HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/17/1975MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY.COUNCIL
CITY.OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1975 - 7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
Pledge
Roll Call
PRESENT: Councilmen Graham, Gurnee, Petterson, Norris and Mayor
Schwartz
ABSENT: None
City Staff
PRESENT:..J.H. Fitzpatrick, City.Clerk;.R.D.. Miller,.Administrative
Officer; Wayne Peterson, City- Engineer; William Flory,
Parks & Recreation.Director; A-.J. Shaw, City Attorney;
Robert Strong, Director-of-Community Development
1. The City Council held...a.public.hearing.to consider.the ... adoption of
the revised Environmental Impact Procedures and-Guidelines as recommended by
the City Planning Commission.
Robert -Strong,. Community..Development Director,..presented the... recommendations
of.the Planning Commission.to the City.Council._recommending..the adoption of
the revised Environmental Impact Procedures and Guidelines.
Ken Bruce, Planning:Technician, presented-the provisions of-the-proposed
Environmental Impact Procedures and.Guidelines,..particularly the changes
recommended by the Planning Commission.
A.J. Shaw, City Attorney, - informed the City Council that he has-reviewed
the E.I.R..procedures.and.while the Planning..Department staff has obviously
put a lot- of.thought and effort in developing the procedures, he.felt that
there-were three points which must..be- .discussed by the Council and should
be improved on:
1.. He felt.the.area of.- determination_of..whether or not an E.I.R. is required
should be.clarified.... He felt..that..:under.the previous procedures, the E.I.R.
was required. if. more..than -one Planning. Commissioner .voted.for an. E.I.R.
Under.the new.procedure a majority..vote of-.the Commission would be required.
He continued.that::since there:are..California court decisions.requiring E.I.R.'s
whenever there is (1) substantial -- public.controversy or.(2).expert testimony
favoring the E.I.R., the City Attorney strongly urged ... the City Council to
..return to the.requirement that an-E.I.R -, be filed -upon vote of- two,-or more
Planning Commissioners.
2. Filing-of Notice.of.Exemption.. The City Attorney..stated the.only reason
for filing:a.Notice . of- Exemption..was:.to limit- .the.period:of time for filing
a.lawsuit.against the.City_for an.- improper determination of whether.or not a
project.:was_ exempt..: If: the. notice- were filed, such., lawsuits. must be brought
within 30 days-thereafter. If notice.is not filed, anyone-has six,months or
more to file a.lawsuit. The City Attorney felt it was clearly in the City's
interest to file Notic,6 of Exemption.on City projects and he felt it could
be-done with a relatively simple form just filling in a few blank spaces on
one page..
An objection from City Staff was.the workload involved 'in filing Notices of
Exemption on -all City activities which are catagorically exempt as well as
the probability of missing many routine.activities.
...A.J. Shaw, City Attorney, felt if proper procedures were adopted; this problem was
highly-unlikely. At any rate, he felt the protection offered the City from
lawsuits should not be lightly disgarded.
He. also suggested -_ that • the.- E.:I.R.. Guidelines . should ..be amended -to require that
Notice of.Exemption should filed with.the -City Clerk and:County Clerk for all
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
NOVEMBER 17, 1975
PAGE TWO
. exempt .projects.undertaken_by.the City. except .for..projects- for.maintenance or
repair of- .existing.facilities.
3. The third.point.he objected.to was probably more administrative -than legal
but -he felt.that -the Council should thoroughly discuss -and understand the
implication...The.Attorney stated -the new procedure proposes the establish-
..ment of an environmental review.committee.which would function between the
..Community Development Department:- and--the. Planning.. Commission. He felt it
--.added--nothing worthwhile -to the process as.it..was.- composed..entirely of staff
members:: and, after the. Director: =of Community -.Development.. makes -an initial
decision, it.would.be reviewed.by (1) the Director; (2) his subordinate
City Engineer; and (3) the Director-.of Public Services who might not be
an engineer.
He felt.that the.Environmental Review Committee would -just be..a. rubber
stamp:- for.the prior-.action,taken by the Community Development Director
and. that -it would just-:add more_time.and. expense and would be_ difficult
.for'accountability. It-was his.feeling that the E.I.R. determination
should be made by the Planning Commission and not by staff members.
