HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/20/1979City Council Minutes
February 20, 1979
Page 2
Community Development Director; Dan Smith, Associate Planner;
Terry San ville, Senior Planner; Rudy.Muravez, Finance Director;
Richard Minor, Fire Chief; Roger Neuman, Police Chief;
Dave Romero, Public Services Director.
EMERGENCY ITEMS
E -1. City Attorney, Geor,
Memorandum Opinion No. 79 -7
on validity of wage freeze
versus the County of Sonoma
for decision by the Supreme
;e Thacher, presented to the City Council a Legal '
regarding the California Supreme Court decision
(Sonoma County Organization of Public Employees
etal., and four other proceedings consolidated
Court.).
After reviewing the decision and the implications of said decision, the City
Attorney stated that the city has, what may be described as, a contract,
agreement, or memorandum of understanding with the following groups: Police
Officers' Association, City Employees' Association, Firefighters' Association,
Management, and -the Council Appointees, (City Administrative Officer, and
Clerk only). With each group there was a commitment by the city to increase
salaries to certain rates effective either July 16, 1978 or July 1, 1978. In
response to the provisions of sections 16280 and 16280.5 found unconstitutional
by the decisions described above, the city has withheld payment of the increases.
In fact, the various city /employee documents speak specifically to the possible
challenge to SB 154 and SB 2212, providing that if the freeze or restrictions
are otherwise lifted, the increased salary rates shall spring into effect
starting the first pay period following the effective date of the lifting,
and that the increase shall be effective on July 1, 1978, provided a court
of last resort holds the conditional allocation invalid.
It is clear that the holding Sonoma applies to the agreements between the ,
city and the employee groups, with or without the provisions set out in the
latter part of the previous paragraph: The portions of the law which report
to varied agreements, contracts or memoranda of understanding which purport
for a cost of living increase have been held unconstitutional, thus the
increases set out in this city's agreements are valid, binding commitments
which must be honored.
Although the Sonoma decision states that there is no right to prejudgment
interest, it is my understanding that the City Council have committed to
payment of interest on retroactive wage,increase payments. It is my opinion
(1) that since you have independently agreed to pay interest as contradistin-
guished from the facts in Sonoma and (2) that the statutory authority relied
on by the Supreme Court relates only to judgment debtors (the City of San
Luis Obispo is not a party respondent in Sonoma), you may honor as well your
stated intention to pay interest.
On motion of Councilman Settle, seconded by Councilman Dunin, the city staff
was directed to implement payroll in accordance with the adopted M.O.U.'s,
including interest, for all employee groups legally authorized to receive
said increases.
Motion carried on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Settle, Dunin, Jorgensen, Petterson, and Mayor Schwartz I
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
E -2. On motion of Mayor Schwartz,-seconded by.Councilman Jorgensen, the
following resolution was introduced: Resolution No. 3783 a resolution of
the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo sending their appreciation to
Leroy Chatfield, Director of the California Conservation Corps.
City Council Minutes
February 20, 1979
Page 3
Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Mayor Schwartz, Councilmen Jorgensen, Dunin, Petterson, and
Settle
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
' 1. At this time the City Council held a public hearing to consider an
appeal of a Planning Commission decision denying a use permit request to
allow headquarters for a University Faculty Organization to be located at
496 Kentucky Avenue, Richard A. Bucich, applicant.
Mayor Schwartz and Councilman Settle left the meeting due to a possible conflict
of interest.
Henry Engen, Community Development Director, stated that both the Board of
Adjustments and the Planning Commission have denied Mr. Bucich`s. request for
a univeristy faculty organization as a home occupation. It has been the
opinion of the staff, the Board of Adjustments., and the Planning Commission
that the use proposed by Richard Bucich does not qualify as a home occupa-
tion in that it will generate traffic and will involve employees. Moreover,
throughout this process there has been a vagueness as to what the proposed
use actually was. For these reasons the Board of Adjustments and Planning
Commission unanimously denied the application.
Vice -Mayor Petterson declared the public hearing open.
Richard A. Bucich, 496 Kentucky Street, appeared stating that his use. permit
application was for a home occupation of a headquarters for a university
faculty organization. This would be a place where selected univeristy
faculty could come for advice, council, and assistance in personnel policies
and procedures. He stated they would come by appointment as individuals or
with maybe one other person during the daylight hours. The organization,
through him and his residency, would supply a selective.service for a
selected fee.
He stated that while he did not have off - street parking, there was adequate
on- street parking adjacent to his home. He felt there would be no special
areas required or modified for the use of this organization.
Vice -Mayor Petterson declared the public hearing closed.
Councilman Dunin stated that based on this presentation, he would support
the Planning Commission and Board of Adjustments action in denying the use
permit..
Councilman Jorgensen agreed that he too would support the action of the
Planning Commission and the Board of Adjustments.
Vice -Mayor Petterson stated that he would also support the Planning Commission
and Board of Adjustments action in denying the use permit as he agreed that
even after the public hearing this evening, the proposal was very vague as
to what was actually going to be accomplished at this development.
On motion of Councilman Jorgensen, seconded by Councilman Dunin, that the
City Council deny the appeal of Richard Bucich for a home occupation permit.
Motion carried on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Jorgensen, Dunin, and Vice -Mayor Petterson
NOES: None
ABSENT: Mayor Schwartz and Councilman Settle
Mayor Schwartz and Councilman Settle returned to the meeting and took their
places.
City Council Minutes
February 20, 1979
Page 4
2. At this time the City Council.held.a public-hearing to consider
an appeal of an Architectural Review Commission decision requiring a three
foot high cement plaster wall for screening of street frontage at the
Higuera Street parking lot of the proposed Bank of America building at
Santa Rosa and Higuera Streets, Kenneth H. MacIntyre, representing the
Bank of America. _
Henry Engen presented the recommendation of the A.R.C. which was that Bank
'
of America requested the A.R.C. to eliminate the wall requirement on the new
building project, but that the A.R.C. felt the wall should remain and they
recommend that the City Council support the A.R.C.'s position to deny the
request. He continued that after considerable discussion with architect,
the A.R.C. still felt that for such a large project, almost one half of a
city block, the screen wall in conjunction with landscaping was the best
solution to the problem of screening the parking area. The wall was designed
so that it would be an extension of a well designed building. The Commission
also carefully considered the financial impact of its decision and was of
the opinion that the cost of the wall was off set by the long -range contri-
bution of the wall to the visual appearance of the community. The staff
also felt that the wall is a very important part of the.project and recommends
that the City Council uphold the Architectural Review Commission decision.
