HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/15/1974MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
Monday, July 15, 1974 - 7:00 P.M.
City Hall
Pledge
' Roll Call
PRESENT:
City Staff
ABSENT:
John C. Brown, Myron Graham, T. Keith Gurnee,
Jesse Norris, and Mayor Kenneth E. Schwartz
None
PRESENT: J. H. Fitzpatrick, City Clerk; R. D. Miller,
Administrative Officer; A. J. Shaw, Jr.,
City Attorney; William Flory, Director of
Parks & Recreation; E. L. Rodgers, Police
Chief; D. F. Romero, City Engineer; Lee Schlobohm,
Fire Chief; Robert Strong, Planning Director
1. The City Council held a public hearing on the request of Central
California Communications. Corporation. (Cable TV) for a rate increase in
monthly subscription rates.
The proposed new rate structure to be $5.60 per month for the first residential
outlet, $1.25 per month each additional residential outlet; $5.60 per month
first commercial outlet, $2.25 per month each added commercial outlet.
. The City Clerk briefed a report from the City Finance Department reviewing
the staff analysis of the request by Central California Communications
Corporation.
Representatives of the City Finance Department and of the cable television .
company met to review operating statements and worksheets of the cable company.
The report of the cable company was reviewed. It contained primarily descriptive
narratives on their CATV current and projected operations and listed the cost
of current oPerations and the cost of. system improvements and additional costs.
It was the conclusion based on the data disclosed, that the increased rate sub-
mitted by CCCC did not create an inequity and financially a rate increase was
justified.
Art Hapgood, General Manager, Central California Communications Corporation,
reviewed--for the City Council a lengthy report submitted to the Council at a
prior meeting and -for review by their staff discussing the background for a rate
increase by the cable television company.. They reviewed service being
provided to the citizens of San Luis Obispo, cost of doing service within the
City--of San Luis Obispo, and examples of increased cost to the cable company as
the years went by. For example, he listed the difference in the cost•of.a
mainline amplifier in 1966 at $286.88 while in 1974 the same amplifier now
cost $399.30, an increase of $112.42, or over 39 percent increase in one item
alone. He felt that, based on their experience, further costs increased at least
another 30 or 40 percent'
Mr. Hapgood also reviewed for the. City . Council various improvements being
planned by the cable company to provide better service to the subscribers in
San Luis Obispo and,. of course, in its surrounding area.
The City Council discussed with Mr. Hapgood various parts of the Central Californa
Communications Corporation application for a rate increase, particularly some of
the plans being made for improved service and for extension of service to
subscribers.
City Council Minutes
July 15, 1974
Page 2
Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing open on a rate increase request for cable
television.
Peter Andre stated he had no objection to a rate increase to the cable company but would
like to know if there was some way he could get a clearer picture on his cable television.
Mr. Hapgood was given Mr. Andre's address, and he stated one of his staff members
wo d laok into the service pattern in his neighborhood.
Woody Goulart, 3002 Bahia Court, stated he was not opposed to the rate increase, but
he personally did not like the channel selection orTrogramming as presented by CCCC
on the present cable television. He then submitted a list of channels and programs that
he would like to see on cable television. He particularly felt that full -time educational
channels should be provided San Luis Obispo citizens, particularly the San Francisco
channel which now shares the cable with a commercial station in Oakland so that sporting
events could be brought into San.Luis Obispo.
Joe Hample stated that he was opposed to rate increase requested by CCCC. He felt the
rate t tFey now charged was too high.
Roy Steffica would like CCCC to. give some consideration to two types of service charges.
One for the normal subscriber, and one for senior citizens.
Maynard Marquardt was opposed to the rate increase. He felt that programming first
should be improved before any consideration is given to increased rates.
Lloyd Lamorit, 281 Hathway, was opposed to the rate increase without a study by a
citizens committee to.see if there was .some way of getting better programming.
Ed Zuchelli, 1667 Royal Way, felt cable T. V. programs could be improved, but he did
feet a rate increase was justified.
Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing closed.
