HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/20/1998, A1-1 - PLANNING COMMISSION APPOINTMENT Al. PLANNING COMMISSION APPOINTMENT (ROMERO/SCHWARTZ/305-02)
Consideration of appointing one new member to the Planning Commission.
♦ RECOMMENDATION: Report will be submitted under separate cover pending the
results of the subcommittee interviews on Friday, October 16"'.
Al- I
council
j agenda Rpm h..Ntmba�i
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: Vice Mayor, Dave Romero and Council Member, Ken Schwartz
Council Subcommittee to the Promotional Coordinating Committee
Prepared By: Mary Kopecky IN'—
SUBJECT:
nJ—SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION
Delay appointments of new Planning Commissioners until the November 10, 1998 City Council
meeting.
DISCUSSION
A vacancy in the Planning Commission was created with the resignation of John Ashbaugh. The
Council Subcommittee conducted Planning Commission interviews on Friday, October 16, 1998
to fill the unexpired term to end on 3/21/2000. Given the fact that two Planning Commissioners
are running for City Council, there is a potential for more than one vacancy on the Planning
Commission. The Council Subcommittee is therefore recommending that the appointments to
the Planning Commission be deferred until the November 10, 1998 Council meeting.
CK%MCa E56DD SIR
rXo car�,
MLr-
RNEY [21,:.
&CI ERKIORIG dCLIG_
❑ RE9 DIR
DIR
p, ERS DIR
nei ( 1-I c,�bn ke�orf
MEMN AGENDA
DATE ITEM #--e-�-�--
to
� moAftUpheld° ks
-- .
DIR
Validity of Majority Vote for General Tax
As many sources of local government garded the advisory spending priorities. The Court concluded that under the
revenues remain in jeopardy, the Sixth However, it concluded that the undis- Farrell definition (above) the tax was a
District Court of Appeals handed down puted, unambiguous content of the "general" tax that did not require a
a decision to Santa Clara County that measures established as a matter of law two-thirds vote.
was happily received by local govern- that Measure B was a general tax. The In the Santa Clara County case,
ments across the state. Court found the 'underlying motives" opponents of the tax claimed that the
The June 6, 1998 ruling affirmed the of those who proposed the measures intended use of the tax (transportation
validity of the County's "bifurcated" irrelevant. improvements) made it a special tax
sales tax increase, Measure A and B of In reaching its decision, the Court like the justice improvements in the
1996. For local governments state- relied on a series.of legal decisions that Rider case.
wide,the decision paves the way for defined and distinguished "general" The Court disagreed, instead
tax increases with majority votes and "special" taxes. adopting the analysis and conclusion in
accompanied by "advisory' measures In City and County of San Francisco Neecke (above). Both are imposed by
regarding preferred expenditure of the v. Farrell (32 Cal.3d 47) from 1982, the general governmental entities (a city or
tax revenues. court ruled on the extension of a tax county, and not a special purpose
The Court concluded that Measure B that was approved by a simple majority agency); and the tax revenues in both
was a "general tax' and not subject vote. In this case, the California cases are directed to general funds
to 'supermajority' (two-thirds) voter Supreme Court held that "a levy placed available for general governmental
approval requirements applicable to in the general fund to be utilized for purposes.
'special taxes.' general governmental purposes" is not The Court acknowledged that
The November 1996 ballot in Santa a special tax requiring a two-thirds Measures A and B were closely related
Clara County included Measure A (the vote. to each other, but emphasized that
'advisory' measure) and Measure B Several years later, in Rider v- relationship does not establish as a
(the half cent sales tax increase). County of San Diego 0 CalAth 1) in matter of law that the two must be
Measure A was approved by 77.6 1991, the Court affirmed, but restricted; considered as one.