George Thacher, City Attorney, submitted Legal Memorandum Opinion No. 79 -8 on
the appeal of Bank of America from A.R.C. decision -to require cement plaster
wall in parking lot of proposed bank. The question presented to the attorney
was, may the A.R.C. require the wall? His answer was, yes.
In the discussion, he reviewed the section of the Municipal Code dealing
with the authority of the A.R.C. and also those sections of the Municipal
Code dealing with parking lots for four or more cars adjoining streets, etc.
He felt that parking site plan guidelines cited gives the authority to the
A.R.C. to require various types of parking lot screens, etc. Therefore,
his opinion was, yes, the A.R.C. had the right to require the screen wall.
Peg Pinard, 714 Buchon Street, stated that she was opposed to any kind of
solid barrier at a three foot level in the downtown area as being required
for the bank for four .reasons:
1) A person returning to his car or a person walking by at night is not
afforded the protection of visual surveillance. In other cities these
walls provide places of concealment for rapists and other criminals.
These cities have had to learn by experience that solid walls create
safety problems.
2) These walls are targets for bottles and cans thrown by kids while
"cruising ". The results of alot of broken glasss and debris have
been .witnessed by Scolaris on Marsh Street. They have since had to
lower their walls due to continual problems.
3) Some of the City's own parking lots are nicely landscaped without
requiring such a wall.
4) Last, but not least, these walls are downright ugly. They provide no
relief, visually, to all the concrete that surrounds us. Surely, there
is a more creative solution in landscaping.
Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing open. '
Ken MacIntyre, architect for the Bank of America, appeared before the City
Council and stated that the Commission had voted to uphold the previous
decision to require a 3' high cement plaster wall at the Higuera Street
parking lot of the proposed Bank of America. He continued that he had asked
the Commission to reconsider its previous decision. He stated that the
zoning ordinance required any parking lot of four or more cars adjoining
a street must have street frontage screen with a 3' high wall for hedge.
City Council Minutes
February 20, 1979
Page 5
He had advised his client in the early design stages that a landscape screen
would fit within their budget and save constant maintenance problems which a
wall would present. A review of city ordinances and the newly adopted
Architectural Review Commission guidelines indicated that the architect or
designer, through his own professional judgement, had the opportunity to
provide the required screen and the material which he felt satisfied the
owner's program and budget and at the same time contributes to the total
' design solution. The guidelines specifically stated that the city did not
want to stifle a designers imagination or require substantial added cost
and suggested the best solution to the problem might be too expensive. There-
fore, as licensed architects, they were concerned about a city agency
dictating specific design solutions and felt strongly that this was not
the intent of the zoning ordinance nor the Architectural Review Commission
and on behalf of his client, Bank of America, asked that the Council reduce
or remove this condition. He continued that at the public hearings the
plaster wall was a requirement.not of the A.R.C. but of the staff ultimately
supported by the A.R.C. He asked that they be allowed to put in landscaping
instead of the wall which would include hedges, trees and groundcover. He
listed some of the bad features of the wall such as: 1) destruction of
wall by vandals; 2) damages by cars running into the wall; 3) grafetti painted
on walls; 4) spray paint on walls, etc. He concluded that the wall would cost
$9,000 or 1% of the total cost of the project including furnishings. He stated
that at no time had the project designers planned for a wall, just landscaping.
Don Rahn, Sr., Chairman of the A.R.C., reaffirmed the position of the A.R.C.
to'require a wall for the B 'of A building on Higuera and Santa Rosa Street.
He'stafed that the A.R.C. spent many hours studying this matter. He stated
that the cost or the budget of the project was not considered vs. aesthetics
of the site. Finally, he felt that this was a critical corner of the commun-
ity and that landscaping would not serve the purpose of screening the cars
as would a solid wall. He urged the Council support and deny the appeal of
the architect.
1 Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing closed.
Councilman Settle stated that he would normally support more landscaping than
a solid wall but that he would support this appeal and not require the wall.
Councilman Dunin stated he could not see how the wall, 145' in length, could
be pleasing to the eye. He felt the wall was ugly and he would support the
appeal for more landscaping and greenbelt and not for a concrete wall.
Councilman Petterson also agreed that the wall would be ugly and would rather
see landscaping but he felt in the subject property a wall would be needed to
protect pedestrians along the adjacent sidewalk. He felt the wall was a
safety factor.
Councilman Jorgensen felt he could agree that the wall alone would be ugly but
with the proposed planning he felt the wall would be softened and the safety
factor was an important consideration.
Mayor Schwartz stated he would support the A.R.C. position to require the
wall although he did not feel that a wall was the answer in every case.
On motion of Councilman Petterson, seconded by Councilman Jorgensen, that
the City Council deny the appeal of Ken MacIntyre on behalf of the Bank
of America primarily on the safety to pedestrians and no adverse aesthetic
' impact. Motion carried, Councilmen Dunin and Settle voting no.
3. The City Council held a- public hearing to consider a Planning Commission
recommendation for a proposed change in the land use element of the General Plan
to change the designation of about four acres on Pacific Street between Nip_omo
and Carmel Streets from medium high density to high density residential.
Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing open.
Charles Storny, Pacific Street, supported the Planning Commission's recommendation.
City Council Minutes
February 20, 1979
Page 6
Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing closed.
On motion of Councilman Petterson, seconded by Councilman Settle, the following
resolution was introduced: Resolution No. 3774 (1979 Serie), a resolution of
the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo amending the land use element of the
General Plan.
Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Dunn, Jorgensen, Petterson, Settle and Mayor Schwartz
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
4. - The. -City Council considered -the final passage of Ordinance No. 797
(1979 Series), an ordinance of the City of San Luis Obispo amending Article IX,
Chapter II of the Municipal Code, Sections 9200.16.1, "Parking and Driveway
Regulations ".
