HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/20/1976MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 1976 - 7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
Pledge
Roll Call
t PRESENT: Councilmen Gurnee, Graham, Norris, Petterson
and Mayor Schwartz
ABSENT: None
City Staff
PRESENT: R.D. Miller, Administrative Officer /City Clerk Pro -Tem;
Allen Grimes, City Attorney; Rob Strong, Director of
Community Development; Wayne Peterson, City Engineer;
D.F. Romero, Director of Public Services; Don Englert,
Acting Police Chief; Pam Voges, Recording Secretary
1. Communication from the Design Review Board forwarding recommendations
on the Mission Plaza Extension•schematic plans (continued from August 2, 1976).
Wes Ward, Jane Lilly, and John Troutner, of the Design Review Board, showed
slides and gave a brief presentation to the Council on the proposed Mission
Plaza extension.
Councilman Norris stated he too would support -the plan. He
well designed plan and was pleased that it would not affect
only objection was that of not using a local designer as he
Mr. Taylor was well qualified to do the work, he felt there
well qualified architects in the San Luis Obispo -area that
been given the opportunity to do the work.
felt it was a
parking. His
felt that, although
were other
should have
Councilman Petterson felt that the plan was very good and eventually
should happen but at the present the City was very poor in recreational
areas such as Sinsheimer Park being only 1/3 completed, Laguna Lake Park
in need of many amenities; the'option still open..on the Laguna Lake Golf
Course, etc. He stated that this project representing:.a cost of $120,000
construction costs would end up costing the City between $400,000 and
$500,000 before completion and therefore was premature with relation to
other priority items.
Councilman Graham stated that the Mission Plaza had helped this City
immensely, and this proposed extension would be of further.benefit to the
City as he felt it was both logical-and at a reasonable cost.
Mayor Schwartz stated he would support the recommendations of-staff and the
Design Review Board. He felt that:this was a great opportunity for the City
and should be taken advantage of. The developments.of The.Creamery, private
enterprise in this area, and the Mission Plaza had enhanced the opportunity
for adding this link. He further stated that in his opinion Mr. Taylor had
done a good job on the Mission Plaza and felt confident in his ability to do
likewise here.
Councilman
Norris was concerned if there would
be any necessity.to close.
any of the
surrounding streets and also if there would be any loss of parking
spaces.
Rob Strong,
Director of Community Development,
assured him this would not
be the case
in either situation.
Councilman
Gurnee felt the Design Review Board
had put - together a very good
package and
stated he would support it.
Councilman Norris stated he too would support -the plan. He
well designed plan and was pleased that it would not affect
only objection was that of not using a local designer as he
Mr. Taylor was well qualified to do the work, he felt there
well qualified architects in the San Luis Obispo -area that
been given the opportunity to do the work.
felt it was a
parking. His
felt that, although
were other
should have
Councilman Petterson felt that the plan was very good and eventually
should happen but at the present the City was very poor in recreational
areas such as Sinsheimer Park being only 1/3 completed, Laguna Lake Park
in need of many amenities; the'option still open..on the Laguna Lake Golf
Course, etc. He stated that this project representing:.a cost of $120,000
construction costs would end up costing the City between $400,000 and
$500,000 before completion and therefore was premature with relation to
other priority items.
Councilman Graham stated that the Mission Plaza had helped this City
immensely, and this proposed extension would be of further.benefit to the
City as he felt it was both logical-and at a reasonable cost.
Mayor Schwartz stated he would support the recommendations of-staff and the
Design Review Board. He felt that:this was a great opportunity for the City
and should be taken advantage of. The developments.of The.Creamery, private
enterprise in this area, and the Mission Plaza had enhanced the opportunity
for adding this link. He further stated that in his opinion Mr. Taylor had
done a good job on the Mission Plaza and felt confident in his ability to do
likewise here.
City Council Minutes
September 20, 1976
Page 2
On motion of Councilman Graham, seconded by Mayor Schwartz, that staff be
authorized to negotiate a contract with Richard Taylor for preliminary plans,
working,drawings and bid specifications, to secure a proposal from an
appraisal firm for property acquisition and to refer financing of the
capital portion of the project to C.I.P. Motion carried, Councilmen
Petterson and Norris voting no.
2. Council consideration of Revision of Environmental Impact Procedures
and Guidelines with regard to appeals of Planning Commission decisions (con-
tinued from 9/7/76).
R.D. Miller, Administrative Officer, read a letter from the Sierra Club
opposing the charging of a fee for groups or individuals wishing to appeal
Environmental Impact Reports.
