HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/03/1973MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
October 3, 1973 - 7:30 P.M.
City Halle
Pledge
Roll Call.
Present: Councilmen John C. Brown, Myron Graham,
T. Keith Gurnee, Jesse E. Norris, and
May Kenneth E. Schwartz
City Staff:
Present: J. H. Fitzpatrick, City Clerk; R. D. Miller,
City Administrative Officer; A. J. Shaw, Jr.,
City Attorney; D. F. Romero, City Engineer;
E. L. Rodgers, Chief of Police; Stockton and
Williams; R.:A. Paul, Water Department Director
8: A. J.. Shaw, City Attorney, reported that the City Council
had requested that he prepare revisions to the proposed Joint
Powers Agreement with the County of San Luis Obispo to delete the
veto power of the City as was discussed at the Council Meeting on
October I, 1973. Since that meeting, the Mayor had- ihdicated.to
Mr...Shaw.that his suggestion was intended to include expenditures
within the City limits of all taxes against City property unless
the City agreed to expenditures of said tares in the unincorporated
areas.
Mr. Shaw continued that as he was unclear as to the Council's full
intent, he had prepared two revisions to the Joint Powers Agreement
and he submitted them to.the City. Council as exhibits "A" and "B ".
They were identical except the replacing of paragraphs one through
five which was the crux of the discussion. In exhibit "A" he
attempted to conform to the suggestion that City taxes be spent
within the City limits and that the City have full control of
projects within the City unless the City agreed otherwise. Exhibit
"B" retained all power and all funds within the control of the
district except that the City .might veto projects within the City
and the City might with District approval perform portions of the
projects within the City. Mr. Shaw then proceeded to review the
provisions and the differences in Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "B" of
the proposed Joint Powers Agreement..
Councilman Brown stated that he felt the draft numbered SC 10 -3 would
be the most advantageous and palatable to him and felt it could be
acceptable to the County Supervisors. Councilman Norris stated that
he was in support of the concept of a Joint Powers Agreement for
the flood control zone,.but.that he did not wish to hamstring the
operation of the flood control operation. His chief intent was to
make some attempt to,protect the citizens of the City from future
damage.from flood. The Mayor asked. the City Council to continue
discussion of the proposed Joint Powers Agreement to the end of the
meeting so the other matters could be discussed.
The City Council then discussed Item 8C from the October I, 1973
meeting. Their.eport from the UNCOLA Organization of United Citizens
of Laguna .Lake..
Two residents of Laguna Lake area, Arnold Frank and Henry Ribl -e were
asked by the Directors of UNCOLA to present their findings of the
Prefumo Creek Inlet, its present status and those findings of con-
cern of UNCOLA. Mr. Henry Rible appeared before the City Council
City Council Minutes
October 3, 1973
Page 2
stating that their studies found that heavy silting compri.sed.of
gravel, sand and silt obstruced the orderly flow of water from
Los Osos Valley Road culvert. Further, that the creek bed was so
raised that it had lost both its practical and esthetic value.
The profile of this planned development estuary approved by the
City had been largely erased and rendered ineffective by this
debris. He also felt the steel culvert under Los Osos Valley Road
had an original diameter of 10 feet and had now been reduced to
9'3" feet on the westerly side and 616" feet on the easterly side.
And that the concrete spillway structures which received and guided
waters into the culvert was filled with silt, thus losing much of
its effectiveness as a water controlling installation.
The representatives of UNCOLA recognized that work was now pro -
ceding on the outlet end of Laguna Lake at Madonna Road and they
felt this would alleviate flooding as occurred in January 1973,
but the UNCOLA representatives felt that there still was a serious
threat from the Lake's Prefumo Creek inlet channel. And while
the City Engineer stated earlier the City plans to clear silts
from the Los Osos Valley Road culvert and spillway as minimal
precautionary measures, they felt that no funding for clearing of
the creek bottom had been allocated and that contractors were to
be contacted as to their interest.in removing this silt in exchange
for use of the material, but to date none of this work had been
accomplished. Therefore, UNCOLA would like to ask the City Council
to proceed as rapidly as possible to clear the Prefumo Creek
inlet to Laguna Lake. D. F. Romero, City Engineer, explained .
conditions as he felt they existed at Laguna Lake at the entrance
of Prefumo Creek and presented his proposals to clear this channel
for this winter's rains. A. J. Shaw, Jr., City Attorney explained
legal tools available to the City to remove silt and debris from
the Prefumo Creek inlet. He felt that.under the City's nuisance '
abatement proceedings, the City would not be able to remove this
dirt. The City Council discussed with Staff who had responsibility
for the maintenance of creeks and waterways under the various
approved subdivisions.