Councilman Jorgensen left the meeting due to a possible conflict of interest.
Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing open.
R. Strong, Planning Consultant, supported the amendment generally but hoped
that future downtown parking structures would not be required to comply with
the strict provisions of this section of the code.
Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing closed.
On motion of Councilman Settle, seconded by Councilman Dunin, Ordinance No.
797 was introduced for final passage. '
Finally passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Settle, Dunin, Petterson and Mayor Schwartz
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilman Jorgensen
Councilman Jorgensen returned to the meeting.
5. At this time the City Council considered the final passage of
Ordinance No. 798, an ordinance of the City of San Luis Obispo amending
the Municipal Code Article VIII, Chapter 7, "Swimming Pool and Dock Regulations."
Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing open.
No one appeared before the City Council for or against the proposed ordinance
amendment.
Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing closed.
On motion of Councilman Dunin, seconded by Councilman Settle, Ordinance No. 798
was introduced for final passage.
Finally passed and adopted on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilman Dunn, Settle, Jorgensen, Petterson, and Mayor Schwartz
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
6. The City Council reconsidered the amended agreement to lease city
sewer plant property to allow a radio transmission tower and transmitter
housing, 120 Prado Road, A /C -20 zone, Riverside Broadcasting Company (KATY
Radio), applicant.
Lee Walton, City Administrative Officer, reviewed the provisions of the
amended agreement with the City Council stating that all the prior objections
and problems have been taken care of and that the staff recommended that the
proposed amended agreement be adopted.
City Council Minutes
February 20, 1979
Page 7
The Housing Authority of the City of San- Luis Obispo - stated -- they - d14,- -not
believe the Housing Authority could use the entire eight acres of the property,
but -they hoped that at some future date they could possibly use the front
portion along Higuera Street for development of some housing units.
Don Smith, environmentalist, stated ha was opposed to the lease- af- -cit -y
property at such a low rent to a private developer. He felt that the private
' developer should pay the going market price and not -be given a gi-ft by-the
city.
Steve Nelson, -Housing - Authority,- felt it was wrong to tie up.- a- fi -ne-- parcel of
land -for u e- se, by a privat agency when it is - not the- best- use of the-land. He
felt it would be better used for housing. He felt the city should authorize
the tower on the other side of the creek and use this land for housing.
Henry Engen, Community Development Director, reviewed the time consuming studies
carried on by the Planning Commission in-trying-to. arrive at a place to put
the radio tower on the Gudel property for KATY.
D.F. Romero, Public Services Director, opposed development of any housing on
any property east of the sewer plant due to possible smells if "something were
to go wrong at the plant. Although, certain chemicals can be added to the
sewer effluent to reduce or mask the odor. This will serve only for a minor
ordor problem, not a major breakdown.
Tom Schuman, Tenants Coalition Advisor, stated that he was opposed to the use
of chemicals to mask sewer smells by the city.
Charles Andrews, Chairman of the-Planhing Commission, again reviewed for the
council other areas studied by the Planning Commission for locating this
tower.
Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing closed. _ -_
Councilman Settle stated he felt the subject property could be developed for
multiple uses, housing, commercial, etc; although, he would support a-long -
term lease for KATY.
Councilman Dunin would support a long term lease to KATY Radio Station. He
did'not feel the land was logical for housing-uses Sue to the proximity of
the sewer plant, although, -he "would support some development along Higuera
Street with the rear for radio station uses.
Councilman Petterson supported the Planhing.CommissiovIg recommendation.
Councilman Jorgensen stated he too would support the.Planning Commission's
recommendation, although he objected to the inference that the council does
not support the Housing Authority.
Mayor Schwartz stated he too would support the Planning Commission recommendation
but would also support additional uses for the balance of the land.
On motion of Councilman Settle, seconded by Councilman Dunin, the following
resolution was introduced: Resolution No. 3735 (1979 Series), a resolution
of the Council of the City of San Luis Obsipo approving-an agreement- between
the city and Riverside Broadcasting Inc. (KATY Radio) for location of a radio
transmission tower at"the waste water treatment plant. .
Passed and adopted on the following.roll call.vote:
AYES: Councilmen, Settle, Dunin, Jorgensen, Petter son, and Mayor Schwartz
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
7. The City Council considered an amended ordinance of the City of San
Luis Obispo adding Municipal Code Article IX, Chapter 8, Sections 9800 through
9816 to the Municipal Code entitled "Flood Damage Prevention Regulations."
City Council. Minutes
February 20, 1979
Page 8
'rMayoT' Sdhw$rtz "fin% -cT' Ghe public hsarfiig=.j 'I.- = r. '1 U-1 ^fl "fir: : :::J --
�- :Iin 9
No one appeared before the City Council for or against the proposed adoption
of the= ordiharidp1 7 os -n - :n 00 r.7nur_ . ^n _o_ _00
Mbyo? :Schwattz== deol.afdd It We public) liaa ;t-ing c1oserdt. " La _J �•nn 3: r, _ '
The City Council discussed the adoption of the ordinance and on motion of '
Councilman Settle, seconded by Councilman Dunin, the ordinance was- \itttoduced
and passed to print, except at the last sentence in Section 9811 reading, "The
0 1--0 'C=ity rAiglhe2t may I alsb'- 2bntinue,= pfo- ject•'app'13datioii'srcurftil Biirh tim%:as
applelt:ant= c7ontpl3js -with t:he 3fe�gtilae %n #s' oll� this' dtiap'ter. "f lid= dela -tedJr'rom
the ordinance.
_.._2rlo-. --,2 n -_ .._ ,, ^9'1 9 5.: _'n3 70 si-_I1 '•7._Ic !.)r,; . n :n.; . O.):i
Introduced and passed to print on the folloring roll call vote:
_ i 7Y. . _ 3nr)7n let -rj;: P7: on -.j 7 ^--- 'r nn.:
AYES: Councilman Settle, Dunin, Jorgensen, Petterson, and Mayor Schwartz
�:L ... '"O 'r37']0 _.J .90. 9. ___ 3 O.r. wi
NOES: None
^' C ': 11DE =C ;'fi0 _ .:1 .nu _. J A
ABSENT: None
8. Communication from James W. Kimball stating that he had received
the Water Rates Study done by Mr. Peasley, and after studying the report,
he still felt the city was not providing him with any services not provided
, zo -bdsittL58e.,,-- ithout'= 'Trismt -e Fike' Prbtettd-bn -SbrvWdr 7�_-xcet["U:imdf-
hydrant maintenance. He stated the t;hcddght'7tW'1kUgge-ftJidh= of-'b= mdtffh1Y charge,
the same as the fire department pays ($4.25) be reasonable. With that
charge- Jibing'. t(toactiVE' to= Mar of111478; he %stated =ttel woulyd: be• wi:3aOAMF, to
settle the issue at that.