.....Councilman-Gurnee-questioned the long:list of categorical.exemptions in the
-.proposed. - E.I.R. Procedures and Guidelines. He felt that the long list of
exempted-.projects.leave_ very few-projects-that would.require the filing of
_'an-environmental impact statement.
Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing open.
.;No oue._appeared_before-the City'Council- regarding- _the: - revised_. Environmental
Impact Procedures.
Mayor.- Schwartz...declared.the public hearing - closed.
On..motion:of Councilman.Graham,.seconded . by:Councilman Petterson,..the_follow-
ing resolution. was.introduced: Resolution :No-. 2925;_- a- resolution.of the Council 1
of the City of San Luis Obispo adopting-revised Environmental•Impact Procedures.
Passed and..adopted.on the following roll ..call vote:
AYES.:- .Councilmen Gurnee, Graham,.Norris,..Petterson and
Mayor Schwartz
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
2. The City Council held.a public hearing.:on.the.recommendation of
the Planning.. Commission.. to - consider: -the .South- Stteet Specific .Plan comprising
..approximately;67 acres and located-generally in an area bounded by Meadow
Street, South Street, Katy.Street and the South Street Hills.
Robert Strong,-- Director_ of- Community_Development,...submitted a specific plan
..as considered.-by.the City Planning_.Commission.and ... the-Environmental Impact
....Report.for.the. project. He reviewed.the,-.considerations given to the plan by
the Commission, -.the various points = discussed- .by..the...Commission. and the
recommendation. to. the City Council . with -the.. following, .items .:to.be specifically
considered: (1) the dedication of.an..additional 100 ft. strip - adjoining
: Mead6x4eftrk; . (2) the use. of - portions- of..Lot_.l, adjoining-Meadow Park, for
..social. service,_ neighborhood .facilities.,.subject to- use-.permit..approval;
(3) City policy.regarding responsibility .for.improvements..to existing major
..streets_(South.Street); (4) the timing of annexation, preparation of a sub-
..division..plan..and.phasing schedule.and.improvement..of proposed land
.._.dedication;..and.(5)-.the possible -continuance..of.Specific Plan.-adoption to
avoid - conflict with County.Government..Center Site - selection alternatives.
Mayor:.Schwartz.- declared the public hearing open.
A. Merriam, .representing:.the property - owner, Mr.- Stan.. Nelson,:.teviewed the
concept._of.planning. -for the.South Street- Specific Plan.which.included detailed
studies..of.land use, schematic subdivision -plans and development.schedule. In
reviewing.- the.five- points .of..the.Planning - Commission under consideration, he
_ - stated that_.he. felt :Item.l- was._uinfair...for..the City-to request .additional land
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
NOVEMBER 17, 1975
PAGE THREE
from the property owner when the property owner already sold 9 acres for
Meadow Street Park at a very advantageous price to the City; (2) the City
Council take care of this problem elsewhere and not require a Social Service
Center in this development; (3) he felt that the City taxpayer should pay
their share of developing major streets within the City and not expect a
land owner adjacent to the major street to have to pay all widening costs;
(4) the developer, Stan Nelson and the planner, Merriam felt that the timing
of the development was difficult to prescribe at this time due to the existing,
' economic and unresolved technical and-market conditions. He stated that the
property would be developed in phases based on the need for residential
properties. They felt.the City was adequately protected by provisions for
unit by unit development in accordance with the specific plan. He felt that
phased open space development and dedication could be worked out at the time
precise plans were submitted for each unit.
Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing closed.
William Flory, Director of Parks & Recreation, stated that the Park & Recreation
Commission and the Park Staff felt that a minimum of a 100 foot strip of land
adjacent to.Meadow Park should be contributed by the property owner as a buffer
to protect the-Park from the residences.adjacent_to.the Park. He urged the City
Council to continue this requirement.
