Loading...
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