Loading...
08/19/19740 [i Pledge Roll Call Present Absent City Staff MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AUGUST 19, 1974 - 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL John Brown, T. Keith Gurnee, Jesse Norris and Mayor Kenneth E. Schwartz Myron Graham Present: J. H. Fitzpatrick, City Clerk; R. D. Miller, Administrative Officer; A. J. Shaw, City Attorney; John Quirk, Assistant Water Director, Captain Englert;.Police Department; D. F. Romero, City Engineer; Robert Strong, Planning Director I. At this.time the City Council held a public. hearing on Resolution No. 2640, a resolution of the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo finding that an exposed sewer line in the creek and upon the premises at 546 Hiquera Street may constitute a public nuisance, and ordering -a public hearing concerning same and the abatement thereof. :(See transcript court reporter dated August 19, 1974.) On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Brown, the following resolution was introduced: RESOLUTION NO. 2654 (1974 Series), a resolution of the Council of the City.of San Luis Obispo finding the existence of a public nuisance and ordering the abatement thereof (Mission Trailer Park Sewerline, 546 Higuera Street). Passed and adopted on the following roll'call vote: AYES:. Councilmen Brown, Gurnee and Mayor Schwartz NOES: Councilman Norris ABSENT: .Councilman Graham 2. At this time-the City Council held a public hearing on Resolution No. 2641, a resolution of the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo finding that tree trunks within the creek and upon the premises at 546 Hiquera Street may constitute a public nuisance and ordering a public hearing concerning same.and the abatement thereof. Continued to September 16, 1974.- property owner agreed to tree removal at City expense. (See court reporter's.transcript, dated August 19, 1974.) 3. At this time the City Council considered the FINAL PASSAGE of ORDINANCE NO. 622, an ordinance of_the City.of_San Luis,Obispo authorizing an amendment to the contract between the City of'San Luis Obispo and the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees' Retirement System.. City Council Minutes August 19, 1974 Page 2 On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Brown the ordinance was introduced and finally passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmen Gurnee, Brown, Norris and Mayor Schwartz 1 NOES: None .ABSENT: Councilman Graham 4. At this time the City Council held a public hearing on the complaint of the management and residents of Oceanaire Mobile Home Park, 1121 Orcutt Road to noise created by a rock band that held practice sessions in a building adjacent to the mobile home park. Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing open. Claremore J. Fenderson, Owner, Oceanaire Mobile Home Park, appeared before the City Council objecting to noise at 3590 Bullock Lane of a rock band that had been practicing in an open carport which was annoying his tenants, many of whom were extremely elderly and needed their rest. He .stated sometimes the music was so loud it actually rattled the trailers on the mobile home park property. He stated a number of tenants had moved from the park as they were unable to get any rest because the band.practiced by the hour, .four or five days a.week, but never at the same time.. Lloyd Wheaton, Manager, Oceanaire Mobile Home Park,.agreed with the comments of Mr. Fenderson, the owner, regarding the noise from the 1 rock-band. He listed dates and times-when - the noise nuisance occurred. He stated it normally carried on from two to four hours per day, day after day after day. He stated he had made several complaints to the Police Department, and they had attempted to reduce the noise. Ken Davis, park resident, stated the band practices from three to four hours per day, five days per week, and the amplifiers were at extremely high volume. It had been just impossible to think, read, or get any kind of rest at all. I. . . Sally Peasley, park resident,.objected to the noise; stated it was unbearable and hoped the City Council would do something to protect people where they live. Gary Burns, manager of the rock band,.stated.they normally practiced four days per week from three to six or three to eight in the after- noons. He stated that now the band was on tour,.so.they.were not practicing as much as they had been... He asked that the Council give his group permission to hold practices from eight to nine hours per week so new.songs could be practiced for public appearances. He stated the band was willing to turn down.the volume in order to limit complaints, as they wished to get.a.long.with their neighbors, but they also needed.to practice. He stated if the volume were as high as they could go, he was sure that it would rattle some.of.the trailers. Robert Strong, Planning Director, stated that the band should meet the noise levels prescribed.in the zoning ordinance. He also suggested that the,City. could ask the County.to monitor the sound levels at the property lines to see if the band was complying with.the regulations of the zoning ordinance, if legal action for abatement was necessary. City.Council Minutes August 19, 1.974 Page 3 his recommendation that the band cease and desist unless they met the standards of the zoning ordinance, relative to.the number of decibels at the property line. He stated that, from testimony received tonight, it was evident without noise level instrument . readings, that the.b.anl would exceed acceptable standards. The City Council discussed the complaint before them in relation to property rights and uses of land, and also conditions of the zoning ordinance and noise ordinance of the'Municipal Code. They felt the Council could take action: (1) to declare violation and order a misdemeanor complaint, or (2) order the band to cease and desist as they were in violation of the zoning ordinance. Motion of Councilman Browni.seconded by Councilman Gurnee that the City Council order the band.to cease practicing.with amplifiers, and if the City received any future complaints, they would have the Police and /or.PIanning Department f.iI'e the,misdemeanor. violation:_ as required by City ordinance. Motion carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmen Brown, Gurnee, Norris and Mayor Schwartz NOES: None ABSENT: Councilman Graham 5. Communication from C. J. Fenderson, Owner, Oceanaire Mobile.Home.Park, protesting.to the.City Council the classification that they had been placed in by the San Luis.Obispo Garbage Company under the compulsory garbage collection ordinance. He stated that up to a few months ago they were using a three yard dumpster with pick up six times a week for $42.50 per month. When the new rate schedule, recently adopted, went into effect the garbage company reclassified the trailer park at $1:75 per month per space, plus $5.00 per month rental on the dumpster making a total of $122.50. A. J. Shaw, City Attorney, read Municipal Code.Section_4225.1 relative to noise and noise control. Michael Corbin; 3590 Bullock Lane, band organizer, spoke in favor of allowing the band to practice at his.residence.- He stated they had attempted to contact the adjacent owners and to practice without 1 annoying the neighbors, but he felt the band needed at least.three days per week, four hours per day, in order to practice new material. Greg Frederickson,. mob ile'home park. tenant, stated he worked nights and.tried.to sleep days. He could not sleep due to the excessive .noise caused by the rock band, which he stated.actually rocked his trailer.when'they were in operation. Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing closed. Mayor Schwartz stated the City Council,reaily had two problems before them: I. the noise, which was annoying adjacent residential properties, and 2. possible violation of the zoning.ordinance. Robert Stronq, Planning Director; again reviewed for the City, Council. the provis.ions'of. the zoning ordinance dealing with noise levels in the R -H and adjacent M zones. He explained.the zoning ordinance had performance standards dealing with noise. It was. his recommendation that the band cease and desist unless they met the standards of the zoning ordinance, relative to.the number of decibels at the property line. He stated that, from testimony received tonight, it was evident without noise level instrument . readings, that the.b.anl would exceed acceptable standards. The City Council discussed the complaint before them in relation to property rights and uses of land, and also conditions of the zoning ordinance and noise ordinance of the'Municipal Code. They felt the Council could take action: (1) to declare violation and order a misdemeanor complaint, or (2) order the band to cease and desist as they were in violation of the zoning ordinance. Motion of Councilman Browni.seconded by Councilman Gurnee that the City Council order the band.to cease practicing.with amplifiers, and if the City received any future complaints, they would have the Police and /or.PIanning Department f.iI'e the,misdemeanor. violation:_ as required by City ordinance. Motion carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmen Brown, Gurnee, Norris and Mayor Schwartz NOES: None ABSENT: Councilman Graham 5. Communication from C. J. Fenderson, Owner, Oceanaire Mobile.Home.Park, protesting.to the.City Council the classification that they had been placed in by the San Luis.Obispo Garbage Company under the compulsory garbage collection ordinance. He stated that up to a few months ago they were using a three yard dumpster with pick up six times a week for $42.50 per month. When the new rate schedule, recently adopted, went into effect the garbage company reclassified the trailer park at $1:75 per month per space, plus $5.00 per month rental on the dumpster making a total of $122.50. City Council Minutes August 19, 1974 Page 4 C. J. Fenderson felt this was unreasonable for ohe.three.yard dumpster, six times per week, as he felt they should be classified as a business and not as residential properties. He felt he should.be paying the new rate of $58.50 per month. He felt that the rate should be adjusted by the City Council. 1 The City Clerk report-6d-that reviewing the complaint of the Oceanaire Mobile Home Park with representatives of the Garbage Company,. the City was informed that all mobile home parks and trailer parks were billed in accordance with Municipal Code Section 5200.6A, as apartment units. The garbage company also:went one step further and charged single -wide mobi.le homes at the minimum .of $1.75 per unit per month, and double -wide mobile homes at $2.50 per.unit per month..'