Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/06/19721 F�� I Pledge Roll Call MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA March 6, 1972 - 7:00 P. M. City Hall Present: Emmons Blake, John C. Brown, Myron Graham, T. Keith Gurnee, Kenneth E. Schwartz City Staff Present: J. H. Fitzpatrick, City Clerk; W..Flory., Park and Recreation Supervisor; R. D. Miller, Administrative Officer; E. L. Rodgers, Police Chief; D. F. Romero, City Engineer; L. Schlobohm, Fire Chief; R. D. Young, Planning Director. C -1. The City Council authorized payment of claims against the City subject to the approval of the Administrative Officer. C -2. The City Council approved the minutes of February 22, 1972, after corrections. C -3. The City-Clerk reported the following bids were received for .Lighting Sinsheimer Baseball Park on March 1', 1972 at 10:30 A. M.: ARCHITECTTS ESTIMATE $48,000.00 Herrin Electric Inc. 45,770.00 Santa Maria, CA Mathews Electric 49,143.65 Paso Robles, CA Lee Wilson Electric 49,920.00 Arroyo Grande, CA 48,920.00 (Alt.) Ritchie Electric, Inc. 512610.00 Hanford, CA Safety Electric 54,344.00 Fresno, CA Hannah Electric 54,960.00 San Luis Obispo, CA The City Council received recommendations from the architect, William Hastrup, and from the Advisory Committee on Joint Recreational Use of School District Property that the low bid from Herrin Electric, Inc. be accepted. The City Council accepted the low bid of $45,770 from Herrin Electric, Inc. On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Brown, the following resolution was introduced. RESOLUTION NO. 2280, a resolution increasing the 1971/72 budget. (Increasing Capital Outlay - Baseball Field.) Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote: City Council Minutes l arch 6., 3972 ape 2 . AYES: Emmons Blake, John C. Brown, Myron Graham, T. Keith Gurnee,'Kenneth E. Schwartz NOES: None ABSENT: None C - 4. T he follow n g contract payments and change orders were a pp roved: Wally LaFreniere Const. Est. #6 $ 2,106.00 Remodel Fire Sta. #1 R. Burke Corp Est. #2 $ 5,178.84 Lagune Lake Park Barriers Est. #3 902.40 City Plan 10 -72. (Final) C. 0.41 + 450.00 R. Burke Corp Est. #4 $ 9,733.97 Meadow Park, Phase I Est. #5 4,266.96 City Plan 5 -72 (Final) C.O. #1 - 60.00 Wesley Watkins. Est. #4 $ 629.24 Mun. Parking Lot #12 Est. #5 3-;821.34 (Final)/ C. 0. #1 + 263.90 C. 0.' #2 + 252.26 C -5. . The City Council appr6ved.a recommendation from the Chief Building Inspector, Jack Kellerman, to increase building evaluation estimates by 3% to supply funds for the Strong Motion Instrumentation Program. C -6. On motion.of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Brown, the following resolution was introduced. RESOLUTION NO. 2281, a reso- lution creating a revolving account for preliminary expenses in connection with Leff -Bond assessment district project. Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote: AYES: Emmons Blake, John C. Brown, Myron Graham, T. Keith Gurnee, Kenneth.E. Schwartz NOES: None ABSENT: None C -7. On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Brown, the following resolution increasing the Sewer Farm Motor.Vehicle Fund and the Insurance and Bond Premiums Account was introduced. RESOLUTION NO. 2282, . a resolution increasing the 1971/72 budget. Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote: AYES: Emmons Blake, John C. Brown, Myron Graham, T. Keith Gurnee, Kenneth E. Schwartz;_ NOES: None ABSENT:. None C -8. The City Engineer requested permission to proceed with engineering design for installation of a traffic signal approved for Johnson Avenue and Lizzie St. The estimated cost of the signal would be $15,000. City Council Minutes March 6, 1972 Page 3 The City Council approved the request to prepare,the design. C -9. R. D. Miller, Administrative Officer, announced the appointment of the following six part -time dispatchers for the Fire Department: William E. Pooley Kay DelCarmen Dickerson Manuel Early Bruce G. Ramey Jeffrey P. Sandys. Billy B. Miller C -10. The City Council accepted a Grant Deed of property from Shipsey and Seitz for-street widening purposes on Santa Rosa Street and author- ized the Mayor to sign the agreement. C -11. The City Council accepted a covenant from G. T. Mulkey for construction of a concrete retaining wall adjacent to a six foot integral sidewalk at 1974 Osos Street. The Mayor was authorized to sign the agreement. C -12. The City Council granted, Pacific Gas & Electric an easement for underground utilities through the City parking lot on Marsh Street. The Mayor was authorized to sign the agreement. C -13. The Council authorized the Administrative Officer to call for bids to replace various motor vehicles. C -14. The Mayor was authorized to sign an agreement with C. F. Richards and Mrs. C. L. Whitaker to install a one inch water meter inside the City limits to serve water to their properties approximately 1000 feet from a City main on Bullock Lane. C -15. The Council granted sick leave in excess of two weeks to Don H. Burns and Gerald B. Babcock, both Fire Department employees injured off - duty.. C -16. The claims against the City from the attorneys, for Jerry L. Bartola and Phillip Lacy for injuries sustained at Johnson Avenue and Breck Street on November 23,1971, were rejected and referred to the insurance company. C -17. The Council authorized the transfer of a cardroom license issued to Charles K. Willis to Jack G. Green as a condition of sale of his busi- ness to be effective at the close of escrow. On motEon, of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Brown, the consent items were approved as indicated. Motion carried. 