans A,.E or D- .solved%the problem for.pedestrians,.motorists and
cyclists. He was opposed to A.and E'due to the.extreme height of-the wall, therefore,
he would.support D as the.only.viable,:acceptable alternative to correct the critical
safety-hazard on this portion of:Johnson Avenue.
City Council Minutes
June 16, 1975
Page 6
Councilman Norris felt the City should proceed with this project now. He felt
for pedestrian and cyclist safety this project should be expedited and felt that
Plan A was most acceptable, although he would support either Plan B or D.
Councilman Petterson felt that a decision should be made now in the interest
of safety and to clean up traffic congestion at this location. He would
support either Plan A, E, or D, but he leaned to Plan D due to the aesthetics.
' Councilman Graham stated he would continue to oppose Plan A and E due to
the high wall that would be required. He was interested in safety only, but
he would still support Plan F due to the fact the City would not be required
to acquire a lot of property.
Mayor Schwartz felt the project should proceed as rapidly as possible without
removing any trees, but safety was the key to the decision, and he would not
support Plan F as it would not correct the problems on a permanent basis. He
would go along with Plans A, E, or D, but felt Plan A or E would be unacceptable
due to the high wall which would be a tragedy for the City and the property
owner. Therefore, he would support Plan D with good landscaping and a much
lower wall.
Mrs. Bilodeau, property owner, objected to the City Council using the word
improvement as this project would destroy ther property, not improve it. She
felt the property had been ruined if not in actuality, but by the discussions
of the Council.
On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Mayor Schwartz that the City
Council approve Plan D for the Bilodeau widening and authorize the City staff
to proceed with plans and specifications as rapidly as possible.
Motion carried on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Gurnee, Norris,.Petterson and Mayor Schwartz
' NOES: Councilman Graham
ABSENT: None
3. At this time the City Council held a public hearing to consider
reports and recommendations from the City Planning Commission regarding
resource deficiencies as reported under the conditions of Ordinance No. 604 -A
for the following projects:
A. Building permit request for single family dwelling and one (1)
rental apartment at 1345 and 1350 Foothill Boulevard, Dr. David
Thompson, applicant.
B. Application for building permit and use permit to construct an
office /residential building at 923 Peach Street, Silvaggio and
Ruff, applicants.
C. Building permit request for 17 unit apartment complex at 1581 E1
Tigre Court, Tom Pryor, applicant.
D. Building permit request for 16 unit apartment complex at 1541 E1
Tigre Court, Tony DeJong, applicant.
E. Building permit request for five unit apartment structure at
1020 Ella Street, Ramesh Shah, applicant.
3A. Dr. David Thompson, applicant, 1345 $ 13350 Foothill, for a building
permit to construct two dwelling units.
PROBLEM: The project would contribute sewerage to a downstream sewer line
extending from Murray Street to Santa Rosa which was operating beyond its
theoretical peak flow capacity at a critical point level by definition of
Ordinance No. 604 -A. The project site was not provided with sufficient water
for fire suppression because of a lack of any fire hydrant and adequately sized
water main to serve a hydrant. A six inch water main (a portion was four inches)
was in Foothill Boulevard approximately 200 feet from the subject property.
The general area at the end of Foothill Boulevard was, like the proposed project,
inadequately provided with sufficient water flow for fire protection.
City Council Minutes
June 16, 1975
Page 7
PLANNING.COMMISSION COMMENTS: The Planning Commission recommended that the
project be allowed to proceed and that no action be taken at this time for the
following reasons:
1. The subject line had been operating very efficiently beyond its theoretical
capability and would in the opinion of the City Engineer, very likely continue
to do so unless a significant increase in sewerage was added.
2. The added sewerage generated by the proposed project (two dwelling units) ,
was an insignificant amount.
S. The tributary area of the sewer line in question contained no significantly
large areas of undeveloped land which, if developed, would have the potential
to cause the line to fail.
