Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/15/1965REGULAR MEETING OF CITY COUNCIL March 15, 1965 - 7:30 P. M. CITY HALL Invocation was given by Mayor Clay P. Davidson Roll Call I Present: Clay P. Davidson, R.L. Graves, Jr., Miss Margaret McNeil, Donald Q. Miller, Clell W. Whelchel City Staff Present: P. Chapman, Director of Planning and Building; J. H. Fitzpatrick, City Clerk; Wm. Flory, Superintendent of Parks and Recreation; W. M..Houser, City Attorney; R. D. Miller, Administrative Officer; D. F. Romero,. City Engineer; L. Schlobohm, Fire Chief; W. Schofield, Police Chief; E. P. Thompson, Water Superintendent. On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded.by Councilman Graves, the minutes of February 15, 1965 were approved as presented and the minutes of March 1, 1965 were approved as corrected. They were corrected as follows: Page 8, Paragraph 10 - Should read: "Mayor Davidson stated he appreciated the people coming out.as this was one way that the public could get their views across. He stated that this was the reason he voted to pass the or- dinance to print so that the public could have their say." On motion of Councilman Whelchel, seconded by Councilman Graves, claims against the City for the Month of March 1965 were approved subject to the approval of the Administrative Officer. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. On motion of Councilman Graves, seconded by Councilwoman McNeil, the following salary step increase was approved: THOMPSON, Viki L., Junior Draftsman, from Step-1 at $365 to Step 2 at $385 per month, effective April 1, 1965. 2. The following communcation was.received from the Planning Commission regarding Council approval of building permit on Hill Street: "The Planning Commission recently approved a variance to permit an addition to a building on Hill Street which would encroach on the rear yard. The City Engineer pointed out that some eight years ago, the Council instructed the Building Department not to issue building permits on private streets without the Council's approval. I therefore request permission to issue a building permit for this development on receipt of an acceptable plan." Planning Director Chapman explained the problems and recommended that the Council approve the permit. On motion of Councilman Whelchel, seconded by Councilman Miller, the per- mit-was approved and ordered issued. Motion carried. 3. At this time the City Council continued discussion of Highland Drive extension. Mayor Davidson explained to the public present the background and need to extend Highland Drive from Cuesta Drive to the Ferrini Road - Chorro Street intersection. The Mayor explained the meetings held.and items discussed in attempting to acquire the necessary property for the extension of High- land Drive to help alleviate the traffic congestion on Foothill Boulevard. City Council Minutes March 15, 1965 Page 2 Mayor Davidson suggested that the City Council delay action on this matter until the studies have been completed by the Division of Highways for the new entrance to Cal Poly that will determine the route of Highland Drive. Councilman Graves presented a draft of a letter to be sent to Cal Poly making a proposal for acquiring the land needed for extension of Highland Drive and suggested that the City proceed to make this offer to the college: ' 1. Outright purchase of the property described and shown on the en- closed description and map for fair market value; or 2. Grant to the City the enclosed easement on the following conditions: (a) Cal Poly would have the right to relocate said easement to connect to a public right of way in connection with the pro- posed new entrance to the College. (b) A one foot non - access strip would be retained by the City, preventing abutting property owners on the.south from gaining access to the easement. (c) The City will improve said easement for two travelled lanes and will relocate or replace the fence on the north side of said easement. (d) A price would be agreed upon at this time for the.value.of the easement which the City would be required to pay in the event Cal Poly determines that no relocation of said ease- ment is required. (e) The restriction on the City's acquisition of this easement would be lifted in five (5) years, or sooner if the State was able to arrive at an alternate satisfactory route." On motion of Councilman Graves, seconded by Councilman Miller, that the Mayor be authorized to send a letter to Cal Poly for their comments with a limit of five (5) years for non - access to adjacent property or sooner if they arrived at an alternate route and did not need this property. Mayor Davidson urged that the Council wait until the Division of Highways' studies have been completed. Councilman Whelchel stated he agreed that the City should wait the two weeks for the completed highway department study before making any pro- posal to the College. Councilman Miller urged that the City proceed immediately and negotiate with Cal Poly while the engineering work is being prepared for the im- provement of Highland Drive. Archie Lux objected to the letter policy of cutting off the