HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/19/19740
[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