On motion of Councilman John C. Brown, seconded by Councilman Mvron
Graham that the City Engineer be authorized to cut a drainage
channel from Los Osos Valley Road to Laguna Lake 20 feet wide, with
the Engineer to come back to the City Council if the property
owners objected to this emergency work. Motion carried.
AYES: John C. Brown, Myron Graham; T. Keith Gurnee,
Jesse E. Norris, and Kenneth E. Schwartz
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
9. Communication from.Mrs. Hilda J. Roza, 704 Mission Street.
Mrs. Roza wrote that she was confused as to how to resolve the
problems at her property involving her substandard driveway ramp,
the low garage, the culvert and the various flooding problems
that had existed in the area. She stated that she had received
two estimates to do the work that the.City felt should be done
to repair damages to her property from the flood. Therefore, she
was submitting a check of $1,000.00 to the City in response to
the proposal of the City through the office of David F. Romero,
City Engineer, dated December 5, 1972, which stated (1) that the
City would assume the cost of modifying that portion of the Roza
driveway within the right of way to confirm to Ci.ty standards, and
(2) that Mrs. Roza would assume all costs of modifying the remain-
der of her driveway. The City's portion of the cost was to be
approximately $550.00.
City Council Minutes
October 3, 1973
Page 3
A. J. Shaw, City Attorney, stated that he felt that the City
should return Mrs. Roza's $1,000 and that she have a private con-
tractor as she had estimates do the work and notify the City at
the time and the City should then accomplish their work possibly
using the same contractor in order to do the project at one time.
On motion of Councilman Norris, seconded by Councilman Brown (1)
that the City return the check to Mrs. Roza and (2). that the City
cooperate with her contractor in having the City's portion of the
project accomplished at the same time she made the improvements to
her property. Motion carried.
II. Charles French, Attorney for Cuesta Valley Properties ,
appeared before the City Council regarding the paving requirements
imposed as a condition of obtaining the grading permit for.remov-
ing dirt from Terrace Hi_II. . He stated that on behalf of the
owners they would propose in lieu.of the paving requirement
that the property owners repair the visible erosion scars in the
non - growing areas of the cuts above Williams Street, seed these areas
that had little or no vegetation on them including Bishop and
Williams Streets and those areas adjacent to those streets, and
that the property owner would water them over a period of time
necessary to establish good growth. The work would begin as soon
as approved by the City Council and the property owners would
seed and reseed until such time as grass took over. He continued
that he had contacted the only local contractor with hydromulcher
equipment and that they had assured the property owners that they
could hydromulch those areas and water them to establish good
growth prior to the beginning of the rainy season. He concluded
that at the same time the property owners would clear off the
silt basins located on Williams and Bishop Streets to catch any
future runoff from Terrace Hill.
D. F. Romero, City Engineer, stated that it did not appear . reason-
able to him to require that Williams or Bishop Streets be .paved
at this time prior to the installation of underground. utilities
for some future development. Therefore, he felt that the offer of
Mr. French on behalf of the Cuesta Valleys. Properties was a
reasonable compromise and that he would recommend that this offer
be accepted b_y the City Council: as soon as possible in order
to allow him to proceed with the work which would obtain. good
ground cover prior to the advent of winter rains.
Councilman Gurnee stated that he was opposed to the so called
compromise, felt that the streets should be put in and all erosion
should be controlled which would stop the oozing of mud and water
on adjacent homes and streets. Councilman Norris was in support
of the compromise of the proposal by the property owners to hydro -
mulch and clean up all areas and that he would extend the develop-
ment for one more year.
Councilman Brown also felt that he would agree with the extension
of time included in the compromise. Councilman Graham felt while
he agreed with the proposal.to try and plant this hill, he did
not feel that this planting would be any more successful than
was .proved in the past. He felt that they had exposed the base
rock and that nothing would grow._ Councilman Gurnee again felt
that the Council had been taken by the developers as all the, talk
of the development was just that. He also felt that the proper-
ties were only to be used for a quarry to remove fill dirt for the
hospital. site and that they had no further use for the property
and would attempt to sell it to some new developer.
