Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/10/1972Pledge Roll Call MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA April 10, 1972 - 7:30 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, Director of Parks and Recreation; R. D. Miller, Administrative Officer; D. F. Romero, City' Engineer; E. L. Rodgers, Police Chief; A. J. Shaw, City Attorney; R. D. Young, Director of Planning and Building 1. The City Clerk announced to the City Council that a referendum petition had been filed against 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." 2. The City Clerk reported the following bids were received for Street Tree Planting for Tract 403 on April 10, 1972: Troutner Brothers $2,573.00 San Luis Obispo Karleskint -Crum, Inc. $3,114.00 San Luis Obispo Dennis Landscape Co. $2,878.48 San Luis Obispo ESTIMATE $2,983.00 . On motion of Councilman Blake, seconded by Councilman Brown, the low bid of Troutner Brothers was accepted and the contract awarded. Motion carried. 3. . Mayor Schwartz explained that the purpose of the study meeting was to discuss the proposal of the County of San Luis Obispo that the City of San Luis Obispo accept and process sewage from the properties in the Country Club Area. A. J. Shaw, City Attorney, presented a review of legal citations and court decisions involved when a city supplies sewer services outside its city limits. It was his opinion that the City did not have the power to own an individual sewage collection system in an unincorporated area, and further, if the City were to contract to operate a sewer system for another agency in the unincorporated areas, the City would not have the freedom of operation which it had .within the City.. Mr. Shaw further stated the City had no power to operate an extra - territorial sewer operation for more profit, therefore, it was his opinion that once a project was started, the fee charged.by the City to the County would have to be roughly equal to the value of the service provided. George Protopapas, County Engineer, explOined the physical layout of the proposal and the system to be installed to serve the Service Area No. 18- as outlined in the Sewage Feasibility Study for County Service Area No.18, dated December, 1971. 1 It 1 City Council Minutes April 10, 1972 Page 2 Upon question, Mr. Protopapas stated that under the proposed contract with the City, that the City would maintain and operate the entire sewer system within Service Area No. 18. Russell Powell, Deputy Administrator for Special Districts, reviewed the actions taken at a City- County meeting to work out the joint powers agreement at which time the following were discussed: over - sizing the ' sewer lines and who would pay for it; basic rates for service and hook- up; amortization of costs to the City and who would control future expansion of the area. G. Protopapas commented as follows on the various questions raised: Over -size lines: The County was interested only in supplying .a sewer line of sufficient size to handle development in Service Area No. 18 and was not interested in any over - sizing of lines which they felt should.be paid for by those who would benefit. He also stated the County was not interested in supplying larger lines for areas outside the present service area. D. F. Romero, City Engineer, stated that the complete development of Service Area No. 18 would overload both Tank Farm lift station and the Rockview lift station and the City would have.to provide further sewer improvements in accordance with the City Master Plan which had not been adopted by the City Council. Mayor Schwartz stated if the City entered into the suggested joint powers agreement, it would set a precedent for other areas to request City utilities and without some guarantee on zoning and control.of development, the City could very soon be required to enlarge the sewer plant. The matter of the basic rate for service and hook -up was continued for ' further discussion. Health.standards regarding septic tanks: James Gates, County Sanitarian, explained the County policy on septic tanks and .submitted a report of studies on percolation rates in the general vicinity.of County Service Area No. 18. Amortization of costs: D. F. Romero explained that the purpose of the existing $1.00 per month sewer service charge within the City was to cover the cost of the bond issue to pay for the plant expansion in 1962. His subsequent studies have shown that a sewer service rate of $2.50 per month was needed - within the City to pay bond costs, maintenance and operation.. He felt that a doubling of the City.rate should be required of any outside areas. Inspection of construction: D. F. Romero stated the City would wish to inspect any construction involved in the project if the City were ex- pected to maintain the lines. _Control of expansion within the Service Area: no one could answer positively that controls could be developed. There was also no answer to whether the City and the County could reach accord relative to zoning for low density development. R. Powell.stated that after the discussion of the basic questions J ust completed, he felt the agreement under consideration would be unsuitable and new conditions should be established such as the district doing all the work and contracting with the City.to accept effluent at Tank Farm Road for disposal by the City. He continued that the County was most willing.to renegotiate a contract so that sewer facilities could be supplied to these properties. City Council Minutes April 10, 1972 Page 3 Scovil Hubbard, Deputy District Attorney, stated he had reviewed the legal citations and court decisions mentioned by Mr. Shaw and agreed with the conclusion of Mr. Shaw. Mayor Schwartz stated that the City Council should discuss the proposal