R. Muravez, Assistant Director of Finance, again reviewed the report of the City
Finance Department recommending a rate increase to the cable television company. He
stated that a review of the financial statement for the past five years revealed a fluctuating
profit margin on CATV operations, from 3.2 percent of gross revenue to 24.7 percent
before taxes: Over the five -year period the average margin was 13.7 percent of gross
revenues. However, the return on investment Was what kept business in business. A
comparison of 1974 before taxes income against the book depreciated value of fixed assets
and prorated current assets revealed a return of 14.3 percent. It should be noted, however,
that the current cost of capital to CCCC was 12.5 percent, which left a before tax margin
of only 1.8 percent. Based upon this and current cost trends, their conclusions that CATV
operations would only break even in the next year had a high degree of validity.
On this basis, he felt that a rate increase was justified.
Councilman Gurnee stated he felt he had received more complaints regarding
cable television.than any other service provided in the City of San Luis Obispo. He
felt the figures presented showed a need for rate increase, but he felt that• no action
should be taken by the City Council on the request this evening. The franchise should
be opened up and programming improved. He also felt that no increase should be made
to citizens over 65 years of age. He also felt that an installation charge should be made
within the City of San Luis Obispo rather than a deposit, which he felt might help CCCC
keep their cost down.
Councilman Norris stated he felt that a rate increase was justified based on the figures
presented. He felt that the service was. good,. and he felt that he would rather stick to
a refundable service charge rather than a one-time installation charge. He also felt
that CCCC tried to provide good cable television service, and further, he would have
no objection to the cable company reviewing their programming to make more people
satisfied. While he agreed with the thought to reduce the rates for senior citizens,
he felt that the additional bookkeeping and accounting necessary would just add cost to
the operation of the cable company.
1
I]
I
City Council Minutes
July 15, 1974
Page 3
Councilman Brown stated he felt CCCC should look into adding installation charges
to see if s would help their revenue picture. He also felt they should look
into programming changes as suggested. He felt that an increase was justified,
but would like to continue the matter to the August 5 meeting for further
information on installation charges and program changes.
' Councilman Graham felt that a rate increase was justified, but would like to
see some consideration for senior cleizens and other people on fixed incomes.
so that they could continue to receive cable television. He, too, would like
to see this matter be continued so that CCCC could come back with suggestions
on a special rate for senior citizens and program changes if possible.
Mayor Schwartz stated he felt that the evidence showed a rate increase for CCCC
was justified. He felt that labor and material costs as shown, that costs had
gone up and profit had gone down. He felt the suggestion to consider an instal-
lation charge might help CCCC in their search for additional revenues. He,
too, felt that some program changes were in order; particularly, in bringing full -
time educational channels into San Luis Obispo.
Mr. Hapgood, General Manager, CCCC, stated that under the federal communication
re ate -ions dated 3/1/72, they were the only agency that could approve any channel
changes. Therefore, neither CCCC or the City Council could change the stations
covered. He also wished to make the Council aware that if an application were
made to the FCC for program changes, it was their opinion that the FCC would
reduce the number of stations on the cable,'as they were attempting to make a
uniform type of cable service to subscribers. It was his opinion that the CCCC
cable in San Luis Obispo would be reduced to the three major networks, each having
one channel, one independent channel and an educational channel; which would take
a nurrb er of selections now on theccable off in this area.
The Attorney for CCCC felt that, based on financial records presented changing
to an installation charge rather than a deposit would not increase revenues to
any extent. Also a special rate for fixed - income individuals would be an
administrative headache for the companyto manage:
On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Graham that this
matter of rate increase be referred to the Citizens Advisory Committee to
see if a rate. increase. was justified,. and further to look into:
1. Need for microwave improvements
2. Possibility of program changes
3. Possibility of a reduced monthly service
charge for citizens over 60 years of age
4. Clarification of the definitions of household and
commercial service outlets
5. Consideration of initiating, a service installation
charge rather than the present deposit and /or
monthly rate increase, and
6. . The impact of having all.households stay within
the $4.60 per month bracket, with the Citizens'
' Advisory Committee to bring a report back to the
City. Council. within thirty. days.
Motion lost on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Graham and:Gurnee
NOES: Councilmen Brown, Norris and Mayor Schwartz
ABSENT: None : .
City Council Minutes
July 15, 1974
Page 4
Councilman Brown stated that he was opposed to referring this important matter to the
Citizens Advisory Committee. He felt that CCCC should make the report.to the
City Council wiih the, City Council making the final decision.
