HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/21/1978...City Council - Minutes
November 21, 1978
Page 2
He stated that -the.. staff. agreed with-the Planning. Commission's.. determination
as the'.staff.-feit. that-the _ Laguna_. Shopping.:Center_ was a. neighborhood facility
and.the.designers had.excelled.in site planning and... architecture to respond
to the unique.character of -the Laguna neighborhood_and.they felt a drive - through
window would increase'..traffic and_promote.a large city .strip.commercial..character
which would be inappropriate for the neighborhood. Staff therefore felt the
Council should.deny.the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's condition
of the use permit -approval.to exclude the drive -. .through window through the
1 applicant's plan.
Mayor - Schwartz declared.-the public hearing open.
Jay Whisenant, applicant- 's..representative,.discussed with the City Council, the
denial by the Planning Commission of the...drive -up window. He stated that on
behalf of the developer that there was no difference between a drive -up bank
window and fast food drive -up window. He felt that customers would spend the
same amount of time at either.a bank or restaurant. He._also felt that a drive -up
window would provide handicap people with convenience service. In most cases
the people would call - ahead, order their food and then have it delivered as they
drove up-:.to the window.. .He said that the company that was planning on being in
the shopping center would be a fine asset to the community but that they only
operate under or with fast food.type windows. He also felt that.the report by
the city staff was misleading as no precedent would be set to allow drive -up
windows in all fast food- establishments - because they have.to take into-consid-
eration enough.land, access and other..factors must..be taken -into account each
time. He felt that this.particular location.lended itself to this type of
operation. He concluded his comments by saying that he felt that the reason
for denying the drive - through lane was personal preference by various Planning
Commissioner members and staff and not based on technical or planning expertise.
Phil-Humphrey, representing Cal- Coast Construction,'also spoke in support to
allow the drive - through window on:the:..restaurant ' in the center.. He felt this
was a logical use of land and would serve the neighborhood. He.stated that
without the window.service, the tenant; Wendy's; would not build on the property.
Charles.Andrews., Chairperson of the Planning Commission, reviewed again, for
the City Council the reasons for the Planning Commission's:action in denying
the drive - through window at this location.
Hal Bankston, realtor, 1182 Oceanaire Drive, supported the concept of a drive -
through window for:.Wendy's in the.taguna.Lake Shopping Center. He felt that
many people use the fast food window for'food and the Council should consider
their.desires..
Jim.McKenna, Laguna Lake resident, stated that he supported the Planning
Commission's denial of-the drive - through window.
Mayor Schwartz - declared the public hearing closed.
Councilman Petterson stated he would support the appeal and grant the drive-
through-window for Wendy's. He felt the - developer should be congratulated on
the makeup of the center.
Councilman Jorgensen.stated he.would.agree that-the-decision was a personal call.
He personally objected to--.the.proliferation . of.fast food outlets in -San Luis
Obispo: 'He-felt:that the drive- through window was a poor design. He -would
support.the Planning Commission.condition. He felt restaurants should all be
t sit down.to:�provide interaction between customers. He would support the
Planning Commission for the reasons listed and deny the appeal as he felt the
drive - through operation was dependent on aind oriented to automobiles.
Councilman-Settle-stated he would- support the appeal:; felt the drive - through
window was :the-design--concept of.the center, felt the shopping-center was
automobile oriented and:that the drive - through concepts supported this need.
Councilman Dunin stated he, too, would support.the appeal, felt the center was
.auto- oriented and that Wendy's served a need and felt the Planning Commission
decision was based on personal bias and not on fact. He felt the Planning
Commission's reasons were spurious.
City.:Council.Minutes
November 21, 1978
Page 3
Mayor Schwartz stated he would support the Planning Commission, felt the appeal
was wrong, felt the Planning - Commission's reasonings::were_good.in denying the
drive - through window-and felt the proposal for..a'.window was inappropriate for
the development..'He..did not feel the-restaurant-with the window was appropriate
in this area.of.the -city.
