Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/10/1976CITY COUNCIL.MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 1976 PAGE 2 9:05 P.M..The City.Council called a recess. 9:15 P.M. The City Council reconvened,..Councilman Graham absent. 3. The.City Council considered the draft of the Environmental Impact Procedures.and..Guideline. dated October, 1975 as prepared and,presented by the Community Development Department. The City Council considered the draft dated October.15,._1975.and the Planning-Staff under Robert Strong submitted further suggested.changes and amendments dated November 10, 1975. Robert Strong stated that -the new E.I.R. Procedures..and Guidelines were a complete rewrite of.the existing.City..adopted guidelines and took.into account the..required- State.mandated changes that -were required for.all cities and counties.to.comply with. A.J. Shaw ,.City...Attorney,..submitted a..memorandum in which..he..questioned two basic sections.-in-the proposed guidelines, one was the method of determinitig;_.,: whether :or.not an.E01 -R. was required. Under the former adopted guidelines, an E.I.R. was required -if more..than one Planning Commissioner voted for the E.I.R. Under the new - proposed guidelines, the majority vote of the Commission would-be required. It was the Attorney's feeling there were California court decisions..on.file in which. -(1) substantial public controversy or (2) expert testimony-favoring an E.I.R. should be.-considered - sufficient-reason-to require an E.I.B., and.a_ desire for.an E.I..R: by two.or more Commissioners-could indicate such public concerns. He urged the City.Council to return to the original requirement.of .requiring a full E.I.R. upon vote of two or more Commissioners. His second objection dealt -with the filing of the notice of exemption. He stated that on the new guidelines the only reason for filing.a notice.of.exemption was to -limit the period of time for filing ..a- lawsuit against the City for improper determination of whether.or not.a project was.exempt. If the notice was filed, such.lawsuits.must be brought-.within 30 -days thereafter. If no notice were filed, then.six.months _ was`the time limit. . The. Attorney.felt.it..was.clearly in the City's.interest to file a notice.of the exemption on all City.projects, and-felt-that there could be a.very simple system to file a form with both the County Clerk and the City Clerk in order to provide this additional safeguard_ for the City. The City Council discussed various points with the staff on the draft E.I.R. and the objections of the City Attorney and authorized the staff to make necessary changes and to set a public hearing for Monday, November 17,.1975 for public input to the draft E.I.R. Guidelines and Procedures. 4.a. . Memorandum from William F1ory,..Director.of Parks. &..Recreation; recommend - ing that.Wally LaFreniere Construction-Company-be granted an extension.for comple- tion of- the contract for... construction of.the.Sinsheimer.restrooms; concession and rp ess box facilities and that the new date be November 14, 1975. On motion.of-Mayor Schwartz, seconded-by Councilman Petterson, that the City Council- reject.any.claim on the basis - of.non- notice_of starting time by Wally LaFreniere but-that-the City .Council allow completion -date to December-5, 1975 with no $50 per day liquidated damages to be charged if the contractor agrees to pay the inspector's hourly-rate for the inspection of the.-building.. Motion carried. All.ayes. Myron Graham absent. 5.a. Council considered a.memorandum: from Orloff Miller, Coordinator of ._H.R.C. and_a letter from.David A. Smiley, Chairman of Grassroots II regarding Council reconsideration-of the possible - location of a Grassroots Center in or near - Meadow Park in the South - Street area and asking reconsideration of this.proposal...It was the feeling of the H.R.C. and Grassroots.II that the. Meadow_ Park_. area,- for.a_Grassroot. §Center.,.would serve.the'most people, who.were.the_ones.that the agency now.served and it was the feel= ing.of the H.R.C. and Grassroots.that when -this matter was taken before the.Planning.Commission in their discussion of the South Street Specific Plan, "that.this.need was.not emphasized for -the citizens of .the community.. It was:the..feeling of the- representative of.the Grassroots.that_the land ...adjacent-to Meadow:Park_ should be dedicated for Grassroots service center and then Grassroots would attempt to raise sufficient funds to develop buildings. C 1 1 ..CITY COUNCIL.MINUTES .NOVEMBER.10, 1976 PAGE 3 William Flory, Park and. Recreation- .Director,..submitted an action of the Parks & Recreation.Commission dated September 17, 1975 in which it-was the consensus.of..the -Park &.Recreation Commission that a.Grassroots.II.facility would be... compatible _.use.adjacent.to.Meadow Park. ..However, they felt.no dedi- cated park-land.-should-be-used for any portion of this facility-including parking. Robert St_ rong,.Community Development.DlYector,.submitted a report-on behalf of the_Planning..Commission. stating.. that .- the.Planning- Commission had again .considered..the.. proposal_to- allow_a..neighborhood social service - .office at a .location- adjacent:of Meadow Park-as part.-of.-the South - Street - Specific Plan. .He continued.that.the'Park.& Recreation.. Commission..opposed.the.use..as poten- tial_ conflict ...with._.the.residential and.-park-development but after a joint meeting with.the H.R.C..they. resolved (1) that .any . additional park land dedication should -not be used for other.than park and recreation purposes but.(2) that.an.adjacent site and /or facility for.Grassroots II would be compatible with Meadow Park. .Based upon the recommendations of the H.R.C. and the Parks.& Recreation Commission and -.also the fact that offices are conditionally..permitted in:the R -3 and R-4 multi-family-residential-district, the Community.Development- Department suggested that the Specific.Plan R -22, Multiple- family.residential.designation of-the-proposed South Street..Specific Plan should enable neighborhood social service offices adjacent to Meadow Park subject to-use permit. The Planning_Commission,.however priate and' - therefore recommended location in.this specific plan. rescheduled concurrent with -City Street Specific Plan so that the use alternative.- considered the proposal premature.and.inappro- against provisions for such office use at this They felt that this matter should be .Council- hearings to consider.the South Council could resolve the optional land. A.J. Shaw, City Attorney, submitted an- opinion that-any land acquired by .the City for Park.. &_Recreation purposes -under the so- called Quimby Act in the State-Subdivision Law could.only. be.used for park or recreational purposes, and he did not feel.that..any other use .than -park and-recreational-purposes would include public uses such as Courthouse, schools, civic center building or.social service.agency, and-he would.recommend against_allowing Quimby acquired land to.be'granted for this purpose. Orloff Miller, Coordinator.for H.R.C.,..felt that the H.R.C. and .Grassroots ..had been given the runaround by.City..staff,_boards. and.commissions..on this matter and just-what and where.should Grassroots or other social-service activities be located. .It was..his.feeling.that no one was attempting to cooperate, they were just passing the problem from one agency to the other. William Flory,-Park and Recreation Director, read a letter dated-June, 1973 where the Park-and Recreation Commission -had gone on record.opposing_ the use of City park .and.recreational.facilities or any buildings for use by .social service organizations or operations. Reverend Smiley.,. Chairman .of.Grassroots...II,.stated what they really needed was a gift of land.either_by the City or grant..of land from the.developer and.he felt that-with the gift-of land, Grassroots would try-to raise sufficient funds to build- .a.building. If not, they would come back to the City Council for further financial help in order to build-the building for social services. After discussion by.the City Council, the matter was continued to-the-public hearing-on the..South Street Specific Plan .which would soon be coming before the.City Council. 6. Robert Strong, Community. Development Director, reviewed for the City-Council some of.the.- considerations..in discussions that the.Planning Commission involved in the South Street Specific Plan which.would.be coming before the City Council on November 17, 1975 for public hearing..