Loading...
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