Rob Strong, Director of Community Development, stated that besides
discussion of the proposed $50'filing fee there were other administrative
amendments needed to the Environmental Impact Procedures and Guidelines
regarding appeals of Planning Commission decisions. He stated, that in
particular, paragraph 4 -3, last half, should be amended by adding pro-
- visions which assured advance notice of hearing to the applicant and appellant
and publication in the paper at least ten days prior to hearing. Further,
appeals would be resolved by the Council at hearing by either denial of
the appeal which would constitute Council acceptance of the Commission,
E.R.C. or staff decision; or upholding the appeal, which would require
revision or reconsideration of the involved environmental document. Until
an appeal was resolved, the project processing would be suspended, and no
further or final action by the Planning Commission or City Council would be
rendered. Only after a final decision on an appeal was resolved would the
Council take action on the project itself, by approving, conditionally
approving or denying the issuance of the permit.
Further, he stated that Section 3 -4.3, City Council Review, should be 1
revised by adding: "The City Clerk shall file a Notice of Determination
in his office and with the County Clerk when the Council acts upon a
project requiring Council decision or considered by the Council as a result
of an appeal."
Mayor Schwartz then opened the discussion to the public.
Mike DeNeve felt that many appeals would probably be unnecessary if the
appellant were to take advantage of the many public meetings held prior
to the final City Council meeting approving the project. He felt that
the public had ample opportunity for input at the E.R.C. level, Planning
Commission, etc.
Jim Lopes questioned what would happen if the Planning Commission.,approved
an E.I.R., would it automatically go to the City Council for final approval?
Rob Strong stated that use permits and zoning variances need not go to the
City Council. Also, minor subdivisions could stay at the Planning Commission
level.
Don Smith stated that it was his understanding that the Hilton Inn, an 80 unit
apartment building and an 88 mobile home park had been use permit considerations
an E.I.R.'s, if required would not be considered by the Council for such projects.
It was his opinion that they should be required to do so. He further stated
his opposition to the proposed $50 filing fee for appeals.
Rob Strong stated alternatives to the $50 filing fee, such as reducing the
$50 to $10 if the appellant were to receive signatures of 15/20 other
supporters. He also suggested that the $50 filing fee could -be refunded
in cases where the Council upheld the appeal.
Councilman Norris stated that frivolous appeals and /or the misuse of the
appeal procedure by those opposed to the development rather than the actual
context of the E.I.R. was highly unfair to the majority of the people when
one citizen could cause such delays and 'expenses.
City Council Minutes
September 20, 1976
Page 3
R.D.-Miller, Administrative Officer, stated::he - was= supportive of the
revised appeal procedures but-recommended against the $50 filing--fee being
refunded. An alternate might be to.reduce the fee to $10 if 25 signatures
were obtained.
On motion of Mayor Schwartz, seconded by Councilman Graham, that staff
be directed to refine wording of the administrative amendments to the
appeals procedures and place in resolution form for consideration at the
next - regular meeting. Motion carried. All ayes:
Rob Strong stated that the Council should consider establishing a - minimal
fee for filing an appeal to the Council, which would cover the direct costs
of publication and mailing. The City would continue to cover costs of
staff report and agenda preparation. The appeal fee.would be relatively
low in order not to discourage an individual or organization from question-
ing Planning Commission judgments, but sufficient to prevent frivolous
appeals thatcail.d cause considerable delay and additional expense to the
applicant. He suggested $50 with the possibility that the cost could be
refunded in cases where the Council upheld the appeal.
Mayor Schwartz questioned Mr. Strong; if in his opinion, that relative to
the amount of development activity, had there been that much of an increase
in appeals?
Rob Strong answered that until two years ago the E.I.R. requirements
were not being met by the City. Since the new guidelines were adopted
in November, 1975 it was his opinion that_they.had. not been exploited
as of yet. Potential for-threatened-abuse-appeared-to--exist pursuant to
the present provisions:
Mayor Schwartz opened discussion to-the public.
Don Smith stated his opposition to the proposed $50 filing fee for appeals.
He stated other Counties did not require them and felt it..would
be unfair-for,-the City to impose such a fee.
John McNeil, attorney with Common Concern, stated that he too was opposed
to the proposed filing fee and felt,-that the;-.Council-was being premature
in taking this action as at this time there had-only-been four appeals .
before the Council in the last year.
Jim Lopes added further that of the-four appeals.which,:had. been before the
City Council three had been upheld by the Council and the fourth one by a
developer.(not to be required to file an E.I.R.) lost.
Charles.Dills stated that the City's aim should.be..to involve the people
in government activities as often as.possible and it was his opinion that
to levy a $50 filing fee against an individual or organization wishing to
oppose would discourage and finally destroy people's interest in City
government. He further -suggested that the Council appoint a committee to
study this situation and have them come back to the Council with a more
in -depth study.
Melanie Billig, League-of Women Voters, urged the Council to deny the:$50
request of staff..and assured :the Council .that:at least-from her organization
the Council could -be-:sure there would-be-no "frivolous" appeals•made by
them-but could be guaranteed °good -public input.
Janet Kourakisj Tanglewood Drive, told the Council that to her knowledge
there had only--been '4 appeals, 3 upheld, and-.if,-anyone was being frivolous
with Council's time, it was-the City staff.