The Planning Commission and City Council had previously reviewed the subject
deficient line and determined that no remedial action should be taken at
this time with staff to monitor flow characteristics.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS: The City Planning Commission recommended
the following action to the City Council:
1. To permit the subject project to proceed, a recorded right -of- access should
be obtained from the applicant in the City's benefit to guarantee access rights
for fire fighting purposes across the applicant's neighboring property (owned
by Cal Poly). This would, according to the City Fire Marshal, be adequate to
permit fire fighting activity to occur from an existing adequate fire hydrant
on Hathway Avenue for the purpose of fire suppression on the subject site and
alleviate the deficiency.
2. The City should alleviate the fire flow deficiency for the general area at
the end of Foothill by the construction of a loop water system connecting
Foothill and Hathway. The first step in.proceeding should be to require the
applicant to grant to the City an irrevocable offer of dedication for a ten ,
foot utility easement along the full length of the northwest property line of
the subject parcel. This would serve as an easement wherein a loop water
system could be installed after the acquisition of an additional easement
across property owned by Cal Poly.
3B. Silvaggio and Ruff, applicants, 923 Peach Street, for a building
permit to construct an office /residential building.
PROBLEM: The project was served by a downstream deficient sewer line at
Walnut and Chorro. The line in question was a 200 foot section of 12 inch
line which was running at 98 percent theoretical capacity which was a
precautionary action point, level 1 deficiency.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS: The Planning Commission recommended that
the project be allowed to proceed because the sewer line in question was
functioning properly and the added increase generated by the subject project
would have no significant adverse effects. It was recommended that staff
be directed to monitor the sewer line to ensure that the line continued to
function adequately and was not being subject to any greater loads than the
last tests indicated.
3C. Tom Pryor, applicant, 1581 E1 Tigre Court, for a building permit to
construct a 17 unit apartment complex.
PROBLEM: The project proposed a density of 28 dwelling units per acre in an '
area designated by the City General Plan as residential not to exceed a dwell-
ing unit density of 20 dwelling units per acre.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS: The Planning Commission reviewed the
project for EIR determination addressing the potential for environmental
impact resulting from density exceeding the General Plan. The Planning Com-
mission found that the density would not have a substantial detrimental
effect on the neighborhood.
3D. Tony DeJong, 1541 E1 Tigre Court, for a building permit to construct
a 27 unit apartment complex.
City Council Minutes
June 16, 1975
Page 8
PROBLEM: The project proposed a density of 27 dwelling units per acre in an
area designated by the City General Plan as residential; not to exceed a
dwelling unit density of 20 dwelling units per acre.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission reviewed the
project for EIR determination addressing the potential for environmental
impact resulting from density exceeding the General Plan. The Planning Com-
mission found that the density would not have a substantial detrimental
effect on the neighborhood.
3E. Ramesh Shah, applicant, 1020 Ella Street, for a building permit to
construct a five unit apartment structure.
PROBLEM: The project was served by two sections of downstream sewer line
on Islay between Chorro and Beech and on Pismo between Beech and Carmel
both running beyond their theoretical peak flow capacities. Both sections
of sewer line were critical point, level 1 resource deficiencies. The project
proposed a dwelling unit density of 29 dwelling units per acre in an area
designated by the City General Plan as residential; not to exceed a dwelling
unit density of 20 dwelling units per acre.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS: The Planning Commission recommended
that the project be allowed to proceed inasmuch as the two sections of sewer
line were functioning without problems and would likely continue to do so
unless a significant increase in sewerage was generated. The proposed five
dwelling unit project would have no adverse .effects on the lines due to the
limited amount of sewerage generated.
The Planning Commission reviewed the project for EIR determination addressing
the potential for environmental impact resulting from density exceeding the
General Plan. The Planning Commission found that the density would not have
a substantial detrimental effect on the neighborhood.