R. Muravez, Finance Director, spoke in support of the principles of charging
for stand by water services te= liYiVate' wanr): users. - Sd) statsecbzha=)`Mmball
proposed to pay $4.25 per momth per hydrant, which is what the city charges
its own fire department for public fire protection service. He then explained
'-0t1fe Vats VatefJ =rbxeb "i i:,deVeloped- sx'd •pntmirvles `a oved -biz the 'council to
operate the water system on a pay -as -you go basis. - :He' retommemtir.'d wha=t the
council stick with the existing adopted rate.
C. L'l; 'i' -_'. .. r� 921' r..2 _.11'J _.: ,. I•. .. Ur;
On motion of Councilman Petterson, seconded by Councilman Settle, that the
2 ^1C-i'ty'Ctfutftil� d'eh)r the, aplseal7 -0-f' "JamegiRiintsall!and' b:cceptr, the- staff•'sj,rJecom-
mendation. ."-3 IT n - :e3_ n_,) _n-
Passed on the following roll call vote:
rin'-Afy -M Cour€dilmen� Petrr�rvriSett l'8', :T9un n; llbrgett etf, 'arut 'Mayor rSchwartz
9C- n.O n'J ':j :'6. _ ^:7 -. ^.9":.1
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
9. The council considered a recommendation of the Planning Commission
.ndpp)rovirig- Tetf'tatiye) M415, for,rpra(st• NO). •'748', = a' n25ilotJr .esrtdpntiatsubdtvision
^r = ,cbtVrg:09% adf,64 dri Orcittt Road bett3*xaii- Eemwood ia7td1!laGmwoodl Dr ve;• R1chard
r.Burke; S`tugtliv3d n :7 -�t; -J .. 3 s r;u
Dan Smith, Senior Planner, stated that the Planning Commission, at a public
hearing held February 7, 1979, passed a resolution on a 4 -2 vote recommending
approval of the subject"- tr-aev ma¢'randl certafnsvartan(iesl • sub;act- tcDcr. rditions
listed for the council's consideration. The findings were as follows:
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,-d@velopment'provosed.
4. The site is physically suitable for the proposed densitv of develop-
ment.
-_3 ':1);17''i
7 ^, 3'• =.I_._ J . ^.i nl _ °_c:.f.'n.l .':❑ ...!" 7 =a !'3 03
Citv Council Minutes
February 20, 1979
Page 9
5: The design of.-the - subdivision and the proposed improvements are
not likely to cause sulistaritial envii=mental* damage or substan-
tially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
6. The design of the subdivision or the tyve 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.
They also recommended that the tentative map be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1. Dedicate and widen Orcutt Road as required on setback line maps.
-Dedication is 18 feet. The street improvement shall be to a TI of
7. Included in this improvement is a requirement that the vertical
curve in Orcutt Road be modified to provide for a stopping site
distance of 40 MPH as determined by the CAL TRANS Design Manual,
and the undergrounding of the adjacent utility lines located on
the northerly side of Orcutt Road. The developer shall recieve
approval from the County of SLO for any changes made to Orcutt Road.
2.
Developer-shall dedicate to the city access rights to Orcutt Road
except for along the westerly 50 feet to the subdivision.
3.
Final grading plan shall be drawn to meet city code requirements. It
shall be submitted with and incorporate recommendations and require-
ments established by a soils and /or geology report. Of. particular
interest to the city is the method used to stablize the over burden
on the slopes along Orcutt Road. The city hereby waives the'require-
ments of*the grading ordinance for roll -overs at'the top and bottom
of the slopes
4.
Contractor is required during the course of the construction to
maintain equipment to monitor the ambient air quality and to meet
adopted air quality standards-with respect to visibility and suspended
particulate matter caused.by the grading operation. The contract's
specification should call out and include testing frequency and name
qualified persons or agencies-responsible for monitoring the air
quality. The city engineer.shall approve the person or agency
appointed by the developer. Testing stations shall be located to the
city engineer's staisfaction.
5.
The-developer shall provide protection along the*base of all slopes
which fall into residential property adjacent to the subdivision.
(This should prevent debris and rocks from causing damage.) The
exact method shall be worked.out on the plans and specifications.
The contractor shall carry insurance protecting the city from liability.
6.
Grading for this operation shall be completed within 90 days from the
start of work. Time extensions will be permitted by the city engineer
for justifiable cause if'the contractor diligently pursues the work.
The grading must begin before July 1 of the year in which the project
starts. The plans and specifications shall detail the grading oper-
ation: It shall include hours of operation, proposed sequences of
excavation, dust suppression methods, truck routing, and .ingress /egress
control as well as signing for construction zone at Orcutt Road.
7 -.
Prior to the construction of curb, gutter' and sidewalk and pavement,
'
ho trucks other than pickup trucks may gain access to the tract through
the residential neighborhood.
8.
Provision for sewing lot 23 shall be indicated on the construction
plans and any easements required shall be shown on the final tract
map.
9.
All construction within the tract shall be to city standards with city
approved materials.
10. Sewer and water fees are payable prior to recordation of final map
and shall be determined by the city engineer.
City Council Minutes
February 20, 1979
Page 10
11. Developer shall provide hydrology and hydraulic calculations for the
subdivision. He shall provide.for drainage de-veloped•on the site and
running across -the site and shall carry all water to an adequate point
of disposal. The adequate point of disposal is determined by the city
engineer based on the results of the study.
12. All improved lot areas shall drain to the street or provisions must
be made to accomm odate the drainage by means of improved swales, pipes,
or other devices to carry the water through easements (to be privately
maintained) to a public street.