adjacent property owners from having access to the new street and hurting the property owner in.the pocket.book as he felt that the.Council should consider the property owners' rights in this matter. He also stated he felt that the property owners would pay for their share of the street improvement if they could use the street. He felt that.the present proposal for Highland Drive is poor planning and no good for the City or the adjacent property owners. City Engineer Romero explained the history of the project. Al Starkie reminded the Council of the recent apartment house rezoning that was approved on the basis that this development would use Highland Drive for access to the apartment house. City Attorney Houser_ explained Cal Poly's reason for requiring the non- access by adjoining property owners. He stated that until the engineer - ing was completed on the new road access to the campus that Cal Poly would not be sure that they would not have to relocate this portion of Highland Drive and that if access was presently given to the adjoining property owners, then the relocation costs would be prohibitive because the ad- jacent property owners would have to be reimbursed for the future denial of access. City Council Minutes March 15, 1965 Page 3 Mr. Batchelor asked what the rush is for action this evening when the engineering studies will not be completed for two (2) weeks. Councilman Graves.explained that the conditions in the letter are the only ones that Cal Poly will consider at this time and have so notified the City Council Committee. Mayor Davidson again urged the Council to delay action until the engin- eering studies have been completed which will be within two (2) weeks. City Attorney Rouser explained that this letter is not an agreement and would not be binding on either the City Council or Cal Poly. That it was a statement of basis principles which, if acceptable by Cal Poly, would be the basis for a complete agreement which could spell out the time limits and extension problems that either party wished to have inserted. Motion carried on the following vote: AYES: Miss Margaret McNeil, R.L. Graves, Jr., Donald Q. Miller. NOES: Clay P. Davidson, Clell W. Whelchel ABSENT: None On motion of Councilman Graves, seconded by Councilman Miller, that the Division of Highways be requested to do a study and ask that it be completed in two (2) weeks. Motion carried. 5. At this time the City Council held a public hearing on the recom- mendation of the Planning Commission to amend the City's General Plan . of March 14, 1961. Mayor Davidson declared the public hearing open. The following communication was received from the Planning Commission: "Resolution No. 26 -65 of the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council amend the General Plan which was adopted on March 14, 1961. These amendments were discussed with the City Council at a study session sometime ago and have been approved in principle by the County Planning Commission. The Commission has held a public hearing on the amendments and met with the School Board, also representatives of the Park Commission,.and the Economic Development Committee. There were no objections to the pro- posed amendments. Highway I freeway-location has been omitted, but the Planning Commission feels that the changes proposed to the industrial and commercial cate- gories are sufficiently important to justify amending the Plan at this time. A further amendment could be made if necessary, after adoption of a freeway route. The Commission further recommends that after adoption by the City, the amended Plan be recommended for adoption by the County and that the City have copies printed for distribution." Planning Director Chapman explained the proposed amendments to the Plan and the philosophy behind them. Mayor Davidson commented that he felt that the General Plan seemed to lack the proper planning for industrial development along the railroad tracks for example, four out of the last five industrial contacts made to the City required railroad sidings in order to consider a location. City Council Minutes March 15, 1965 Page 4 Planning Director Chapman pointed out that the amended Plan provides.for industrial sites adjoining the railroad, but the area was reduced to al- low for industry adjoining the freeway and still keep the total area for industry within reasonable limits. He felt that even the reduced total area proposed was far in excess:of any foreseeable industrial demand. Councilman Miller stated that he agreed with the Mayor that the Planning Commission should have given more consideration to the industrial devel- opment potential along the Souther Pacific Railroad right -of -way, par- ticularly a strip east of the right -of -way for industrial development. Councilman Miller continued that he did not feel that any great residen- tial development would be made along the railroad right -of -way. On motion of Councilman Millers seconded by Mayor Davidson, that the matter be referred to the Planning Commission for further study of in dustrial development along the Southern Pacific Railroad right -of -way. Councilman Graves stated that