Councilman Gurnee stated that on items B, C, D, and E he objected to the
Planning Commission's recommendation of allowing densities in excess of that
allowed by the General Plan. He again reminded the City Council they must
get the City ordinances in line with the General Plan. He felt that the
Council should take steps to adopt interim ordinances to require compliance
with the densities of the adopted General Plan.
Robert Strong, Community Development Director, stated that the Planning Com-
mission adopted an informal policy as recommended by staff and previously
reported to the Council to allow densities greater than the General Plan
allowed when an EIR study was filed, and indicated the density proposed would
conform to the proposed General Plan and where the project would not cause
adverse affects.
Councilman Graham agreed with Councilman Gurne.e's comments on the densities, as
he agreed that they should be in line with the existing General Plan.
Councilman Petterson agreed with previous Councilmen that the City should
adopt some ordinances on policy to bring densities in line with the existing
General Plan and not allow densities on some unwritten policy or on some
future General Plan.
Councilman Gurnee then listed a number of developments approved by the Planning
Commission in the past year that were in violation of the provisions of the
adopted General Plan.
' Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing open.
No one appeared before the City Council for or against the matters under
discussion.
Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing closed.
On motion of Councilman Norris, seconded by Councilman Petterson that the City
Council accept the recommendations of the Planning Commission as far as the
604 -A matters were concerned.
City Council Minutes
June 16, 1975
Page 9
Motion carried on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen-Norris and Petterson, and Mayor Schwartz
NOES: Councilmen Graham and Gurnee
ABSENT: None
4. Council consideration of the FINAL PASSAGE of ORDINANCE NO. 633, '
an ordinance of the City of San Luis Obispo amending the official zone map
of the City of San Luis Obispo to rezone property on Santa Barbara Avenue
and Broad Street. The property was also -known as 2138 Broad, 2145, 2155
and 2159 Santa Barbara Avenue from C -N and M to C -H -S.
Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing open.
No one appeared before the City Council for or against the ordinance.
Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing closed.
On motion of Councilman Graham, seconded by Councilman Norris the ordinance
was introduced for final passage.
Finally passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Graham, Norris, Petterson and Mayor Schwartz
NOES: Councilman Gurnee
ABSENT: None
S. Council consideration of the FINAL PASSAGE of ORDINANCE NO. 639,
an ordinance amending portions of Article III, Chapter I, Part 2, of the San
Luis Obispo Municipal Code, to adopt the 1973 Edition of the Uniform Fire '
Code, together with the amendments and additions thereto; and repealing all
ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict therewith was continued.
6. Council consideration of the FINAL PASSAGE of ORDINANCE NO. 640, an
ordinance amending the official zone map of the City of San Luis Obispo.
Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing open.
No one appeared for or against the ordinance.
Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing closed.
On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Graham the ordinance
was introduced for final passage.
Finally passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Graham, Gurnee, Norris, Petterson and Mayor.
Schwartz
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
7. At this time the City Council considered the FINAL PASSAGE of '
ORDINANCE NO. 634, an ordinance of the City of San Luis Obispo amending
Article VII, Chapter 5 of the Municipal Code entitled, "Sewers," by
repealing all sections previously contained therein and adding new Municipal
Code Sections 7500 through 7507 to provide a comprehensive ordinance for the
regulation of the City's sewer system.
D.F. Romero, Director of Public Services, submitted a letter for the Council's
consideration from Jenks and Adamson, consulting sanitary engineers, on the
sewer study.'
City Council Minutes
June 16, 1975
Page 10
John Jenks stated that they pointed out to the City Council that the under-
lying reason for setting forth restrictive constituent limitations in the
City's ordinance was to protect the City's interest in essentially the same
way that the State and Federal EPA had done through the NPDES permit. Simply
stated, this was to impose on the-City limitations which in many respects
were quite unrealistic as a form of impetus to work towards reduction of
undesirable constituents and then to indicate that these limitations were
subject to change as the result of.further investigation and study. Obviously
' this approach was a type of policy consideration which the City Council could
choose or not.