13. Percentage of lot coverage permitted by city zoning ordinance shall
be calculated on the area of the padded portion'of the lot excluding
all cut and fill slopes from lot area calculation.
14. Project engineer shall certify on the final map that lots 1 -24 have
6,000 square feet of building area with 10 percent or less cross
slope._
15., All lots in the subdivision shall-be considered-sensitive sites and
approved-by the city Architectural Review Commission.
16. Applicant shall pay fees in lieu of park dedication per city subdiv-
ision regulations.
17. Applicant shall prepare a landscape screening plan for the perimeter
of the tract where it abuts existing residential development to
approval of staff. Landscape plan shall be installed as a part of
subdivi -sion improvements.
Henry Engen, Community Development Director, stated'that the City Council
should be aware of the staff's recommendation for optimum design of Tract
748, which was presented to the Planning Commission. The staff's position
was expressed at the January 10, 1979 report to the Planning Commission -
"The optimum design solution c6mpatible with'the neigh$orhood should be a
single family cluster solution with from 8 to 12 units and more limited
grading." He stated that the final action by the council on this project
requires that "The decision making body shall review any determination of
the ERC and grant the project a negative declaration and may reverse or '
modify such determination." If the council desires alternative designs for
the project, it may direct that a focused EIR be prepared exploring such
other alternatives.
Dan Smith, Senior Planner, reviewed the variances granted by the Planning
Commission for this development:
1. A variance to grade the tract 100% whereas the grading ordinance
allows only 20% because of unusual; preexisting- grading on the
hillside which has already detracted from its natural character.
2:- Variance for -lots 1 through 24 to allow smaller lots than required
by subdivision slope criteria because of unusually steep slopes
either preexisting or required for road or subdivision design in
- response to the unique-characteristics.of the -hill:
3. Variance to allow lesser rounding of the top and bottom of slope
banks because-of.particular dimensions of the site as'it would affect
a suitable subdivision design.
4. Variance for lot 25 for 120 -foot depth rather than 150 feet as
required because of unique shape and steepness of the site in the
vicinity of proposed lot 25.
The City Council received a final following petition signed by six property
owners: Janet-Kourakis, Charles.M. Slew, Alexa Slem, Barbara J. Lang,
Donald F. O'Connor, and Martin T. Lang. They requested-that the council:
1) Make an environmental determination in-connection with consideration of ,
Orcutt Heights tentative tract number 748; and 2) provide environmental review
guidance for planning commission and staff.
The petition then reviewed the various rules and regulations of the state
and city dealing with the environmental acts and.guidelines.
A communication from Gini Allen, League of Women Voters, stating that the
League of Women Voters of San Luis Obispo appreciates the opportunity to
express the concern on the tentative tract map 748. The extensive grading
suggested and resultant variances desired appear to be in direct violation
City Council Minutes
February 20, 1979
Page 11
of our,city's - grading ordinances, subdivisiori ordinances and policies. Subse-
quent traffic of earthmoving trucks through -the surrounding neighborhood for
an extended period of time would certainly have an effect on the surrounding
neighborhood. "ElTect§ =oE- de3elopment"upon vista and skyline ale of - concern.
Why was an Environmental Impact Report not done?
The League also maintains.a strong position that efforts should be made to
improve communication between citizens and governmental bodies. Cooperation
between all entities-is vital.to -good government. The community should be
notified of Environmental Review Committee activities and Planning Commission
activities and encouraged to participate in decision - making.
Because considerable public controversy exists, because there are important
questions concerning grading, visual quality,'and noise, because appropriate
procedures involving consistency with laws and ways of informing the public
are in question, the League of Women Voters respectfully requests the City
Council to review prior determinations and request an Environmental Impact
on this project in order to ^better anticipate its" effects.
A communication from Mary E. Tyler and James L. Tyler, 3677 Lawnwood
Drive, to the City Council stating that the majority of the residents
in the Southwood area are opposed to' the Oicutt Hill development as
approved by the San Luis Obispo City Planning Commission. They have
spoken-to the issues and have presented a petition carrying numerous'
signatures of the residents in the area to the Planning Commission. At
the first meeting of the Planning Commission, the original development
was presented and was rejected by both 'fhe majority of the audience'as
well as the Commission who asked for a planned development alterative.
This alternative, complete in mock -up form, was presented at the next
meeting, and in the scant time - period of just two weeks. It was so blantly
ugly an$ insensiiivei}r presented that it stampeded both "the audience and
"the c'ommission•ba k to the original - proposal: - "At that second meeting; the
' 'Planning Commission falled"tb ai6k the developer for another alternate and
possibly even another, until they could.come up with one that could be
more acceptable to the residents of the area and all members of the commission.
Thus, they asked that the City Council take some time to consider what
the impact of this decision of the Planning Commission to allow thi.,
development as -is now proposed will do to the residents of the area, and
asked to negate the Planning Commission recommendation.
George Thacher, Citq Attorney, - presented the following Legal Memorandum
Opinion No. 79 -6 regarding environmental review of the Orcutt Heights
Project. The questions asked were:
r . r
1. Is the action of the E.R.C. appealable?
2. Aside from its responsibilities on the appeal process, must the
City Council review the negative declaration?
3. What role does the Planning Commission play in the review of'the
negative declaration issued for this project?
4.' What action may the City Council take with 'respect to the negative
declaration? ' -
The City Attorney said-the answer to No. 1 was yes, to No. 2 was yes, No. 3,
the Planning Commission must review and consider the negative declaration,
and No. 4, the council may reverse or modify the .-negative declaration.
The City Attorney then" rivfewpd the legal 'background of the questions and
answers just presented.
Mayor Schwartz stated, before opening the public hearing, that he had
difficulty, after reviewing all the documentation of this particular project,
in the findings that the Planning Commission did in their approval of the
tentative map for Tract 748. He listed the seven findings presented by the
Planning Commission in.their recommendations as being unable to make those.
Councilman Jorgensen stated he shared the.Mayor's worry in making the necessary
findings for variances in addition to the findings. He also felt that the
city staff was wrong in not requiring a full E.I.R. on the project and not
City Council Minutes
February 20,1979
Page 12 -
just file a negative declaration. He said it-was-absolutely impossible for
him to make the finding necessary in Item 5 that the design of the subdivision
and proposed improvements are not likely to cause-substantial-environmental
damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their
habitat.