On motion.of.Mayor Schwartz,.seconded by,-Councilman Jorgensen, that.t_he City
Council support the Planning Commission and deny the appeal. Motion lost on
the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilman.Jorgensen and Mayor'Schwartz
NOES: Councilmen Dunin, Petterson and Settle
ABSENT: None
On motion of Councilman Petterson,.seconded..by' Councilman Settle,.the follow-
ing resolution was introduced: Resolution No.'3723 (1978 Series)., a.resolution
of the Council of the City of'San.Luis'Obispo granting... the appeal-of the developer
from a "use - permit condition for a drive -up window at 1350 Madonna Road.
Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Dunin, Petterson-and Settle
NOES: .Councilman._Jorgensen and Mayor Schwartz
ABSENT: None
2. The City Council held a public.hearing to consider an appeal by John
Ross of an_ Architecural ..Review.Commission.approval -of an...over.- sized'sign at
Boo -Boo Records on Monterey Street.
.Dan Smith, Senior Planner, presented the action of the Architectural ..Review
Board in approving the sign on the.Boo -Book Record building. He stated that
the staff felt the mural would certainly not appeal to some members of the
community but would be well-received by others. He said the mural was on a
.record shop and would appeal to the applicant's clientele.which.was probably
the youngest segment of the community... He.said the staff agreed with statements
by individual members of the A.R.C. that it was difficult to review as a sign
what was generally considered art. Staff.felt that'the sign did respond as a
means of-expression for a significant-portion of-the population and they felt
.the sign would add variety to the downtown area. He stated that the staff
recommended that the City Council deny the appeal, approve the sign mural subject
.to...the findings and conditions'.made by the A.R.C. He stated that-.the motion to
approve the sign was a resolution adopted to approve the sign- muralTas submitted
pending removal of the buglar alarm box and the light fixtures, with any-desired
lighting for the mural to be submitted to the staff for approval. The exceptional
circumstances were that the upper 3/4 of the sign was a mural of high quality,
enhancing the city scape. The motion was approvedon a'3 -3 .vote with one
commissioner absent.
Thereupon, the A.R.C. considered an additional resolution-approving the
.sign -mural for.a two year'period'as- proposed'.with the.review at the end
of the two -year period and they felt the exceptional circumstance were
that the upper 3/4 of the sign was a mural of high quality enhancing the
city scape. This motion was approved..on.a 5 -1 vote, 1--commissioner-absent.
George Thacher, City.Attorney, submitted an.opinion.regarding the appeal
from the A.R.C. action by John Ross, a local citizen,.who had no business
or other relationship with this particular item. The question was whether
the City Council -had the right to review actions of the'A.R.C. aside from
those appeals brought.by an applicant.aggrieved.by the A.R.C.- He stated it
was his opinion that the City Council -had this right but that he though the
Council should amend the Municipal Code-to specifically provide for third
party appeals or.to deny appeal rights to-all applicants.. '
City..Council.Minutes
November 21, 1978
Page 4
John Ross, appellant,..appeared before.the.City Council and reviewed for the
Council, the : grounds: -on.which he.based..his.appeal to this sign.. He reviewed
sections of the Municipal.Code, dealing with the A.R.C.'s procedures and to
the sign ordinance:dealing with the size of signs. He concluded by saying
that the history-of the A.R.C. had -not been one of permissiveness. In fact,
on the whole, requirements had been quite exacting and detailed to design
elements as small as six inch square. Many applicants have exceeded to require-
ments which.had. substantial financial impact to their project. With this back-
' ground he felt.it was hard to understand.the.roll over of standards. He believed
the.action of the A.R.C., if not reversed or modified, would be-detrimental to
the goals of the city's present new sign regulations and emerging pattern of the
city scape which had received excellent recognition without exceptions such as
the A.R.C.'s decision-on this particular sign.
Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing open.
Robert Barroughs stated he-was opposed to the sign -and agreed with John Ross'
appeal. He felt the sign-was ugly.and he felt the city deserved something
better in their downtown area which was:rebuilding itself by its bootstraps.