.The City Clerk stated he was assured by the garbage company representatives that all mobile home parks within the City had had their billings reviewed and all parks had been treated on the same basis. The service supplied to Oceanaire Mobile Home Park at 1121 Orcutt Road was six days per week service for 67 mobile homes at $1.75 per unit, per month. equals $117.25,, plus $5.00 per month for the container, or a total of $122.25 per month for the park. Councilman Norris felt the rates were, right according to the ordinance as adopted by the City Council, but he felt the ordinance was wrong in classifying apartments and trailers individually when they used a dumpster and not an individual can collection.at each unit. He felt apartment units and mobile homes were treated unfairly in comparison with the commercial rates when the 'same type of dumpster unit was used. On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Norris that the complaint of Oceanaire Mobile Home.Park be ordered received and filed, but the City staff be asked to meet with the San Luis Garbage Company to look into the rationale on the apartment and mobile home park classifications when a dumpster was used. .Motion carried. 9:00 P.M. Mayor Schwartz declared a recess. 9:15.P.M. The meeting reconvened with all Councilmen present, except Councilman Graham. II. Robert Strong, Planning Director,.presented a film slide show of existing conditions, sketch plans, perspectives, and typical cross- sections of possible design .alterna.tives to.the precise plan for portions of Broad Street, State Highway Route.227, within the City of San Luis Obispo being proposed by Cal.Trans for reconstruction and widening. Robert Strong continued that the preliminary plan being presented for the Council was prepared as a supplement to the State's conventional highway widening project, recognizing that.the right -of -way acquisition for widening and the basic alignment and design of improvements was already complete. Scheduling of construction to.commence prior to June 1.975, prevented any significant alteratign to.the project design as proposed by the State Department of Transportation; thus the City's modifications being presented this evening were pre- dominantly a subsequent improvement to the development by Cal Trans. He continued that the Public Works Department, Department of Parks 8 Recreation, the Water Department, as well as the Department of City Council Minutes August 19,•1974 Page 5 Planning $ Building had reviewed this project, and while different constraints and diverse objectives involved conflicts and necessi- tated some compromises; it was apparent that a real potential existed for accomplishing more than just the traffic and safety improvements proposed by the State. ' The plan recommended a two phase improvement program by the City, enabling the State project to progress on schedule without substantial alteration or addition to the initial design.. The City should pursue immediate preparation of plans and specifications for installation of water and sewer lines, fire hydrants, and street tree planting to be accomplished prior to or concurrent with the State's street reconstruction and widening. If additional capital improvement funds were available; the City should also complete plans for underground utilities and installation of landscaped median islands south of Orcutt Road intersection and at the intersection with South Street concurrent with the State project. As a separate future project, the City should continue to pursue a specific development plan for the areas adjoining the remaining sections of this State Highway, including proposals for landscaped medians, additional off - street parking, landscaped front yard set- backs, special sign and access driveway controls, formation of underground utility assessment district, and criteria for controlling land use conversions along the route. Following the presentation by.the.Planning Department, the City Council received a report by E. F. Gregory, District Director of Transportation, stating that the improvements of Route 227 had been under study for many years. Early studies covered full freeway developments and complete relocations of the route, as well as .. expansions of the existing facility. The present proposed improve- ment was conceived in the late 1960's through the cooperative efforts of interested citizens, elected officials, and-the staffs of the City, County and State. A publi,c.hearing covering the proposed improvement was held in 1971, and all necessary environmental documents had been prepared and approved. The project had developed to the point where contract plans were practically complete, all necessary rights -of -way had been appraised, right -of -way acquisition had been funded, and approximately one -third of the necessary rights -of -way had been acquired. Construction funds were recently included in the 1974/75 budget by the California Highway Commission. These construction funds must be obligated by a construction contract prior.to June 30, 1975, if they were to be used for this.project. Due to legal constraints, they could not be shifted to a later fiscal year. The basic project provided for two lanes of traffic in each direction, with a continuous left -turn lane in the center of the street. This would provide access to.all properties for both.directions of travel. The discussions with City personnel had involved the.possibility of providing curbed.median islands in lieu of the continuous left -turn lanes, thus introducing a positive median control: Although they did not recommend the use of curbed medians because they were con- cerned about the safety aspects of such installations, they readily admitted that many such installations could be found on City streets 1 and even on State highways throughout the State. Such additional features were provided by the local . agencies, at their cost,.and were installed on State highways under encroachment permits issued by. the State. Such an installation could be provided along Broad Street under these same conditions. City Council Minutes August 19, 1974 Page 6 They were primarily concerned with time controls on the present project. Broad Street was not only a State highway, but was-also on the Federal Aid System. Any major change such as this, instituting a positive barrier for the presently proposed continuous left -turn lane, would have to be cleared through State and Federal approvals, further public hearings, and revised environmental documents. Such changes also affected the basic understandings in their negotiations with affected property owners. The City would have to be the lead' agency in initiating such a change in the presently approved project. Because of the numerous requirements for clearing major design changes, and built -in time controls, there was no way in which these changes could be cleared in time to incorporate the work in a construction contract with a June 30, 1975 award deadline. They fully appreciated the City's interest and efforts to improve the visual appearance of the major entrances to the City. It would be entirely possible and practical to develop a curbed landscaped median along Broad Street as a separate future project. They would certainly be willing to assist the City in the development of such a future project and in obtaining the necessary State and Federal concurrences and clearances. They would also arrange for the issuance of an encroachment permit to cover the project. E. F. Gregory concluded that the comments he had made would clarify- the position of Cal Trans in regard to the project modifications suggested by Robert Strong on behalf of the City of San Luis Obispo. The City Council discussed the Broad Street project as approved with the Department of Transportation representatives and implementing the recommendations of Robert Strong for landscaping, median strips, etc. 1 Ralph Leionhud, Assistant Director of Transportation District No. 5, again reviewed some of the major points in making a change in the _ contract at this time, which they felt would,atc all practical purposes, kill the project in San Luis Obispo for at least eight years as there was nothing in their future'planning in the next two four -year increments for construction in District No. 5. After discussion, it was moved by Councilman Gurnee,'seconded by Councilman Brown that the matter of Broad Street be continued to the September 16, 1974 Council meeting for further study and consideration by the Council; and a request that the Planning Commission look into land use implications; and further that the Traffic Committee look into the median strip proposal as presented by the City.. Motion carried, a1.1 Ayes, Councilman Graham absent. 6. Memorandum from John Kellerman, Chief Bui]ding`Inspector, regarding electric fences and control within the City of San Luis Obispo was presented by Planning Director Strong. He stated that at the present time <the City of San Luis Obispo did not prohibit electric fences within the City. The Building Official had reviewed eight cities, four of which did not have ordinances of any kind regulating electric fences. The City of Salinas indicated they would not permit them under an ' ordinance prohibiting hazardous fences, and the City of Bakersfield stated they would prohibit them using the National Electric Code to support their action. Mr. Kellerman stated that to proceed along the lines as Bakersfield would be unsatisfactory from a practical standpoint. The only ordinances City Council Minutes August 19, 1974 Page 7 which specifically prohibited electric fences were received from the League of California. Cities, from. the Cities o.f .Escondido, San Marino.and Stockton. He. stated that after reviewing these ordinances and the information that he received and considering the problems in our own city, he felt it was feasible to adopt regulations for electric fences.. He recommended that the regulation include barbed -wire fences and provisions for all_types of ,fences and be made a part of the zoning ordinance. This would place the regulation of fences in a document which now regulated other land uses and presently set forth fence guidelines with the exception -.:of barbed wire. The desirability of.adopting regulations prohibiting electric fences was a policy.matter of the City Council. He felt that if. the City Counci•I wished. to proceed, the staff would develop.wording for inclusion in an ordinance. After discussion by the City Council, the memorandum was ordered received and filed, on motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman.Brown,. and referred to the Planning Director for.possible inclusion in future use permit procedures for „agricultural areas._ Motion carried, all Ayes, Councilman Graham absent. 7. D. F. Romero, City Engineer, presented for the Council's consideration.a resolution .requesting.modification.by the Water Quality Control Board of.,the Basin Plan for...the San Luis Obispo wastewater treatment plant. The City Council resolved that the final central coastal basin plan of the.Regional Water Quality Control.Board contain a. section dealing in some detail with the impact upon the environment if the..Water Quality Control Board required the City to provide.un.limited sewer service to developments outside the.City which could not be regu- lated or controlled by either the Water Quality Control Board.or the City of San Luis Obispo. On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Norris the following resolution.was introduced: RESOLUTION NO. 2655 (1974 Series), a resolution of the City of San Luis Obispo requesting modification of the Basin Plan. Passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmen Gurnee, Norris, Brown and Mayor Schwartz NOES: None ABSENT: Councilman Graham 8. Communication from, Cal ifornia.Polytechnic State University regarding the proposed rate._,increase. for sewage.treatinent'out.lined in the City's letter of July 31, 1974, stating that the letter had been reviewed and found to be consistent with the agreement and established procedure. Further, that Cal Poly recognized that sewage treatment.costs were _ also caught in the current inflationary spiral, and thereifore,a_g_ree_d to the increase in rate. - City Council Minutes August .19,. 