On motion of Councilman Jesse E. Norris seconded by Councilman
Brown, that the City Council extend the bond for one year on the
developement of the Cuesta Valley Properties, that no streets be
put in at this time, require that the scars and streets open
areas be seeded and watered until adequate growth occurs and that
silt basins be cleared out and kept clean and redesigned if
City Council Minutes
October 3, 1973
Page 4
applicable with no fill to be removed from the site. Motion
carried.
AYES: John C. Brown, Myron Graham, T. Keith Gurnee,
James-E. Norris, and Kenneth E. Schwartz
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
12. R. A. Paul, Director of Water Services in accordance with
the provisions of the City Council resolution 2435; that requi-res
the Water Department to-submit to the City Council within two weeks
after each quarter, a project list indicating an assigned priority
for each water system improvement project for which a written
request for financial participation by the City has been received.
He stated that based on this requirement that during th.e quarter
ending September 30, 1973, three written request have been received
and he has established the priorities that follows:-
Priority No. l
Developer Water System Improvement
The Bunnell Construction Company Lincoln Street from Broad
to Hill, Hill Street from
Lincoln to Mountain View.
The developer's project was to develop residential dwelling units
on a portion of the property at the northeasterly intersection at
Lincoln and Hill Streets. The required level of fire flow had not
been determined, but no water service, including fire flow, was
presently available. The improvement would be the elimination. of
the fire flow deficiency.which could be obtained by installing new
8" mains in Lincoln Street from Broad to Hill and in Hill Street
from Lincoln to Mountain View and the construction of a new City
standard fire hydrant at the corner of Lincoln and Hill Streets in
accordance with the Fire Marshall's recommendation. The total
contribution by the City for depreciated facilities would be
$970.00, but the Council may designate City financial. participation
in the improvement up to an estimated amount of $8,930.00
Priority No. 2
Developer
The Gallagher Electric Company
Water System Improvement
Victoria Street from Caudill
to Francis 8 Francis from
Victoria to Broad
The developer's project was to construct a 1,000 square foot all
metal commercial building on Francis Street requiring a fire flow
of 1,000 gallons per minute. At the present time only limited fire
flow was available. The water system improvement would eliminate
the fire flow deficiency which could be obtained by installing new
8" water mains in Victoria Street from Caudill to Francis and in
Francis Street from Victoria to Broad Street and constructing a new
City standard fire hydrant at the southeast corner of Francis and
Victoria Streets in accordance with the Fire Marshall's recommen-
dation. The developer's project was within the pre-1942-area to
which the City Council had assigned first priority for the
elimination of existing deficiencies. In addition to $1,560.00
which the City would contribute as reimbursement for the depreciated
facilities, the City Council might designate City financial parti-
cipation in the improvement up to an estimated amount of $9,930.00.
Prioritv No. 3
Developer
City Council Minutes
October 3, 1973
Page 5
Water System Improvement
Volny Construction Co. Marsh Street from Carmel south
The developer's project was the construction of a.1,860 square foot one
story wood frame commerical structure fronting on both Higuera and
Marsh Streets, southerly Carmel Street with a required fire flow of
1,460 gallons per minute and the available fire flow at the present
time was limited to 980 gallons per minute. The Water System
Improvement would eliminate the fire flow deficiency which can be
obtained by installing a new 8" water main in Marsh Street from
Carmel southerly and constructing a new City standard fire hydrant
adjacent to the.project site. Additional benefit could be provided
to the remaining properties in the area by extending the Marsh
Street water main from the new hydrant to Archer Street. The
developer's project was within the pre -1,942 area to which the Council
had assigned first priority for the elimination of the existing
deficiencies. The City would contribute $390 to this project as
reimbursement for depreciated facilities. The Council might desig-
nate the City's financial participation in the improvement up to
an estimated amount of $9,310.00.which would include extending the
Marsh Street water main to Archer Street. City Council discussed
with Staff the intent of the quarterly allocations of funds for
improvements of water systems within the City and in particular
in the pre -1942 area, and the fact that $20,000 was allocated in
the budget for each quarter, and that it had been decided by the
Council that if the $20,000 were not used in one quarter, it would
not be carried over to make up additional projects.