Mackey Deasy, Meyer, Merriam. -& Associates, stated that his only concern
with regard to Envirnmental Impact Reports was when the Council acted on
them (either-pro or con) :-they should::be very clear in their motions so'
there.could be no misunderstanding on behalf of the City staff or the- appli-
cant-as to•the action being taken.
City Council Minutes
September 20, 1976
Page 4
Liz Miller, promoter of Lung Health and Clean Air, stated her opposition
to the proposed $50 filing fee as the last few appeals (which she agreed
with and the Council upheld) were in the best interests of sustaining the
present clean air that San Luis Obispo enjoyed and to cause any hardship
to individuals by imposing this fee would be unfair to all concerned.
Mayor Schwartz closed the discussion to the public.
Councilman Petterson felt there was not the need at this time to impose
the fee or other measures relative to appeal procedures but should it
become necessary with increasing appeals -in the future, he would support
it.
Councilman- Graham realized the need to defray costs of appeals but felt
it was somewhat - premature at this time.
Councilman Gurnee stated he could not see the need to force a $50 filing
fee on anyone'. He felt it would be unethical and could not support it.
Councilman Norris stated that the City presently had a list of fees for
many other City services which was revised once a year to help recover
some of these costs and it would be more consistent for the Council to
charge a fee to either developer or citizen wishing to appeal E.I.R.
decisions. Further, that an appellant be required to obtain a certain
amount of signatures supporting his appeal. -
Mayor Schwartz felt the Council should postpone consideration of this
item. He was concerned about fairness to private citizens. Citizens
had the right to monitor government and have access to appeals, public
hearings, etc. but also they should keep in mind that there were ample
opportunities for public input prior to the City Council hearing, i.e.
Planning Commission, Environmental Review Commission, etc.
On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Petterson, that
consideration of proposed filing fee for Environmental Impact Report
appeals be tabled. Motion carried. All ayes.
3. Council consideration of Minor Siibdivision 76 =111; Victoria
Petrucci, 2851 Johnson Avenue.
A. Memo from Rob Strong recommending that Mrs. Petrucci pay $150 unit
park dedication fee for each parcel.
Rob Strong, Director of Community Development, noted that this issue
is related with Agenda Item No. C -4, which proposed revision and refinement
to the City's park in -lieu fee policy and to the City's participation in
fire hydrant installations to correct existing deficiencies as well as
serve new developments.
Mayor Schwartz opened the discussion to the public.
Mrs. Petrucci felt it was unfair of the City to require her to pay for a
fire hydrant, which she stated the City had been wanting to put in for years,
that would be servicing the entire block when she only proposed two new
buildings. She further stated that hers would be the only fire hydrant on
her side of the street -and that should a fire occur firemen could use the one
on Augusta Street with the same amount of.efficiency. She also stated her
opposition to being required to pay $150.00 park in lieu fees for each parcel
as the area was already fully developed;'so the money could not be used for
a park anyway. She stated she did not feel the addition of 2 more units
would justify payment of any park -in -lieu fees.
Mayor Schwartz closed the discussion'to the public.
Councilman Gurnee felt that the addition of the new buildings would warrant
another hydrant, as this hydrant would not be required if not for the new
buildings and would therefore support staff recommendation to require one.
He stated that Mrs. Petrucci should be required to pay the park -in -lieu fees
on the two new parcels but should be exempt on the existing one.
City Council Minutes
September 20, 1976
Page 5
Councilman Norris felt the developer had already received a substantial
reduction in required fees with the City to do the installation of the hydrant.
He felt the staff had been more than fair to the applicant.
Councilman Petterson stated he supported the staff's recommendation and
that the requests asked the applicant were justified.
' Councilman Graham questioned whether or not Mrs. Petrucci would be subject
to a partial refund should her adjoining neighbor also develop his property.
Rob Strong stated that the staff did not presently feel that it was wise to
encourage reimbursements where the City shared the costs of installation.
Mayor Schwartz stated he would support the recommendation of the Planning
Commission to require Mrs. Petrucci to pay for the materials of the fire
hydrant and to comply with the $150 park -in -lieu fees for each parcel.
on motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Petterson, that the
Council set the following two conditions on Mrs. Petrucci's development:
1) Applicant be required to pay for materials for the fire hydrant installa-
tion with City forces to install it; and 2) The applicant pay $150 park -in-
lieu fees for the two newly created parcels.
Motion carried, Councilman Graham voting no.
4. Request by Caroline Gazin, etal for additional no parking spaces
at the rear of the building on Marsh Street in Parking Lot No. 2 to be used
for a loading zone.
A. Memo from Wayne Peterson, City Engineer, recommending the space be
changed from a no parking space to a loading zone.
Wayne Peterson stated that the Traffic Committee has concurred twice with
staff's recommendation that this space remain a parking space.