The City Council then discussed with Robert Strong, Community Development Director,
the South Street Specific Plan, particularly the following:
1. The need for the annexation;
2. The Environmental Impact on local school system;
3. The responsibility of the City for care and maintenance for the so- called
open space in view of the park land adjacent to the track;
4. The need for phasing schedule for.developments;
5. The improvement of South Street by the developer;
6. The need for an additional parkland dedication of the strip along Meadow
' Park property;
7. Study of circulation in and out of-the proposed.development;
8. Traffic control and access points on South Street;
9. Drainage considerations including the required maintenance by the City; and
10. The commitment being made by the City to assume responsibility for the main-
tenance of the "unimproved" open .space properties.
9:30 p.m. D.F. Romero, Public Services Director, arrived at the meeting.
Douglas Rand, 421 Branch Street, submitted a petition signed by eleven property
owners adjacent to the South Street Specific Plan objecting to the development
of 560 residential units in the South Street proposed project.
On motion of Mayor Schwartz, seconded by Councilman Gurnee, that the City
Council continue consideration of the South Street Specific Plan to December
15, 1975 and that the Planning Commission, Park & Recreation Commission, the
School Board and the Board of Supervisors review the Council concerns and
prior to continued Council consideration to submit their comments on possible
amendments or recommendations. Motion carried. All ayes.
3. The City Council held a public hearing on Resolution No. 2502, a
resolution of intention to partially abandon portions of Haskins and Emily
Streets.
Wayne Peterson, City Engineer, reviewed for the City Council the proposed
action in partially abandoning two streets under the provisions of the reso-
lution.
The City Clerk submitted a communication from Sears, Roebuck.& Company suggest-
ing amendments to the proposed abandonment of Emily and Raskin Streets, in
particular, the utility easement and the Railroad spur easement. The City
Clerk submitted a telegram on behalf of Q.L. Richard and Morf stating that
due to the questions as to the various easements that the matter be contin-
ued for 30 days.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
NOVEMBER 17, 1975
PAGE FOUR
Wayne Peterson., City Engineer, submitted -a letter.received after 5:00 p.m.
this date,.from all property owners involved asking that a.30 day continu-
ation for -the consideration of the abandonment be made.
Mayor Schwartz.declared the public hearing open.
Wayne Peterson, City Engineer, submitted some_.suggested.realignments of the
easements as.suggested_by the property owners.showing a tapered utility ease- '
ment for possible approval of the property owners involved.
Stewart Courtice, Assistant Eroperty.Manager for Sears, Roebuck.and Company,
felt that they could live with proposal as submitted by.the City Engineer for
tapered utility easement which would have no detrimental affect on their
property.
Mayor Schwartz declared.the public hearing closed.
On motion-of Councilman Petterson, seconded by Councilman Graham, the public
hearing was continued to December 15, 1975 and that the City Engineer be
authorized to correct the easement description of the resolution. Motion
carried.
4. The City Council held.a public hearing on.the recommendation of the
Planning.Commission to rezone from M to CH, property located at the Southwest
corner of Archer and Pismo Streets, property commonly known as 1331 Archer Street
and 293 Pismo Street.
Robert Strong, Director of Community-Development, submitted.a recommendation
of the Planning Commission stating (1) the rezoning of the subject property
would be in conformity with the General Plan; (2) the proposed rezoning will
permit a range of uses.compatible with -the existing uses in the area and the
development potential in the area; and (3) the rezoning would not have a sub- '
stantial detrimental effect on the environment.
Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing open.
No one appeared before the City Council--before-or against the rezoning,
although John Ring submitted a letter stating he hoped the Council would
consider the entire block in.the rezoning.
Mayor-Schwartz declared the public hearing closed.
On motion of.Councilman Gurnee, seconded-by Councilman Graham, the follow-
ing ordinance was passed to print: Ordinance No. 654, an ordinance
amending the official zone map of the City of San Luis Obispo to rezone
property at Pismo and Archer Streets.
Passed and- adopted on the following roll call vote:
AYES_ Councilmen Gurnee, Graham, Norris, Petterson and
Mayor Schwartz
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Mayor Schwartz declared a recess at 9:15 p.m. '
9:30 p.m. The Council reconvened with all Councilmen. present.
5. The City Council held a public hearing on Resolution No. 2898, a
resolution finding that a public nuisance may exist upon a portions of the
premises generally described as Terrace Hill and ordering a public hearing
concerning same and.possible abatement thereof.