of the City operating a sewage disposal system for Service Area 18 and its effect on the existing sewer plant, etc. Ken Jones, Engineer for the Water Quality Control Board, stated that his agency had developed a regional plan for sewage disposal and that their plan called for one sewer plant to serve each area and that the Los Osos and Edna Valleys should be served by the San Luis Obispo plant as it had been designated as the regional plant. He stated that if the City insisted on staying.independent and refused to accept the sewage from the region,.they would not be eligible for Federal and State grants . whose applications were approved by his agency. He continued that if the City accepted the effluent from Service Area No. 18, there would be at least 50 %, and perhaps 80 %, financing available for enlargement of the City facilities. He felt that the consolidation of sewage plants was more economical and more efficient than several small plants throughout the area. He was sure that the City would some day.need Federal or State funds to improve and /or enlarge the present sewer plant and the funds would be available only. if the City cooperated in the regional sewer plan. He urged the City Council to adopt a policy which would allow them to accept the ,sewage from County Service Area No. 18. Councilman Blake questioned Mr. Jones' threat that the Water Quality Control Board would take revenge on the City by not approving future applications for grants because the City did not wish to take . sewage from an area developed due to poor planning by the County government. K. Jones stated that regardless of the City Council's action on Service Area No. 18, he was sure that the City.of San Luis Obispo would some day take effl.uent from the region delineated by the WQCB because this was the Board's plan and they would force the City to accept it as they had done in other areas. If the City viewed this as a threat, so be it. Councilman Brown stated he felt the WQCB was attempting to efficiently handle effluent for a given region and to allocate the funds to properly place new lines and plants. Mayor Schwartz asked what the WQCB was doing to support and control . land use in the unincorporated areas in order to avoid future problems such as were under discussion presently. K. Jones stated the WQCB did not get involved in land use or zoning control. He felt that the zoning and land use was the responsibility of local government and not the WQCB. He indicated that the State of California was now preparing plans to include all drainage basins in a regional sewage plan and that when planning had been completed, the interim plans now being followed by the Board would be eliminated. Mayor Schwartz asked K. Jones,if., when the WQCB.adopted its interim plans for consolidation of sewer works, it looked into the economics of a regional disposal plant and whether Service Area 18 would be eligible for funds for thei.r effluent to be transported to City sewer plant.via Tank Farm Road. K. Jones stated the WQCB did not get involved in economic studies of regional_plans.as.it was their feeling that each entity must pay its own share. It was his feeling that Service Area 18 would qualify for 80% of the sewer main cost along Tank Farm Road to the disposal plant. 1 �I City Council Minutes April 10, 1972 Page 4 Councilman Gurnee asked if the residents. of Service Area 18 would be. allowed to vote on the formation of the district and its method of financing. G. Protopapas stated the residents would not be allowed to vote as they were using the special assessment approach which did not require a vote of the people. ' K. Jones urged the City Council to go along and cooperate with the formation of Service Area 18 and that if they did, his department would really cooperate with the City on future sewer plant enlargement. Mayor Schwartz then presented potential growth and density figures for Service Area 18 contained on pages 4 and 5 of the Feasibility Report. Councilman Brown felt that-if the City went along with the present pro- posal, it would be encouraging development of greater density in the area surrounding the City. He felt the County and WQCB should help the City get effluent to the City ..plant and also help the City enlarge the present plant to accommodate this area. Councilman Graham feared the precedent being established in giving City services so far outside the City limits. He felt the area.was too far from the City and would increase City costs. He felt he could listen to any proposal that would bring the sewage to the plant at the cost of the Service Area. Councilman Gurnee felt the proposal was premature for the City to take action at this time without some plan or agreement with the County to control the land use so there would be only light densities in the areas outside the City. He asked if the City could control the number of dwellings that could be connected to the sewer system in Service. 