Mrs. Gazin stated that she was requesting removal of only one parking space,
that due to the fact that this space was presently angled and the nature of
the businesses in this area were required to load and unload televisions and
carpeting, that they were forced to load in the street and in the line of
traffic. She stated that this space would not be utilized for large vans
or moving trucks but rather small trucks.
Councilman Petterson felt that the request was valid, especially because
in his opinion, this area would not be harmed by the loss of one parking
space as parking in this area was not as congested as in other areas of town.
Councilman Graham also agreed that the nature of these businesses would
warrant a loading zone.
Councilman Gurnee agreed with Councilman Petterson.
Councilman Norris agreed with staff recommendation not to allow for a load-
ing zone as he felt that the taxpayers were entitled to keeping this parking
space and that the wishes of these businesses to have a loading zone for
their personal use was unfair to the majority. Also, that these two businesses
were relatively new ones knowing full well the parking situation present.
' Mayor Schwartz stated he would support the appeal as the change in businesses
warranted a loading zone.
on motion of Councilman Petterson, seconded by Councilman Gurnee, that the
appeal be upheld to eliminate the no parking zone at 722 Marsh Street and
replace it with a yellow loading zone and an additional space be designated
for loading zone purposes adjacent thereto. Motion passed, Councilman Norris
voting no.
The Council further indicated that if the commercial use were to be changed
in the future, that this space be changed back to one space.
City Council Minutes.
September 20, 19._76 .
Page 6
5. GeneralmAppeals Procedures.
1. Council consideration of adopting an ordinance establishing "General
Appeals" procedure; and 2) adopting a resolution establishing fees for appeals
to City Council.
Rob Strong, Director of Community Development, stated that this ordinance
would help to clarify appeal procedures. One problem had been the interpre-
tation of calendar days vs.-working-days in measuring an appeal period. t
Another issue was whether the appellant must state reasons for the appeal,
and whether the Council should consider an appeal without first obtaining
a report from the affected department head and /or appeals board. Finally,
he- stated, the procedure would allow the Council to receive an appeal and
establish a subsequent hearing to consider the merits of the appeal to
assure proper notice to the applicant and other interested parties as well
as the appellant.
He stated that an appeal to the Council should be a last resort, exercised
only after consideration by the department head and /or appeals board or,
advisory committee or commission. Because an appeal would require a written
request outlining reasons, .staff report on these issues, and involve costs
to the City for notification and publication of hearing, staff recommended
that an appeals filing tee of $50 be collected at the time of application
for appeal to cover direct notice and publication costs incurred by the
City, but Council consideration of Item 2, at this time.
Allen Grimes, City Attorney, that although he felt there were substantial
implications in this ordinance, he felt there should be some appeals procedure
to go by and would support this ordinance.
Don Smith stated his opposition to the ordinance, primarily to Section 1401,
defining "Right to Appeal ". He would like to see it rewritten as the language
as now stated was confusing for the average layman.
Melanie Billig, League of Women Voters, questioned why the City wanted to
use calendar days instead of work days. She-favored using business working
days as this time was necessary in order to prepare an adequate appeal.
Rob Strong answered that as it stood now there had been no clear definition
in which the 10 day appeal period was to be made - calendar or working days -
but he favored the calendar days and with the exception of when the appeal
period deadline fell on -a non - working day - in which it would be carried over
to the next working -day - that 10 days were sufficient to draftzan appeal.
Further, that to use business days would cause lengthy processing delays at
all levels, and complicate interpretation of other procedures (e.g. notice
publication, bidding, etc-.) which used calendar days.
On motion of Councilman Petterson, seconded by Councilman Graham, the
following ordinance was introduced: -Ordinance-No. 682, an ordinance
of the City of San Luis Obispo adding Chapter 4, Sections 1400 through
1404, to Article I of the Municipal Code, entitled "Appeals Procedure ".
Councilman Gurnee stated that he would like to see a pamphlet prepared
by the Community Development Department using simplified language to be
distributed at the front counter for-any citizen or organization inter-
ested in filing appeals.
Introduced and passed to print on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Petterson, Norris, Gurnee, Graham and
Mayor Schwartz
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
City Council Minutes
September 20, 1976
Page 7
6. General Plan Amendment Procedures.
Memo from Rob_Strong requesting Council'consideration of': A) Draft General
Plan Amendment Ordinance; B) Draft resolution establishing fees to amend
General Plan; and C) Draft resolution establishing policies and procedures
to promote consistency between General Plan and zoning resolutions.
On motion of Councilman Petterson, seconded by Councilman Graham, to hold
this item over until Tuesday, October 5 to be held early in the evening.
Motion carried.
7. Council consideration of architect's proposal for design and
supervision of construction of Branch Fire Station•.No. 4.
R.D. Miller, Administrative Officer, stated that he had only received the
proposal that date but urged the Council to consider at the earliest time
as the City had only a limited time in which to apply for a 100% federally
funded grant. He stated, however, that he had received a letter from the Tolosa
Section questioning the City's established procedures or their using arbitrary
methods for selecting consultants (in this case, architectural services for
a fire station).
