Loading...
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.