The City Council discussed in particular Priority No. 3 and whether
the water line should be extended along Marsh Street to Archer
Street. After discussion AND ON motion of Councilman T. Keith Gurnee
seconded by Councilman Myron Graham that the City Council accept
the priorities as presented by the Water Department Director for
the full total City ,participation. After further discussion on the
motion, Councilman Gurnee and Councilman Graham withdrew their
motion.
On motion of Council.man Graham-seconded by Councilman Norris that
the City Council accept the priorities as presented by the Water
Director with a total expenditures of $28,970 for all three projects.
Motion lost on the following.vote:
AYES: Councilmen Myron Graham, Jesse E. Norris
NOES: Councilmen John C. Brown, T. Keith Gurnee and
Mayor Schwartz
ABSENT: None
On motion of Mayor Schwartz seconded by Councilman T. Keith Gurnee
that the City Council accept priorities I and 2 as recommended and
project number 3 without the additional line which extended from
the project along Marsh Street to Archer Street. Motion carried.
AYES: John C. Brown, Myron Graham, T. Keith Gurnee and
Kenneth E. Schwartz
NOES: Jesse E. Norris
ABSENT:: None
City Council Minutes
October 3, 1973
Page 6
C -8. Contract pay estimate number 2 for Charles A. Pratt,
Construction Company for the Higuera, Los Osos extension, sewer,
water drainage improvements tract 467 amount of the contract
payment $53,838.36.
Councilman Gurnee felt that no payment should be made to this
contractor until the developer's funds had been received by the
City and also until all pending change orders had been mutually
arrived at and have been approved by the City Council.' A. J.
Shaw, Jr., City Attorney explained the conditions of the
agreement between the City and the developer's bank which was
that upon claim by the City to the Bank they would send the amount
of money necessary to cover the pay estimate. Unfortunately the
bank felt that they must send a representative to inspect the
project to see that the money being-requested-for the work had
actually been accomplished. City Attorney A.J. Shaw, Jr., stated
that in the future he would recommend that rather than this type
of payment arrangement that the developer would be required to
deposit cash in advance.
On motion of Councilman John C. Brown, seconded by Councilman
Jesse E. Norris that the City Council approve pay estimate number 2
for the Charles A. Pratt Construction Company, subject to the re-
ceipt of funds from the developer's bank. Motion carried.
AYES: John C. brown, Myron Graham, T. Keith Gurnee
and Kenneth E. Schwartz, Jesse E. Norris
NOES: None
ABSENT: None '
13. R. A. Paul, Director.of Water Services submitted for the
Council's consideration change orders Charles A. Pratt Construction
Company for construction of the Garden Homes water main, City Plan
Number 27 -73. Briefly, Change Order Number I Jacked Casing
Extension, involves 250 lineal feet of additional.jacked casing
and an approximate addition to the contract of $20,000.
Change Order Number 2 Creek Crossing Modification - involves the
crossing of San Luis Creek in order to meet the actual width and
depth necessary to install the pipelines.. Pipelines under dis-
cussion are the watermain that would supply tract 467, unit I
and would also serve as an intrical feature of the Los Osos Valley
Lower Higuera area water supply improvement. Because of errors
and omissions on the original construction plans which served
as the basis of competitive bids the preceding change orders to
the original contract would be necessary. The exact amount of
each change order was presently being negotiated between the City
and the contractor Charles A. Pratt. It was estimated that
Change Order Number I would be in the magnitude of $20,000 and
Change Order Number 2 would be in the magnitude of $15,000. A
further change order on this project would be Change Order Number
3, Higuera Street alignment revision. This would revise the
Higuera Street water main alignment due to conflict with the
substructures of the Southern California Gas Company and the
Union Oil Company whose pipelines were not shown on the contract
drawing.
The City Council then undertook discussion of the three change
orders. The City Staff again explained how Change Order Number I
was required in jacking the casing that was extended for the line.
Councilman Brown suggested that in the future the City should get
all necessary permits prior to going to bid, as this particular
problem would have been avoided, had the permits been received
from the Division of Highways prior to awarding the contract. On
motion of Councilman Jesse E. Norris seconded by Councilman John
C. Brown, that the City pay up to $20,000 on Change Order Number
City Council Minutes
October 3, 1973
Page 7
subject to final accounting between the contractor and the City.