percent of the voters; Measure B was the application of 'special' and "gen- On the contrary, the measures were
approved by 51.8 percent. eral' taxes. In this case, the San Diego not legally connected; the spending
Opponents of the tart argued that the County Regional Justice Facility priorities in Measure A were not
trial court erred in its determination Financing Agency adopted a tax that compulsory. And the validity of
that Measure B was a "general" tax was approved by a simple majority neither. measure was dependent on
without regard to "an intent" to circum- vote. The funds went into the agency's the passage of the other.
vent two-thirds vote requirements for general fund to finance construction As the Neecke decision pointed
special taxes. and operation of various judicial out, courts are aware but not con-
In its decision, the Court of Appeal facilities. The Supreme Court held that cerned that governmental entities
reviewed the ballot arguments, which a "special tax' is one "levied to fund a might try to replace reduced property
emphasized that Measure A was specific governmental project or taxes by enacting 'general fund"
advisory only and "not controlling' on program, such as the construction and taxes like those in Farrell, NVeecke.
the sponsoring legislative body. For financing of the County's justice and other cases. Indeed, the Court in
Measure B, the ballot again stated that facilities.' Therefore, any tax imposed Neecke also opined that consider-
'the County is not in any way legally by a special, limited purpose agency ation of a government's motivation
bound to use the tax monies for any was, by definition, a special tax in that for enacting a general fund tax would
special purpose or for any particular it was earmarked for specific, rather violate the rule that, except in "rare
project or projects.' The Court also than general, governmental purposes. circumstances,' courts must deter-
quoted opponents of the tax who, in Finally, in Neecke v. City of Mill mine the validity of legislation by its
the ballot pamphlet, relied on the Valley (39 Cal.App.946) of 1996, the own terms and not the motives of- or
argument that there "is no assurance city adopted an ordinance reimposing a influences upon- the legislators who
this tax would be spent where (voters) "municipal services tax' that would be enacted it.
would like it to go. It is just a huge collected by the county and placed The Santa Clara decision concludes
blank check!' 'into the general fund of [the city] and that Propositions 13 and 62 were n
The Court "astutely observed' that may be used for any and all municipal intended to make it more difficult .
.there could be 'adverse political purposes.' The tax was approved by raise all new taxes, only those legally
fallout' if county supervisors disre- majority vote. earmarked for specific purposes.
C-8-12
STATE OF CJILIFORNW--BUSINESS,TMWSPa;rrAflON AND HOUSING AGENCY PEM yylLSOK
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION "-'��R I
NT
w Hip M Street
SAN LUIS OBISPO,C+4OWl-6415
T8JUL 3 0 1998
EPHONE:(805)648 ii,I
TDD(805)648.4289 �
COUNCIL OF GVV�ANPAEMTS
July 27, 1998
Ron DeCarli
Executive Director
San Luis Obispo Council of Governments
1150 Osos Street, Suite 202
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Ron:
I would like to thank you and your staff for reviewing our 1998
Mid-Cycle SHOPP candidate list, as well as your recommendation
regarding the addition of two new projects to this list.
Sharon Fasulo, a member of .my staff, met with Mike Grantham,
District 5 Chief of Staff, and Nevin Sams,Traffic Department' s
HB4N (Operational Improvements) /HB1 (Safety) Project Coordinator.
Nevin indicated that both the shoulder widening project on Route
1 near Hearst Castle and improvements to Highway 1, between
Valley Road and Halcyon, would be HB4N.
Safety projects are always the number one priority on any SHOPP
list, followed by pavement and bridge rehabilitation projects,
and next by operational improvements.
In light of available funding for the 98 Mid-cycle SHOPP, and the
necessity for several high priority median barrier and pavement
rehabilitation projects, we are unable to include either of the
two above suggested projects at this time.
The suggested project on Highway 1 between Valley and Halcyon
-Roads is impacted by new growth and development on the Nipomo
Mesa. If this is a high priority for San Luis Obispo Council of
Governments, we suggest. you consider placing this project in the
RTIP.
The Traffic Branch will continue to monitor the need for projects
like the ones you recommended.