Mr. Jacobs, 1536 Garden Street, also stated he was.opposed to the sign. He
felt it was grotesque, ugly and detracted from the downtown scenery.
Charles Quinlan presented, on behalf-of Carleton Winslow, member of the A.R.C.,
a slide.program which he:felt-.justified the.-Boo-Boo Records sign which Carleton
Winslow felt was really a•work of art and not a commercial sign.
Peg Pinard, Buchon Street,.objected to:the sign, said'it was done in poor.
taste and she felt the city downtown area deserved better than the subject
sign.. She:felt:this was-the type.of sign that would hurt the quality of
the city.
Thelma Copeland opposed the sign. She_felt it- detracted from the Monterey
Street businesses. The sign was in poor taste' and.detracted.from the spirit
of San Luis Obispo.
George Pinard, Buchon Street, disapproved.of.the . subject.sign and felt it
detracted from the quality'of San Luis Obispo and what people feel for the
community. -He felt that this sign was not it..
Ed .Taylor, part owner.of Boo -Boo Records,.spoke in support of the.mural -sign
in front of his.store. He felt the sign was not complete and therefore how
could anyone make or say things that the sign was not attractive.while it had
not been completed. He felt the A.R.C., as a city agency,-should be supported
as the made a full study of the sign. He also felt that third parties should
not be allowed.to appeal A.R.C. decisions.
Jerry-Reiss, A.R.C. member, stated he Voted against the mural -sign at the A.R.C.
as he-felt it was inappropriate for San Luis Obispo, did not add`io the quality
of the community.and should not be allowed. A few more signs of this type would
completely ruin downtown San Luis Obispo.
Mayor Schwartz declared the- public hearing-closed.
Councilman Settle stated'that..he would-support the appeal-of John Ross. He
felt the sign-added nothing to the quality of downtown San Luis Obispo. He
continued that it was unclear.to.him.where:this mural was:a sign or a mural
and part of the sign or what. He would support the appeal.
Councilman-Dunin stated he, too, would-:support the appeal. He felt that this
type of sign would detract from the quality-of what people -want an expect of
San Luis Obispo. He felt that the A.R.C.- should have clear, legal definitions
of murals or signs before.allowing this thing to be painted. He did not feel
that the-sign =mural added to the spirit or quality of downtown San Luis Obispo.
Councilman Petterson stated he, too, would support the appeal. He would support
the murals in their.place, but he felt the.sigti was wrong in this place. He
felt it did not fit in the San Luis Obispo downtown area.
City Council Minutes
November 21,•1978
Page 5
Councilman Jorgensen stated he, too, would support the-appeal-as it applied
to-the sign as he.did not feel...the.A:R.C! made:a;proper findings- to-allow
the over -sized sign.in.the area of:•the_Sign.Ordinance. He.did not.feel it
fit San Luis Obispo. He did•not:feel .the.sign enhanced.the character of
the city-.-. Finally,-he did.riot.feel that the A.R.C. had followed .their.criteria
for,handling.this:type of--,an issue:
Mayor ::Schwartz:agreed.with.his fellow Councilmen'.s.statements.as:he did not
feel° the. A: R:C`.- followed. their. own criteria: in: evaluating. this. particular
sign.-- He felt-.the painting was a sign and not.a simple.mural or .work. of art.
On motion of Councilman Settle,.seconded.by Councilman Petterson, the following
resolution was introduced: Resolution-No.-.3722 (1978.Series), a resolution of
the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo granting an appeal from an action of
the A.R.C. approving an over -sized sign (Boo -Boo Records).
Passed and adopted.on.the following.rol•l.call•.vote: ,
AYES: Councilmen-Dunin, Jorgensen, Petterson; Settle and Mayor Schwartz
NOES: -None
ABSENT: None
3. The.City Council held.a public hearng.on:the recommendation of the
Planning Commission..to;rezone 2300.Los Osos Valley Road between Auto Park Way
and Calle Joaquin from C -2 (tourist - commercial) to CH -PD (service commercial,
planned development), Garry Holdgrafter, applicant.