Motion carried.
On motion of Mayor Schwartz, seconded by Councilman Myron Graham,
that the City staff forward a letter to the Division of Highways
explaining their problem on.the.permit in.formation. and . asked
1 future cooperation, or if there was a change in policy that the
City be.notified. Motion carried.
AYES: John C. Brown, Myron Graham, T. Keith Gurnee and
Jesse E. Norris, and Kenneth E. Schwartz
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
On Change Order Number 2, Mr. Paul again reviewed the problems
involved in this creek crossing and recommended that the City
Council only approve a Change Order up to $5,000 until final costs
had been received from the Contractor. A..J. Shaw, City Attorney
recommended that the developer,.Warren Dolezal, be asked to sign
the Change Orders which would commit him to pay his share of Change
Order Number 2.
Councilman T. Keith Gurnee reviewed with the developer the errors
made by his engineer.in preparing.the.plans for the development
of utilities which would serve the tract. Warren..Dolezal explained
the problems encountered by his engineer in preparing'his.plans
and claimed that the problem was caused primarily by the January
1973 flood which changed, widened and deepened the Creek Channel
where the water lines had to cross.
Councilman Jesse E. Norris felt that rather.than.find who did what
and who to blame, that the Council's action should be to either pay
or not pay Change Order Number 2 and also make provisions to see
to it that the Staff made provisions that this did not happen
again and not attempt.to.place the blame on anyone.
On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Brown, that
Change Order Number 2 be approved as recommended by the Water
Director up to a maximum of $5,000. Motion carried.
AYES: John C. Brown, Myron Graham, T. Keith Gurnee,
Jesse E. Norris, and Kenneth Schwartz
NOES.: None
ABSENT: None
City Council then discussed Change Order Number 3 :which was the
Higuera Street realignment of the water line. Robert Paul explained
the problems.showing maps and charts and further-stated that the
cost of this Change Order Number 3 would be shared by the City
and the developer., He continued that the cost to-date was in the
magnitude of $25;000, bu.t he recommended that an.amoun.t of $10,000
on Change Order Number 3 be allowed with the balance to be paid
after completion and negotiation with the developer and.the con-
tractor.
Warren Dolezal, Developer, attempted to justify the actions of his
engineer in preparing plans .for.this project and-in not showing
the Southern California Gas Line and the Union Oil Company Gas Line
in the street where the new water line and sewer lines were to be
placed. He objected to paying a share of the Change Order Number
3 as he did not feel he or his engineer was responsible. He also
felt that the City Engineer and the-Director of Water Services
had approved the plans and he felt they had some responsibility in
this area.
City Council Minutes
October 3, 1973
Page 8
R. Paul, reviewed for the City Council the City's action on the
plans presented by the developer's engineer. Warren Dolezal
stated that if the City had not insisted on the final location
of the water line being in the street,(he had been willing to
given them an easement along one of the streets within the
tract) it would have been much cheaper and easier construction.
On motion of Councilman Brown seconded by Councilman Norris
that Change Order Number 3 be approved up to $10,000 subject to
final negotiation with the contractor and the developer.
Motion carried.
AYES: John C. Brown, Myron Graham, T. Keith Gurnee,
Jesse E. Norris and Kenneth E. Schwartz
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
At 10:05 P.M., the City Council took a recess. At.10:15 P.M. the
City Council reconvened with all Council members present.
18. Councilman Myron Graham again asked that the City Staff
notify the Downtown Association as to the final determination on
the request for foot patrol by police officers on Thursday night.
Administrative Officer, R. Miller and Chief Rodgers were again
asked to write to the Downtown Association and nicely explain
why the City could not comply with their request.
19A. Communication from Mrs. Jim Dovey, Jr. President-of the
League of Women Voters urging that the City Council take official '
action to oppose Proposition I, the Tax Expenditure Limitation
Initiative, which could appear on the ballot on November 6, 1973.
Mrs. Dovey stated that the League of Women Voters had conducted a
two -year study of the constitution and State revenues and felt
that the proposed proposition would do nothing to help local
government but would only add to the problems. She felt that if
the proposition were passed, it would have a profound affect upon
State and Local government for at least the next 15 years.