197.4 Page 8 Cal Poly offered to prepare an amendment to the agreement for Purchase of Capacity Rights and Sewage Treatment.Facilities, dated January I, 1963, between the State.and the City of San Luis Obispo and forward it to the City for their approval and signature, although they..did request that 5.4 acres of University property, occupied by the Division of Forestry.; .be billed directly to the Division of Forestry and not to the University. On moti.on of Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Gurnee that. the City Council accept the recommendation.of the City staff and the. acquiescence.by Cal Poly, and the Mayor be,authorized to sign the.. Sewage Treatment Agreement when received. 9. The City Council again considered the report from the Park & Recreation Commission, continued from. the.August,l5; 1974 meeting, in which the Park & Recreation Commission concurred in the.recommendation of the Citizens' Committee studying the Laguna Lake.Golf Course urging that the City Council negotiate a one -year lease of the.golf. course at approximately $1,000 per month with an option to purchase. Further, that the City investigate the asking price and the avallab.ility of those parcels of land now being used for driving range and if, the City should accomplish the lease, the City would install a water meter of sufficient size to irrigate the course; and.furtheri that.an. appropriate mower be purchased for maintenance of.the golf course.. R. D. Miller, Administrative Officer, submitted a report to the City Council of the status of.the Capital Imorovement,Expenditures and outstanding commitments as well as.anticipated expenditures during this fiscal year. He stated it showed that all..projects could be . funded providing the Council were agreeable to borrowing $400,000 from existing reserve accumulations.,for capital projects. i The Administrative Officer felt that his projections were quite conservative.and there was a strong,possibili.ty that many of the budget items would not'be completely paid for this fiscal year. . He felt that in that event, there would be.no need to'touch.the reserve funds. He then.reviewed.in detail the 1974/75 Capital Improvement Program. Councilman Gurnee stated he was in support of the recommendation of the Park & Recreation Commission for the City to'continue.the.lease of the golf course for one more year, and to use reserve funds to purchase other.open space, capital improvement project items within the fiscal year. Councilman Norris stated he was in support of the Capital Improvement Program as a way of getting major items completed and acquired; but he was opposed to buying the golf course in this fiscal year. He felt that the City should continue the lease for one more.year with an option to buy at that time. Councilman' _grr)w„istated he felt the purchase of the.,golf_.course was premature as the relationship of cost to benefits was too high: Also, he would go along with another year's lease to see who used the course and how often they played, but he would be opposed to purchasing. it at this time. •9ayor Schwartz reviewed the steps to.date.on. the City's lease of the Laguna Lake Golf Course and the recommendation from the Park & Recre- ation Commission that the City lease the course for one more year, then consider the purchase at the expiration of the lease. Mayor Schwartz stated the City Council should consider that if the Park & Recreation Commission really wanted to the City to purchase the golf course at this time, then the City should do it now, when the 1 1 1 City Council Minutes August 19, .1974 Page 9 cost was known and without the additional one year's lease payment. He urged that the City Council.consider buying the golf course at this time.' On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Norris that the City.Council re- negotiate the lease on the golf course for one more year with an.option to buy at the end of the one -year period, with the Mayor authorized'to execute'said lease. Motion carried on the following roll-call vote: AYES: Councilmen.Gurnee, Norris and Brown NOES: Mayor Schwartz ABSENT: .Councilman Graham. On motion of Councilman'Norris, seconded by Councilman Gurnee.that the City Council authorize purchase of.a lawn mower and tractor,for the Park Department for use at the Laguna Lake.Golf Course. Motion carried, all Ayes, Councilman Graham absent. On motion of Councilman Gurnee,.seconded by Councilman Brown the City Council authorized change of the present 2" water meter to a 4" water meter at the golf course in order to allow adequate irrigation of the course. Motion carried, Councilman Norris voting No, Councilman Graham absent. 10. Memorandum from Robert Strong stating that.the Planning Commission on August 6, 1974 unanimous ly. recommended several addi- tional'changes to be considered for incorporation into the revised ' guidelines for EIR Procedures: I. To authorize staff determination, pursuant to. environmental assessment.application, on whether an EIR or negative declaration was.appropriate. 2. To consider any appeals of Negative Declarations or to review draft EIR acceptability, at least one meeting prior to scheduling Commission hearing on the project proposal, enabling.opportunity for appeal prior to action on the project. . The City Attorney requested that this matter be continued so he' would have an opportunity to compare the.new environmental impact. guidelineF:procedures and the amendments being recommended by the Planning Commission. He suggested that this be continued to the meeting of September 3, 1974. The City Council concurred in the request of the City Attorney. IOA. At this time the City Council discussed the format for the proposed newsletter, which was,continued'from the August 5 and 15, 1974, meetings. Councilman Norris stated he had reviewed the format of the proposed newsletter. He was in support of the newsletter if the articles could be kept factual, and if no party -line or specific bias would be entered in the articles being presented. . City Council Minutes August 19, 1974 Page 10 Councilman Gurnee stated he too was.in support of the format of the newsletter, but felt there should be some place in the newsletter for controversial discussion of subjects on City.policies, ordinances, etc. He-also felt with proper'. arrangement the.ne.wsletter could be used for polling purposes by the C.ity,Council to get input from the citizens, who could.fill out simple questionnaires and mail them.back to the City for guidance of the City Council.. Councilman Brown stated he.too was in support of the format and the concept of a newsletter. He felt the City should get one out to get reaction from the citizens before additional issues were prepared. Mayor Schwartz stated he too was in support of the format of the newsletter and the concept. He felt it was primarily a newsletter of City actions and was not to be used.as a political tool of any Councilman or for propaganda of any theory by a. minority group of citizens. On motion of Councilman Norris, seconded by Councilman Brown that the City proceed with the newsletter as presented and the format as approved. Motion carried, all Ayes, Councilman Graham absent.. 12. Memorandum from the Planning Commission recommending abandonment of a portion of Sierra Way, George and.lris Streets,. Charles French, applicant. All three portions of the streets.being requested for abandonment terminate at the.applicant's property. The applicant was the French Hospital and because of recent expansion of the hospital parking.lot, they had now acquired all property which fronted on the subject portions of those streets. Those portions proposed for abandonment no longer served their original function of providing access to individual properties. The applicant was requesting abandonment with-the intent to-incorporate the street stubs into the parking area for the hospital,complex and possible residential development.. There were no structures fronting.on the proposed abandoned portions of either of these streets. Because there were some remaining utilities in and over portions of the streets, it would be necessary that easements acceptable to the various utility companies and the City be. retained as a condition of street abandonment. The Planning Commission at their regular meeting of August 6, 1974, by Resolution No. 591 -74, unanimously recommended to the City Council abandonment of, portions of Sierra Way, George and Iris Streets, subject to'the following conditions: ' I. That utility easements be.reta.ined subject to the approval of the utility companies and the City. 2. Reversion to acreage.be accomplished prerequisite to the.abandonment. 3. Property and improvements necessary to-provide a turn- around at the end of Iris and George Streets be approved and dedicated to the City prior to recording final street abandonment. n �I 1 City Council Minutes August 19, 1974 Page II 15. Communication from the State Department of General Services stating they wished to-dispose of property on the west side of Highway I and Highland Drive., 3:85 acres,,and would like the City to consider annexation. The matter was continued to September 16, 1974, at the request of the Administration at Cal Poly and also referred to the Planning Commission for report and recommendation. 16. Memorandum from the Planning Department requesting Council consideration of a -joint City Council Planning Commiss.ion meeting on progress of the General Plan update was ordered'received and filed with the Planning Department to keep the City Council aware of when the meetings and presentations would be made. 17. John Quirk, Assistant Director of Water Services, pre - sented plans and'specifications for SERRANO DRIVE "'WATERLINE; estimated cost _ $22,310. (Some of the cost to be paid by the property owners involved.) 4. That the above be accomplished within one year of the'date of approval by the Planning Commission. The City Attorney suggested that the City Council might wish to adopt a resolution of intention to abandon, setting a time for hearing, but.that no final action be taken until) the- conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission had been accomplished. On motion of Councilman.Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Brown the following resolution was introduced: RESOLUTION NO. 2656 (1974 Series), a resolution of the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo expressing the Council's intention to initiate abandonment proceedings for portions of Sierra Way, George Street and Iris Street ". " Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmen Gurnee, Brown, Norris and Mayor�Schwartz NOES: None ABSENT: Councilman Graham 13. A petition signed by members of the Senior Citizens' Center requesting installation by the.City.of an upright shuffleboard table or two at the Senior Citizens' Center was referred to the Park & Recreation Commission for analysis and report to the City Council. 14. Communication from Milton E. Willeford, Certified Public Accountant, informing the City Council that he would be willing, as the independent auditor for the 1973174 audit of City records, to conduct an examination of revenue sharing.funds in accordance with the regulations of .Public Law 92 -512, th "e "Revenue Sharing Act, which mean that each recipient of revenue sharing must provide an audit prepared by their independent auditor of the use of the :funds, received by the City. He offered to continue this additional work in accordance with Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the present agreement, with. an estimated maximum of $800 for the services.. On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Brown that M. E. Willeford be authorized to.:conduct an audit of the revenue sharing.funds as proposed.. Motion carried, all Ayes,'Councilman Graham absent. 15. Communication from the State Department of General Services stating they wished to-dispose of property on the west side of Highway I and Highland Drive., 3:85 acres,,and would like the City to consider annexation. The matter was continued to September 16, 1974, at the request of the Administration at Cal Poly and also referred to the Planning Commission for report and recommendation. 16. Memorandum from the Planning Department requesting Council consideration of a -joint City Council Planning Commiss.ion meeting on progress of the General Plan update was ordered'received and filed with the Planning Department to keep the City Council aware of when the meetings and presentations would be made. 17. John Quirk, Assistant Director of Water Services, pre - sented plans and'specifications for SERRANO DRIVE "'WATERLINE; estimated cost _ $22,310. (Some of the cost to be paid by the property owners involved.) City Council Minutes August 19, 1974 Page 12 On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by.Councilman Brown that the City Council approve the plans and specifications and authorize the call for bids. 'Motion carr.ied,:Councilman Graham absent. 18. R. D. Mil.ler,..Administrative Officer, presented for the City Council's consideration a tax_rate: ordinance for.the fiscal year 1974/75 stating that the budget had been prepared on the basis of continuing the same tax rate as 1973/74 or $1.33 per $100 evaluation.. Councilman Gurnee stated he was opposed.to the tax rate.proposed by the Administrative :Officer -as he ,felt the tax rates shouldibe reduced in proportion to the increase in assessed evaluation which had just been placed upon all properties within the City of San Luis Obispo, and he suggested a tax rate of $1110 per $100 evaluation be adopted. He felt -,the. City wou'ld be getting the same.amount of money at the lower rate due to the increase in assessed evaluation. Councilman Norris stated he felt the City tax rate should be based on the City's needs even in light of -increased.evaluation. He .felt the City should keep the $1.33 tax rate in order to provide needed services to the people and to complete the major construction improvements in the Water Department. Councilman Brown stated he was in support of some reduction of.the City tax rate and suggested.that possibly a rate of $1.25 might be adequate. Mayor Schwartz felt the City should keep the $1.33-tax rate in order to do the things that were needed to better serve the people.of San Luis Obispo. He referred to such items as the major water improve- ments being completed where the costs were going up, the completion of park projects, and the possibility of tremendous expenditures in updating the sewer treatment plant. Councilman Gurnee moved that the 1974/75 tax rate be set at $1.10 per $100 evaluation. Motion lost for lack of a second. On motion of Councilman Norris, seconded by Mayor Schwartz.the following ordinance was introduced:: ORDINANCE NO. 624 (.1974 Series), an ordinance levying a tax for the current 1974/75 fiscal year upon all taxable property within the City of San Luis Obispo and fixing the rate of such tax. Passed to print on the following roll call vote AYES:. Councilman Norris, Mayor Schwartz and Councilman Brown NOES: .Councilman Gurnee ABSENT:: Councilman Graham CONSENT ITEMS C -1, C- 2,'C -3, C -4, C -5, C -8, C -9, C -10 action as shown on:motion of Councilman Norris, seconded by Councilman Brown, all ayes, Councilman Graham absent. f� I City Council Minutes August 19, 1974 Page ]3 C -1 The 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 25, March 4, April 8 and 22, May 6, 20,.and 24, June 3.and 24, .1974 were approved as presented. C -3 The communication from William Newman,'Superintendent; Sa Luis Coastal Unified School District, regarding bicycle safety on Augusta Street was ordered received and filed. C -4 On motion-of Councilman Norris, seconded by Councilman Brown the.following. resolution was introduced: RESOLUTION NO. 2657 (1974.Series), a resolution of-the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo establishing compliance with the Pre- emptory Writ of Mand�a_t_e_ issued by the Superior Court regarding Ryan Outdoor Advertising Signs. Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmen Brown, Gurnee, Norris and Mayor Schwartz NOES: None ABSENT: Councilman Graham C -5 The letter and resolution from the City of Downey to repeal C -6 The request from Tom Weissbluth for permission to use Mitchell Park on September 2, 1974, to seII.crafts was approved subject;to contributing ten percent to the Park 8 Recreation Commission for park purposes. . C -7 The following salary step increases were approved effective September I, 1974: Gerald Bedford - Janitor From Step 4 or $718 to Step 5 or $760 Richard E. Bosserman - Police Officer From Step 2 or $946 to Step 3 or-$1002 and amend sections-of the Government Code pertaining to.State From Step employee retirment system for State Legislators who no longer serve Fitler due to Loss of election or apportionment, and asking that the City 2 or of San Luis Obispo adopt a similar resolution was ordered received - Police Lieutenant and filed. 4 or $1,384 to Step 5.or $1,460 C -6 The request from Tom Weissbluth for permission to use Mitchell Park on September 2, 1974, to seII.crafts was approved subject;to contributing ten percent to the Park 8 Recreation Commission for park purposes. . C -7 The following salary step increases were approved effective September I, 1974: Gerald Bedford - Janitor From Step 4 or $718 to Step 5 or $760 Richard E. Bosserman - Police Officer From Step 2 or $946 to Step 3 or-$1002 Philip P. Doyle - Building Inspector From Step 3 or $1,0021to Step 4 or. $1,056 Ellis A. Fitler - Mechanic I From Step 2 or $826 to Step 3 or $874 Larry G. Lunsford - Police Lieutenant From Step 4 or $1,384 to Step 5.or $1,460 Donald W. Pratt - Police Officer From Step I or $898 to Step 2 or $946 City Council Minutes August 19, 1974 Page 14 Salary Step Increases were approved on motion of.Councilman Norris, seconded by Councilman Brown. C -8 The claim against the City of San Luis Obispo from Robert T. Clark for damage done to his bicycle when a wheel was caught in , storm grate was denied and referred to the insurance' carrier: C -9 The claim against the.City of San Luis Obispo. from Mrs. Edith Cook for damage done to her car while parked.in City parking lot (hit by City truck) was denied and referred to the insurance carrier. C -10 The claim against the City of San Luis Obispo from Mrs. Stephen Burdette claiming;City caused back up in sewer Tine (1118 Murray Street) was denied and referred to the insurance carrier. C -11 The claim against the City of San Luis Obispo from Mr. Marion Davis claiming City sewer water and debris backed up into two houses on Morro Street was denied.and referred to the insurance carrier. C -12 On motion of Councilman Norris, seconded by Councilman Brown that the request from the residents of the 1500 to 1800 blocks of Royal Way to close the street on Friday, August 23, 1974 from 4:30 P.M. to 11:00 P.M. to celebrate a 50th wedding anniversary was approved. C -13 On motion of Councilman Norris, seconded by Councilman Brown that the City Council urge the legislature to oppose Senate Bill 1652 unless.the provisions of Senate Bill 90,for reimbursement , of all funds lost by the cities and.the counties be.recognized. Motion carried. B -I The City Clerk reported on the following bids received for supplying miscellaneous equipment to the City of San Luis Obispo in accordance with advertised specifications. Bids opened Wednesday, August 14, 1974 at 2:00 P.M. Item I To be purchased: One (1) 1974 or 1975 three wheel gasoline driven motor.scooter. To be traded in: One (1) 1971 Wastcoaster scooter, serial No. 27225, city equipment No. 18, to be traded in "as is ", except that the City will remove radio. Item 2 To be purchased: One (1) 1974 or 1975 three wheel gasoline driven motor scooter. To be traded in: One (1) 1968 Westcoaster scooter, serial No. 25712, city equipment No. 768, to be traded in "as is ". (This unit is currently inoperable.) City Council Minutes August 19, 1974 Page 15 1 1 GOLDEN BEAR EQUIPMENT. 2000 Fifth Street Berkeley, CA 94710 DEVIATIONS POWER LIFT COMPANY P.O. Box 392 Oxnard, CA 93030 Less Trade Net $2,195.00 225.00 $1,970.00 $2,195.00 150.00 $2,045.00 The scooters offered have no tunnel lights, standard lighting only, as shown in brochure sent. This bid is only offered through August 18, 1974. On motion of Councilman Norris, seconded by Councilman Brown the low bid was accepted. B -2 Bids for WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENTS, opened Friday, August 9, 1974 at 2:30 P.M. (NO BIDS RECEIVED) was ordered received and filed. On motion of Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Norris the meeting adjourned at 12:10 A.M., August 20, 1974. APPROVED: November 4, 1974 PATRICK, CITY CLERK BIDDER ITEM 1 ITEM 2 POWER LIFT COMPANY P.O. Box 392 Less trade $2,489.94 125.00 $2,489.94 50.00 Oxnard, California 93030 Net $2,364..94* $2,439.94* * Price includes tax 1 1 GOLDEN BEAR EQUIPMENT. 2000 Fifth Street Berkeley, CA 94710 DEVIATIONS POWER LIFT COMPANY P.O. Box 392 Oxnard, CA 93030 Less Trade Net $2,195.00 225.00 $1,970.00 $2,195.00 150.00 $2,045.00 The scooters offered have no tunnel lights, standard lighting only, as shown in brochure sent. This bid is only offered through August 18, 1974. On motion of Councilman Norris, seconded by Councilman Brown the low bid was accepted. B -2 Bids for WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENTS, opened Friday, August 9, 1974 at 2:30 P.M. (NO BIDS RECEIVED) was ordered received and filed. On motion of Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Norris the meeting adjourned at 12:10 A.M., August 20, 1974. APPROVED: November 4, 1974 PATRICK, CITY CLERK t GRIGINAE CITY COUNCIL HEARING SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA In the matter of ) Resolution No. 2640 J. E. HAZARD ) Taken August 19, 1974 7:00 P,. M. Reported by: Roy L. Pina, CSR •PETRICK & PINA. Official Court Reporters 320 COUNTY COURTHOUSE SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93401 543 -3078 544 -6352 I I., 7 1. 