Councilman Graham felt it was of the utmost importance'to get the
application in as soon as possible and under these circumstances felt
Justified. in not seeking other architects.
Councilman Gurnee agreed that this was an urgency issue and suggested
the Council be given until the Wednesday noon Study Session for studying
it and list it as a consent item for that meeting.
Mayor Schwartz cautioned that the Council was adopting a criteria and
should be careful. He suggested that it might be possible to select a.
subcommittee for selection of an architect and although he had nothing
against Mr. Fickes' proposal, the staff should check to see if anyone
else could do this on a crash time period and come up with one for Wednesday.
Councilman Norris stated that he thought Mr. Fickes was .a capable architect
but held that the same procedure should be used for consultants on other
City: projects. He would be in favor of allowing a couple more days to
elapse if it were possible to notify other interested parties.
Councilman Petterson felt that Mr. Fickes was a well qualified architect,
that the time was short, and it was his opinion.that the City should pro-
ceed with the application using Mr. Fickes' proposal.
Councilman Graham stated that time was critical and wished to move ahead.
On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Petterson, that the
Council consider Mr. Fickes' proposal on Wednesday foregoing the notifica-
tion to other qualified architects. Motion carried, Councilman Norris and
Mayor Schwartz voting no.
8. Council consideration of amendment to the City's Electrical Code
to accept PUC General Order No. 95 dealing with overhead wires near swimming
pools as alternate.to National Electrical Code Section which was more restrictive.
Jack Kellerman, Chief Building Inspector, stated that the agenda item was
worded incorrectly and should have indicated the taking of "some wording
from" PUC Order No. 95.
Richard Doyle, applicant, appeared and stated his case briefly and thanked
the Council for their consideration. He stated that this matter involved a
protected cable 30' in elevation above the proposed swimming pool but less
than 10' distant horizontally from the edge of the pool. The California PUC
order represented a less restrictive provision than the National Electrical Code.
City Council Minutes
September 20, 1976
Page 8 - _
After discussion, on motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman
Norris, that the following ordinance be introduced: Ordinance No. 683,
an ordinance of the City of San Luis Obispo amending Chapter 3, Part IV
of Article VIII of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code relating to electrical
regulations. - ..
Introduced and passed to print on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Gurnee -, Norris, Graham, .Petterson and I
Mayor Schwartz
NOES: None
ABSENT-: None
9. .Council consideration of.Minor Subdivision.No. 76 =362, Fred Julian,
applicant, 1290 Murray and 500 Hathway, R -1 and R -O -zone.
Allen Grimes, City Attorney, introduced this item which originally contem-
plated approval of the Tentative Parcel Map - as,a condition to the street
abandonment. -He suggested-that concurrently with the consideration of the
map, a resolution of intention be passed setting a hearing to partially
abandon the street. This would require staff to provide descriptions of
easements to be retained by the City.
Vic Montgomery appeared on behalf of the developer to question the hydrant
next to the.Tailroad right -of -way. It was agreed that this might not be
required. ._
Councilman Norris asked if a trail was needed along the railroad.
D.F. Rom ero,_Director of Public Services, brought out the-fact that the
City already had pedestrian access leading north towards Hathway.
After discussion, on motion of Councilman Graham, seconded by Councilman
Petterson, that the Tentative Parcel Map be accepted: Motion carried.
On motion of Councilman Graham, seconded by Councilman Petterson, the
following resolution was introduced; Resolution No. 3136, a resolution
of intention'to.abandon a portion of Murray Avenue.
Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Petterson, Gurnee, Graham, Petterson.and
Mayor Schwartz
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
10. Council consideration of Tentative Tract Map No. 609, Deasy,
Copeland, Buffa & Cullison, applicants, 'a 5 lot "single-family subdivision
west of Broad Street at Hillside Court and Mission Lane, R -1 zone.
Rob Strong stated that both the Planning Commission and staff recommended
approval of the Tentative Tract Map subject to the following findings and
conditions:
Findings:
1. The tentative map is consistent with the General Plan.
2. The design and.improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent
with the General Plan.
3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed.
4. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development.
City Council Minutes
September 20, 1976
Page 9
5. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not
likely to cause substantial environmental damage or.substantially and
advoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
1. All -lot corners shall be staked by a registered civil engineer or licensed
surveyor.
2. Subdivider shall submit a soil engineering report to City Engineer prior
to final map approval.
3. Parcels 1 and 2 shall have a 20 foot reciprocal easement for access
purposes shown on the final map acceptable to the City Engineer.
4. Access easements for Parcels 1 and 2 and Parcels 4 and 5 shall require
Board of Adjustment common access driveway approval prior to development
of one of the adjacent lots.
5. A 6 foot public utility easement shall be shown across all lot frontages.
6. A minimum lot size variance is granted for Parcel 3.
7. A variance is not granted at this time to waive all street lighting as
noted on tentative map. Alternative designs may be acceptable.