Robert Strong, Director of Community Services, submitted a report from the
City Engineer stating that in consultation with the property owner and the
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
NOVEMBER 17, 1975
PAGE FIVE
property owner's representative, Charles French, that a contract had been
let to have the work completed and asked that this matter be continued to
December 15, 1975.
Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing open.
No one appeared before the City Council for or against the proposed abatement.
Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing closed.
On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Petterson, the matter
was continued to December 1, 1975. Motion carried.
6. The City.Council considered the final-adoption of Ordinance No. 651,
an ordinance amending the Municipal Code to comply with California Vehicle
Code Sections concerning licensing of bicycles. A long discussion was held
on the need of continuing a bicycle licensing ordinance when there was absolute
lack of enforcement on either the licensing-provisions or on the police problems
and traffic violations of the cyclist.
On motion of Councilman Graham, seconded-by Councilman Petterson, Ordinance
No. 651 was introduced for final passage.
Passed.and adopted on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Graham, Norris, Petterson, Gurnee and
Mayor Schwartz
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
At this time, the City Council considered the adoption of Resolution No. 2926,
' a resolution of the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo establishing license
fees for the City's bicycle licensing ordinance.
On motion of Mayor Schwartz, seconded.by Councilman Graham, the resolution was
passed and adopted on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Graham, Norris, Petterson, Gurnee and
Mayor Schwartz
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
7. The City Council considered the final adoption of Ordinance No. 652,
an ordinance amending the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code to create underground
utility district no. 8 and fixing the dates for conversion and connection thereto.
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 Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Graham, the ordinance
' was introduced for final passage.
Finally passed on.the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Gurnee, Graham, Norris, Petterson and
Mayor Schwartz
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
NOVEMBER 17, 1975
PAGE SIX
8. The City Council considered.the final adoption of Ordinance No. 653,
an ordinance amending the Municipal Code to establish a speed limit on Laurel
Lane.
Wayne Peterson, City Engineer, submitted a report to the City Council on the
request of the Council to review the.intersection of Laurel Lane and .Augusta
Streets for possible installation of a 4 -way stop sign. He reviewed the var-
ious warrants that must be met in the studies that took place in order to
justify the installation-of a traffic signal_ He said he would recommend
against temporary installation of 4 -way stop signs for the following reasons:
(1) This intersection may become more dangerous to pedestrians because there
is not sufficient cross traffic to allow the motorists to appreciate the
need for the stop. He felt that this would lead to them gliding through
the intersection and the pedestrians feeling they were safe would not watch for
the infraction of law and could be hit. While observing the intersection, the
Engineer stated that he saw much of this going on (2) 4-way stop signs on streets
this wide are difficult because motorists cannot observe the total intersection
and a vehicle may pull out from behind other vehicles causing an accident or
a pedestrian may step out from behind a stopped cars into the path of a car
that is proceeding through the intersection-(3) the grade at Laurel Lane being
what it is encourages higher speeds than with the wide street and the stop signs
rear -end accidents are sure to be caused and (4) 4 -way stop signs cause everyone
to stop every time they enter the intersection. This leads to additional time
delay, the burning of additional fuel and increased noise and air pollution in
the immediate area. It will not slow traffic speeds one half block away.
The City Engineer also felt he should warn the City Council that the
installation of 4 -way stop signs here would lead to requests by citizens
for like treatment at Johnson and Laurel, Madonna and Los Osos Valley
Road, Royal Way and Los Osos Valley Road, Perfumo Canyon Road and Los
Osos Valley Road, Sydney and Johnson and Foothill and Ferrini. There-
fore the staff recommends that the City Council signalizes this inter-
section when it warrants and it should be considered at budget time with
other intersections meeting the required warrants. '
It was.his estimate to signalize this intersection would be in the vicinity
of $40,000.
Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing open.
John Ross, representing Judson Terrace, spoke in support of the City Council
placing automatic traffic signals at Laurel Lane and Augusta Street but he
also felt that a 4 -way stop sign would be better in order to give the pedes-
trians more time to cross the street with safety.