However, in final consideration of this matter, it would be helpful for
the City Council to be aware that, based on the State and Federal require-
ments imposed on the City, the numbers could be supported as indicated.
The answer to the question of whether or not the ordinance was too restrictive
in Section 7501 -B -10 and did not consider dilution within the system might be
divided into two parts. First of all, there were those constituents for
which no dilution could be provided because they were associated with domestic
as well as industrial and commercial contributions to the system which already
were approaching limits.
He then summarized as follows the limits in the City's NPDES permit and those
in the proposed ordinance for total dissolved solids, sodium, total nitrogen,
sulfate, chloride and boron.
The limits were based on the raw water constituent concentrations plus the
incremental increase allowed in the permit. It might be seen in all cases
that the ordinance limitation was less restrictive than the City's NPDES .
permit. Again, Mr. Jenks wished to point out that he doubted the City could
meet the limits set forth in the NPDES permit even with no industrial
discharge to the system. It was their plan to attempt to have the permit
limits modified to•a more reasonable number as part of their present studies.
' Two factors which should be kept in mind-with regard to the constituents were:
1) the Federal Government was establishing minimum levels of pretreatment for
various types of industries which discharge to municipal systems and 2) the
constituents in sufficient concentration would adversely affect performance of
the treatment facilities. With regard to the first point, Federal law required
that EPA establish pretreatment standards for industries and that all industries
regardless of size conform to such standards. Consequently, industry would be
required to meet some minimum level of pretreatment regardless of the effluent
levels prescribed in the proposed ordinance.
On the question of requiring a public hearing prior to enforcing the require-
ments of the ordinance he wished the Council to keep in mind that the State
and Federal regulatory agencies would have the final say as to what the City's
effluent limitations would be. Under the circumstances, if a condition
calling for a public hearing were included in the ordinance-, it seemed pos-
sible that the City Council would be placed in the awkward position of having
a mandate from the regulatory agencies to enforce the requirements and total
opposition to the requirements at the public hearing. John Jenks believed
the present qualifying verbage on enforcement provided adequate "wiggle room"
and the inclusion of a public hearing prior to enforcement would tend to
complicate procedures.
Mr. Thomas F. Winfield III, representing the law offices of Ebben and Brown,
who in turn represent the Pacific Water Conditioning.Association, Inc., a
' trade association-of retail dealers., manufactumers._and suppliers in the point -
of -use water condition industry, expressed concern.about the action by the
City Council in contemplating in response to the waste discharge requirements
of the Regional Water Quality Control..Board upon the City. They felt the
amendments would significantly affect the operations of the water softening
industry in San Luis Obispo.
He contended it was the position of the association that the adoption of
such proposed amendments would not only fail to attain the somewhat unrealistic
standards imposed by the Board's order, but would in fact have a degrading
effect on both water quality and the environment of the City generally. Such
an amendment would in all likelihood result.in an increased utilization of
City Council Minutes
June 16, 1975
Page 11
chemical softeners, soaps and detergents in the waters and increase the amount
of phosphates and boron in the effluent, and an increase in the total hardness
of the effluent and an increase in energy consumption to both the heating and
softening of the City's water.
Thomas F. Winfield, on behalf of the Pacific Water Conditioning Assocation,
offered the full cooperation of the Assocation in any presentations made in
an attempt to have these conditions reduced or eliminated for the City's
permits.
Councilman Norris felt that the standards established in the ordinance were
too stringent and he felt they could not be enforced by the City. He would
not go along with outlawing home water softeners. He felt the ordinance was
unrealistic and he would not support it.
Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing open.
Fred Strong, representing CEBES, urged the City Council to adopt-a regulation
for requiring a public hearing prior to adoption standards on effluent. He
felt in this way the Council could operate with full support of public opinion
which might be impressive to the State Water Quality Control Board. He felt
that a cost /benefit study should be made on salt content at the sewer plant,
as he felt without this information the Council could not fight the conditions
of the State.