1. The City Council considered the, final passage of ORDINANCE NO. 544, an ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance Code of the City of San Luis Obispo to provide for educational conference facilities in the R -H District. City Council Minutes March 6, 1972 Page 4 R. D. Young, Planning Director, presented 'a set of conditions worked out by the City, the Motel -Hotel Association and representatives of Stenner Glen for educational conference facilities in the R -H zone. Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing open. Jeff Bines, manager of Stenner Glen, stated he was in favor of the amend- ment to the Municipal Code and urged the City Council to enact this amendment and also stated the conditions established by the Planning Commission were satisfactory. Frank Dexter, the Motel -Hotel Association, stated he had not been involved in the negotiations on the conditions for the use permits but felt that the word "youth" should be included so that adult type conferences were not included. Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing closed. Councilman Gurnee had no objections to the amendment to the ordinance and the use permit conditions as discussed. Councilman Blake objected to the Motel -Hotel Association establishing conditions for City use permits as he felt it was not their prerogative to do so and they should be established by the Planning Commission after public hearings. Councilman Brown felt that the use permit conditions as worked out in cooperation with the Motel - Hotel' Association were in order as far as he was concerned. He-felt this would make the ordinance more workable. Councilman Graham agreed with the comments of Councilman Brown. Mayor Schwartz thought the conditions worked out between the Motel =Hotel Association and the City would go a long way in making this section of the ordinance work, but he felt Paragraph 1 should be amended to take into consideration the comments made at this public hearing. On motion of Mayor Schwartz, seconded by Councilman Gurnee, the following ordinance was introduced for final passage: ORDINANCE NO. _544, an ordin- ance amending the Zoning Ordinance Code of the City of San Luis Obispo to provide for educational facilities. Finally passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Emmons Blake, John C. Brown, Myron Graham, T. Keith Gurnee, Kenneth E. Schwartz NOES: None ABSENT: None On motion of Mayor Schwartz, seconded by Councilman Gurnee, the following suggested conditions for use permits as amended were approved: 1. The use of the facilities shall be limited to participants of educational courses, cultural exchange programs for students, high school and junior college groups planning to attend Cal Poly, and groups which are academically, athletically, or religiously oriented and that the housing and services pro -. vided for the above groups would not be extended to the parents of persons participating. Motion carried. 1 I� 1 City Council Minutes March 6, 1972 Page 5 2. At this time the City Council held a. public hearing on the recom- mendation of the Traffic Committee to red zone the first four car spaces on the east side of Grand Avenue south of Hays. D. F. Romero, City Engineer, explained what was to be accomplished by the installation of the red zone. Mayor Schwartz-declared the public hearing open. Mrs. Lowe, 190 Henderson, stated she supported the Traffic Committee's recommendation as this was an extremely hazardous and dangerous place to attempt to get onto Grand Avenue. She urged the Council to support the recommendation. Jack Lowe, 190 Henderson, was also in support of the recommendation as he felt it would make it much safer for those attempting to enter Grand Avenue. Mayor Schwartz declared, the public hearing closed. On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Graham, the following resolution was introduced. RESOLUTION NO. 2277, a resolution establishing a no- parking zone on Grand Avenue. Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote: AYES: Emmons Blake, John C. Brown, Myron Graham, T. Keith Gurnee, Kenneth E. Schwartz NOES: None ABSENT: None 3. At this time the City Council held a public hearing on the recom- mendation of the Traffic Committee to extend the two -hour parking time limit on Higuera Street from Nipomo to Beach Street. D. F. Romero, City Engineer, explained what was to be accomplished by the initiation of this time limit for parking. Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing open. No one appeared for or against the proposal. Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing closed. On motion of Councilman Blake, seconded by Councilman Brown, the following resolution was introduced. RESOLUTION NO. 2278, a resolution establishing two -hour parking on Marsh Street. Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote:. AYES: Emmons Blake, John C. Brown, Myron Graham, T. Keith Gurnee, Kenneth E. Schwartz NOES: None ABSENT: None 4. At this time, the City Council held a public hearing on the recom- mendation of the Planning Commission to rezone from R -1 to R -H that property located on Phillips Lane between California Boulevard and the railroad right -of -way. City Council Mintues March 6, 1972 Page 6 R. D. Young, Planning Director, presented the recommendations of the Planning.-Commission as follows: 1. The subject property is 3/4 of an acre in size and is presently zoned R -1. It is developed with one dwelling unit. The applicant is requesting rezoning to R -0 (residential office) district. ' 2. The property is completely surrounded by R -3 (restricted multiple family residential) district. 3. It was the opinion of the Commission that the existing R -3 zoning surrounding the property will eventually be rezoned to R -H and therefore the subject property should be zoned to R -H rather than the requested R -0. Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing open. No one appeared before the City Council. Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing closed. On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Graham, the following ordinance was introduced. ORDINANCE NO. 545, an ordinance amending the Official Zone Map of the City of San Luis Obispo (to rezone five lots at 1425 Phillips Lane from R -1 to R -H). Passed to print on the following roll call vote: AYES: Emmons Blake, John C. Brown,',Myron Graham, T. Keith Gurnee, Kenneth E. Schwartz NOES: None ABSENT: None 5. D. F. Romero, City Engineer, presented plans and specifications and cost estimates for the new signing program for downtown San Luis Obispo. He stated he had received estimates of cost for the steel hairpin standard of $50 per unit and $115 per unit for aluminum standards. 150 standards were needed. He also stated that 335 sign blanks would be needed to complete the installation. He estimated the cost of the standards would be $7500, the signs would be $4000 and labor for installation would be $3500 for a total of $15,000. Councilman Brown suggested that due to the cost that the City should limit the number of signs to be installed and place them in the downtown area only. Councilman Graham felt the City should proceed with the installation a small section at a time. Councilman Gurnee stated that-the Council had approved the concept of international signs and the standards. He felt they should move ahead without further discussion. Councilman Blake agreed with Councilman Gurnee and stated that the City should move ahead and get this program completed. Mayor Schwartz agreed that the Council should proceed with the program. On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Graham, that the City Council adopt the recommendation of the Design Review Board to in- stall the new signs as.recommended subject to the following: City Council Minutes March 6, 1972 Page 7 (1) Use painted steel standards (2) Use hairpin design standards (3) Use international signing. The motion carried. 6. The City Council considered the report of the Design Review Board on the elimination of motel and Chamber of Commerce signs from the down- town sign inventory. "It is unanimously recommended that motel and Chamber of Commerce signs be deleted from the Downtown sign inventory for the following reasons: a. This signing is inconsistent with advertising other. businesses (if motels have signing then restaurants., service stations, etc. should also be signed.) b. Freeway exits are better locations for signing. c: This is a relatively small town and it is not difficult to find motels. d. Motel. .row and other motels are signed on the freeway directing tourists to proper off= ramps. e. Most individual motel signs are elevated sufficiently to be visible from the freeway.. f. Most tourists do not look for Chamber of Commerce directional signs along the street. g. It is desirable to have tourists stop, talk, and ask questions of local residents. h. Unnecessary visual clutter needs to be eliminated from the downtown. I. The new promotional coordinating committee City map should list the location of the Chamber of Commerce and this map should be. distributed to all service stations and motels." Frank Dexter, Motel -Hotel Association, objected to the elimination of motel and Chamber of Commerce signs in downtown San Luis Obispo as it was his opinion and that of the Association, that