May Johnson, resident of Johnson Terrace, objected to the high speeds traffic
on Laurel Lane with no enforcement of speed.
Lena Clow, resident of Judson Terrace, gave examples of high speed traffic
on Laurel Lane and how often she has almost been hit.
Mr. Jacobs, resident of Judson Terrace, spoke of problems for pedestrians
trying to cross Laurel Lane in view of the extreme high speed by motorists
and the absolute lack of enforcement.
Mabel Crane, resident of Judson Terrace, also urged the City Council to do
something for pedestrians trying to-cross the street, particularly senior
citizens going to the shopping center for their daily needs. I
Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing closed.
The City Council held a long discussion on the apparent lack of traffic con-
trol on major city streets in San Luis Obispo.
On motion-of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Graham, Ordinance
No. 653 was introduced for final passage.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
NOVEMBER 17, 1975
PAGE SEVEN
Finally passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Gurnee, Graham, Norris, Petterson and
Mayor Schwartz
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
On motion o£.Councilman Gurnee, seconded-by Councilman Graham, the following
resolution was introduced: Resolution No. 2927, a resolution of the Council
of the City of San Luis Obispo establishing four -way stop signs at the inter-
section of Laurel Lane and Augusta Street.
Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Gurnee, Graham, Petterson and Mayor Schwartz
NOES: Councilman Norris
ABSENT: None
On motion-of Mayor Schwartz, seconded.by Councilman Gurnee, that the City staff
be requested to prepare a report for the City Council on the legal limitations
on the use of radar for speed enforcement.and other hindrances to the Police
Department in the enforcement of traffic and speed laws on City streets. Motion
carried.
9. D.F. Romero, Public Services Director, submitted.a report prepared by
John Jenks, Consultant to the City for.the Waste Water Treatment Plan on pro-
posed revised NPDES permits for the City of San Luis Obispo. He stated that
although the previous arbitrary prohibition of.discharge to the San Luis Creek
.during the dry season has been eliminated, the new provisions in the permit
' for the City are so strict as to become impossible to meet from a financial
standpoint and, in effect, accomplish the same results.
He continued that Mr. Jenks, a Consultant, expands on the long -held position
of the City that the benefits and continued creek discharge far outweigh the
adverse effects.
The Consultant points out that if the City cannot meet the requirements for the
creek discharge and must retain all effluent on the land, the creek would have
no flow, thereby creating a much more serious environmental impact on aquatic
life as well as adversely effecting ground water recharge and irrigation. The
consultant discusses in.detail.the most onerous of.the proposed requirements,
the most serious of which relates to total filterable residue of sodium and
chloride. It appears that the requirements are still so strict that the City,
in attempting to meet the requirements may have to not only prohibit commercial
regeneration of water softeners, but ban private water softeners as well.
The Public Services Director stated that he agreed completely with the comments
and concerns as presented to the City Council by John Jenks.
On motion of Councilman Petterson, seconded by Councilman Graham, the follow-
ing resolution was introduced: Resolution No. 2928, a resolution of the
Council of the City of San Luis Obispo approving and adopting the comments
of Jenks and Adamson as the City's response to the State Regional Water Quality
Control Board.
Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Petterson, Norris, Gurnee, Graham and
Mayor Schwartz
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
10. The City Council again considered the matter of the Church of the
Nazarene, Johnson Avenue, Southwood Drive.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
NOVEMBER 179 1975
PAGE EIGHT
Robert Strong, Community Development Director, reported to the City Council
that the church had.applied for .a use permit -for expansion of their sanctuary
and additions to the.off- street parking lot off Southwood Drive which was
approved by the Council on September 15, 1975 subject to two conditions:
1. That the Church grant the City -an emergency vehicle access easement
across the parking lot from Southwood to the end of Flora Street.
2. That the Church grant the City a 10 ft. utility easement at the north
and east property boundaries to.enable completion of water line loop
connection at Southwood Drive.
Subsequently, it was revealed that the Church expected the City to acquire
a 6 ft. strip of private property separating the proposed parking lot from
Southwood Drive (owned by Leonard Blazer) in exchange for required frontage
improvements. The City Attorney recommended that the Church, rather than
the City should acquire this remnant since it is essential to adequate
access to their parking lot from the public street. The-Community Develop-
ment Department concurs with the Attorney's prior recommendation - that the
developer rather than the City should be responsible for street dedication and
improvement to City standards.
