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..