Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/16/1978City.Council Minutes August 16, 1978 Page 2 The City Attorney.stated _ that.this statement. "any person ".could be construed literally in-..applying.the..appeal procedures for-the reasons and.case law directs. He:then.reviewed a.number.of cases in which this matter was brought into prominence, for example,.one case stated that the notice must be given out- side the city if state or.local law required notice.to be given within a specified distance_of..the project when that distance reaches outside the boundaries. .So by.broad application, any person means just that. He con- cluded his comments by saying, based on case law: 1) To limit the right of appeal to applicants would be invalid. 2) To limit the right.of.appeal to property owners would be invalid. 3) To limit the.right of appeal to residents of the city would be invalid. 4) To limit.the right of appeal to "aggrieved persons ".would be .:.valid. However, in that instance, it might take more time and be more difficult to determine who was aggrieved than to allow and determine the appeal. 5) To establish a reasonable fee for.processing an appeal would be valid. On motion of Mayor Schwartz, seconded by Councilman Jorgensen,. the following resolution was introduced: Resolution No. 3654 (1978 Series), a resolution of the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo amending Environmental Impact Procedures and Guidelines as adopted by Council Resolution No. 3228 (1977 Series). Passed and adopted.on the.following.roll.call vote: AYES: .Councilmen_Dunin,.Jorgensen, Petterson,.Settle and Mayor Schwartz NOES: None ABSENT: None On motion of Mayor Schwartz, seconded by Councilman.Jorgensen, that the City Council retain its-authority to take action as they have on.any decisions deal- ing with the.ElR and the staff to study the fee structure, including a recommended fee on appeals. Motion carried, all ayes. .. . 10. Communication from J:W. Kimbali,_:requesting the city waive the fees for a "Private Protection Service" on his property. J:W. Kimball appeared before the City Council explaining the problem that he had extended onto his property..a.water main and-fire hydrant as directed by the city to.help fight-fire but in addition to this cost of over $6,000 he was now being required to pay a fee for the use of this system and he-felt that this was unfair as other competitive businesses who were adjacent to a city fire hydrant did..not require this-extra fee and it was only for use in case of fire. The City Council received a memorandum from R.C. Muravez, Director of Finance, to James Kimball, stating-that there would be an adjustment made in the charge due to the fact that the Finance Department had been billing on a larger size main, 10" main rather than a 6" main-but.the actual monthly charge would con- tinue. The City Council then considered a memorandum from Robert G. Mote, Utility Engineer, reviewing for the.City.Council the principle on which the charges "readiness to serve" were assessed: The principle being that the property owner was not.paying for water, but was paying a small share-of the-cost-of the entire water facilities which-required to treat, pump and deliver water to that fire hydrant so that at any moment it could deliver the required gallons per minute in case of fire for which there was no: charge for water. He felt the readiness to serve was a valuable commodity and it was perfectly fair that property owners benefiting from the protection should pay their fair share of the cost of providing same. City Council.Minutes August 16, 1978 Page 3 The Council also.discussed.with:Richard..L. Minor,. Fire.Chief,.the background and reasoning:.for..placing. the fire..hydrant.at Kimball-Motors-on his private property at-his-expense which was primariiy_to.serve his.own facility and no other, although-there was_a.public hydrant_on.Calle.Joaquin. It was his recommendation that..the..charge_was logical._and.fair. The City Council then discussed with.the city staff need or benefit of the. "ready..to serve" cost.to can own fire_protectioa systems..on their.property to be Department. Also, they discussed.what benefits the from this system. There was also discussion on the fire protection service and for hydrant chaarges. and-Mr.-.Kimball on the aumers.who.placed their .used only by the Fire property owner receives various charges for On motion of.Councilman Jorgensen, seconded.by..Councilman Settle, that the appeal of J.W. Kimball be denied and the rates be adjusted for the overcharge over the past years due to an error in the city's records: Motion carried, all ayes. The City staff was also directed to prepare a study for clarification on the reasoning for the differences in the rates between private and public fire service charges by the City Water Department and also..the hydrant charge to the Fire Department. 3. The City Council considered Legislative Bulletin No. 28.and 29 = 1978 Series from the League of California Cities. By consensus of the City Council,.the following action was taken: BILL NO. SUBJECT COUNCIL ACTION SB 1757 __r.:Forcing CATV rate increase AB 2442 Transportation -Speed Limits, more local flexibility AB 3819 SB 1704 Inverse Condemnation -Cost & Attorney Fees AB 3130 City Attorneys prohibited from giving civil . and criminal advice, etc.. SB 2197 Arbitration required in public.agency.contracts AB 1791 Seizure of animals- notice.required prior to seizure AB 3250 New mandates under guise of.solar energy protection SB 1490 Reimbursement, SB 90 claims procedure SB 2074 Workers Compensation, elected officials SB 1400 Unemployment Insurance State Assistance AB 2774 Transportation -Train Speed.Limits 1 Oppose Support , Oppose Oppose Oppose Oppose Oppose 0. Oppose Support Support Support Oppose The City Clerk was asked to inform the various legislative.committee of the Council's action on the bills reviewed. 4. Request by-Robert Strong, on.behalf of Gann Investment Corp.., for a grading.permit for Unit II, Exposition Park, Tract #736 pending. Robert.Strong stated that.the City Council had approved the.final map for Unit I of Exposition Park involving 212 lots along the west.side of Meadow Street and that the city staff was currently checking the plans for Unit II which contained approximately 50 lots involving 20 acres adjoining Meadow Park. The.developer requested permission of the City Council to begin grading on both Unit I and.II at the-same time to.commence during.September.to assure completion of work by the end of October. Because the final.map had not been approved for Unit II, the developer understood that the Council must authorize any grading in the area. Grading would be completed according to the plans and specifications which had been tentatively accepted by the City Engineer and would be conducted in compliance with any conditions and directions suggested by the city including posting performance bonds. Henry Engen, Community Development Director, stated.that he and his staff had no objection to the project but stated that it was his understanding that the Council in the past wished to review all large scale grading plans within the City recommended prior to final map approval. I I