31 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CITY COUNCIL HEARING SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA In the matter Hof ) Resolution No. 2640 J. E. ,HAZARD ) Taken August 19, 1974. 7:00 P. M. PRESENT.: Kenneth Schwartz, Mayor T. Keith Gurnee, Councilman Jesse..-.Norris, Councilman John Brown, Councilman Myron Graham,. Councilman (not present) Arthur J. Shaw, City Attorney Michael J. Morris, Attorney at Law Reported by: Roy L. Pina, CSR ROY L. PINA & ASSOCIATES Official Court Reporters 543 -3078 544 -6352 t 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MAYOR SCHWARTZ: Ladies and Gentlemen, I would like to call to order the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo. Item No. 1. MR. FITZPATRICK: Item One is a public hearing on a public nuisance which may be abated. This is Resolution No. 2640, 1974 series. MAYOR SCHWARTZ:. Mr. Shaw, may I ask for an introduction, please? COUNCILMAN_GURNEE: Before you begin, Mr. Shaw, since both of these-hearings involve problems of the same property, could.they both be taken at the same time? MR. SHAW: I would think it would be better to take them separately._ However, there is really no problem on the second one. We have. come to an arrangement with the property owner,'.. we can agree; and the City may take,out.the. stumps, and we.can• drop it.from the calendar later. MAYOR SCHWARTZ: All right. MR. SHAW: I have given each of the Councilmen and the attorney, Michael Morris, who represents tlie'•`ifazards, a. copy of the City Code Provisions which are involved.in this proposed public nuisance abatement procedure. e If the Council.will turn to page 101,_the`.,third sheet in the set of Code Provisions which I gave to you, the middle of the page, Section '5220.10, entitled, "Obstructions in Drainage Channels, Abatement of" that section begins, "Any structure, fence, conduit, wall, tree, masonry, pipe, lumber or other material which obstructs or constitutes 'a hazard to the free flow of water through a stream, drainage channel or water ROY L. PINA & ASSOCIATES Official Court Reporters 543 -3078 544 -6352 1 7 1 course is hereby declared.to.be a public nuisance." On the 2 first sheet I gave you, page 82, Section 4400.1, Subparagraph 3 3, it indicates; "Anything constituting a public nuisance as 4 specifically defined or declared by any other law or ordinance 5 may be abated under the City's nuisance abatement procedure." 6 Those are the code sections which are the authority for 7 this hearing this ;aevening. 8 'I would ask the City Clerk if he has made the necessary 9 service of notice required for this hearing? 10 MAYOR SCHWARTZ: Mr. Fitzpatrick? 11 MR. FITZPATRICK: Yes, I have filed a certificate with 12 the City Attorney on the posting and mailing of the notice to 13 the property owners. 14 MR. SHAW: As-the Council.will.recall, after a California 15 Supreme Court decision concerning the abatement of building 16 in-Petaluma a few years back, it has been standard procedure 17 to require the swearing in of witnesses for the City. I would 18 ask the City Engineer, David Romero, be sworn in as the City's 19 first witness. 20 DAVID ROMERO, 21 having been first duly sworn, 22 testified'as follows: 23 EXAMINATION BY MR. SHAW - 24 Q Mr. Romero, would you explain "to the "Council the facts,, 25 surrounding the existence of this pipe, the sewer pipe in the 26 creek,. and whether or not in your opinion it would constitute 27 an obstruction or hazard to-the free flow of.water through the ' 28 stream? 'ROY L, PINA & ASSOCIATES; , Official Court Reporters 543 =8078 544 -6352 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 25 26 27 28 A The sewer service leads from the Hazard Mobile Home Park across San Luis Obispo Creek, from right to left on the viewer, to Dana Street, which .is to the left. It was con- structed a number of years ago.and has been washed out during several storms. The latest time was in 1973, when raw sewage discharged from the mobile home park into the creek. The City Waterway Finding Board viewed.this, along with many other obstructions, and found this truly constituted an obstruction, and asked-the Councilmen to set the hearing this evening. Q The area depicted in the slides, is that part of the Hazard property. A Yes. The Hazard ownership extends on both sides of the creek here. The retaining wall on the left is on Hazard property, and the trees on the right are the bank of the mobile home park, also Hazard property. Q Does that pipe serve any other property? A It is the private service only serving the Hazard property. Q And has your department made any studies or suggestions as to possible ways of correcting this problem? A -Yes. The Department has viewed three possibili.ties,. Actually four possibilities. One would be a'sewer -lift station on the Hazard property, and a forced main to Higuera Street -. The lift station would be about $6,000, and the-total cost for that alternate would be about $8,400. Q Does the Council have a copy of these alternates?. A The second alternate would be a lift station under San, ROY L. PINA & ASSOCIATES Official Court Reporters 543 -3078 544 -6352 22. '. 23 24 25 26 27 28 A The sewer service leads from the Hazard Mobile Home Park across San Luis Obispo Creek, from right to left on the viewer, to Dana Street, which .is to the left. It was con- structed a number of years ago.and has been washed out during several storms. The latest time was in 1973, when raw sewage discharged from the mobile home park into the creek. The City Waterway Finding Board viewed.this, along with many other obstructions, and found this truly constituted an obstruction, and asked-the Councilmen to set the hearing this evening. Q The area depicted in the slides, is that part of the Hazard property. A Yes. The Hazard ownership extends on both sides of the creek here. The retaining wall on the left is on Hazard property, and the trees on the right are the bank of the mobile home park, also Hazard property. Q Does that pipe serve any other property? A It is the private service only serving the Hazard property. Q And has your department made any studies or suggestions as to possible ways of correcting this problem? A -Yes. The Department has viewed three possibili.ties,. Actually four possibilities. One would be a'sewer -lift station on the Hazard property, and a forced main to Higuera Street -. The lift station would be about $6,000, and the-total cost for that alternate would be about $8,400. Q Does the Council have a copy of these alternates?. A The second alternate would be a lift station under San, ROY L. PINA & ASSOCIATES Official Court Reporters 543 -3078 544 -6352 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ' 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 . .22 23 24 G 25 26 27 28 Luis Obispo Creek. The run of the main is much shorter in this case, and the total cost then would be about $7,000. The third alternate would be a gravel line from the Hazard property to Higuera Street. In order to accomplish this the line must run to other property, another owner's property, the Campbell property. Our estimate for this would be $10,000 plus the problem of obtaining an easement. The final concept which we are not sure will work, will be a siphon from the Hazard property underneath the creek and over to Dana Street. The problem with the siphon is that it' needs substantial elevation from one side to the other. In this case the Hazard property is near the same elevation as the sewer line, and therefore the site may not function as well as it should. There is also a problem in the low flow ..for siphoning. The high flow there is no difficulty. That alternate, the siphon alternate would be about $4,000. The range of alternates is $4,000 to $10,000 for the abatement of this sewer pipe. Q From an engineering point of view you would.recommend only the first three? A I would recommend the fourth: -one, however, I would' feel that the Hazards should.have "`their own engineer analyze it because it would be their. service. So any of these would function if the engineering can check out on the $4,,000'on this one, but the other three are sure to function.. Q I believe you indicated that this line was broken in the '73 flood? A Yes. Also in the '69 flood, and one other time that ROY L. PINA & ASSOCIATES Official Court Reporters 543.3078 544 -6352 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 I know of before that. Q Were there hearings after the 169 flood? A Yes. After '69 the.Engineering Department notified the Council that this was an obstruction and the Council heard hearings. At that time they did not require the moving of the sewer line.because of the extraordinary cost for the property owner in order to serve themselves. 8 9 now. 10 11 12 13 14, ' 15 16 17 18 19 -' 20 21 22. 23 24 25 26 27 28 Q I presume the costs were much less then than they are A Yes. MR. SHAW:. Does the Council have any questions? MAYOR SCHWARTZ- Any questions of Mr. Romero at this time? COUNCILMAN BROWN: No. MR. SHAW: If I might, attorney Michael Morris, I believe is here, representing the Hazards. Mr. Morris, in relation to anything that the Engineer has said, do you have any questions? MR. MORRIS: Mr. Shaw, I really don't have any questions'° at this exact moment. May I reserve.my..right.to ash: a. question for clarification? + MR. SHAW: Definitely. MR. MORRIS: Thank you. .MR. SHAW: If there•are no other questions, that ends the City's presentation, and we would be,ready'.f<r the presentation by the Hazards.