the Planning Commission has spent a lot of time on this General Plan amendment, and that it must be reviewed an- nually and felt that the Council should adopt the plan. He reminded the Council that they had approved the amendment in principle when they met with the Commission. Mayor Davidson again urged that further study be made to make adequate lands available for industry along the railroad. Councilman Whelchel stated he felt that regardless of the plan, he was sure that if an industry wanted to come to San.Luis Obispo, that the Council would let them go wherever they wanted to go within reason regardless of what is on the map.. Further, he felt that the main reason we don't have industry is because there are no.utilities avail- able for their development in the part of the Plan shown for industrial I development. Mayor Davidson stated he felt that the City should protect industrial land along the railroad so that when industrial prospects come along, property will be available for development. Ed-:Callas,._Real.Estate operator from Ventura, stated that San Luis Obispo area was not ready yet.for" development, but when it is ready, he felt that the land along the railroad must be protected for poten- tial industrial development. Mr. Lux stated he felt that the property owners should be allowed to develop his property as he sees fit and then have the City make the map to fit the uses. He did not feel that the City has the right to tell a man how to use his property or how to develop it. Councilman Miller stated he felt the Planning Commission should restudy the Plan, particularly the industrial areas and the area along the railroad and that the City Council should meet with the Planning Com- mission for discussion of their ideas on this matter. Motion carried. 4. At this time the City Council discussed ORDINANCE NO. 301, an ordinance ' amending certain provisions of the Municipal Code for collection and dis- posal of garbage, providing for compulsory service and amending garbage rates. The following report was received from Mayor Davidson: City Council Minutes March 15, 1965 Page 5 "The Refuse Committee met on Wednesday, March 10, 1965. My interpre- tation of the meeting is that.it was generally agreed there was a need for an expanded service in the City of San Luis Obispo. However, there was some question as to the compulsory application of this expanded service and the rate to be charged. The Committee came to no general recommendation. Therefore, it seems that there will be at least three minority reports on this meeting for the Council's consideration. I would suggest to the Council that the matter be placed on a straw ballot and that the rate and type of service be given the choice of the electorate in the following manner: 1. That the service be continued on its present basis at the $2.10 rate; or 2. That the expanded service be offered at the $2.50 rate. As expressed before, I believe that the need of the community is for the expanded service and that a good majority of the citizens within the community will be best served by this service and that the $2.50 rate is, at least in my opinion, fair." The following communication was received from Councilman Donald Q. Miller: "The garbage.or.refuse committee met with Mrs. LaDonna Alcott and Mr. Robert Rose of the Citizens Committee. From the discussion I suggest the following: The question of voluntary vs. compulsory refuse service be decided by a voice of the people. The straw vote could be held at the April 13 Municipal Election. The following is a suggested proposal: 1. Voluntary refuse service at the rate of $2.10 a month. ' 2. Compulsory refuse service at the rate of $1.80 a month. I would further suggest that this Council pledge by resolution to pass an ordinance to print on the type of refuse service approved by the voters. In closing I wish to thank Mrs. Alcott and Mr. Rose for their suggestions and cooperation during our meeting." Mrs. Alcott presented her recommendations for garbage and refuse collection and disposal of garbage as follows: "Our review of the City Council's survey reveals: 1. Two can colleciton was assumed in the suggested rates in the City's survey. 2. The report further states that with the advent of compulsory service a 14% decrease in rates would be in order. 3. Without going into minute detail we feel that many of the cost figures are exaggerated all out of proportion. 4. While we realize that compulsory garbage collection can be legally crammed down our throats, we must morally object to losing this freedom of choice. 5. We recommend that service be on a voluntary basis with the City Council acting to enforce laws against littering and that the vol- untary rubbish and garbage pick -up.be compatible in rate and service with other cities of this size. 6. That the rates come up for review one (1) year after the ordinance is passed. 