Fred Hurst, President of Culligan Soft Water of San Luis Obispo, again urged
the City Council not to adopt too stringent and unrealistic standards as
placed on the City by the State Water Quality Control Board for quality of
sewer discharge.
Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing closed.
On motion of Councilman Petterson, seconded by Councilman Norris that Ordinance
No. 634 be amended by amending Section 7501 -B -10 to require a public hearing
and continue discussion to July 7, 1975. Motion carried on the following roll
call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Graham, Norris, Petterson and Mayor Schwartz
NOES: Councilman Gurnee
ABSENT: None
8. The matter of increasing or a change in the sewer rates was reset
for public hearing for July 7, 1975.
9. Memorandum from D.F. Romero regarding letter to H.G. Wheeler request-
ing removal of three trees at 1426 Santa Rosa Street was continued at the
request of Mr. Wheeler's attorney.
10. Report from Don Sylvia, Fire Marshal, stating that he had again
checked the property at 1366 Ella Street on this date and found that the
property owner had not complied with the requirements of the City Council,
the building had not been secured against entry and had not been given the
City a contract for moving the building as directed by the City Council for
July.
He, therefore, requested that the City Council take steps to abate the
nuisance.
On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Mayor Schwartz the following
resolution was introduced: Resolution No. 2812 (1975 Series), a resolution
of the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo finding that a public nuisance
may exist upon the premises at 1366 Ella Street and ordering a public hearing
concerning same and the abatement thereof.
1
1
City Council Minutes
June 16, 1975
Page 12
Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Graham, Gurnee, Norris, Petterson and Mayor
Schwartz
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
t 11. Council consideration of the Final Acceptance of Tract 471, Sherwood
Terrace Annex, Roger Brown, developer, was dropped from the agenda.
12. Memorandum from the Human Relations Commission requesting that the
City Council adopt the proposed revisions to the "Articles" of the Human
Relations Commission as revised by the Commission at their May 7, 1975 meeting.
The City Council reviewed the proposed Articles for the City Human Relations
Commission, made several suggestions, and referred the Articles back to the
Human Relations Commission for consideration of the Council's concern and
requested Councilman Norris to coordinate the changes with the HRC.
13. Memorandum from the Human.Relations Commission recommending that
the City Council rg ant $600 to CAPH to be used for the handicraftsman's
Center for the rent of June, July, and August, 1975 and to be taken from
the 1974/75 budget category. The CAPH handicraft center was an agency to
help the handicapped acquire needed skills to make themselves self- supporting
but they needed-support at this time as the center had just been opened and they
were not making the minimum $200 rent.
On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Petterson that the
City Council approve the recommendation of the Human Relations Commission and
grant $600 toward the rent of the handicraft center for a three -month period
only. Motion carried, all ayes.
On the second request of the HRC that the City rototill the garden area for
CAPH so that they might grow herbs to be sold by the CAPH members at the center.
This request was also approved and the Public Services Director was asked to
cooperate with this matter.
14. Communication from the Promotional Coordinating Committee recommend-
ing approval of the contract between the City and the Chamber of Commerce for
the fiscal year 1975/76 in the amount of $23,155. The matter was continued
for a joint session with the Promotional Coordinating Committee on June 20,
1975 at 12:10 p.m.
15. Memorandum from D.F. Romero stating that the University, Cal Poly,
had funds available for increased-bicycle safety and could expend these funds
on California Boulevard between Ha:Ehway and Foothill. The University suggested
a joint bicycle safety project.
Cal Poly also asked that the City investigate the possibility of assuming
the maintenance of this portion of California Boulevard over which the
University had an easement.
Mr. Romero stated that the City had never maintained this portion of the
street, even though it carried substantial traffic and had numerous
residences fronting along it.