Councilman T. Keith Gurnee submitted a lengthy analysis of
Proposition 1, the initiative for tax and expenditure limitations,
to be voted by the people on.November 6,.1973. He stated that
following an intense study of the proposition, discussions with
members of the State Legislature and other interested citizens
that this was a very complex proposition being placed before the
voters and that many questions were not being answered. While
most citizens appreciated the possibility of tax reduction, the
Cities, Counties and State agencies and the schools should look
to their ability to continue to serve the people with an adequate
tax base and State revenues. He recommended to his fellow
Councilmen that they take action to oppose Proposition 1.
On motion of Councilman T. Keith Gurnee., seconded by Councilman
John C. Brown the following resolution was introduced:
Resolution No. 2513, a resolution of the Council of the
City of San Luis Obispo, opposing Proposition No. l
at the special state -wide election on November 6, 1973.
Motion passed -and adopted on the following rol•I call vote:
AYES: John C. Brown, Myron Graham, T. Keith Gurnee,
Kenneth E. Schwartz
NOES: Jesse E. Norris
ABSENT: None
City Council Minutes
October 3, 1973
Page 9
On motion of Mayor Schwartz seconded by Councilman T.'Keith Gurnee
that the Staff was to place a copy of the League of California
Cities citations on Proposition No. 1 on file at the City Library.
Motion carried.
20. Communication from Helen Putnam, Mayor.of the.City of
Petaluma, asking the City Council for a contribution of $250 to
help defray the cost of their land mark case regarding residential
developmental control policy and environmental design plan and
the housing element of the General'Plan. The plans of the City of
Petaluma were now being challenged by developers in Court and it
was the feeling of the City of Petaluma that this was the first
city so being challenged and that if every city would contribute,
it would make the legal costs less.for each-participant as the
City of Petaluma was actually carrying the legal ball for the rest
of the cities in California.
City Attorney, A. J. Shaw, said that a favorable decision for the
City of Petaluma might eventually be of great benefit to the City
of San Luis Obispoi and that for a case of this magnitude, $250
was a small amount to pay; that there would be many; many thousands
of dollars paid by the City of Petaluma if the case continued
through the various levels of the Federal Judiciary.
Councilman John C. Brown stated he also was opposed to sending any
money to Petaluma because he did not feel that he had full knowledge
of exactly what cases were before the Courts and what the City of
San Luis Obispo's effect would be.
R. D. Miller; Administrative Officer stated he could not remember
at any time when the City had contributed to another city's legal
problems and he wondered about setting a precedent so that any
city could then ask for help in legal matters.
Mayor Schwartz spoke in favor of support as he felt that our City
might someday be required to consider similar controls on develop-
ment due to lack of water to serve future expansions. He felt
the City should send $250.
The City Council and Staff discussed the request of the City of
Petaluma for support and help in their legal cases before'the various
state Courts.
On motion of Mayor Schwartz, seconded by Councilman T. Keith Gurnee
that the request of the City of Petaluma be continued to the first
meeting of November, and that the City Councilmen while at the'
League of California Cities Conference discuss this matter with
other Mayors and City Councilmen for their reaction. Motion carried.
21. Communication from Wilsey and Ham, Planning Consultants pre -_
paring the Master Plan for the Sinsheimer Park Development, discussing
the grading, storm drainage, utilities connections and planning cri-
teria for the location.of the proposed swim center in Sinsheimer Park.
The only factor that remained unresolved was the historic implication
of the proposed site. These consultants felt that before a change
was made in the Master Plan that soil borings should be made to
determine:
Councilman
T. Keith Gurnee stated
that he too
was in support of
sending $250
as he felt it was a
small cost to
pay to justify
correct and
proper planning for a
community.
Councilman
Jesse E. Norris stated
that he was
opposed to sending
City of San
Luis Obispo funds to
Petaluma as he
felt that the City
of Petaluma
should fight its own
legal battles
and that the
City of San
Luis Obispo would not
ask for any
help from them.
Councilman John C. Brown stated he also was opposed to sending any
money to Petaluma because he did not feel that he had full knowledge
of exactly what cases were before the Courts and what the City of
San Luis Obispo's effect would be.
R. D. Miller; Administrative Officer stated he could not remember
at any time when the City had contributed to another city's legal
problems and he wondered about setting a precedent so that any
city could then ask for help in legal matters.
