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