• x MAYOR SCHWARTZ: I have one question. Mr. Romero, I think in a related matter -I would Tike to have you respond to the question, is the City itself taking ROY L. PINA & ASSOCIATES Official Court Reporters 543 -3078 544-6352 t 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ,18 '19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 any steps to remove sewer lines that transgress the creek in any other location? MR. ROMERO: Yes, the City has a program now under way throughout the community to remove a number of sewer lines which are aerial crossings of the creek. However,•we have two sewer lines nearby that are not being removed. The ones immediately downstream on the San Luis Obispo Creek, about a quarter of a mile downstream, is a large trunk facility, and it has never broken. It has withstood all the floods. The second one is down near the Marsh Street bridge. That was slated to be made a siphon this year. However, with the State's plans for realigning and rebuiling the bridge structure, it will be necessary to redo that sewer line altogether, and therefore we have held up on that one at Marsh Street. There are two nearby that are not being removed, but I believe all the others in the community _ we are removing at this time. MAYOR SCHWARTZ: 'On the Marsh Street. line, it is my recollection that when the Marsh Street bridge is reconstructed that line will be removed and made. a.part of the bridge., there- by reducing the hazard that exists to its possible washout with a flood; is that correct? MR. ROMERO: We will make it a part,of .the br1idge if we can, and if not, we will have a siphon. COUNCILMAN GURNEE: How many sewer lines do you think will go to siphon since the '69 flood, do you have any idea? MR. ROMERO: About four that.we have any contact with now. We are removing some waterlines also. ROY L. PINA & ASSOCIATES Official Court Reporters 543- 3678 544 -6352 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 41 27 28 MAYOR SCHWARTZ: Any other questions by any members of the Council? COUNCILMAN BROWN: Mr. Mayor, this sewer line near Marsh Street was wiped out during the.173 flood, was it not? MR. ROMERO: Yes, both in '69 and :73. COUNCILMAN BROWN: Thank you. COUNCILMAN NORRIS: I am curious about building permits, was there a building permit issued when this line went .in originally? MR. ROMERO: We searched and were unable to find a record. This was put-in a number of years ago. The City records are not just that good. I have forgotten the time now. It was a number of years ago. MAYOR SCHWARTZ: Mr. Shaw? MR. SHAW:. -If there are no other questions, that would conclude the staff presentation before the Council would make its finding or determination. Mr: Morris and the Hazards':. should present.their matter. MAYOR SCHWARTZ: Mr. Morris? MR: MORRIS:, My name is Michael Morris,,and 'as the City' Attorney indicated, I am representing the Hazards with.regard to the question:,of possible nuisance. For the benefit of Council, and in response directly to Mr. Gurnee's previous question, I just might say that.-there.. were two questions. One was with regard to trees, and the other with regard,to• the sewer. It is our position that we .have reached an agreement concerning the trees. We have no objection to their being removed. ROY L. PINA & .ASSOCIATES Official Court Reporters 543 -3078 544 -6352 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 ' .It is our ,understanding that that has been done'at City's expense. With regard to the sewer problemi it is a much more difficult problem in our view. The'sewer has been' there approximately since 1949. There apparently was not a. problem, at least to our'knowledge,•there was never a problem until 1969. Mr. Romero has indicated he thought it washed out previously. We don't have any recollection of that. However, the Hazards have only owned the property since 1961, but it did indeed wash out in '69 and also in '73, and that apparently is the problem. The reason it washed out, in our opinion, I might ask Mr. Romero, whether he would disagree with this, is that the flow of water coming down the creek backed up in each of those instances-at the Marsh Street bridge. It was the back -up of the water which washed out the line rather than the flow of water coming down the creek which washed out the line. That would be.Mr. Hazard's testimony. If the Council would like to hear that, of course I would be happy to have him sworn and have him testify to that fact. Mr. Gary Hazard was present at both the washing outs of the line, both in '69 and also 173. MAYOR SCHWARTZ: Mr. Morris, do you want Mr. Romero to respond? MR. MORRIS: Maybe we should stop and ask Mr. Romero if there was another occasion? MR. ROMERO: I said I thought there was an, earlier occasion. I do not•remember whether it was washed out. 'I- ROY L. PINA & ASSOCIATES, Official Court Reporters 643 -3078 644 -6362 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 9 would have to check back with some of our sewer crews, In response to your latest statement, the water did back -up from the Marsh Street bridge. However, my opinion is that it was not the cause of the line failing. There was sufficient force here in 169 to topple the retaining wall, actually directly behind where the camera was when this picture was taken. This wall toppled over. The water backing up to Marsh Street did not cause that. So I am in disagreement with the Hazards' contention regarding the cause for this. MR. MORRIS: Thank you. The solutions that have been posed by the City, and I went over them with the City Engineer, the City Engineer's Office today, and the four possible solutions, frankly, we have no objection to any of them, except, perhaps, the largest objection of all, that is quite simply that we•would be willing to allow the City to do whatever it would choose so long-:as it would be done at the City's expense. I feel there is some precedent for the City undertaking at their expense a project such as this one. I would draw. the Council's attention to the work that was done recently on the Cole project farther up the creek, which it is my understanding was done at City's expense. I feel that it is analagous to this situation. It is a situation wherein the judgment'of the City a hazard exists in the creek, and apparently to the best of.my knowledge the City determined that the hazard could be corrected, and it was in fact corrected with, if not a total, or at least a substantial contribution of public funds. . ROY L. PINA & ASSOCIATES Official Court Reporters 543 -3078 544 -6352 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10 I might also cite to the City the fact that natural obstructions, as Council well knows, are removed at the City's expense. The trees in this instance, the stumps, are being removed at City expense, and numerous trees where they have posted problems throughout the City have been removed by the City. I feel that in this particular instance it would be unfair for the City to require the Hazards to bear at their sole cost the removal of the sewer line. It is quite obvious it is an expensive proposition, and it would be our position that the estimates given by the City Engineer's Office are conservative ones. we received higher estimates, estimates up to $15,000 for a lift station to properly handle this problem. It is really a substantial burden to place one property owner who has had a sewer line across that creek since 1949, and to our way of thinking has not been a problem in any form until 20 years later, in 1969, and I feel that the problem is really not the making of the property owner, the problem is one that we all share, and that we all know very well. I feel a more equitable way of handling it would be for the corrective measure to be taken at public expense. I might also point out, after the '69 flood, there was a question of apparently some remedial work to be done with regard to a retaining wall. I think Mr. Romero eluded to it when he mentioned the fact that it washed.out.. At that time,.,, as best as I can determine from the correspondence that I have reviewed, there was something of an agreement which was struck ROY L. PINA & ASSOCIATES Official Court Reporters 543 -3078 544 -6352 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 .25 .. 26 27 28 with the City between the Hazards and the City. The Hazards agreed to do certain remedial work, and to my understanding the City agreed that this would be all that was required of them. The Hazards did do their work, and now four years later you are requiring them, or at least the contemplation is that they would be required to spend again a much larger sum of money to`correc.t a further. problem. I wonder again whether or not that is really equitable at this time. As I indicated when I began my presentation, we don't have an objection to the removal of the line if it is at City expense.. . If the determination would be that this is not the correct way to approach the problem, in other words, that the City is absolutely determined that they will not spend money to correct this problem, then I would argue that the line should stay the way it is. There are other lines that have washed out, there are lines, as a matter of fact, that are quite close to this line that have washed out on the same instance that this line has washed out, and yet there are no specific plans to remove, at least the one particular line which was washed out, no plan to remove this. There has been talk about removal of this line at some future date when the Marsh Street bridge is corrected. The problem there which I would view is a State problem. I might suggest that when the time.cbmes for : the -City to correct the problems which it has, it might then consider telling the citizens that they would have to correct their problems at the same time. I find that it is a little ROY L. PINA & ASSOCIATES �.. O/ficml Court Reporters 543- 3078 644 -6352 IIL 1. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1Z 77 inconsistent for the City to be demanding a substantial outlay of private funds to correct a possible hazard when the City is not correcting its own possible hazards at•this time. Finally I would say.that, and I know I contradict. -Mr:., Romero in this regard, if you accept-as correct/ our position that the Marsh Street bridge.is the true culprit in this matter, it would be our hope that when the State corrects that problem that our problem will disappear at that point.. I understand that that would not be. Mr. Romero's position. That is our.presentation, and I would be happy to answer any questions, or as I indicated, we would be happy to swear Mr. Hazard in and have him answer any questions which the Council might have. MAYOR SCHWARTZ: Mr. Shaw, may I ask you, would there be any reason to have.Mr..Hazard sworn to present testimony? MR. SHAW: Not unless Council would have a particular question that they would like to ask. MAYOR SCHWARTZ: Do any members have questions specifically of Mr. Hazard? Well,we will find that unnecessary, then. Are there any further questions? Mr. Shaw, would it be appropriate at this time that anybody in the public who. has an interest in this matter be provided the opportunity to speak? MR. SHAW: Yes, it is a public hearing. MAYOR SCHWARTZ: Ladies and Gentlemen, at this time I would like to open the public portion of the hearing. I will ask if there.is anyone in the audience who has an interest in ROY L. PINA & ASSOCIATES Official Cowt Reporters 543 -3078 544- 6352'. ' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 y 8 .. 9 10 11 12 1 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 this matter who'would like to be heard? May we have your name and address.? MR. GARY HAZARD: I am part owner'of the Mission Trailer Park. One question in reference to that City permit for the sewer line, there isn't a City permit issued for that.sewer. line. It was controlled by the State under the�Division of., Trailer parks, and that is the reason there wouldn't be "a• permit in the City records. MAYOR SCHWARTZ: Thank you. __ r COUNCILMAN NORRIS: Relative to.that, does the City in ~ any way get to review the State permit prior to its being issued? In other words, did the-City review the project before it went in?' MR. HAZARD: I doubt it seriously, but that would be a question that only an attorney could answer. We filed it with the State, and I don't know what took place after that. MAYOR SCHWARTZ: Thank you. . Once again, is there anyone else that would like to be heard? Let the record indicate that Mr. Hazard was the only person who spoke. I'll close this portion of the hearing. Mr: Shaw, anything else? MR. SHAW: As far as the procedural steps involved, I- would suggest that the Council first consider the matter under. 