_Dan Smith, Senior Planner,.presented the recommendations of the Planning
Commission based on the application for a zone change so that the parcel could
be developed with auto related uses similar.to the - adjacent properties north
of-the parcel. The parcel was presently undeveloped: He stated that the Planni
Commission passed a resolution recommending approval of the rezoning by a vote
of 5 -1. The rezoning was conditioned on:
1) The property was.-to be used.for the development.of..automobile sales complex
or similar of related accessory:-uses only and -that other normally permitted
uses allowed on a C -H zoning were prohibited. _
2) A preliminary development plan.shall.be.submitted within 24 months for
city approval. If no-plan were received, a public hearing would auto-
matically be set to consider city initiated.rezoning back to its original
C -T zone.
Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing.open.
Garry Holdgrafer, applicant, reviewed the.purposes for.his application which
was for the development of an.auto.dealership for the Volkswagon agency presently
located -in downtown San Luis Obispo.
David Farmer, attorney representing adjacent property owners, questioned the
City Council rezoning.this property when.there.were lots available, already
properly zoned for additional auto uses on Auto Park Way but that the owner
had not been-able-.to entice an auto:dealer.or auto related dealer to this
area. He asked that the City Council consider rezoning his client's property
so that it could be used rather than sit vacant.
David-Harmer, Attorney for the property.owner adjacent to the subject property
to the east of Calle Joaquin, spoke in opposition to:the proposed rezoning for
the auto dealer as his client wished to develop a motel on his property and he
felt that an auto dealer•would.be compatible with motel.use due to the daylight
noise, pollution from vehicles,.etc. He.felt that this type of operation would
hurt his motel. He felt the Council should deny.the application and tell the
Volkswagon dealer to.go to Auto Park Way and develop his dealership. He concluded
his comments by.saying that his client:had..depended.on the_existing,zoning to
protect his investment for motel use and did not.feel that the City Council
should remove this-protection by.putting an auto dealership adjacent.to his
property.
City Council Minutes
November 21, 1978
Page 6
Mel Smith,_ property.owner.on Auto..Park Way,.informed the.City Council that he
had been unable-to sell-his land to any auto related.operation.. He stated that
.due to the location.at.the end of this cul -de -sac that no one wished to develop
auto uses., He said.he.did.not object to-the proposed,rezoning for the Volkswagon
dealer as he..felt.that..it was the property location for auto dealers but that none
were going to be.allowed to go-on Auto Park Way as they were'not interested and
the City.had not allowed him to use-the land to other commercial uses. He hoped
the City Council would be sympathetic in the future to his dilemna.
Jack Hathaway, Volkswagon dealer, stated that his principles, the.Volkswagon
Corporation of America, would allow him to-develop on Los Osos Valley Road
but that they would not grant permission to-have the dealership on Auto Park
Way as he had previously looked.into this with his company.
Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing closed.
Dan Smith again explained the PD designation.on the land.when it was developed
and what could be done.
Councilman Petterson stated he was in support of the rezoning, felt it was
logical and also.would support the.rezoning of the Mel-Smith-property for
other uses. He did not feel that the City could force.auto.dealers onto Auto
Park Way.
Councilman.Jorgensen stated he,'' too, would support the rezoning as requested.
He also felt that the Council had made a mistake in not making auto dealerships
and that type of operation non - conforming in.the downtown San Luis Obispo area.
Councilman.Settle stated he would support- the..rezoning and.hoped that something
could be done to allow Mel Smith to develop his property.
Councilman.Dunin stated he, too, would- support the rezoning. He felt it was a
' logical use of the land and was a good development.
Mayor Schwartz - stated he would support.the Planning Commission.'s.recommendations,
felt they were logical, . a.good development, but he would include the conditions
cited by the Planning Commission. .
On motion of Councilman Settle,!.seconded . by Councilman Petterson,.the following
ordinance was introduced: Ordinance No. 789 (1978 Series),..an ordinance of the
City of San Luis Obispo amending the official zone map (to rezone 2300 Los Osos
Valley Road).
Introduced and passed to print on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Dunin, Jorgensen, Petterson, Settle and Mayor Schwartz
NOES:. None.