' In discussions with the University, it appeared that a combination of City
and State funds could be used to improve the shoulder along the westerly
side of the street, thus providing bicycle safety and at the same time,
bring the street up to a condition which would not create too much of a burden
for the City were it to assume the maintenance load.
If the City were receptive to the bicycle safety project which would be
jointly financed, Mr. Romero suggested that the engineering division be
requested to prepare construction plans and the City Attorney investigate
the legal implications of accepting the street for maintenance.
The City Council discussed with D.R. Romero the implications of the City assuming
maintenance over this portion of-Foothill Boulevard.
City Council Minutes
June 16, 1975
Page 13
On motion of Councilman Petterson, seconded by Councilman Gurnee that the City
Council take the following action: 1) authorize a preliminary title report on
California Boulevard to see what the ownership legally was, 2) staff to work
with Cal Poly on developing the bicycle paths, 3) sketch to be prepared by the
staff to show all alternatives at the July 7, 1975 meeting, and 4) that the City
Council set special assessment hearing for the improvement by the Southern
Pacific Company for October 1, 1975. Motion carried, all ayes.
16. Memorandum from Robert Strong, Director of Community Development, '
regarding the post office and distribution center relocation proposal continued
from the meeting of June 9, 1975.
Robert Strong stated that on June 3, 1975 the Planning Commission received
letters from the U.S. Postal Service and Downtown Association regarding the
possible removal of the post office and distribution center from downtown
San Luis Obispo.
The Planning Commission suggested that the City Council consider the proposal
and direct staff to prepare responses to the postal service and notify the
congressional representatives of the City's concerns:
1. That the City oppose the removal of.the. main . post office from the
downtown.
2. That the City support and offer to assist a postal service proposal
to establish a new distribution.center in San Luis Obispo in an
established, service commercial or industrial location near Higuera
and either Prado, Madonna or Marsh Street interchanges, or near South
Street.
3. That of the three site locations specified, only site 3 at South and
Katy Street might be an acceptable location for such a distribution
center.
4. That the City request the postal service to reconsider the site location
criteria as outlined.
5. That the City's Department of Community Development assist the postal '
service in preparing more precise and acceptable criteria-and evaluation
of alternative sites, including possible redevelopment areas, or use of
publicly owned lands.
The Community Development Director continued that the Planning Commission
submitted the following criteria for the postal service's consideration and.
the City Council.
1. Separate the service and operational functions retaining a downtown
or civic center location for the main post office and seek either a
central, service, commercial or suburban industrial location for the
distribution complex.
2. The site size required for a separate distribution center would be
reduced by elimination of customer service and parking areas, and
would be located either in a central, service commercial area or a
suburban industrial area, but should be accessible to the freeway
using major streets exclusive of the downtown circulation system.
3. The building size required for a separate distribution center .should be
reduced, but should include adequate provision.for employee parking,
truck loading, and distribution vehicle storage and loading.
4. The postal service should be encouraged to consider centralized and /or
suburban distribution center sites which would be located in established
commercial or industrial areas, and not discard possible redevelopment
of areas such as Brooks Street or South Street adjacent to or along
South Higuera. Alternatively or additionally, the postal service dis-
tribution center might be accommodated on City, County.or State land
without additional public acquisition of taxable private property.
5. The postal service distribution center should be located not only to
avoid conflict with downtown traffic and deficient parking but also
minimize similar disruption of other retail and /or residential areas
such as Madonna Road Plaza Shopping Center, or Laurel Lane commercial
and residential areas.
David L. Shirey., Senior Real Estate Specialist, U.S. Postal Service, Western
Region, appeared before the City Council stating that the U.S. Postal Service
proposed the construction of a postal -owned facility of approximately 32,500
City Council Minutes
June 16, 1975
Page 14
square feet on a minimum site.area of 147,840 square feet to replace the
existing San Luis Obispo postal facilities. The new facility would serve
as a sectional center for 15 post offices located in San Luis Obispo County,
and it would serve as the main post office for the City of San Luis Obispo.