more signs.were needed in San Luis Obispo to direct visitors and tourists to the Chamber of Commerce office and to the motels which are one of the City's leading industires. Lee Hagen, Motel -Hotel Association and Chamber of Commerce member, ob- jected to the removal of the motel signs in downtown San Luis Obispo as she felt that the industry which supported the City through the bed tax should not be cut off from any street signing pointing out their locations. Jack Smith, Motel -Hotel Association, objected to the removal of the motel signs in downtown San Luis Obispo as they were a service to the visitors and tourists in the City. Lowell Fuller felt more directional signs were needed to direct visitors within the City. J. B. MacDonald, realtor, felt that directional. signs were needed in the downtown area in order to direct visitors to such places as the Chamber of Commerce office for information and guidance. He stated he had no objection to the removal. of the motel signs or any other signs pointing out specific places of private business. Councilman Gurnee stated he had no comment on this matter. Roger Marshall, Chairman of the Design Review Board, explained to the City Council the new signs which would be placed in the Mission Plaza area which would be color coded to direct visitors to the various classes of stores in the downtown area. City Council Minutes March 6, 1972 Page 8 Councilman Blake felt directional signs were in order but that the Design Review Board's recommendation was to eliminate visual clutter in the downtown area. Councilman Brown agreed with the recommendation of the Design Review Board to eliminate the motel signs in the downtown area and also the Chamber of Commerce signs as he felt the new signs would be more than adequate. Councilman Graham stated he felt very strongly that signs directing visitors to the Chamber of Commerce office should be left in place and possibly more should be added to direct the tourists to the Chamber of Commerce for information. He continued that the City was spending great sums of money to encourage visitors to come to San Luis Obispo and that when they arrived they were unable to find directional information: He concluded that all Chamber of Commerce signs should be left where they were. Mayor Schwartz agreed that some directional signs were needed but felt that six Chamber of Commerce signs were-too many. He further felt that motel signs in the downtown area were unnecessary as each entrance to the City had directional signs for the motels. After discussion and with the approval of the City Council, Mayor Schwartz appointed Councilman Graham to meet with the Design Review Board, Chamber of Commerce and Motel -Hotel Association to'bring back a new proposal. 6B. Roger Marshall, Design Review Board, presented for the City Council's consideration signing for City parking lots, parks and entrances to the City. The sings would be of laminated redwood, low silhouette, with carved letters and a small replica of the City flag. Councilman Brown felt that the signs proposed for these City facilities were excellent and would be an asset to the CIty of San Luis Obispo. Councilman Graham agreed, stating they were good signs. Councilman Gurnee felt the proposed signs were in good taste and of excellent design. Councilman Blake stated he approved as he liked the signs. Mayor Schwartz agreed with the comments of the other councilmen, stating that the signs were in good taste and would enhance the City. On motion of Councilman Graham, seconded by Councilman Blake, the recommendation of the Design Review Board was adopted and the staff was instructed to prepare cost estimates for the signs. Motion carried. 7. Councilman Blake asked the Council about the placement of the large Bicentennial emblems in selected locations in the City. He explained that these were 2 feet in diameter and reproductions of the approved Bicentennial emblem and that the installation had been de- layed pending decision on the international signing. He suggested the City install these on redwood posts and have the Public Works Department install them as soon as possible. They could be removed after the September 1972 celebration. Councilman Graham suggested that the emblems be installed on the new standards being prepared for the downtown area as the City Council was attempting to eliminate sign clutter in the downtown area and now they were talking about installing additional posts. City Council Minutes March 6, 1972 Page 9 Councilman Brown suggested that the Bicentennial emblem be placed on plywood and then be put on the new.street sign standards. The City Council then discussed with the staff the installation of the new hairpin.steel standards and signs. Councilman Graham felt that the signs should be installed. Councilman Blake listed the thirteen locations proposed for these signs and urged the City Council to have them installed immediately for what- ever benefit they would bring as they were only a temporary installation and would be removed in September 1972: On motion of Councilman Graham, seconded by Councilman Blake, that the Bicentennial emblems be. installed on wooden posts as soon as possible. Motion carried. 