ABSENT: None
On motion of Councilman Petterson, seconded by Councilman Jorgensen, the
City Council asked-the Planning Commission ...to.look.into.amending these
downtown zoning-ordinances to make existing auto.sales dealers and lots
non - conforming. Motion carried .all ayes.
Mayor Schwartz declared a-recesss at 9:15 p.m. The City Council reconvened
1 with all.Councilmen present at 9:30 p.m.
4. The City. Council.. considered_ the .recommendation_of ... the-Park and Recreation
Commission:_ to _ increase_.the._green- fees. and _ membership. - . fees - at..Laguna- Lake Municipal
Golf Course.
Lee Walton, City Administrative.Officer, reviewed for the Council the existing
fees and the proposed fees at the City Municipal Golf Course.
Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing open. No one appeared before the
City Council for or.against the proposed increase.
City Council Minutes
November 21, 1978
Page 7
The City Clerk presented two letters received opposing the increases from Maybel
J. Marshall and Gibson Gil. Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing closed.
On motion of Councilman Petterson, seconded by Councilman Settle, the following
resolution was introduced: Resolution No. 3716 (1978 Series), a resolution of
the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo establishing fees for the use of
Laguna Lake Golf Course and superseding Resolution No. 3210.
Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Dunin, Petterson, Settle, Jorgensen and Mayor Schwartz
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
5. The City Council considered the final passage of Ordinance No. 783, an
ordinance amending the official zone map to rezone property at 2895 South
Higuera Street.
Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing open. No one appeared before the
City Council for or against the proposed rezoning. Mayor Schwartz declared the
public hearing closed.
On motion of Councilman Jorgensen, seconded by Councilman Petterson, the
ordinance was introduced for final passage.
Finally adopted on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Dunin, Jorgensen, Petterson, Settle and Mayor Schwartz
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
6. The City Council considered the final passage of Ordinance No. 784,
an ordinance of the City amending the official zone map to rezone property on
Palm Street between Pepper and Toro Streets.
Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing open. No one appeared before the
City Council for or against the proposed rezoning. Mayor Schwartz declared
the public hearing closed.
On motion of Councilman Jorgensen, seconded by Councilman Settle, Ordinance No.
784 was introduced for final passage.
Finally passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Dunin, Jorgensen, Petterson, Settle and Mayor Schwartz
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
7. The City Council considered the final passage of Ordinance No. 785,
an ordinance amending the Sign Regulation Ordinance.
Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing open. No one appeared before the I
City Council for or against the ordinance. Mayor Schwartz declared the public
hearing closed.
On motion of Councilman Jorgensen, seconded by Councilman Settle, Ordinance No.
785 was introduced for final passage.
Finally passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Dunin, Jorgensen, Petterson, Settle and Mayor Schwartz
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
.City Council Minutes
November 21, 1978
Page 8
8. The City Council considered the final.passage.of- Ordinance No. 788,
an ordinance 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.
Mayor-Schwartz-declared the public.hearing open. No one appeared before the
City Council for or against the final passage. Mayor Schwartz declared the
public hearing closed.
On motion of Councilman Settle, seconded by Councilman Dunin, Ordinance No. 788
was introduced for final passage.
Finally passed.on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Dunin, Jorgensen, Petterson, Settle and Mayor Schwartz
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
9. The City Council-,considered Minor Subdivision No. 78 =154, Maino Construction
Company,.continued at the request of the City Council from the 11/7/78 meeting.
Councilman.Jorgensen announced that..Mike.Maino had - called asked that this matter
be continued to.the meeting of December 5.-as he would be unable to be at this
meeting this evening.
On motion of Councilman.Jorgensen, seconded by Councilman Petterson, the matter
was - continued to December 5,.1978. Motion carried, all ayes.