He continued that site planning for the new facility was in progress. A
total of ten locations had been investigated. he stated that discussions
were continuing with the property owners involved.
' He concluded by stating that except for pursuing the assignment of discussing
the sites previously considered, he had no other input for the City Council
as these decisions were made at a higher level than the real estate office.
Upon question, Mr. Shirey stated that if the post office were to acquire a
new location in San Luis Obispo it would close the downtown office and leave
the distribution center on Marsh Street and move all the operation into one
facility. However, he stated this would not preclude the possibility of some
type of office in downtown San Luis Obispo for public access.
On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Petterson that the City
Council accept the staff recommendation and ask that a post office representative
meet with the City Council to discuss a location with all three locations rejected
as of this time. Motion carried, all ayes.
17. Memorandum from Robert Strong, Director of Community Development,
stating that the Pacific Telephone Company had requested permission to locate
a temporary mobile or modular office addition to the rear of.their leased
facilities adjacent to the General Fireproofing Company property on Laurel
Lane near Orcutt Road. While the Municipal Code did not prohibit or provide
for such temporary facilities in non - residential zones except for construction
quarters, in the past the Council had allowed special permission, for
example Mid State Bank on Santa Rosa Street.
The telephone company had apparently exceeded available quarters due to
unanticipated absorption of engineering design formerly contracted to
consultants and they needed immediate additional office space at this location,
during the one year period while a permanent building addition was being designed
and constructed. Upon receipt of this request, the Community Development
Department conferred with Building, Planning, Fire and Engineering officials
to determine staff response and recommendation.
The staff recommended that a temporary, mobile or modular unit be approved
on a case -by -case basis, either by the City Council, the Planning Commission
or Architectural Review Commission, and if location and site design was
acceptable, that the following conditions and criteria be specified as
minimum standards and requirements:
1.
Temporary facilities should be installed in accordance with site plan
approved by the Community Development Director and should remain only
for a period of not to exceed one year unless otherwise extended or
approved by the City Council.
2.
Agreement of the property owner and tenant to assure removal upon
expiration of the temporary permit should be approved prior to
establishing such use or performance of any related site improvements.
Agreements should be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and
secured by cash deposit of adequate amount, as determined by the Com-
munity Development Director, but not less than $5,000.
3.
Temporary facilities should not be located in Fire Zone 1, but may be
placed in either Fire Zone II or III, subject to site location require-
'
ments of the Community Development Director.
4.
Temporary facilities should be served by acceptable restroom facilities
on the same or adjoining site or provided within the temporary unit and
connected to public sewer system.
5.
Temporary facilities should not be used as residential quarters nor
should such facilities be permitted in residential zoning districts
except as approved for construction offices. Non - residential
temporary facilities may be used only for office, commercial, or
industrial related uses specified at the time of approval, unless
additional or alternative use was approved by the Community Develop-
ment Director.
City Council Minutes
June 16, 1975
Page 15
On motion of Mayor Schwartz, seconded by Councilman Petterson the City Council
approved the placement of a mobile or modular office unit at the telephone
company office on Laurel Lane and Orcutt Road subject to the conditions listed
by the Community Development Department, except that the $5,000 deposit would
not be a requirement, but that an agreement with the City be entered into
which would guarantee the removal within one year subject to the approval of
the City Attorney. Motion carried, Councilman Norris voting no.
Agenda items 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23 were continued to the adjourned meeting I
of June 17, 1975 at 12:10 p.m., on motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by
Councilman Graham.
APPROVED: October 6, 1975 r�
Fitzpatrick, City Clerk
C
1
1
FOR MINUTES OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATED MONDAY,
JUNE 16, 1975 AT 7:35 P.M., - JOHNSON AVENUE WIDENING,
PLEASE SEE TRANSCRIPT BY JERI L. CAIN DATED SAME IN
CITY CLERK'S FILES.