Unless otherwise instructed by the Council, staff considers the above three
conditions prerequisites to the approval of building permits pursuant to this
use permit.
Susan J. Adams submitted a petition signed by the residents of Flora and adja-
cent-streets requesting that the City consider their original promise to make
Flora Street continue through to Southwood Drive in order to eliminate the
long cul-de -sac that exists at this time.
John Smee, representing the Church of the Nazarene, objected to the.condition
that the Church grant an emergency access easement.across the parking lot from
Southwood Drive to the end of Flora Street as he stated that this was a differ- ,
ent condition than that established by Wayne Peterson on September 26, 1975.
He continued that the Church was willing to grant the City a 10 ft. easement
for waterlines and also to record an agreement to allow access for safety
vehicles to Flora Street. He continued that as far as the 6 ft. strip was
concerned, that the original development of the Church on Johnson and Southwood
allowed property development with the church responsible for putting in curb,
gutter, sidewalk and street pavement-in return for which the City acquired
that portion of the 6.ft, strip; they would hope that this would again be
the case.
Loretta R. Rice, 1638 Carla Street, again appeared before the City Council
urging that Flora Street be extended the short distance to .Southwood for
the safety and peace of mind of the residents of the long extended dead -end
portion of Flora Street.
Councilman Graham stated that the.Council action of.September 15, 1975 was
not to require the Church of the Nazarene to extend Flora Street to Southwood
Drive as a condition of adding to the sanctuary and parking area subject to
provisions for access for emergency vehicles and utility easement.
Robert Strong, Community Development.Director, stated that the Flora Street
extension to Southwood had been shown on the 61 through 65 General Plans as
a through street but for some reason, the 1972 General Plan did not show
local collector streets. '
D.F. Romero, Public Services Director, stated that all the -years that he is
aware of, Flora Street was shown on all maps as making connection to Southwood
Drive.
Saul Goldberg was in support of Flora Street going through as shown on previous
City plans and maps.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
x-17, 1975
PAGE NINE
Don McCaleb opposed to the requiring of Flora Street to be extended to South-
wood through.the Church property as felt it was unfair to expect.the Church to
pay for this when they are only placing .a small addition to their sanctuary.
Councilman.Gurnee stated that he did.not feel that at any time did the City
Council abandon the plan to require extension.of Flora Street -to Southwood Drive.
He felt that the Council action was not.to require it as a condition of the
addition to the sanctuary but.that_any.future development or major expansion
of the Church would so require. In the interim, the Council approval provided
' that access be granted emergency vehicles through an easement and further
that an easement for the waterline be continued but he did not believe that
the Council took any action for the.City to acquire the 6 ft. strip.
Councilman Norris felt that the City should accept a recordable agreement for
emergency vehicles and utility easements for water but he would not support the
City purchase of the 6 ft. strip.
Councilman Petterson stated that he too would agree that the comments made
by Councilmen Norris and Gurnee.
Mayor Schwartz then reviewed the actiom taken by the City Council taken on
September 15, 1975 in order to clarify the points for the people involved.
Councilman Gurnee felt that (1) the City and Church staff should get
together to describe the emergency easement, (2) the City not purchase the
6 ft. strip and (3) that the City staff prepare plans for future alignment
of Flora Street extension to Southwood Drive. Motion died for a lack of a
second.
On motion-of Councilman Norris, seconded by Councilman Petterson, that the
staff be directed to issue a building permit to the Church of the Nazarene
subject to: (1) utility easement (2) an emergency vehicle access and (3)
that the Church would acquire the 6 ft. strip and improve it at their sole
' expense. Motion carried. All ayes.
On motion of Councilman Gurnee,.seconded by Councilman Graham, that the City
staff be instructed to place.Flora.extension on the December 1, 1975 meeting
with the staff report on alternative.routes for Council consideration. Motion
carried.