Councilman Norris stated he too was opposed to referring this matter to the Citizens'
Advisory Committee. He felt the City staff.and CCCC should come up with the .
required information.
Mayor Schwartz also felt additional information should be provided by. CCCC for
staff review.
On motion of Councilman Graham, seconded by•Councilman Gurnee that the City staff and
representatives of CCCC gather additional information on the request for cable T. V.
rate increase to include the following:
1. Justification for m.icrowave improvements
2. Possibility of instituting program and channel
changes to bring in full- time.educational
channel
3. Possibility of a reduced monthly service charge
for citizens over 60 years of age
4. Clarification of the definitions of household and
commercial service outlets .
5. Consideration of initiating a service installation
charge rather than the present deposit and /or
monthly rate increase, and
6. The impact on CCCC revenues if all domicile
residences were charged the $4b0 per month ,
service fee with the completed.report.to the
City Council by August 5, 1974.
Motion carried on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Graham, Gurnee, Brown, Norris and
Mayor Schwartz
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
2. A. J. Shaw, City Attorney, reviewed for the City Council his letter of
June 24, 1974 dealing with the claim for unpaid wages by the Police Officers'
Association. He stated that he had reviewed the. claim which had been signed by
fifteen officers under penalty of perjury, alleging that the City owed them three
years' back wages for an extra fifteen minutes worked each day. This "extra
work" was based upon the officers'. allegation that they "work" during their half -hour
lunch period because they are "on- call ".
Under the law as it has existed up to now in California, the City Attorney stated that
he did not believe that their money claim had any substantial validity because California
law has consistently held that public employees are entitled only to such compensation as
is specifically authorized by ordinance, resolution or other rule or regulation of the ,
public agency. However, beginning January 1, 1975, the provisions of the Federal Fair
Labor Standards Act would control the calculation of the number of hours actually worked
by public employees.
City Council Minutes
July 15, 1974
Page 5
Since the adoption of the FLSA in the 1930's, the federal government had
considered various claims by employees that they should be paid for their
lunch hour time because they actually worked during their lunch hour. .
Although there were no firm guidelines, it seemed that the cases had
usually been decided upon the question of the frequency of the interruption
of the employee's lunch period for the purpose of performing duties connected
with his job.
He continued that the Police Officers' Association maintains that since they
attended a mandatory fifteen - minutes squad meeting before each daily
shift and were on call during their lunch break, they actually worked
8 -1/4 hours a day. The City contended--.that the:bfficers� actually worked
only 7 -3/4 hours of the day (8 -1%4 hours minus the 30 minute lunch
period). The City Attorney suggested to resolve this dispute and to
avoid violating the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act that the City have its
officers report for 8 hours of actual on duty patrolling, and take a half
hour meal break by returning their. police unit to the police station and then
have •the half hour free.
E. L. Rod rs, Police Chief, stated upon question that the new procedure pro -
posed would add further damage to an already poor morale in the City Police
Department. He felt that in an emergency one of the administrative personnel
could help the on -duty officers as back -up. Upon further question; fhe Chief
admitted that the meal problem existed now except that the officers at lunch
did have a City owned vehicle with them at all times wherever he went to eat
and could be called back if necessary.
The Chief concluded that since the City normally only had four patrol units in
the field at any one time, the, new policy of requiring police officers to take
their meal periods away from the police cars would leave six hours in the
twenty -four hour day when only three units would be on patrol.
R. D. Miller, Administrative Officer, read for the Council's information
e definitions.of meal period from the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act
under .which the City. of San Luis. Obispo-now must comply.
Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing open.
Richard Carsel, Attorney for..thy San Luis Obispo Police Officers.' Association,
complimented the actions of Police Chief Rodgers and his support of the
Police Department of San Luis Obispo. He then reviewed a 1972 California
case (L.A.- Fire.. &.Police League v City of L.A. - 23 C067) dealing with.meal
time for police officers, and he. stated that unless a police officer was com -
pletely relieved from duty for his meal period, then it was his opinion that
the officer was on duty and had to be paid for such duty. Further, he felt
that if the officer was relieved from..duty the City was actually losing the .
services of one patrol car. Therefore, he felt that the City Council was not
doing a service to the Community in providing adequate police protection.