Mayor Schwartz spoke in favor of support as he felt that our City
might someday be required to consider similar controls on develop-
ment due to lack of water to serve future expansions. He felt
the City should send $250.
The City Council and Staff discussed the request of the City of
Petaluma for support and help in their legal cases before'the various
state Courts.
On motion of Mayor Schwartz, seconded by Councilman T. Keith Gurnee
that the request of the City of Petaluma be continued to the first
meeting of November, and that the City Councilmen while at the'
League of California Cities Conference discuss this matter with
other Mayors and City Councilmen for their reaction. Motion carried.
21. Communication from Wilsey and Ham, Planning Consultants pre -_
paring the Master Plan for the Sinsheimer Park Development, discussing
the grading, storm drainage, utilities connections and planning cri-
teria for the location.of the proposed swim center in Sinsheimer Park.
The only factor that remained unresolved was the historic implication
of the proposed site. These consultants felt that before a change
was made in the Master Plan that soil borings should be made to
determine:
City Council Minutes
October 3, 1973
Page 10
(1) Suitability of the filled creek to support the build-
ings and the pool.
(2) Investigate possible erosion of relocated stream.
(3) Determine water table is significant.
(4) Determine allowable bearing pressure.
(5) Make recommendations as to cut and fill slopes.
(6) The pressure of faults or earthquake activity.
(7) Any additional recommendations a Soils Engineer
may make relating to the drainage.
The consultants felt that because the work was outside the scope
of their present contract and that the time element was critical,
they recommended that the City contract directly with a Soils
Engineer to conduct the soils testing work and that the contract
with the Soils Engineer be under the supervision of Wilsey and
Ham.
Jim Stockton, Assistant Director of Parks and Recreation reviewed,
showing the Master Plan, the request of Wilsey and Ham for soil
studies to be made and spoke in favor of the request. He also
recommended that a local Soils Engineer, Robert E.. Williams.
be retained to do the job because if Wilsey and Ham sent an engi-
neer from the Bay area, that would just add to the cost of the
project. Bill Flory, Director of Parks and,Recreation recommended
that an engineer be retained to study-the soils in areas A, B and C,
so that the swimming pool complex would be built on the proper,
soil area.
On motion of Councilman Brown seconded by Councilman Graham that
the City Staff be authorized to procure proposals from a Soils
Engineer to do the work. Motion carried.
City Council then again reverted back to Item 8 discussing the word-
ing of the proposed Joint Powers Agreement for Flood Control Zone
shared with the City and County of the City of San Luis Obispo.
Councilman Norris stated that he was for the formation of a flood
control zone. He also supported a joint powers agreement concept
with City and County officials managing the zone. He stated he did
not care who spent the money or where but just that the people of
San Luis Obispo were protected from another disastrous flood.
Mayor Schwartz stated that in a nutshell, the new agreement is
what the City first proposed to the County, but that the super-
visors did not buy it. He felt this proposal was that the City
would approve projects and spend funds collected in the City and
the County would.approve and spend funds collected in the County.
The City and County could agree to combine funds to do a project
in or out of the City and in the County.
The City Council then discussed with Clint Milne the Assistant
County Engineer the best method to form a flood control zone with
some type of joint powers arrangement to control spending and to
build projects.
Dave Williamson, Assistant Administrative Officer, suggested
that maybe the City Council should look into other methods of
forming jointly managed flood control districts by discussing
them with representatives of the different types of joint management
City Council Minutes
October 3, 1973
Page II
districts. He mentioned the flood control district of Fresno and
stated he was sure that a representative would be most happy to
meet with the City to discuss their operation.
City Council continued further discussion to the October S, 1973
study session with amended proposals for their consideration.
22. A. J. Shaw, City Attorney, announced that Mr. Ron Benzer
had obtained from the Superior Court a temporary order staying the
order of the City Council to abate a nuisance on his property at
Los Osos Valley Road, and seeking a decision from the court that
the City's nuisance ordinance was unconstitutional.
23. The City Council adjourned to Executive Session.
24. The meeting adjourned to 7:30 P.M. Monday, October 3, 1973,
on motion of Councilman T. Keith Gurnee, seconded by Councilman
John C. Brown. Motion carried.
APPROVED: January 21, 1974
ZPATRICK, CITY CLERK
1
1