Loading...
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