8. Discussion of the request•of the Promotional Coordinating Committee to spend funds for production of a City map /brochure at an estimated cost of $5000 was continued to a joint meeting with the Pro- motional Committee on March 1.3, 1972. 9. The City Council.discussed continuation of the contract with Woods Animal Shelter for the fiscal year-1972-73. R. D. Miller, Administrative Officer, presented a letter from Woods Animal Shelter stating they felt they could operate for the coming year on the same budget as the present year subject to any cost of living raises for personnel Pat Gerety, Planning Associate, brought to the Council's attention the number of dogs running loose in the City that might attack people or intimidate them so they are fearful of walking alongthe street. He stated that.as'a pedestrian who walked to and from work each day for a total of about five miles a day, he saw great numbers of dogs bothering people.and he feared that someone might be hurt by the dogs. He continued that calls to Woods Animal Shelter brought no results and if anyone answered the phone, the caller was always informed that the trucks were in some other part of the County and would get to your problem when and if they could. He suggested that the City might appropriate more funds for the animal shelter so that -they could spend more ti.me on loose dogs in the City. As an alternate, he suggested that the City employ its own personnel to patrol the City daily and possibly use the Woods Animal Shelter to take care of dogs that were picked up. R. D. Miller, Administrative.Officer,.stated that ;if this problem had been brought to his attention, he would have instructed Woods Animal Shelter to put on a raid. Fred Peterson agreed with the problems presented by Pat Gerety in the matter of loose dogs which intimidated pedestrians. He listed several experiences of his where he was forced to.take other routes due to fear of being attacked by large dogs. :He sincerely hopedithe City Council would take this into consideration when contracting with the animal shelter. The matter was referred to the.Mayor for continuation of the contract and the'Administrative Officer was asked to look into the situations described. 10. Continued discussion by the City Council of the annexati on. of the Danley property on Edna Road as described in Resolution No. 2257, 1971 Series. City Council Minutes March 6, 1972 Page 10 D. F. Romero, City Engineer, presented a map showing what was being pro- posed for annexation, its location•and its proximity to other City areas. Mayor Schwartz explained that the issue before City Council was the annexation of the Danley property to.the City and not its potential use or its proposed zoning in the City. He then declared the public hearing open. Darold Cook, attorney for W. A. Danely, reviewed the steps taken by Mr. Danley over the past year in order to comply with State, County, and City regulations to get his property annexed to the City. He continued that the Planning Commission and the City Council had approved the planned development for R -H on this property and that LAFCO had approved this property for annexation to the City. He felt that Danley had received encouragement to continue his reugest for annexation by every board or commission which had any authority in this area. He also re- minded the City Council that the existing General Plan was the one in force at this time and this request must be considered by consultants at this time. He requested permission to•.cross examine an who opposed this annexation. W. A. Danley, developer, presented a petition signed by fifteen property owners in the general areas of his property who supported his proposed development. He also presented lengthy petitions signed by 150 persons living in San,Luis Obispo stating they were in'favor of the proposed development, and it should be annexed. L. Fuller, adjacent property owner, stated he was in favor of the Danley annexation. He felt this was good for the City because as soon as sewer and water services were available on Edna Road, more people in the area could connect to the sewer and water system... He felt it was a start for annexation of more properties in the same general area. He supported the annexation. Dorothea Rhodes, adjacent property owner, supported the annexation and hoped that she could also annex her property to the City.if.the Danley property were accepted. Roy Garcia, adjacent property owner, was in support of the Danley request for annexation and felt it was a good development for the,City. C. S. Allen, adjacent property owner, supported the annexation and .felt it was a logical addition to the City. Gladys Garcia, property owner, supported annexation and wanted to-.annex her property as well as she felt