5220.10, the third page, page 101 of the sheet which I gave to you, as to whether or not this is a pipe which obstructs or constitutes a hazard to the free flow of water through a stream, drainage channel, or water course. If so, then it ROY L. PINA & ASSOCIATES Of teml Court Reporters 543 -3078 544 -6352 I 7 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 14 would automatically be a public nuisance which may be abated 4 under the procedures. MAYOR SCHWARTZ: May I ask at this time if the Council were to so find, in finding this does the Council at that time have the opportunity to'then specify either'the time�or, the sharing of the cost, if it determines that there.is a sharing of cost involved here, or any other of'those. more._ detailed particulars? _. MR. SHAW: Yes. That is the first step to invoking the ordinance. Once you invoke this you would make those determinations. MAYOR SCHEARTZ: It':.would be incumbent upon the Council to determine, as Mr. Shaw has instructed us, whether in review of the evidence presented tonight, we feel that there is an obstruction to the flow of water, and I would invite the Council to state individually their reasoning either for or against the concept of the hazard. Councilman.Gurnee? COUNCILMAN GURNEE: As Chairman of the Waterworks Planning Board, we have been asked to review obstructions up and down the entire - length of the waterways within the community. I personally have had occasion to view this, what I viewed as an obstruction, and I have viewed it four times. The Waterways Planning Board at the meeting considered whether or not this is an obstruction that should be. abated, and they voted unanimously among the members who attended to have the water- line or the sewer line abated. Since we are being asked to.determine.whether or not it ROY L. PINA & ASSOCIATES Official Court Reporters 649 -3098 644 -6362 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16' 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 15 is an obstruction, having viewed it as much as I have,and having been a voting member of the Waterways.Board, I can come up with no other conclusion but that.it is an obstruction and should be abated. MAYOR SCHWARTZ: Councilman Norris? COUNCILMAN NORRIS:. I think it is a public nuisance all right, but there are several things-relative to this that kind of bother me. One is the fact that at.least somebody issued a permit for its construction, and I think that when permits are issued the .permit issuing agency in effect assumes some responsibility. If, in fact they do assume some responsibility, then they should share that responsibility when it'comes: up for abatement. In 1istening.to what went on here,•I haven't been able to- .ascertain- clearly as to whether the City was or was not involved'-in issuing the permit. It bothers me to some extent that the City owns sewer lines in the area which are ,not presently being considered for abatement in the foreseeable future. I do think the sewer line is a public nuisance, there. is;no..question about:.that. But based on what I heard here this evening, I couldn't be.-all that clear that it is obstructing the flow of water. We continue to hear that it broke in '69, that it broke in 173, but we didn't-really hear that it has obstructed the flow of water. So Mr. Mayor, there is where I stand. MAYOR SCHWARTZ:• Councilman Brown? COUNCILMAN BROWN: Mr. Mayor, like Councilman.Gurnee I ROY L. PINA & ASSOCIATES Official Court Reporters 543-3078 544 -6352 I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15` 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 16 was a member of the Waterways Planning Board, and we waded down the creek very shortly after the water had been flowing somewhat, and there was ample evidence that debris,'-had piled up against the trees in the area, against the pipe, and the remains that.were there. It is very clearly a hazard to the. flow of water in the creek, and'it should be abated forthwith. I would think there would have to have been a permit of some sort issued by the City to permit that sewer line to tie into a City sewer system. Perhaps on the property of the trai court originally the State property did have jurisdiction, but the City would, at least, have a permit or would afford a permit of some kind to tie to the sewer line. I have a feeling that the City accepted that in order to reduce the cost to the original property owner, assuming there was a ;certain amount of risk where it would cross the creek. So I °think 'the original builder no doubt saved considerab money by'doing it ;this way, so he has come out very well. It is my feeling that under our present ordinances, in view of .what I know•of•the location after looking at it several times, . `, I see it as the property owner's responsibility, and I think that the City has.the responsibility to see that it is abated as. soon' - s possible'. ..,MAYOR SCIiWARTZ: I. can.only conclude from the evidence that has'been submitted tonight, as well as my personal observations of the physical property on several occasions, and the report of the Waterways Planning Board, that a nuisance does exist that should be abated. I would specificalll cite the fact that the line has broken in each of the last two ROY L. PINA & ASSOCIATES Official Court Reporters 543 -3078 5446352 r 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20: 21 22 23` 24 25 26 27 28 major floods, 1969.and 1973, and that there exists with the breakage of the sewer line a definite health hazard. I think as Councilman Brown indicated, there is evidence that there is a pile -up of debris on lines such as this that do cross the creek, and they'are subject to breaking by impact of debris being carried by flood waters. I therefore conclude that it is an obstruction that needs to be abated. Now, as the means for the abatement, I would defer that and ask for the Council to make a motion on Section 5220.10, and then we can go into the second part to determine how the Council would like to see the matter abated. COUNCILMAN GURNEE: I would move that the Council find that the obstruction discussed this evening be deemed a public nuisance and to be abated. MAYOR SCHWARTZ: Is there.a second? COUNCILMAN BROWN: I will second the motion. `',MAYOR SCHWARTZ: The motion is made and seconded, any further 4isc'ussion? Pair... Fitzpatribk, may we have a roll call? MR. FITZPATRICK: Mr. Gurnee? COUNCILMAN GURNEE: Aye, MR. FITZPATRICK: Mr. Brown? COUNCILMAN. -.BROWN: Aye. MR. FITZPATRICK:...Mr. Norris? COUNCILMAN NORRIS: Aye. MR. FITZPATRICK: Mayor Schwartz? MAYOR SCHWARTZ: Aye. MAYOR SCHWARTZ: Would it be appropriate at this time ROY L. PINA & ASSOCIATES OFTcial Court Reporters 543 -3078 544 -6352 17 1 i� 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 .19 20 ' 21 22 23 24 25 .. 26 27 28 for the Council to determine if it wishes to impose the abatement cost solely upon the owner, or a sharing of the cost, if the Council feels there is a public benefit here, and a public responsibility, and also the possibility of setting the time by which the now declared nuisance should MR. SHAW: The basic.proceaure, after finding -of the nuisance that should be abated, the Council may at that time at that meeting, if it .so desires, order the abatement stating the period of time for abatement, the method of abatement, although there-may be several alternatives there. The finding .as to the sharing. of cost is made after the .completion of the abatement procedures. That is, as to whether or not there is a sharing, or as to whether the property owner pays it all, this is made after the abatement if the City has to do the abatement. However, if there is any indication at all that the Council might be willing to enter into a sharing arrangement with the Hazards, I would suggest that the Council might wish to stop ,at this.,'point, finding that there is a - hazard, and discuss,the-matter'of whether or not there is an agreeable sharing,' formula . MAYOR SCH14ARTZ: There are two points, and because we have-,had some discussion on the latter, I think we ought to pause and discuss whether-we individually or collectively feel that there�.is a public responsibility and therefore a sharing in.the abatement of this line. Mr. Brown, I'll start with you. ROY L. PINA & ASSOCIATES Official Court Reporters 543 - 3078 5446352 18 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 .. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - COUNCILMAN BROWN: Mr. Mayor, I do not see any logical reason why the City should share the cost. I believe it was mentioned that the sewer line owned by the City, a large-line, crossing the creek near the Marsh Street freeway underpass is still in place after having been washed out-in the floods. It is my understanding that the Department of Transportation, or Division of Highways, is now doing engineering work looking for a replacement of the bridge. It would not be feasible, as I understand it, to replace a sewer line now and then quite possibly to rebuild it again in a relatively few Years. .I have a feeling that the path of least.resistence was taken by the original builder,'and now the time has come to correct the situation. MAYOR SCHWARTZ: Councilman Gurnee? COUNCILMAN GURNEE: I would say that the abatement of any public nuisance is to the public benefit, but I do not sub- scribe to the theory that if there is a public benefit the public should share or bear the burden of cost. By the same argument, the City might be absorbing the cost in the removing of.Volkswagens ^from City property on Branch Street. I don't think the City should have this responsibility. MAYOR SCHWART.Z: Councilman Norris? } COUNCILMAN NORRIS: I would like to agree with Councilman Gurnee:r.it is ,a public benefit to abate the sewer line, and I think that that is what this hearing is all about. I am still tied up on the building permit. I think that in the case of a property owner that goes . out and bootlegs a flood problem into the creek shouldbe� made to remove it at his own expense ROY L. PINA & ASSOCIATES Official Court Reporters 543 -3078 544 -6352 i 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 :23 24 .25 26 27 28 forthwith. I think that a property owner who has a legitimate license from the City to construct something in the form of a building permit, that then the City did in fact!