Loading...
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.