10. Memorandum.of Opinion from City Attorney George Thacher regarding - channel
improvements-.and-setback requirements at 555 Chorro Street, C. Baring Farmer propert
'
The City Attorney.stated that along the easterly length of property at 555
Chorro Street which.abuts Stenner Creek,.the.owner . of.the property, which
was- zoned'."P.O- has.proposed the construction_of medical offices. Because the
plan called for the buildings to be situated within 20 feet.of the top of
the creekbank, the owner made application to the Waterways-Planning Board for
approval of the building location. The Waterways Planning Board approved the
plans including placement within.20 feet of the top of the creekbank:- As a
condition of the approval, the owner had offered to dedicate to..the city, a
strip of land along the creek for the possible future construction, a vertical
wall.for flood control purposes. At the November 6, 1978 meeting, the City
Council had before it, for review, the action of the Waterways Planning Board.
During the meeting, questions arose..regarding possible alternative design and
placement of the medical offices and.regarding.a requirement, the owner pay
for the -cost of construction of the vertical.walls as described above. With
respect to the building placement, the.Council desired to explore an alternative
setback of 35 feet, a distance which would allow a channel widening, rather than
vertical wall construction consisting of the.preliminary determination with the
Corps.of Engineers in its creek widening study plans.
The questions brought up by the City Council were:
1)_ May the City .require a setback of greater than 20 feet_ from the creek at
555 Chorro Street.
The Attorney's opinion was no, not under standards currently applicable to the
property._
2) May the City require the owner to pay the cost of the described vertical
wall of construction.
The Attorney's opinion was no, not under standards currently applicable to the.
property.
The City Attorney continued that the authority of a public agency to impose these
actions as a condition to issuance.of a development entitlement could be
interpreted four ways:
City.Council Minutes
November 21, 1978
Page 9
1) The condition must be in the scope of the public agencies. authority;
2) It must be:authorized:.by a valid..existiing..ordinance;
3) It must bear.some reasonable.relationship to-the public need created by the
development; and
4) It must be capable.of :performance by the developer.
In the.particular'case, limitations 1, 3 and 4 present no significant problems.
The city's ability to pose either a 35' setback or the requirement.that the
developer bear the cost of a vertical.wall construction was restricted by the
absence of any valid - ordinance or regulation.applicable to .555 Chorro Street.
'
He.also.stated that there was no authority available to the city by way of an
adopted plan line for setbacks pursuant to a creek widening plan. While such
a plan was being developed for consideration and possible adoption, it remains
in the development stages and had no legal effect. If obtaining a use permit
were a condition of development in this situation, it was clear that given the
proper findings and determinations, the city could require a setback of 35 feet
or perhaps require construction of a vertical wall at the owner's expense.
Interestingly, 555 Chorro Street, because it abuts a creek and had a demonstrat-
able flooding program probably could be.made subject to- special consideration
zoning, which in turn would require the obtaining of a use permit prior to
..issuance.of .any.development entitlement. Sometime ago however, the Council
chose not to overlay the property with the S designation.. Further, if the
application for development were being made in combination with the request .
to subdivide.the property, valid - existing city.regulations. could reasonably
be- imposed to acquire the Council's desire to- setback or-the payment of the
vertical wall construction cost but the application here would carry no request
to subdivide and would be an application for a building permit requiring con-
formity only with existing zone regulations.
After listing-other legal precedents for this type of opinion, the City Attorney
concluded that the city had no valid existing authority to exact from the
property owner of 555 Chorro-.Street a.requirement that -he develop at least
35 feet from the top of the bank of-the - creek or that he pay for construction
of a vertical wall in.the creek for flood control purposes. 1
Rob Strong, consultant for the property owner, spoke.in.support of Dr. Farmer's
proposal, to grant the city the land necessary for a future wall if the city,
at some time, desired such a'co.nstruction.
Dan.Smi.th stated that the City Engineer and the Public.Services Director felt
the wall approach was the best for the city in order to handle the water that
would flow between the.bridge at Chorro.Street and the bridge. at Broad Street.
He.also. felt that the cost benefit showed the wall was the best approach for the
city and property owner and he urged that the City Council accept the property
owners dedication of land.
D.F. Romero, Public Services Director, urged.the Council to accept the
property owners' offer.for land as.the wall would not be built for many
years.