1 8. Subdivider shall offer to dedicate all existing streets (Mission Lane
and Hillside Court)_ in his control to the City. (Sidewalk requirement
waived by P.C.)
9. Existing Mission Lane shall be reconstructed and paved to City specifica-
tions 22 feet curb to curb, with curb and gutter.
10. Existing Hillside Court shall be improved with one -half street plus
r..2a`12tfootatravel lane on westerly side. Curbs and gutter shall be
installed on all lot frontages, to City standards and approval.
11. Subdivider shall install street trees on lot frontages to Public
Services Department approval.
12. Subdivider shall install an 8 inch waterline from Broad Street to
southerly line of Parcel 1 in street right -of -way.
13. Subdivider shall install one fire hydrant to City approval.
14. Each parcel shall be served by City sewer.
15. All new utilities shall be underground.
16. Subdivider shall pay water acreage fees (1.76 acres currently at $925
' per acre). Actual fee to be determined at time of final map recordation.
17. Subdivider shall pay park -in -lieu fees prior to final map approval.
18. Existing Hillside Court street name shall be changed to Mission Lane.
Councilman Norris questioned why sidewalks were not required all the way
up on the development side.
6. The design of
the subdivision
or the type of improvements are not
likely to cause
public health
problems.
7. The design of
the subdivision
or the type of improvements will not
conflict with
easements, for access through or use of property within
the proposed
subdivision.
Conditions:
1. All -lot corners shall be staked by a registered civil engineer or licensed
surveyor.
2. Subdivider shall submit a soil engineering report to City Engineer prior
to final map approval.
3. Parcels 1 and 2 shall have a 20 foot reciprocal easement for access
purposes shown on the final map acceptable to the City Engineer.
4. Access easements for Parcels 1 and 2 and Parcels 4 and 5 shall require
Board of Adjustment common access driveway approval prior to development
of one of the adjacent lots.
5. A 6 foot public utility easement shall be shown across all lot frontages.
6. A minimum lot size variance is granted for Parcel 3.
7. A variance is not granted at this time to waive all street lighting as
noted on tentative map. Alternative designs may be acceptable.
1 8. Subdivider shall offer to dedicate all existing streets (Mission Lane
and Hillside Court)_ in his control to the City. (Sidewalk requirement
waived by P.C.)
9. Existing Mission Lane shall be reconstructed and paved to City specifica-
tions 22 feet curb to curb, with curb and gutter.
10. Existing Hillside Court shall be improved with one -half street plus
r..2a`12tfootatravel lane on westerly side. Curbs and gutter shall be
installed on all lot frontages, to City standards and approval.
11. Subdivider shall install street trees on lot frontages to Public
Services Department approval.
12. Subdivider shall install an 8 inch waterline from Broad Street to
southerly line of Parcel 1 in street right -of -way.
13. Subdivider shall install one fire hydrant to City approval.
14. Each parcel shall be served by City sewer.
15. All new utilities shall be underground.
16. Subdivider shall pay water acreage fees (1.76 acres currently at $925
' per acre). Actual fee to be determined at time of final map recordation.
17. Subdivider shall pay park -in -lieu fees prior to final map approval.
18. Existing Hillside Court street name shall be changed to Mission Lane.
Councilman Norris questioned why sidewalks were not required all the way
up on the development side.
City Council Minutes
September 20, 1976
Page 10
Rob Strong stated that the developer was already faced with considerable
"off- site" improvements and that the property fronting Mission Lane was
not his, and that the Commission considered sidewalks not essential due
to large lots and steep slopes involved.
On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman.Petterson,.to approve
Tentative Tract Map No. 609. Motion carried.
11. ....Council consideration of Final Parcel Map SL0776 -259, Mr. S. Bunya,
applicant; location: Johnson Avenue.
After brief discussion, on motion of Councilman Petterson; seconded_ by
Councilman Graham, to adopt Resolution No. 3137, a resolution of the City
of San Luis Obispo approving Parcel Map No. S.L.O. 76 -259 (Mr. S. Bunya,
applicant - Location: Johnson Avenue) and accepting an easement for utilities.
Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Gurnee, Graham, Norris, Petterson
- and Mayor Schwartz
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
12. Memo from Wayne Peterson, City Engineer, asking Council con-
sideration of final E.I.R. for the South Street Extension and requesting
that Council adopt alignment and direct staff to prepare a setback line
for this route.
Because of the late hour, this matter was continued to the October 5th
agenda to be heard early in evening..
CONSENT .ITEMS:
C -1 Approval of claims against the City for the month of September, 1976.
On-motion of Councilman Petterson, seconded by Councilman Graham, the claims
against the City for the month-of .September were approved. .Motion carried.