this was a logical development for the valley. She felt that most property owners favored annexation. J. B. MacDonald, realtor, supported the annexation as he felt this annexation was needed to develop.housing• for the citizens of.San:Luis Obispo who could not afford to purchase a decent house but could afford a mobile home. He felt the proposed annexation and its approval was needed now. He supported the annexation as a logical addition to the City:' A. J. Shaw, City Attorney, explained that.Mr. Cook could not cross examine as the hearing was not-a judicial process but was only a legislative hearing. Ruth Wirshup, Human Relations Commission, reviewed for the City Council's information actions recently taken by various boards and commissions of the.City who were.working on goals and objectives:to, control future growth of the City. She stated the Planning Commission had relayed the following recommendation to the planning consultant: (1) No new annexations until available land in the City had been used. (2) No annexations until a demonstrated need for a particular land was present. L_ 1 1 City Council Minutes March 6, 1972 Page 11 (3) That no utilities be extended to new areas outside the City until all properties within the City had been adequately served. Mrs. Wirshup felt this land being considered for annexation was not needed for immediate growth of the City and felt the City Council should hold off this annexation until the new General .Plan had been publicly aired and accepted by the people of San Luis Obispo. Mrs. Joan Rich, President of the League of Women Voters, presented the following statement from the League: "She stated the League was opposed-to this annexation as it was premature to the needs of the City and many studies were still being made which would indicate what effect the annexation migiY have on the City, but without the results of the studies, a proper decision could not be made. She stated that the consensus of the members of the League was that the 'growth of the City should be limited and that availability and cost of services should be considered before allowing annexation'." Darold Cook, Attorney for W. A. Danley, stated he did not feel that the Council could consider any plans being prepared by Eisner and Associates for the City in relation to this proposed annexation as the only thing that should be considered was the present General Plan of the City. He did not feel this was a leap frog annexation but was a logical, normal annexation to the City as the property was adjacent to the City boundaries. He felt it was wrong for the City Council to even consider holding up this annexation while waiting for the development of•a new General Plan which might take a year. He stated that adequate utilities could be extended to this property and were available.. Roy Garcia noted-that utilities now extended to Edna and Tank Farm Roads, ' and he felt they were adequate and close enough to serve the Danley property. He agreed that when these utilities were extended, many of the :adjacent property owners would. wish .to hook .up to the sewer and water service. Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing closed and limited the dis- cussion to the Council and staff. Councilman Brown asked if the utilities were extended to the Danley property would there be excess capacity paid for by the City. D. F. Romero stated there would be excess capacity. Councilman Brown felt the Danley annexation was logical and that the City Council must look to the existing General Plan for guidance. He stated he would support this annexation as he did not feel the City could wait for the new Eisner report. Councilman Graham asked if the applicant could take this matter to court if the annexation was denie.d.by the City Council. A. J. Shaw., City Attorney, answered that any act by the Council was sub- ject to review by a court. However, he was confident that a court would hold that the City Council had the power at this stage of the proceedings to -either approve or deny the annexation. Councilman Graham felt that as this annexation had been hanging around the City.for, some time-and that the present zoning had been approved by both the Council and Planning Commission; he did not feel that the City should deny this application. .However, he stated he would like to go on record as being opposed to any new annexation requests. City Council Minutes March 6,1972 Page 12 Councilman Gurnee felt the main quest.ion.was the need for additional areas of high denisty being annexed to theCity while correctly zoned properties lay unused within the City. He questioned the extension of utilities which would be expensive for both the City and for the developer and would force both parties to encourage more hook -ups in order to recapture capital. He felt Danley had been patient in attempting to get this land developed but he felt the annexation was illogical and the use in opposition to the 01ty!s plans; and goals. Councilman Blake felt