7. We recommend as our last, but far from least, recommendation, that the garbage company pick -up "combined refuse" once a week for a flat rate. Mr. B. A. Rose & Mrs. Alcott" City Council Minutes March 15, 1965 Page 6 Dr. Mullin made the following recommendations for the Council's consider- ation relative to collection and disposal of garbage: "I have talked to a great many.people over the weekend relative to the garbage ordinance 1301. As you know, I have been very interested in maintaining the beauty of our City. Therefore, may we suggest.or recommend some amendments or changes in the ordinance and clauses. 1. Anyone found littering garbage in or around the City of San Luis Obispo should be fined. 2. Anyone storing or keeping garbage that would create a health problem should be immediately notified and if some action is not taken the health authorities should be notified. 3. We also suggest the Section 5200.6 B stating that "collection services be mandatory" be changed to "collection services be voluntary ". 4. Office buildings should also be on a voluntary basis and many of the letters and papers are privileged communications and are burned. 5. We do not think that the City should subsidize private industry. 6. Payments for garbage collection months in advance is not too desireable. 7. Shutting off the water in case of non - payment would leave the City open for law suits, especially if there were sick or old people, and more especially if there were children in the home." Art Blackwell questioned the right of the City to require compulsory service as this is against the basic rights of the United States Constitution. He also questioned the cost shown in the Brown and Caldwell Report,.such as salaries and capital costs for equipment. Mrs. Huett, Crestview Circle, objected to the present standards and level of service for garbage collection, which is terrible. ' Art Blackwell objected to the treatment that the customers receive.at the hands of the San Luis Garbage Company when a complaint is made as to the level of service. Further, he vehemently is opposed.to the re- quirement of compulsory refuse service. ' Leland Shankland stated he too had received poor service from the garbage company and no reduction in the rate was made when collecitons wem missed. Councilman Graves asked the City Engineer what was current cost of tractors, dozers, ripper and grader. City Engineer Romero stated that the cost of a D -8 with dozer and ripper for $48,000 and scraper for about $20,000 or a total of $68,000. He fur- ther stated he felt that the estimate was high as no consideration was given to salvage at the end of-the useful life of the equipment. Mr. Rose stated that he could get this equipment for a much less cost at about one -third (1/3) if the cost estimated by the consultants. Mrs. Alcott stated that Mr. Cattaneo told her that he bought second hand equipment and that he paid $24,000 for it. Bill Loeper, Lunetta Drive, stated he felt that the proposed equipment was too big for the proposed project. Mr. Lux questioned the estimated salary of $8,000 for a gate keeper at the new dump. Dr. Mullin asked if the service was to be mandatory or voluntary. This was the main question tonight, he felt. Mrs. Huett asked if it were true that the Council was going to put this matter on the ballot and then ram it through to the people. City Council Minutes March 15, 1965 Page 7 Mayor Davidson stated that the use of a straw ballot was discussed so that the majority of the citizens could decide the issue. Councilman Miller stated he felt after the committee meeting that the straw ballot was a good idea. Mrs. Alcott stated she objected to the suggestion of compulsory service at $1.80 or voluntary at $2.10 being on the ballot as she felt that the straw vote should read only, "voluntary or compulsory refuse service." Mr. Alcott urged the City Council, when considering the straw ballot, that compulsory or voluntary not be tied into the rate as he felt this would be unfair, and would intimidate the voters. He suggested that the rate should be two (2) cans for $1.80 per month, or complete pick -up of all rubbish and trash for say $2.25 or $2.50 per month. Mr. Shankland asked once the rates are set is any consideration given to cost of living changes either up or down and are the rates ever reduced. Martha Soper objected to be required to pay the City for her garbage col- lection as she would rather pay it to the garbage man. City Attorney Houser explained.the reason for the City's colleciton of gar- bage rate. Daisey Dyer asked if the City can collect the fees why don't they pick up the garbage. Art Blackwell stated he objected to the inference by the Mayor that only people who do not take garbage are objecting to this ordinance. He stated this is not true, as many citizens objected to loss of their right of choice. Jack Williams stated it was obvious to everyone that no one present wanted compulsory garbage service and hoped that the Council would take a hand count to see what the group desired. Mr. Blackwell asked the Council to table this proposal until a further study was made of the questionable costs in the report. Mayor Davidson stated that it was obvious to him that after eleven hours of study he was sure that no one wanted compulsory service. Therefore, he felt this should be taken out of the ordinance and then have the consultant review the suggested rates