11. Communication from the Park.& Recreation Commission recommending
conditions for the request for Living.Artistry to use Meadow Park for art
exhibits was approved on motion of Councilman Petterson, seconded by Councilman
Gurnee.
12. The matter of the recommendation of the Hazel Freitas property at
633 Woodbridge Street was continued for public hearing to December 1, 1975.
13. The City Council considered the draft revised Grading Ordinance
which incorporates changes and additions recommended by the Engineer and
other Community Development Department staff and the adopted General Plan
safety element. The draft is a modified version of the Uniform Building
Code, Chapter 70, under which the City is presently operating.
The Community Development Director also submitted with the revised grading
ordinance recommended changes to November 11, 1975.
D.F. Romero, Public Services Director, submitted a list of problems he
forsees through his experience.on.the revised grading ordinance and he
hoped that the City Council would consider these changes at the public
hearing.
There being no further discussion, the public hearing was continued to
January 5, 1976.
16. Memorandum from Robert Strong, Community Development Director,
regarding possible acquisition of certain properties for future public use
when offered for sale through the City was referred to budget study session.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
NOVEMBER 17, 1975
PAGE TEN
CONSENT ITEMS
C -1 On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Petterson,
claims against the City for the month of November, 1975 were authorized, sub-
ject to the approval of the Administrative Officer.
C -2 On motion of- Councilman Gurnee, seconded.by Councilman Petterson,
the minutes of the -July 29, August 5, 12, October.8 and.September 2, 18, 22,
24 and October.6 Council meetings were approved as submitted.
C -3 On motion of Councilman Gurnee,.seconded by Councilman Petterson,
the communication-from the Downtown.Association forwarding - nominees for the
Advisory Board for the Downtown Improvement.Area was referred to the Council
study session. Motion carried.
C -4 Status report by David Williamson; Assistant.Administrative Officer,
on the City Hall remodeling project dated November 11, 1975, a report on the
furniture refinishing and repair, and he recommended Change -Order No. 23, Finance
Department alterations were approved on motion of Councilman Graham, seconded
by Councilman Petterson. Motion carried.. All ayes.
On motion of Councilman Graham, seconded by Councilman Petterson,
the following resolution was introduced: Resolution No. 2929, a resolution
increasing account no. 40 -40- 2862 -701, City Hall Remodelling, by $26,000.
Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Gurnee, Graham, Norris, Petterson and
Mayor Schwartz
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
C -5 Communication-from the Chairman of the Bicentennial Committee '
regarding the-court-of flags as a Bicentennial event for -the City and a
communication from the Design Review Board.regarding_a proposed court
of flags at Mission Plaza were approved on motion.of Councilman Petterson,
seconded by Councilman Graham authorizing the Bicentennial Committee to pro-
ceed with_ the..preparation of plaques-and that the closing of Broad Street
and Monterey be referred to the Traffic Committee for review. Motion carried.
C -6 On motion-of Councilman.Graham,.seconded by Mayor Schwartz, the
Mayor was authorized to sign the revised.agreement for..acceptance.of the
National Endowment of the Arts "City Spirit" Grant Award for Solo Flight.
Motion carried.
C -7 On motion-of Councilman Petterson, seconded by Councilman Graham,
the communication from the Human Relations.Commission regarding the status
of the City and County Transportation plans were referred to the City Mass
Transit Committee. .Motion carried.
C -8 On motion of Councilman Petterson, seconded by Councilman Graham,
the recommendation of the Public Services Director.regarding residency require-
ments for employees subject to standby duty in the Public Service Department
was approved.
C -9 On-motion-of-Councilman Gurnee,- seconded by Councilman Petterson,
the following-resolution was introduced: Resolution No. 2930, a resolution I
designating the City Engineer to act as superintendant of streets - Johnson
Avenue Improvement.
Resolution passed and adopted on the following roll call vote:
AYES: .Councilmen Gurnee, Graham, Norris, Petterson and
Mayor Schwartz
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
NOVEMBER 17, 1975
PAGE ELEVEN
C -10 Council consideration of-Ordinance No. 629,.an ordinance which
expires on December-31, 1975 which.amended a.subdivision- ordinance to limit
the.in lieu..fees for park dedication to a maximum of $150 per dwelling unit
was referred to the Community Development Director Robert.Strong and the
Park and Recreation Director William Flory for report.to the City Council.