Councilman Settle stated he too a.greed.with the Mayor's statement. He felt
any tract that needed that many findings and.variances would be a problem I
and that a full E.I.R. should have been prepared in order to mitigate these
possible problems.
Councilman Dunin stated he felt that status of the development at this time
was very confusing to. -say the least, with so-many variances, exceptions, etc.
He found it would be very difficult to make the necessary findings.
Mavor Schwartz declared the public hearing open.
Richard Burke, developer, stated he was very disappointed with the comments
made by the members of the City Council dealing with this matter even before
a presentation had been made to them and without hearing from the proponents.
He said he felt-as if he had been shot down'without a hearing, and as far as
he was concerned, anything that took place would be a farce.
Robert Strong, planning consultant for Richard Burke, reviewed the develop-
ment steps taken by Mr. Burke over the past year to develop this property.
He reviewed the - various altervative desigues for development of the land,
including.planned- development versus.regular lot subdivisions which seemed
to receive general neighborhood support over the planned development.
Mr. Sturgeon stated that he was.disturbed to hear what had transpired
thus far this evening. He felt-that the city staff had taken an unfair
advantage-of this developer when after one year of study, reports, preparing
of plans, etc.; and.now the City Council feels that they.do not have enough ,
information from which to make a decision. He felt it was wrong and an
intolerable situation to lead an individual, whether he be a developer or n ot
over such a long period of time with cost increases and then have the legis-
lative body say we don't have enough information.
John Rogales -, Lawnwood Road, opposed to the proposed property development.
He felt the proposal does - effect the environment and no evidence has been
presented to mitigate the destruction of the environment or the effect it
would have on the neighborhood or the area.. He urged the council to require
a high enough bond to protect the-project to completion.
Arvin , 1311 Fernwood Drive, was opposed to the development as
proposed and urged the council to deny the project as he felt the environment
of the neighborhood was not adequately protected. He felt that the council
adopted general plan really considered sensitive land forms as this knob of
land.
Liz Fisher was opposed to_this.development. She felt that at no time was
the environment of the neighborhood ever considered by the Planning Commission
or the staff. She felt that the project required a full E.I.R.
Don Grahaa,1348 Fernwood Drive,.was opposed to the project. He felt
the plan was unacceptable and -that no consideration was given to the neighbor-
hood environment. He also felt that other logical alternatives had not been
considered. He felt the -environment-must be protected. ,
Jerry Emory, 662 Sandercock Street, felt that the development was poor, felt
that the Planning Commission throughout the project had been very uncooper-
ative, and the Planning Commission had pushed the city staff into allowing
some very poor decisions and recommendations. He felt that the neighborhood
at no time had received courteous treatment by the Planning Commission.
Pete Evans felt the plan was very poor, felt all ramifications of the devel-
opment have not been explored, and that the environment was not considered.
He felt.the Planning Commission did not give the neighborhood a fair hearing.
He felt the Planning Commission was annoyed at the constant objections by
the neighborhood.
r-7I
I
L.
1
City Council Minutes
February 20, 1979
Page 13
Faren Pachallo, 1628 Chorro Street, stated she was opposed to any development
of this knob. She.fel.t it should be kept as open space for use by the
people of the community. "Preserve open space-environment," she stated.
Jamie Lopes, county planner, opposed the project due to the extensive amount
of dirt that must be moved in order to make-the project reasonable. He felt
no approval should be given to any development that moves that much dirt
and its potential effect on the environment.
Martin Lang, 1441 Tanglewood Court, objected to the project. Re felt it
was not suitable to the neighborhood and that it should be denied. He did
not feet that any alternatives had been explored by either the developer or
the city staff. He said-that at no-time was the neighborhood's environmental
considerations given by the Planning Commission.
Dick Gifford was.opposed to the development and felt it would destroy the
neighborhood.
Bill Day, Fernwood Drive., would support some sort of improvement on the knob,
neither the planned development.or the-conventional subdivision, but whatever
is done should be done with a sensitive touch which would protect the old
residents of the neighborhood equally, and it should be well done.
Sandy Richards, Rachael Street, was opposed to the Orcutt knob development.
She felt the council should listen to the neighborhood residents and protect
the environment for those living in this part of the city. She felt altern-
ative types of development should be explored before any approval is given.
Joe Rattabouch was opposed to the development.
concerns were not considered.
Jerry Munger, Oceanaire Drive, spoke in support
Commission and city staff..and felt it was unfair
by some of the people in the audience and on.the
He felt the environmental
of past actions of the-Planning
the way they had been berated
council this evening.
Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing closed.
Councilman Petterson, felt the development was unsuitable according to the
neighbors. He felt that something must.be. done to this parcel of land and he
hoped that some suitable proposal would-come up on this land. He felt the
city needed street widening on Orcutt Road.and this parcel of land should be
cleared up. He suggested that -the council meet with the developer and see
if some common ground for development could be arrived at in a less hostile
atmosphere.
Councilman Jorgensen was in support of the comments of the residents opposing
this development. He felt-.Burke's- proposal-was too ambitious and-too large
for the area. He felt the city is at a point as they do not follow their
own guidelines and should have required an E.I.R. in order to review and look
at the alternatives. He felt the city staff has done all they can to no
longer require E.I.R.'s in the city. He feels they should follow the guidelines
adopted by the City Council. .
He continued that he felt the City Council should deny the proposal and he
also felt that council direct.the staff to follow state law and city guidelines
and require an E.I.R., which he flet would be helpful in this particular
project. Finally, he felt the council could not make the necessary findings
to grant the required variances to allow the plan without an environmental
study.
Councilman Settle felt that in order to approve this..plan, there were too
many variances required,. and that-an E.I.R..should have been done in order
to study other alternatives which would have been explored. He would like
to continue consideration to allow staff and the developer to look at
alternatives, including the-need for a full.E.I.R., in order to know what
can be done. He did not feel he could make the necessary findings for
variances and exceptions. He felt this was-a very sensitive area.
