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