C -11 A_ memorandum from Robert.Strong, Community - Development Director,
regarding the County's Capital Improvement - Program and requesting Council
' study meeting was ordered received-and-filed with no-action.
C -12 On motion of.Councilman Gurnee.-seconded by Councilman Petterson,
the Mayor.was.authorized to execute.a Quit Claim to the Department of Trans-
portation fora water line and a grant_by.the State for a new water line
easement through their maintenance yard.on Madonna Road and Resolution No.
2931 was introduced, a resolution authorizing the abandonment of a City
easement across the State Department.of Transportation maintenance yard in
exchange for a new easement.
Passed and.adopted on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Gurnee, Graham, Norris, Petterson and
Mayor Schwartz
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
C -13 On motion of Councilman Gurnee.-seconded by.Councilman Petterson,
progress report-on the operations -of Ordinance No. 637, an ordinance con-
trolling off - street motor vehicles was ordered received and filed.
C -14 On motion-of Councilman Gurnee, seconded-by Councilman
Petterson,.the following step increases were approved:
Dennis Cox - Maintenance Leadman
From Step 4 or $992 to Step 5 or $1048
Bradd.Hopkins
From Step 3 or
Ronald Landes
From Step 2 or
G1en.Matteson
From Step 1 or
Linda Smith -
From Step 2 or
Motion carried.
- Fireman
$1004 to Step 4-or $1062
- Utility Plant Operator I
$794 or Step 3 or $842
- Planning Assistant
$1016 to Step 2 -or $1078
typist Clerk II
$654 to Step 3 or $688
C -15 Administrative Officer Richard-D- Miller announced the-appointment
of Pamela Voges as Secretary in the City_Clerk's.office.effective November 1,
1975, Step 1 - $670 /month subject to-1 year's probationary period and Janet M.
Scuri as Secretary in the Community Development office effective December 8,
1975, Step 2 - $710 /month.
C -16 On.motion.of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Petterson,
claim against the City by Leslie L. Miles for sewer damage at 1343 Pismo Street
was denied and referred to the insurance company. Motion carried.
C -17 On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded-by Councilman Petterson,
the following resolution was introduced.-.Resolution No. 2932, a resolution
increasing the-1975/76 budget. Account No. 05 -01- 3209 -123 increased by $21,596.00
and decrease 05 -01- 3999 -000 by $21,596.00
Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote:
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
NOVEMBER 17, 1975
PAGE TWELVE
AYES: Councilmen Norris., Petterson, Graham, Gurnee and
and Mayor Schwartz
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Due to the lateness of the hour, Mayor-Schwartz adjourned the meeting
until 12:10 p.m., Tuesday, November 18, 1975 in the conference room of I
City Hall.
APPROVED: March 15, 1976
,,r-14. Fitzpatrick, City Clerk
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISP.O
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 1975 - 12:10 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
Pledge
Roll Call
PRESENT: Councilmen Graham, Gurnee, Norris, Petterson and Mayor
Schwartz
ABSENT: None
City Staff
PRESENT: R.D. Miller, Administrative Officer;- Wayne.Peterson,
City Engineer; A.J. Shaw, City.Attorney; Robert Strong,
Community Development Director
15. Recommendation of the Planning Commission concerning common access
driveways.
Robert Strong outlined situations where .common access driveways might be an
asset. He said the Planning Commission wished to encourage them under certain
conditions.
A.J. Shaw, City Attorney, pointed out problems of enforcement and suggested
mitigating measures that could be taken. He submitted a proposed ordinance
to solve some of these problems.
Councilman Petterson suggested that these types of development should be
reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission.
Mayor Schwartz thought
Councilman Norris said
made for a more attrac
to authorize them. He
he agreed there should
the Board of Adjustments might be.better.
he favored such driveways because in many cases they
Live layout. He would like to do everything possible
certainly did not want to outlaw the possibility but
be safeguards.
On motion of Councilman Petterson, seconded by Councilman Norris, to go along
with the Planning Commission. Motion carried. All ayes.