The City Council then held a lengthy discussion with the staff on-the impli-
cations of accepting a property owner's offer for an easement and the effect
this would have on other properties in.the creek or flood areas.
Councilman.Jorgensen stated that as usual the council had made..a mistake in
not placing the "S" designation'.on- this - parcel of land.which is .unfair to others
who have had the "S" added to their zoning.
On motion of.Councilman Petterson, seconded by Councilman Dunin, that the City.
Council accept the applicant's offer of dedication of right -of -way permitting
future construction of a wall if necessary.
Motion carried on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Petterson, Dunin, Jorgensen, Settle and Mayor Schwartz
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
t -. 1e.ii -swud. t i :.i- : -_st_ P i<• -. are. -:2.e a [a[_S
City Council Minutes
November 21, 1978
Page 10
The City Council asked the.City Administrative Officer to prepare..a status
report on flood zone. maps and creek set -back lines as,._they..apply to future
developments along.the creeks.
11. At this.time the City Council considered a final draft of the North
Coastal Transit Joint Powers Agreement and 1978/1979 budget to implement the
Joint Powers..Agreement.
' Lee Walton, City Administrative Officer,.reviewed for the City Council the Joint
Powers Agreement listing some minor differences between the one previously approved
and the one before the council this evening stating that basically the differences
were very.minor.and that the council did not need to take action as the matter
had been previously taken care of.
On motion of Councilman Petterson; seconded by Councilman Jorgensen, Dave Romero,
Public Services Director, was appointed as city.representative to the North
Coastal Transit J.P.A. and Art Hird to be the alternate representative.
Motion carried on the following roll call voter
AYES: Councilmen Petterson, Jorgensen, Dunin, Settle, and Mayor Schwartz
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
On motion of Councilman Petterson,:seconded by Councilman Jorgensen, the Mayor
was authorized to execute the 1978 -1979 North Coastal Transit Joint Powers
Agreement.Budget. Motion carried, all.ay_es.
12. On motion of.Councilman Jorgensen,. .seconded by Councilman Petterson,
the following resolution.was.introduced:.. Resolution No. 3717, 1978 Series, a
resolution of the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo providing for and
giving notice of a General.Municipal Election.to be held on March 6, 1979.
Passed and adopted on-the following roll call vote;_
AYES: Councilmen'Jorgensen, Petterson, Dunin,.Settle. and Mayor Schwartz
NOES: None
ABSENT:' None
CONSENT _ITEMS
C -1. On.motion of Councilman Settle,..seconded by.Councilman Dunin,.claims
against the.city for the month of November, 1978_were approved suject to the
approval of the Administrative Officer. Motion carried, all ayes.
C -2 On motion of Councilman Settle,_ seconded by Councilman Dunin,_appli-
cation for a.litter. control grant in cooperation with the County of San Luis
Obispo was approved and the Mayor was authorized to sign the same. Motion carried.
C -3 On motion of Councilman Settle, seconded by Councilman Dunin, the
.._following resolution was.introduced.: Resolution No. 3718, 1978 Series, a
resolution of the City of San Luis Obispo amending Resolution.No. 3647 (Salary
Resolution) by providing for payment of firefighter reservists performing
' dispatching duties.
Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Settle, Dunin, Jorgensen, Petterson and Mayor Schwartz
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
City Council Minutes
November'21, 1978
Page 11 .
C -4 On motion. of- Councilman..Pet.terson,. seconded .by..Councilman.Jorgensen,
.the following. resolution'.was'_introduced:'. Resolution .No '.. 3719, 1978 Series,
a 'resolution. of the Council of the City of San_ Luis'..Obispo_granting final
approval ..of.Parcel..Map.No..SL0778 -31, located at 628 California Boulevard and
601 Grove.Street. .
Passed and adopted on.the following roll.call vote:
AYES:. Councilmen ..Petterson,.Jorgensen,.Dunin, Settle- and.Mayor.Schwartz
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
C -5 On motion.of Councilman Settle,.;seconded by.Councilman Dunin, the
following resolution was.introduced:.. Resolution No. 3720, 1978'Series „ a
resolution of the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo granting final approval
of Tract 706 (Southwood Chalets) located at Laurel Lane and Southwood Drive,
(Floyd Hitchcock applicant)..