City Council Minutes
February 20, 1979
Page 14
Councilman Dunin felt this project had been going on.too long.. He felt the
proposed density was too high, felt too much dirt was being removed, the
the land should be developed but further alternatives should be studied, and
that if an E.I.R. had been required, the council would have more information
on which to make a decision. He could see the neighbors feelings to keep the
land an open space, but unless it was owned by the city, the owners should
be allowed to do something within reason with it.
Mayor Schwartz felt this.a difficult decision due to differences of opinion
,
on development.. He stated that after all has been said tonight, he still
could not make the necessary findings to grant the required variances and
exceptions to city ordinances and policies in order to develop this land.
He felt that the property owners should be allowed to develop this property
but it should be done with a sensitive touch. He did not feel that requiring
an E.I.R. at this time would serve any useful purposes. He agreed that the
developer should meet with the staff or council and see if something could be
worked out. He would deny the tentative map for the reasons listed above.
On motion_of.Councilman Jorgensen, seconded by Mayor Schwartz, that -the City
Council deny the Tentative Map for Tract 748 with the City Attorney to bring
back a resolution listing the reasons presented.
Motion carried on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilman Jorgensenr Mayor Schwartz, Councilmen Dunin, Petterson
and Settle
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
On motion of Councilman Jorgensen,-seconded -by-Councilman-Settle,-that the
City Administrative Officer have the planning staff review existing state '
and city E.I.R. guidelines and regulations for.implementation by the city in
view of the legal opinion no. 79 -6 of the City Attorney.
Motion carried on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Jorgensen, Settle, Dunin, Petterson and Mayor Schwartz
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
10. On motion of Councilman Jorgensen,._seconded by Councilman Petterson,
the following resolution was introduced: Resolution--No. 3784 (1979 Series),
a resolution of the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo establishing
monthly parking rates for City Lot No. 14, located at 630 Monterey Street.
Passed and adopted on. -the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Jorgensen, Petterson, Dunin, Settle and Mayor Schwartz
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
11. On motion of Councilman Jorgensen,_ seconded by Councilman Petterson, '
the following resolution was introduced: Resolution No. 3776 (1979 Series),
a resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo_committing
San Luis Obispo actively to cooperate with other local governments and the
appropriate agencies of the State of California to ensure that local concerns
about the economic and environmental effects of proposed lease sale 453 are
fully and fairly met by the federal government, before any OCS oil development
is permitted in the OCS lease sale #53 area.
Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Jorgensen, Petterson, Dunin, Settle and Mayor Schwartz
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
City Council Minutes
February 20, 1979
Page 15
12. On motion-of Councilman Petterson, seconded by Councilman Jorgensen,
the following resolution was introduced: Resolution. No. 3777 (1979 Series),
• resolution of the Council urging the Department of, Insurance to maintain
• system of insurance rates based on geographic location and related conditions.
Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Petterson, Jorgensen, Dunin, Settle, and Mayor Schwartz
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
13. Parking on Santa Rosa Street.
Councilman Jorgensen left the meeting due to a possible conflict of interest.
The city staff stated, for the council's information, that the street widening
project on Santa Rosa Street, between Monterey and Walnut, is about to be
completed and confirmation is needed by the City Council relative to permitting
on- street parking and designating possible metered areas versus prohibiting
on- street parking in favor of a two -way left. turn lane with-no on- street
parking and providing more space for bike traffic.
Henry Engen recommended that.the City Council direct the staff to have Santa
Rosa, from Walnut to Monterey, striped and signed to prohibit on- street
parking and permit a two -way left turn lane the full length of the improvement.
This recommendation was also concurred by the City Police Chief, Roger Neuman.
Wayne Peterson, City Engineer, suggested that the City Council authorize
al
the instlation of-two-hour meters on the easterly side of Santa Rosa Street,
between Monterey and Mill Street. He stated that with the completion of
Santa Rosa Street, the street would be restriped to provide for two lanes
of- traffic.in each direction with.separate. left turn lanes at Montery, Mill,
and Walnut. Streets. r It was the staff's intention to. modify the parking
restrictions on the street to allow new .parking.spaces on.the east side of
Santa Rosa. Inasmuch as there are already existing parking meters between
Mill and Monterey Streets on the west side. With council concurrence, they
propose.to install similar meters on the east side. This recommendation
tesuits in.an� increase in five�parking.meteis.in those two blocks. It is
also the staff's intention to maintain the left turn prohibition between
4:00 and 6:00 p.m. at Palm Street.
D.F. Romero, Public Services Director, agreed with the parking recommendations
of the City Engineer.
After a lengthy discussion between-the-council and staff, it was moved by
Councilman Petterson, and seconded by Councilman Dunin, to allow parking on
Santa Rosa Street on the east side until alternate parking is provided in
the downtown-area, with this matter to be reviewed after one year. The
recommendation includes the installation of the necessary parking meters.
,Motion carried on the following roll-.call vote:
AYES:. Councilmen-Petterson, Dunin, and Settle
NOES: Mayor Schwartz. _
ABSENT: Councilman-Jorgensen
Councilman. Jorgensen returned to the meeting.
14. A memorandum from Fire Chief, Richard.Minor,.requesting council
consideration of a purchase of an $84,000 Mack Fire Truck in the 1979/80
C.I.P., with final payment to be due in the 1980/81 bud$et; and in order
to.protect,.authorize a letter of intent to "the Maci Truck Company for
purchase. _At'some.later. date, ke stated, the council could back out of
the intention but this just puts the truck on order.
City Council Minutes
February 20, 1979
Page 16
On motion.of_Councilman Jorgensen, seconded by Councilman Settle, the City
Administrative Officer was authorized to prepare and send a letter of intent
to Mack Truck Company for purchase of one fire truck.
Motion carried on the.following roll call vote:
AYES.: Councilman Jorgensen, Settle, Dunin.,..Pet.terson and Mayor Schwartz
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
15. Presentation of the 1979 -1980 Capital Improvement Program was
continued to the new study session of March 5, 1979.
CONSENT ITEMS
C -1 On motion of Councilman Petterson, seconded by Councilman Dunin,
claims against the city for the month of February,. 1979, were approved and
ordered paid.