in view of actual cost to garbage company for equipment, etc., now available for consideration. Mrs. Thompson asked was not the Council elected to make the decisions for the people and not bring in another consultant to restudy the same matter. On motion of Mayor Davidson, seconded by Councilman Whelchel, that the com- pulsory provisions of the ordinance be removed and request the consultants, Brown & Caldwell, to review their report in view of actual costs to date. Bill Loeper stated he felt that in considering the costs and receipts of the garbage company, the City should also consider the collection of garbage and refuse outside the City as well as receipt inside the City. ' Mrs. Alcott stated she felt that t based on the information they have as the Council was elected to make Mayor Davidson stated he felt that did not know the final location of which has now been purchased. ie C and the the the Lty Council not put it decisions. consultant dump nor t should make a decision out to someone out of town at the time of the survey ze actual cost of equipment Mayor Davidson declared the public hearing closed. Motion carried unanimously. City Council Minutes March 15, 1965 Page 8 Councilman Whelchel stated that if the matter of the City collecting for the garbage is n6t a part of the motion, then he felt that the City should not, under any conditions, collect garbage fees. 7. At this time the City Council held a public hearing on the report of the Superintendent of Streets for cost of work for installation of curb, gutter and sidewalk on the following described properties: Mayor Davidson declared the public hearing open. W. M. & L. S. Kiger Construct 50 lineal feet of curb & $345.00 1053 Murray Street gutter including a 10' bottom driveway ramp. Revise driveway back of the new ramp with com- pacted base material. R. A. & I. Gearing 1021 Murray Street R. L. & J. Russell 1302 Palm Street (Johnson Ave.Side) Construct 621� lineal feet of $395.00 curb and gutter including a 10' bottom driveway ramp. Construct a 49 lineal feet of $325:00 7'5" wide sidewalk and 171-i lineal feet of 7'5" wide driveway ramp adjacent to existing curb. The following persons requested the three (3) year option plan: H. & D. Hicks Construct..651ineal. feet of 6" $496.00 1067 Murray Street integral sidewalk, curb.and gutter including a 15' radius return backfill & slope yard back of new sidewalk. H. L. & R. M. McKeen Remove brick planter., house $565.00 1780 Johnson Avenue walk, step and landing, con - (Lizzie St. side) struct 145 lineal feet of 5'5" wide sidewalk adjacent to curb and construct four house walk steps. Slope bank back of new sidewalk. E. M. & L. O'Reilly. Construct 49 lineal feet of 6' $380.00 1991 Garfield Street integral sidewalk, curb and gutter including a 20' bottom commercial.driveway ramp. T. I. & A. E. O'Reilly 140 lineal feet 5'S" wide side- $1,750.00 700 Grand Avenue walk including 15' bottom driveway (also Garfield St.side) ramp 157 lin. ft. 6' integral sidewalk, curb, & gutter (Garfield side) 16 lin.ft. revised & compact redrock driveway -back of new ramp. Remove.& dispose of trees & shrubs. in,construction area - slope yard. Mayor Davidson declared the public hearing closed. On motion of Councilman Graves; seconded by Councilman Miller, the following resolution was introduced. RESOLUTION NO. 1395, a resolution confirming costs of sidewalks constructed pursuant to the.Municipal Code. Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote: AYES: Clay P. Davidson, R. L. Graves, Jr., Miss Margaret McNeil, Donald Q. Miller NOES: None ABSENT: None City Council Minutes March 15, 1965 Page 9 6. -At this time the City Council held a public hearing on the recommendation of the Planning Commission to amend the Zoning Ordinance and to amend the Code dealing with Fire Zones. Mayor Davidson declared the public hearing open. The following letter was received from the Planning Commission: "Resolution No. 31 -65 of the Planning Commission recommends the adoption of amendments to the Zoning Ordinance previously sent to the Council, re- vised according to the attached document: These revisions have been made in the light of the public hearings and are based on recommendations made by the Building Contractor's Association, local realtors, and others." The proposed amendments are as follows: "These changes are primarily concerned with amendments to the R districts: 1. To bring them up to date with current zoning trands. 2. To add new districts in keeping with trends of development in San Luis Obispo. 3. To reduce the number of use permits required. 