Passed and.adopted..on the following roll.call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Settle, Dunin, Jorgensen,.Petterson and Mayor Schwartz
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
C -6 On motion of Councilman Settle, seconded by Coiincilmari Duriin, the
following-resolution was introduced: Resolution No. 3721, 1978 Series, a
resolution of the Council of the City of..San Luis Obispo.authorizing.agreements
between the-Police Department of the City of San Luis Obispo and.the State of
California Department.of California.Highway Patrol.
Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Settle, Dunin, Jorgensen, Petterson and Mayor Schwartz
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
BID ITEMS
B -1 At this time the City Clerk reported.on bids received for WATERLINE
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT,.City Plan No. C -03, bids opened.Tuesday, October 31, 1978
at 1:30 p.m.. Bid estimate (without.contingencies:.and eiigi.neering fees):
$30,395.62
On motion of Councilman-Settle, seconded by Councilman Dunin, the City Council
accepted the low bid of Baker Construction Company for $27,599.00. Motion
carried.
7
iJ
I
Bid Total
Additive Item
1.
Baker Corporation
$27,599.00
$850.00
Post Office Box 419
Arroyo Grande, CA
2.
Burke Oilfield Construction
$28,746.25
not given
Post Office Box 762
San Miguel, CA 93451
3.
Fred Julien & Associates
$30,891.50
$450.00
1141 Foothill Boulevard
San Luis Obispo, CA 93.401
4.
Easley - Crystal Creek
$45,483.30
$625.00
Post Office Box 4238
Redding, CA 96001
On motion of Councilman-Settle, seconded by Councilman Dunin, the City Council
accepted the low bid of Baker Construction Company for $27,599.00. Motion
carried.
7
iJ
I
City-Council Minutes
r:November.21, 1978
Page 12
A. At 10:20.p.m..the City.Council adjourned.to Executive Session, and at
10:40 p.m., the City Council-reconvened with all councilmen present.
B. There .being:no..further...business to come before. the City Council,
Mayor Schwartz.adjourned.the _ meeting..at.10:45 p.m. to.Monday, December 4, 1978,
at 12:10 p.m.
APPROVED: December 19, 1978
.Fitzpatrick, City Clerk
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
M I N U T E S
ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE.CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO.
MONDAY, DECEMBER 4,.1978 - 12:10 P.M.
COUNCIL HEARING ROOM, CITY HALL, 990 PALM STREET
oi
STUDY SESSION
Roll Call
Councilmen
PRESENT: Ron Dunin,.Jeff Jorgensen, Steve Petterson, Allen Settle and
Mayor .Kenneth Schwartz
ABSENT: None
City Staff
PRESENT: J.H. Fitzpatrick, City Clerk; George Thacher, City Attorney;
Leland Walton, City Administrative Officer; Henry Engen,
Community Development Director; Wayne. Peterson, City Engineer;
Richard Minor, Fire Chief; Rudy Muravez, Finance Director;
Dave Romero, Public Services Director.
1. L. Walton,.City Administrative ...Officer,.presented.a report to the
City Council on the status of the 1978 /1979 Capital Improvement Budget, as
updated through November 16, 1978, to .show completed projects, increased
costs of projects..and.projects that would-possibly not be completed for the
fiscal year in an attempt to find any funds-that could be used for other
projects.
1 The C.A.O.- reviewed with the City Council the C.I.P. budget project by project.
In.discussing item 8.E of the ongoing.•continuing programs, flood control projects,
the council discussed the improvements to the drainage system of.Old Garden
Creek north of Foothill Boulevard and what extent these improvements would take.
.The discussion was moved by Councilman Dunin, seconded by Councilman Petterson,
that the city staff proceed with the plans and specifications-for a flood
control project along Old Garden Creek north of Foothill Boulevard as proposed
in the C.I.P.