C -2 Council consideration of the following salary step increases:
= - - -_- -
Darrell.-W. Bardos - Utility Plant Operator
From Step 2 or $844 to Step 3 or $892
Donald Freeman - Groundskeeper
From Step 2 or $822 to Step 3 or $833
Gerald W. Kenny - Civil Engineer Assistant
From Step 3 or $1186 to Step 4 or $1248
Robert F. Neumann - Fireman
From Step 3 or $1058 to Step 4 or $1118
Marsha C O'Neal.- Parking Enforcement Officer
From Step 3 or $830 to Step 4 or $880
Marcia S. Papich - Account Clerk I
From Step 2 or $704 to Step 3 or $738
On motion of Councilman Petterson, seconded by Councilman Graham, that the
salary step increases be approved. Motion carried.
C -3 Council consideration of. contract with Crommelin- Pringle and
Associates, Inc. to prepare E.I.R. on proposed Orcutt Road grade separation.
1
1
I I
City Council Minutes
September 20, 1976
Page 11
On motion of.Councilman Norris, seconded by Councilman Petterson, that the
Council accept the proposal in the amount of $5,000..00 to be charged to
General Fund Planning Budget under Special Planning Studies, Line Item
904, and authorized Mayor to sign agreement and introduce Resolution No. 3138,
a resolution approving an agreement between the City and Crommelin- Pringle
and Associates, Inc. for professional services concerning the alignment of
the Orcutt Road grade separation.
Passed and adopted on the following toll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Gurnee, Norris, Petterson, Graham and
Mayor Schwartz
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
C -4 Council consideration of Park and Recreation dedication in -lieu
fees for subdivisions and residential construction tax - suggested revisions
and suggested changes in fire hydrant and water line installation and cost
sharing policies.
On motion of Councilman Petterson, seconded by Councilman Graham, that
this item be referred to Council Study Session. Motion carried.
C -5 Council consideration of Municipal Code Text Amendment, Parking
and Driveway Regulations.
Rob Strong stated that the subject portion of property could be considered
surplus, but that the bulk of the City owned acreage should be retained until
the Sewer Treatment Plant and City Yard projects were resolved. Further,
the.general plan designation as residential and the "U ", unclassified
zoning of the property should be recognized as inappropriate. The area
would be reclassified as service commercial /light industrial by the
General Plan Revision and would be rezoned C -H or M. .Assuming that this
contingency was understood, staff had no objection to sale of that surplus
portion of property subject to the following conditions:
1. The value of the property and the existing barn would be determined
by an independent appraisal. The cost of which would be paid by the
successful bidder as a part of the minimum purchase price established
by said appraisal.
2. The property shall be surveyed, corner monument placed, and a parcel
map filed_ to divide the subject surplus portion from the remaining
acreage.
' 3. If purchased by the Eagles Club, the site would be combined with.their
property fronting on South Higuera Street. If purchased by any other
private party, the site would not be considered a building site until
frontage on a public street is provided by improvement of the 68' wide
"panhandle" portion from Higuera to the west boundary of the site to
acceptable street standards.
On motion of Councilman Petterson, seconded by Councilman Graham,
that
this item be set
for Council Study Session some time after the first of
the year.
C -6 Council
consideration of Eagles Club request to purchase
surplus
1
City property near
South Higuera Street.
Councilman Norris
stated he was not in favor of entertaining bids
on this
at this time as,
in his opinion, he was not satisfied that this was surplus
property.
Rob Strong stated that the subject portion of property could be considered
surplus, but that the bulk of the City owned acreage should be retained until
the Sewer Treatment Plant and City Yard projects were resolved. Further,
the.general plan designation as residential and the "U ", unclassified
zoning of the property should be recognized as inappropriate. The area
would be reclassified as service commercial /light industrial by the
General Plan Revision and would be rezoned C -H or M. .Assuming that this
contingency was understood, staff had no objection to sale of that surplus
portion of property subject to the following conditions:
1. The value of the property and the existing barn would be determined
by an independent appraisal. The cost of which would be paid by the
successful bidder as a part of the minimum purchase price established
by said appraisal.
2. The property shall be surveyed, corner monument placed, and a parcel
map filed_ to divide the subject surplus portion from the remaining
acreage.
' 3. If purchased by the Eagles Club, the site would be combined with.their
property fronting on South Higuera Street. If purchased by any other
private party, the site would not be considered a building site until
frontage on a public street is provided by improvement of the 68' wide
"panhandle" portion from Higuera to the west boundary of the site to
acceptable street standards.
City Council Minutes .
September 20, 1976
Page 12
4. Prior to any development of the site the General Plan Revision, rezoning
and/or use permit would be approved and development shall comply with
such revised requirements.
5. Amendment to sewer farm lease, excluding this portion of property and
barn, would be accomplished prior to sale.
On motion of Councilman Petterson, seconded by Councilman Graham, that the
staff recommendation to refer this to Dale Mitchell and staff to have '
appraisals made and negotiate with the Eagles to prepare covenants and
restrictions in accordance therewith - to process rezoning as needed, revise
sewer farm lease, etc. be accepted. Motion carried.