�,pick up some obligations. They knew that it was going in there, they condoned it's construction in issuing the building permit, and they should share in the problems that it creates, if they did know. So we are not just one hundred percent clear as to whether.they had a City building permit or not. I do, however, think that Councilman Brown is probably correct in saying that it would be inconceivable that anyone could hook on to the City sewer system.without a building permit. Based on that I think that the City should in fact share the cost of removing this, because I think they shared in the responsibility for its construction:in the first place. So Mr. Mayor, I am in favor of working out some kind of a cost sharing arrangement. MAYOR SCHWARTZ: For the record, I find myself in accord with the position'of Councilman Brown. I think in the course of human activity we find that there is incumbent upon each of us the acceptance of. additional responsibility with time as events prove that we each should share them. We have had in_a.four- year.'space of time two major floods that nobody anticipated.`.: I don't necessarily feel that it is the responsibility of'the City to accept that type of responsibili back to year' zero. I think as Councilman Brown has indicated, there probably•were different alternatives proposed in the initial connection of the sewer line, and I think that there exists at the present time, as Mr. Romero in his testimony ;ROY L. PINA & ASSOCIATES Official Court Reporters 543 -3078 544 -6352 2( a _ 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 a , indicated, at least four ways in which .the line could be corrected now. I therefore feel that the City does not have an obligation to share in the responsibility of this, and I believe that that responsibility is incumbent upon the property owner. MR. SHAW: Mr. Mayor, before the Council proceeds further, you might wish information from Mr. Romero as to a reasonable time for the property owner to perform this project before the City would go in and do it. MAYOR SCHWARTZ: Mr. Romero, do you have any feeling as to what would constitute a reasonable time from the standpoint of engineering and construction of this project? MR. ROMERO: If the lift station alternate is chosen, the materials and labor would probably take, I am guessing at this, one hundred and twenty days, so it becomes a winter project. If the forced main is to go across the creek it would be very awkward during the winter.. If a siphon goes in across the creek it would also be a winter project. So it is my feeling we should give.him some time until after the rainy season to complete the work. It is too late in the year to pursue it right how. MAYOR SCHWARTZ.: Do I presume, then, that you are saying ,from.a: pure engineering standpoint the best time to do this would be sometime in the .summer? MR.,RQMER0 Yes. MR. "SHAW: Mr. Mayor, I would direct the Council's attention -to Section 4400.8 on the second sheet of page 83 ROY L. PINA & ASSOCIATES Official Court Reporters 543 -3078 544 -6352 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 -27 28 of the .sheets.which I gave to you, the second paragraph, "If the Council finds that such public nuisance does exist and that there is sufficient cause to require the abatement thereof, the Council may adopt a resolution declaring the existence of said nuisance upon said premises, and ordering the abatement of the same within thirty days, or within such other time limit as the Council.may specify." So.I believe we are now at the question of whether or not the Council is ordering the property owner to abate the nuisance within a given time, and the means by which it shall be done. MAYOR SCHWARTZ: I would like to initiate this portion of the conversation by saying, I hope it is clear to the entire community that the City has undertaken a broad program to correct the obstructions that exist in our creeks, as we learned from sad experience in 1969 and more recently in 1973. We have expended tremendous amounts of money and have overcome the most major.of the obstructions. We are in the process of removing some of these sewer lines that-are in the public property, if you will, and will continue until all of those are abated. We.also have a similar program that deals with the removal of water lines. However, that priority is somewhat lessened because we are not dumping, if they should be broken, raw sewage into the creek. We intend to get rid of those as quickly.as we can as well. I feel that we are dealing with a calculated risk in setting schedules'for public risks and setting schedules for ROY L. PINA & ASSOCIATES Official Court Reporters 543 -3078 5446352 22 i 2 - 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 r I public risks and.setting schedules for the private work. It would be my, opinion that'.the.time schedule which has been presented by -Mr. Romero would represent the fair time period in which to have this removed. I wouldn't say it is without risk, but I do think it is fair and I would hope that the Council would take his recommendation. MR. ROMERO: I would like to have it a little earlier in case the property owner does not proceed, that we will have time to on our own. MAYOR SCHWARTZ: I would be willing to accept that proposal, the month of June, 1975. COUNCILMAN GURNEE: Say ten months? MR. SHAW: Make it June the thirtieth. COUNCILMAN GURNEE: I would so move. COUNCILMAN BROW14: I'll second it. MAYOR SCHWARTZ: Would any other councilman like to comment on this particular part? COUNCILMAN.NORRIS: I would indicate, because I feel that the City does have-a responsibility and should share in the cost, I will be voting no on the motion. MAYOR SCHWARTZ: Mr. Gurnee, that includes any of the four alternatives? Zi.v COUNCILMAN GURNEE: Yes. MAYOR SCHWARTZ: Mr. Fitzpatrick, may we have a roll call? MR. FITZPATRICK: Mr. Gurnee? COUNCILMAN GURNEE: Aye. MR. FITZPATRICK: Mr. Brown? ROY L. PINA & ASSOCIATES Official Court Reporters 543 -3078 544 -6352 1 I 1 2 3 4; -5 ,._ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 s COUNCILMAN,BROWN: Aye. MR. FITZPATRICK- Mr. Norris? COUNCILMANINORRIS: No. MR. FITZPATRIC.K:. Mayor Schwartz? MAYOR SCHWARTZ: Aye. MR. SHAW: Thank you very much. MAYOR SCHWARTZ: Mr. Shaw, for the record, we have taken an action, and would you mind, for the public record, both the Hazards and the general public listening in, indicate the recourse that-exist to the Hazards should they disagree? MR. SHAW: Yes.. I just pointed that out to attorney Morris, in our nuisance abatements it provides that any owner having any objection or feeling aggrieved at any proceeding taken by the Council in ordering the.abatement of any public nuisance, they must bring in an action to contest the decision to the courts within thirty days after the adoption of the resolution by the Council ordering the abatement of the nuisance. If I might, in relation to Item Two, I would suggest that Council continue that matter until the middle of September. MAYOR SCHWARTZ: Mr. Morris, I assume from your previous comments that to continue this'matter, as Mr. Shaw has suggested, is agreeable .to the Hazards? MR.-MORRIS: That is correct. MAYOR SCHWARTZ: May I have a motion on the part of the Council to continue .Item Two until the first meeting in November? MR. SHAW: Make that the second meeting in September. ROY L. PINA & ASSOCIATES Official Court Reporters 543 -3078 544 -6352 9d 1' 2 3 4 5' 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 `, b MAYOR SCHWARTZ: Is that agreeable? MR.'MORRIS:, Yes sir. MAYOR.SCHWARTZ: The second meeting in September. Mr. Shaw, I feel. compelled, because this is 'a public hearing, to ask if there is anyone who wishes to comment on Item Number Two. 4 4 before we-take a bote: MR.'---SHAW: You may. ROY L. • PINA & ASSOCIATES Official Court Reporters 543 -3078 544 -6352 1 2 .3 4 5> 6 7 8 9 10 11 L 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 . 24 25 26 27 28 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss. County of San Luis Obispo ) I, the undersigned, ROY L. PINA,'orfficia]:- reporter,of the.. o Superior Court of the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, do hereby certify that the foregoing pages 1_to 25 comprise a full, 'true and correct transcript. of the proceedings had in the within entitled matter,, recorded by me v by stenotypy on the day and at.the hour herein written and..,_. thereafter transcribed under my, rection into typewriting. Dated this day of , %� ;=�� .,' 1974:. Roy L. P na Certifi d'Shorthand Reporter. ROY L. PINA & ASSOCIATES Official Court Reporters 543 -3078 544 -8352 City Council,Minutes December. 2, .1974 Page 18 TC -3 74 -12 -3T Recommended_parking.restriction along easterly side of Pepper between Palm and Higuera. TC -4 74 -12 -4T Recommended that stop signs be installed on Jeffrey at Cerro Romauldo. TC -5 74 -12 -5T Recommended that-hearing be scheduled on elimination of parking on east side of Osos between Peach and Walnut. TC -6 74 -12 -6T Recommend that 14 metered spaces in seven different parking lots be widened, meters removed and spaces marked for exclusive use of handicapped persons with special license.plates and that $5 fine be set up for violators. On-motion of-Councilman Brown,-sec onded by Councilman Graham the following resolution was introduced: Resolution No. 2700 (1974 Series), a.resolution of the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo prohibiting parking on Highland Drive, Ferrini Road.and North Chorro:S.treet;. eliminating prohibitions'to.parkingcon Pepper Street; establishing--stop.-signs on Jeffrey Street;.es.tablishing parking spaces for handicapped motorists. On motion.of.Councilman Brown; seconded.-.by_Councilman Graham the:meeting.adjourned to 12 no.on;.-Wednesday,: December 4, 1974.to continue and complete the agenda of December 2, 1974. Motion carried. APPROVED: June 2, 1975 ,J-'H.- patrick, City Clerk . 1 i7 b A x L •ri 3 .fl CU •ri W w w L ro cn 00 _m 1+ w •n 'b A O z ci v m CU G rl a N U w N EXHIBIT "A" December 2, 1974 r 00 0, \0 00 0 N yr yr yr yr yr yr Co C w n M N A A ^I ,{ •,{ • r{ E E C C �7 r-I \ \ \ \ •ri' rl v u•1 Ln ON O L L w 00 O O) w L i n 4 CO w O O 4 M X w X .. w LC w a 9 41 ~ ¢ M C 0 C 0 co C p o C C 0 ro m > z o z � o v w -H as H ca •r1 PQ co C M C M w .-r C d M T u > o w� w w 41 > w > ray ou oc o� ocV W ca c� E 8 E w r a Co a N N 3 M M 0 0 C C) a a 3 •o w I o o o w -- co o ro w r� o C4 cri m w co o m w U C 41 a) oil W UJ A 4J N to N O W "' yr yr yr >" Z >+ o r w o I 0) m7 ro a A 1 N N A N .r4-1I a m 3 7 m •H 6 M d 3 w l I d w W w I W P4 4J W � ccoo C �.N.IuN. �cn �vro PO w PI O >+ O C Ln N 01 O N 7 •r-I Ca O+ O N ) I M %O Co O O H C co w O O r-I M G. C L w O O v> yr yr O w o F4 1.4 ca N 6 N V U O To I=T, w 9 H N >a H C a z G) v >+ O H w L� E E H co 6' �• 6 •• $4 N M w = M \ y \ \ 0) \ M J..c EEn 'O w I 01 W� O pq O u w 4.3 F 3 co O) a O a M n n En � � z cn• � V? V? I t? v v he °� c m ro F GL N co PO 6 o u 0 1714 z O O N F O N d d •r1 F d U a3 faYii O W 4-1 w H >4 P� w U O CIO w a M U cs. 0] w A C n) ctl C v H -H 4 ^ w Ofx F •O C C O w 0 O W W N -H i�.J 41 rM-I •rCOI O � U a U U L O 0 r4 c. O 07 •ri d O u In b w C cA C ro " A c�A w a A E O OD b W O M c0 rl •rl f-0 w 3 7 0 as 4 u rz a r1 G C l� C w o cco v) ¢ rn H N b A x L •ri 3 .fl CU •ri W w w L ro cn 00 _m 1+ w •n 'b A O z ci v m CU G rl a N U w N EXHIBIT "A" December 2, 1974