4. To allow for new concepts in housing such as town houses, patio houses, etc., by permitting the reduction of rear and side yards to zero under certain conditions. R- District Changes R -1 and R -2 districts are retained substantially as.at present. R -3 and R -4 districts are retained temporarily with the intention of gradually phasing them out on the Zoning Map and substituting the proposed R -H, R -0, and R -C districts. The R -H district is intended to provide a purely residential high density district without the problems inherent in the present R -3 district. The R -O district provides for offices and other compatible uses. R -C is sub- stantially the same as the present R -4. Other Changes Other major changes involve the addition of parking regulations to ensure that all new parking lots are constructed to City standards and landscaped; increases in minimum lot sizes for major.uses such as schools, motels, etc.; modified yard requirements; standards for minimum distances between build- ings; open space standards for multiple family developments. The number of hearings on rezoning and Planned Developments will be reduced. Other changes are mainly concerned with the simplification of language, omission of items which are duplicated and clarification of procedures. Fire Regulations At the request of the Fire Chief, the Planning Commission considered the desirability of making the Fire Zone map changes automatically to reflect zone changes and annexations." Planning Director Chapman reviewed the proposed amendments to the ordinance and the changes which had been made by the Planning Commission in-light of their public hearings. Jim Beam, County Building Contractors' Association, asked that the proposed ordinance be tabled for more study as it requires too much open space which means the loss of units which become a financial burden to developers. He objected further to the required decision by the Building Department of specific types and grades of trees for landscaping. City Council Minutes March 15, 1965 Page 10 Jack Farris, building contractor, asked that a committee of the Council-and building contractors be appointed to study the overall ordinance. He stated that under the present ordinance you can get twelve (12) apartments on a lot where under the proposed ordinance you can get only eight (8) or nine (9) and you can see what that would do to the cost of the land for development. Mayor Davidson suggested that the Contractors' Association come up with I some objections in writing so that they can be compared with the proposed ordinance. Councilman Graves agreed that this was the best approach and that this should be done at a study session. Ed Rodgers appeared before the Council and stated he was in general accord with the proposal and hoped that the Council would adopt the ordinance as it is a good one. Dorothy Bilodeau asked that as she owns property in an R -2 zone, would she have her property automatically zoned to something else. Planning Director Chapman stated that as she now has a non - conforming use,' she would continue to be a non - conforming use if the new proposals are adopted. Roy Hoover, Rockview Place, asked for clarification of R -1 requirements when a second dwelling is placed on the same lot. Planning Director Chapman explained the method of dividing the lots in an R -1 zone. Kenneth Schwartz, Planning Commission Chairman, urged that the-City Council proceed with the adoption of the proposed amendments to the ' Zoning Ordinance. He stated that he and the Planning Commission felt that they had a fair ordinance and have attempted to meet all the ob - jections of the public and the County Building Contractors' Association and that they have held many meetings and urged the adoption of these changes. George Sleeter, contractor, objected to the off - street parking require- ments for R -1 dwellings. He continued that due to the type of people-who are renting property that the open space will put the ratio of land costs to building costs out of line so that developers cannot come out on their investments. This open space and parkjng requirement is going to require an increase-in rent in order to pay out the investment. Further, he feels that the City should increase the side yard space requirement to five (5) feet instead of the present four (4) feet setback on the side yard. Mr. Gifford, Contractors' Association, asked.if, in making the apartment survey, was any apartment building included that left land available for further development, Planning Director Chapman stated he did not believe so as each parcel has as many buildings as can be put on the lot. John Evans, Planning Commission member, urged that the present Council make the decision and approve these amendments and not leave it to the . next City Council to make the decision. The matter was held over to the meeting of March 22, 1965 at 9:00 P.M. 19. At this time the City Council discussed further the sites for the proposed Junior High School. The following letter was received from Mayor Clay P. Davidson: City Council Minutes March 15, 1965 Page 11 "The Council committee appointed to:work with the School Board on the proposed exchange of the Laguna.Lake Park site for an alternate site on Los Osos Road for the construction of a new junior high school has been meeting periodically. The School and City staffs have been working on comparative costs of providing utilities for the two sites and have determined that the Los Osos Road site would cost some $30,000 to $65,000 more to serve than the Park site. The School Board has received a report from its engineers which indicates a site development cost for the Los Osos Road parcel which would run some $51,000 greater than the Park site. It is our understanding that the School Board is anxious to make a decision on the site location prior to the bond.election which will occur on April 13. It is also our-under- standing that because of the difference in development costs and the capital outlay required by theCity which would amount to some $125;000 making a grand total of approximately a. quarter of a million dollars in overall public funds, the School Board would not object to developing the new junior high on.Park property. In fact, there seems to be an optomistic outlook in developing a joint School -City recreation facility which would be compatible in many respects. In order to present the Council with a complete Administrative Officer, Richard D. Miller and I the Lamoro Company to determine whether or not its price or make other concessions which might ential between the two sites. I am enclosing a the Company which indicates a negative response report on this subject, arranged a meeting with the Company could reduce narrow the cost differ - copy of a letter from to this inquiry. The above information is presented for the Council's information with a recommendation that the Council endorse the building of a new junior high school on Laguna Lake Park property." ' The following letter was received from Lamoro. Company: "We wish to thank the City School Board and the City Council for the consideration they have shown us in regard to the proposed purchase of our 25 acres on Los Osos Road for a Junior High School site. We regret that we have been unable to offer our site below cost and that we can offer no concessions to effect the purchase." The following letter was received from the Park & Recreation Commission: "The Park & Recreation Commission held its regular meeting March 11, 1965. Mr. Chapman and Mr. Romero presented the General Plan and Lamoro Develop- ment Plan. Your Commission requested recommendations on recreation in regard to the General Plan. The main points are listed below: On motion by Wink Hollister, seconded by Jim Douglas and passed (Mrs. Carscaden voted NO because of the geographical location) the Park and Recreation Commission recommended the Junior High School be located on the present Laguna Lake property. REASONS: 1) Adjacent school grounds to park area can best be utilized by City for joint recreational development. 2) Location of proposed ' Junior High School on Lamoro property will not benefit the area geograph- ically until Lamoro development plan is completed. This would require additional secondary schools. On motion of Jim Douglas, seconded by Wink Hollister and passed, the Park and Recreation Commission recommended the City not grant public access to Laguna Lake through Lamoro development land. REASONS: 1) Small land areas would be a maintenance burden to this department. 2) There is enough public access to the Lake from the City owned Laguna Lake Park property. However, the Commission would allow the home owners in the Lamoror development plan access to the alke if they or the developer owned the property and either /or both maintained it." City Council Minutes March 15, 1965 Page 12 Kenneth Schwartz,-Planning Commission Chairman, stated that the.Planning Commission would be disappointed in the action of not placing.the new junior high school on Los Osos Road and that the location on the Laguna Lake is a poor location for a school.and that future generations will need every inch of open space for recreation and urged that the Council not take any action this evening endorsing the use of the Laguna Park site for school construction. Administrative Officer Miller stated that the City was informed that at least three (3) members of the School Board were in.favor of the park site in view of the excessive cost of the development of the Los Osos Road site. Mayor Davidson stated that the Council Committee and School Board had made many studies in order to try and use the Lamoro site in lieu of the park site, but after a thorough study was made, with.all the facts being known,.that the Laguna Park site.was the most.reasonable and practical. Councilman Miller stated that he was always.opposed to the sale of City park property to.the School District. Councilman Whelchel stated he agreed with the statement of Mr. Schwartz, but that it was strictly a matter of dollars and cents with the School District. Administrative Officer.Miller said the $125,000 was not provided for and it was probably that next year's capital improvement program would have to be cut to ribbons if the City had to come up with this amount of money. On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Graves, that the City Council recommend to the School Board that they build the junior high school on the Los Osos Road site. Motion carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: Miss Margaret McNei1,.R.L. Graves, Jr., Donald Q. Miller NOES: Clay P. Davidson, Clell W. Whelchel ABSENT: None On motion of.Mayor Davidson,-seconded by Councilman Miller, the meeting adjourned at 12:20 P.M. to March 22, 1965. Motion carried. I. FIMATRICK, CITY CLERK APPROVED: April 5, 1965 1 1 1