C -2 On motion of Councilman.Petterson,__seconded by Councilman Dunin,
the following resolution was introduced: Resolution No. 3778 (1979 Series),
a resolution of the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo increasing
Capital Improvement Fund appropriations for the 197,8/79 fiscal -year was
passed and adopted.on the following roll.call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Patterson, Dunin, Jorgensen, Settle and Mayor Schwartz
NOES:, None
ABSENT: None
C -3 On- motion of Councilman Petterson, seconded by Councilman Dunin, a
request from Sandra Noyes for council consideration of excessive water bills
to her property at 1555 Los Osos Valley Road was referred to appropriate
staff for review and report to the City Council if adjustments could not be
made within existing ordinances.
C-4 On.motion of Councilman Petterson, - seconded by Councilman_Dunin, the
following resolution was introduced: Resolution No. 3779 (1979 Series), a
resolution of the Council of the City of.San Luis Obispo denying . approval
of tentative minor subdivision no. 78 -86, located at 1425 Woodside Drive.
Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Patterson, Dunin, Jorgensen, Settle and Mayor.Schwartz
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
C -5 On motion-of Councilman Patterson,. seconded by Councilman Dunin,
the following resolution was introduced: Resolution No. 3780 (1979 Series),
a resolution of the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo granting final
approval of minor subdivision SLO -78 -129 located at 2115 and 2119 King St.
Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Patterson, Dunin, Jorgensen, Settle and Mayor Schwartz
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
C -6 On motion of Councilman Petterson,._seconded . by Councilman Dunin,
the.following. resolution was introduced:. Resolution No. 3781 (1979 Series),
a resolution of the Council of the City. of San Luis granting .final approval
of minor subdivision SLO-78 -193 located at E1 Caserio Court and Flora Street.
r
City Council Mintues
February 20, 1979
Page 17
Passed and.adopted on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen-Petterson, Dunin, Jorgensen, Settle and Mayor Schwartz
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
C -7 On motion of Councilman Jorgensen, seconded by Councilman Dunin,
the contract with the independent auditors, Ernst and Ernst for second
annual audit of city's funds, was approved and the city treasurer was
authorized to notify the auditors. Motion carried.
C -8 On motion of Councilman Petterson, seconded by Councilman Dunin,
the following resolution was introduced: Resolution No. 3782 (1979 Series),
a resolution of the Council of the City -of San Luis Obsipo approving an
agreement between the city and Bobby Kober for Golf Professional Services
until March 31, 1979.
Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Petterson, Dunin, Jorgensen, Settle and Mayor Schwartz
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
C -9 On motion of Councilman Petterson, seconded by Councilman Dunin,
a claim against the city by Mary Scribner in the amount of $48.76 to cover
damages to her tire allegedly due to the City of San Luis Obispo being
negligent in removing broken glass left in the street from a prior accident
was denied. Motion carried.
' C -10 A claim.against the city in the amount of $4,329.50 to cover damage
to his vehicle sustained in traffic accident due to alleged city negligence
in providing proper stop signs at the intersection where the accident occurred
was denied on motion of Councilman Petterson, seconded by Councilman Dunin.
Motion carried.
C -11. Project schedules showing status of work completed on the CIP Projects
as of February 1, 1979, were ordered received and filed.
BID-ITEMS
B -1 The City Clerk reported on the following bids received for the
"TRANSIT SYSTEM ", bids opened Friday, February 16, 1979, at 10:00 a.m.
1. John W. Nickelson Jr. $1.472 per mile
6834 Caminito Del Greco
San Diego, CA 92120
2. San Luis Transportation $2.45 per mile
950 Morro Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
D.F. Romero, Public Services Director, stated that he had not had an opportunity
to interview the representatives.of the San Diego firm prior to the council
' meeting, and suggested that City Council continue this matter for one week
until he has had an opportunity to meet.with the proponents and also that
a committee composed of Andy Jones, Rudy Muravez, Lee Walton, and one Council-
man meet with the representatives of both.firms for an interview before
making any recommendations.
On motion of Councilman Jorgensen,-seconded by- Councilman Settle, the matter
was continued to February 27, 1979, for review of the bus bids and a recom-
mendation from the city staff. Motion carried.
There being no further business to come before the City Council, Mayor Schwartz
adjourned the meeting to 7:30 p.m., Tuesday, February 27, 1979.
Minutes approved by Council:
April 17, 1979
J;V. Fitzpatrick, City Clerk
City Council Minutes
February 20, 1979
Page 5
4. George Thacher, City Attorney, asked for Council's consideration of
a request that the City of San Luis Obispo join with the Attorney:General.-.
in an amicus brief supporting Santa Barbara's position in its attempt to
reverse the Court of Appeals in the case Toso vs. the City of Santa Barbara.
The City Attorney's'letter was explanatory of the holding in the Court of
Appeals and,-the serious damping effect the holding could have on public
discussions regarding possible property acquisition. It was his recommenda-
tion that theCity of San Luis Obispo join as amicus in the Toso matter and
he urged the Council authorize the Attorney to inform the Attorney General
that they have taken such an action. This participation would include no
financial or staff commitments.
On motion of Councilman Jorgensen, seconded by Mayor Schwartz, that the City
Council authorize the City Attorney to enter into an amicus brief supporting
the City of Santa Barbara in the Toso vs. City of Santa Barbara case. Motion
carried, all ayes, Councilman Petterson.absent.
5. At' the request t' of• Mayor Schwartz, the- Council again discussed- the
recommended parking and /or no parking on that portion of Santa•Rosa Street
being completed under State' contract.
Councilman Jorgensen left the meeting due to possible conflict with this
discussion.
D.F.= Romero; Public Services Direc.tor,.presented a map showing..the traffic
directional lines striping of Santa Rosa Street including parking from Monterey
to Walnut Street and what the implication was of the Council's prior action in
authorizing parking. After discussion by the three Councilmen present and review
of action taken, the Council approved their previous decision of February 20,
1979, regarding parking on Santa Rosa Street.
6. There being no further business to come before the City Council, Mayor
Schwartz adjourned the meeting to 12:10 p.m., March 5, 1979.
r
Approved by City Council on April 17, 1979
0907H. Fitzpatrick, City Clerk
r
l
1