1 Area 18. G. Protopapas felt this could not be done as any development in the' Service Area would be allowed access to the sewer service. Councilman Gurnee stated he felt County of absolute control of lai low residential density and also allowed to the Service Area with paid by the Service Area with no the proposal. that, if the City was assured by the id use within Service Area 18 to maintain guaranteed that no annexations would be all costs of handling the sewage to be cost to the City, then he might consider Councilman Blake felt that if the Council wished to go ahead with the proposal, then the system should be designed to handle sewage generated in the area with 'no provision for excess capacity. He felt that after this evening's discussion the County officials were aware of the Council's questions regarding the proposed agreement and that they should go back and rework the agreement to cover the discussion at this meeting. Mayor Schwartz stated that some of the questions that must be answered in the joint powers agreement were (1) whether the City would take effluent at the City limit line; (2) the per dwelling rate for the sewer services charge; (3) provisions for compensation by the service area to pay a share of the enlargement of the sewer plant caused by the growth of.the district and (4) some agreement or understanding with the County regarding zoning and land use control. Mayor Schwartz again stated he felt the proposal was unfair to the City of San Luis Obispo and its citiznes.without some guarantee that the County would control the present hap- hazard development in.the unincorp- orated areas which only increased the pressure for -furhter development of sewage treatment facilities. He concluded that he would only be interested in an agreement with the Service Area as it presently existed. The joint powers agreement was referred back to the City and County staffs for preparation of a new agreement based on the discussion which had taken place. City Council Minutes April 10, 1972 Page 5 4. On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Graham, the following resolution was introduced. RESOLUTION NO. 2294, a reso- lution approving the closing of State Highway for La Fiesta Parade. 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 5. Review of the City Council work program was contineud. 6. The City Council considered the Legislative Bulletin of the League of.California Cities dated March 24, 1972 and took the following actions: On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Mayor Schwartz, the Council supported A.B..385, Open Space Plans= Postpone effective date.(City #10) Motion.carried. Took no action on A.B. 301,.Environmental Quality (City #11). On motion of Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Gurnee, the Council supported A.B. 396. State Highway- Relinquishment (City #12). Motion carried. Took no action on A.B. 200,:Coastal'!: zone- regul6tion.:6f.dev ®lopment (City #13) Took no action on A.B. 419, Housing Commissioners, numbers, tenants. (City #14) On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Graham, the Council supported A.B. 376, Subdivisions, Parcel Map. Dedication f Park Purposes. (City #15). Motion carried. On motion of Mayor.Schwartz, seconded by Councilman Brown, the Council supported ACA 31, Mandatory Programs, State Subventions, (City #16). Motion carried. On motion of Councilman Blake, seconded by Councilman Gurnee, the Council supported A.B. 974, County Services, Costs paid by Beneficiaries (City #17) Motion carried. On motion of Councilman Blake, seconded by Mayor Schwartz, the Council supported S. B. 411. Sales and Use Taxes: Utility Exemption Eliminatec (City #18). Motion carried with Councilman Brown abstaining due to possible conflict of interest. On motion of Mayor Schwartz, seconded by Councilman Blake, the Council opposed the following: A. B. 452 (City No. 20) Policemen and Firemen. Pensions. ACA 50 (City No. 21) Policement and Firemen, Uniform Retirement and Disability Allowance. A. B. 73 (City No. 22) Liability. Policemen. A. B. 599 (City No. 23) Workmen's Compensation. Safety members, Disability Leave. S. B. 437 (City No. 24) Campers. Living In on City street permitted. 1 1 J City Council Minutes April 10, 1972 Page 6 7. Councilman Blake brought to the Council's attention that the TGIF held on Phillips Lane on Friday, April 7, did not conform to the Human Relations Commission's TGIF rules of self - governing parties. He continued that in addition to parking violations, noise and sanitary problems, a number of motor vehicle accidents occurred in the vicinity which were attributable to the liquor sold at the TG. He stated this information was given by those involved in the accidents when questioned about where they had acquired their alcoholic beverages. Police Chief Rodgers agreed with the comments made by Counc.ilman Blake that the TGIF did not comply with the self - regulation rules recommended by the Human Relations Commission. Councilman Blake also reminded the Council that the meeting held in Santa Rosa Park on Sunday, April 9 was extremely noisy and he had received many complaints as did the Police Department because of the noise from the loud speakers, although he did state that no alcoholic beverages were sold at the meeting but the participants brought their own. E. L. Rodgers then read from the Police Department complaint log for Friday, April 7 from the hours of 1500 to 1900 regarding the TG on Phillips Lane. He requested that the City Council take immediate action to ban all TG's in the City unless they conform to existing enacted laws and not self - established rules. He also felt the City Council should require that anyone using a City park should comply with what normal people did when in a public park. The City Council then discussed at .length with the Police Chief and other members of the City staff the use of City parks for meetings, rallies, TG's, etc. 1 On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Graham, that the City Council request the Human Relations Commission and the intra fraternity council to ,look into the Police Chief's charges regarding the TG on Phillips Lane and the meeting at Santa Rosa Park, and that all such parties be suspended until the investigation had been completed and that the City would not tolerate any violations to State law. Motion carried. 8. The City Council adjourned to executive session. 9. On motion of Councilman Blake, seconded by Councilman Brown, the meeting adjourned to 12:10 P. M., Tuesday, April 11, 1972. Motion carried. APPROVED: May 15, 1972 i PATRICK, CITY CLERK L