that Danley had not explored all avenues for redress as he could still go to court for relief. He also felt it was wrong for the City Council to hang their reasons for denying the annexation on a General Plan that had not yet been adopted and whoseigoals might be or might not be adopted. He stated he would support the annexation. Mayor Schwartz asked what latitude the City had in continuing consider - ation of this annexation in view of the decisions to be made on the new General Plan and the goals and objectives on growth. A. J. Shaw, City Attorney, felt the City Council could take whatever action they wished if it were logical and fair to all. Mayor Schwartz stated that the Council must decide the timing on the annexation in view of what had occurred within the City since this property was prezoned over a year ago. He felt the proponents had not convinced him that additional land for development into high den- sity was needed or was lacking within the City at this time. He also felt the City Council should be aware that if they approved this annexation what the future configuration , ofithe ^Ci -ty would be. He wished the Council would recognize the cost to the City's taxpayers in supplying City services such as police, fire, water and sewer to this isolated area. He stated these were the questions that the Council must consider and should keep in mind that the existing General Plan called for a lower density than this property was pre - zoned. He stated he could not support the annexation. On motion of Councilman Blake, seconded by Councilman Brown, the following resolution was introduced. RESOLUTION NO. 2276, a resolution of the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo approving the annexation to said City of territory designated as " Danley Annexation"., Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote: AYES: Emmons Blake, John C. Brown, Myron Graham NOES: T. Keith Gurnee, Kenneth E. Schwartz ABSENT: None 12. The City Council considered a special paper on the Lopez Canyon Wilderness Area proposed by Senate Bill 3027. The draft was prepared by Councilman Gurnee.,. Councilman Gurnee reviewed for the Council the position paper answering the various charges made by other entities against the City's endorse- ment of the bill. Mayor Schwartz stated he had reviewed the position paper prepared by Councilman Gurnee and agreed in principle with the position taken, but felt there were some areas that should be amended: Councilman Graham stated he was in favor of the general position paper on Lopez Wilderness Area and felt it was good for the City to clarify its position. 1 1 I� City Council Minutes March 6, 1.972 Page 13 Councilman Blake felt the media was responsible for the reaction to the City's position on the Lopez Wilderness. He did not feel the City Council must again justify its actions and chide and criticize the other cities and the County. He felt this Council took action with full know- ledge of the implications of the Wilderness Bill and he did not feel they should again justify their position. He felt the Sierra Club should be the organization that took a stand to clarify any misunder- standings. Councilman Gurnee felt this City Council had been poorly treated by other City Councils and that their integrity had been attacked. He felt some clarifying information should be released. Mayor Schwartz felt that the City :Council should first agree in general with the principles of the position paper in favor of the Lopez Wilderness Area. Councilman Gurnee was asked to restudy the matter and bring back af:.new draft of the position paper for the Council's consideration. 13. The City Council considered the Legislative Bulletin of the League of California Cities dated February 23, 1972 and took final action. #1 AB232, Employee Organizations, Time Off to Represent: Opposed on motion of Mayor Schwartz, seconded by Councilman Graham, Motion carried. #2 AB 162, Conflicts of interest (Council and Planning Commission); no action taken. #3 AB 206, Police & Firemen - Binding Arbitration: Opposed on motion of Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Graham. Motion carried. #4 SB 116, Pension - Police & Fire; CHP formula = age 30: Opposed on motion of Councilman Blake, seconded by Councilman Graham. Motion carried. #5 AB 385, Open Space Plans (City /County): Supported on motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Graham. Motion carried. #13 AB 200, Coastal Zone, Regulation of Deve,l:opment: Supported on motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Brown. Motion carried. 14. Communication from State Senator Arlen Gregorio regarding a pro- posed State Constitutional amendment to set up a separate reapportionment commission was received and filed. 15. The City Council adjourned to executive session. 16. On motion of Councilman Blake, seconded by Councilman Brown, the meeting adjourned to March 13, 1972 at 7:30 P. M. Motion carried. APPROVED: March 20, 1972 5*TZPATRICK, CITY CLERK