Thank you for taking the time to review our 98 Mid-cycle SHOPP
and invite future comments and suggestions.
Sincerely,
G. K. Laumer
District Division Chief C-8-11
Division of Planning & Programming
MEE' AGENDA
DATEITEM # elve
memomnbum
October 7, 1998
TO: Council Colleagues
FROM: Dave Romer
SUBJECT: Liaison Report
At its meeting of October 7, 1998, SLOCOG received a report that SB 1477 had been vetoed by
the Governor. This is good news for San Luis Obispo in that it will allow us to proceed with an
allocation of almost five times as many funds from a Caltrans account. The allocation formula
approved makes available to San Luis Obispo almost$1 million additional to be spent for street
purposes.
The sound wall project along Highway 101 between Marsh and Broad was vetoed by the
Governor with little likelihood that funds would be available unless the City comes up with a
significant share. This project estimated at$900,000 might proceed on the basis of 1/3 funding
by Caltrans, 1/3 by COG, and 1/3 by the City. At the meeting I pointed out the basic unfairness
of the City having to contribute funds to correct a problem created by a regional highway. I also
pointed out that the City had huge street obligations and would be hard-pressed to find that sound
wall construction was a higher priority than street work.
Attached is an article given to SLOCOG members indicating Appellate Court approval regarding
an innovative method of funding road improvements in Santa Clara County. FEL3 -
UIXIL ^� DIR
O )
�C'...J LI i In
CAM ❑ REC,r.A
❑ UTIL DIR
0 PERS DIR
It appears that funding is available,with SLOCOG staff acting as the implementing agency, for
the installation of 33 call boxes at approximately every two miles on Route 166, east of Highway
101. This high priority project will be given the go-ahead within the next year.
The Governor's budget includes funds for COG to prepare regional housing needs allocations.
AB 438 (Torlakson) was passed giving local jurisdictions and regional agencies more power in
the allocation process. The new update of the Housing Element in our region must be completed
by 6/30/03. There appears to be a great deal more flexibility built into the relationships
regarding local jurisdiction determinations on housing needs allocations.
DR:ss
Attachment
SLOCOG OCT 98
GL�,
MEMO
To: City Council rs October 20, 1998
From: Ken Schw Copy: Lee Price, Clerk
Re: Report on ffCommittees Activities
Since our last Council meeting, I have met with the following groups to which I have been
assigned as a replacement to council member Kathy Smith.
Tuesday, October 13: Downtown Association Board meeting
Major discussion items included: Main Street Award;Downtown Cleanliness;Administrator's
Salary;Newspaper racks downtown as well as routine reports from Parking, Promotions,
Economic Activity and Thursday Night Activities(TNA) committee chairs.
Tuesday, October 13: Performing Arts Center Program Committee
Special meeting called to consider staff suggested revisions to policy documents regarding
priorities in the scheduling of events. Staff will consider suggestions of committee,rework the
policy statement accordingly and return revised document to committee for action.
WednesdaU. October 14: Subtle Sexual Harassment:
Attended two hour class put on by City's Personnel Division and required of all city employees.
Interesting!! Well done. Learned that I should be very subtle in hugging anyone in the work
place
Wednesday, October 14, Reco>mition Dinner for Jack House Docents:
Very nice bar-b-q dinner served by Park and Recreation Department staffunder tents in the Jack
House Gardens. This is an annual affair sponsored by the Jack House Committee to recognize the
many, many hours given by the vohmteer docents.
Thursday, October 15: Monthly EOC meeting:
Meeting canceled for lack of quorum;will meet October 22..
O EOUNCIL ❑CDD DIR
12'CAO ❑rill C.�
EKCAO ❑FIRE C;;._
❑ATTORNEY ❑PW DIR
M,6LE ❑POLICE CHF
[IMGMT TEAM O REC DIR
p O UTIL DIR
O�� O PERS DIR