C -7 Council consideration of project schedules for the month of
September.
On motion of Mayor Schwartz, seconded by Councilman Graham, that the
schedules be received and filed with Mr.. Peterson to check on status
of street trees on Broad Street and arrange for increasing of budget
if needed. Motion carried. All ayes.
C -8 Council consideration of Conflict of Interest Codes for'the
following Departments, Agencies, etc.:
Administrative Office
City Clerk - Treasurer's Office
Community Development Department
Finance Department
Park & Recreation Department
Police Department
Public Services Department
On motion of Councilman Petterson, seconded by Councilman Graham, to approve
codes and designeds. Motion carried.. All ayes. .
C -9 On motion of Councilman Graham, seconded by Mayor Schwartz, to
acknowledge the appointment of Donald F. Lazzarini to the position of Police
Officer beginning 9/16/76 at Step 1 or $1008 per month subject to one year's
probation.
C -10 Council._consideration of agreements for the Santa Rosa Street
Widening:
A._ Right of Way Contract, Grant Deed and Memorandum of Settlement between
the City of San Luis Obispo and Lilly Lanotti.
B. Right of Entry between the City of San Luis Obispo and S. Porter.
On motion of Councilman Petterson, seconded by Councilman Graham, to authorize
the Mayor to sign agreement., contract,. Memorandum of Settlement and Right
of Entry. Motion carried. All ayes.
C -11 On motion of Councilman Graham, seconded by.Councilman Petterson,
to approve request from Officer T. Gallimore for time off in excess of two
weeks for sick leave. Motion carried. All ayes.
C -12 On motion of Councilman Petterson, seconded by Councilman Graham,
that the claim against the City by Edward A. Wilk, 1130 Woodside Drive,
for damages incurred when sewage errupted from stall shower in the amount
of $38.39 be denied and referred to the insurance carrier. Motion carried.
All ayes.
C -13 On motion of Councilman Petterson, seconded by Councilman Graham,
that the claim against the City by Gregory J. Lanigan in the amount of
$522, 573 Al Hil Drive, for damages done to his car when he hit a rock and
log on City owned property be denied and referred to the insurance carrier.
Motion carried. All ayes.
r�
J
H
City Council Minutes
September 20, 1976
Page 13
C -14 On motion of Councilman Petterson, seconded by Councilman Graham,
that the claim against the City by Earl W. Wyatt for damages done to Datsun
Camper in the approximate amount of $1,000 be denied and referred to the
insurance carrier. Motion carried. All ayes.
C -15 On motion of Councilman Petterson, seconded by Councilman Graham,
that the claim against the City by Phillip J. Betts for wrongful death suit
in the amount of $450,000 be denied and referred to the insurance carrier.
Motion carried. All ayes.
C -16 On motion of Councilman Petterson, seconded by Councilman Graham,
to appoint Nancy Poe and William Hart as B.I.A. replacements for Clifford
Chapman and Robert Vasquez respectively. Motion carried. All ayes.
B -1 City Clerk's report of bids on "WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT,
MORTAR LINE 16" DIAMETER PIPE ",. City Plan No. 23 -77. Bids opened September
14, 1976 at 2:30 p.m. Estimated cost $28,000. Budget $40,000. Account
No. 37- 6363 -830. C.I.P. 1.
On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Graham, to award to
sole bidder, Ameron, Inc., Wilmington, California, in amount of $29,874.
Motion carried. All ayes.
B -2 City Clerk's report of bids on "AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM,
LAGUNA LAKE PARK ", City Plan No. 21 -77. Bids opened September 14, 1976
at 3:00 p.m. Estimated cost $6,720.00. Budget same Account No. 40 -5762 -734.
C.I.P. 17(B).
On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Graham, to award
to low bidder, Karleskint -Crun in amount of $4,580. Motion carried. All
ayes.
B -3 City Clerk's report of bids on "SOUTH STREET SEWERLINE.IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT ", City Plan No. 5 -77. Bids opened September 14, 1976 at 2:45 p.m.
Estimated cost $7,665.00. To be taken out of Incremental Sewer Improvement
Account No. 40- 7062 -733 under Capital Outlay Budget. Council agreed to hold
up on signing of agreement with Model Linen until.bids were opened since
Model Linen had not agreed to pay more than $3,750.00.
On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Graham, to award to
low bidder Baker Corporation after collecting $3,750.00 from Model Linen and
introduced Resolution No. 3139, a resolution of the City Council of the City
of San Luis Obispo to approve an agreement between the City of San Luis
Obispo and'Model Linen Industrial Supply for joint participation in a sewer
improvement project.
Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Gurnee, Graham, Norris, Petterson and
Mayor Schwartz
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
There being no further business to come before the meeting, the meeting
adjourned at 11:35 to Wednesday, September 22, 1976 at 12:10 p.m.
APPROVED: October 26, 1976
. Fitzpatrick, City Clerk