He then asked that the City Council reject the .proposal of the City Attorney
to change the working conditions of the Police Officers dealing with their
meal breaks.
Officer Ed Martin, President, Police Officers' Association, read.a letter
dated July 12, 1974 from the Police Officers' Association to the citizens of
San Luis Obispo asking them for .public support on the issue of. being paid
for the police officers' meal times...
Policeman Robert Downey,read a letter from Mary and Paul C. Hasson,
390• Cerro Romauldo, San Luis. Obispo, supporting adequate pay and improved
working conditions for police officers. He agreed with the comments that
the morale in the Police Department was at a new low, and if the new rule
was implemented, it would sink even lower. He also stated that he felt
by reducing this on -duty time, the Council was placing the citizens in.jeopardy
and his particular life in danger.
Jim Hensley stated that he was in support of the Police Officers' position for
time-and_-Thalf for each fifteen minutes of overtime worked daily.
Mrs. Robert Downe , stated she was in support of the police officers'
request for pav during meal period.
City Council Minutes
July 15, 1974
Page 6
Helen Kiln stated she too was in support of the police officers' request to be paid for
un
l chi periods that,should be oh -duty for the full,eight hours,
Joe Little, President of the County Sheriff Officers' Association stated that
all deputies were paid during their lunch hours, and he could not imagine how
it could be done otherwise.
Larry Gay, 130 Broad Street, stated'he too was in support of the Police Officers'
request to be considered on -duty during meal periods.
Ron Bryant, Police Officer of Morro Bay, felt that police officers should be on
duty during their lunch periods, and that they also should be paid for this time.
Ken Jones, Santa Rosa Street, spoke in support of requests for the police officers
to be paid for their meal periods and not be off -duty.
Shirley Souza, Mustang Drive -In, Foothill Blvd. , felt that police officers should be
paid for their meal periods. She felt that back pay should be paid to be fair to
everyone.
John Da le stated he was in support of the Police Officers' Association claim for
back pay and also felt they should be paid for their meal time -
DennisJdhansen in support of the Police Officers' claim for back pay, and he also
felt they should be paid for meal periods. He felt that the police..morale in San
Luis Obispo should be improved as he understood that at the present time it was
quite bad.
Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing closed
E. L. Rodgers, Police Chief, again explained the existing meal policy of the
Police Department of San Luis Obispo.
Richard Carsel, Attorney for the Police Officers' Association, asked that all they
were asking was that the City not implement the proposed changes in working hours.
A. J. Shaw, City Attorney again explained the reasons for considering a change in
the meal periods for Police Officers due to the recent claim filed and the provisions
of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act.
E. L. Rodgers, Police Chief stated that if the City Council adopted the new hours and
if the program were implemented, he would like to see three new police officers, one per
shift added to cover meal times.
Councilman Gurnee .stated he was opposed to the proposed change in working hours due
to the proposal to relieve policemen for meal periods. He urged the City Council to
reconsider the direction to the negotiating team and allow time and one -half for all
hours worked over eight hours. He felt that the City Council should reject the staff
proposal and order theCity� staff to go back to the negotiation table and give police officers
a ten percent salary increase, and time and one -half for overtime.
Councilman Norris stated that le did not feel that there was any hostility.between
e City and th e Police Officers' Association, but just a question of whether the police
officers worked 7 -3/4 hours per day as the City contended or 8 -1/4 hours per day as the
Police Officers contended. He wondered if they should be paid on the days they worked
their lunch hour and not paid when they were not called back.
A. J. Shaw stated that he believed that under the Federal Act, the City will be required
to pay officers for "on -call" lunch hour periods, whether or not they are actually called
out. Therefore, the policy should be that they either are on duty or off duty, not a
combination of work and non -work.
1
1
1
City Council Minutes
July 15, 1974
Page 7
Mayor Sc_h_wartz.questioned.the timing on the claim dealing with meal periods .
as he had been in practice for over twenty years, and he wondered why the
claim was filed at this time. He continued that the conditions of employment
in the Police Department had been known for many years by all men employed
by the City Police Department which involved the one -half hour lunch periods and
the fifteen minute briefing period before going on shift. He concluded he did
not feel that the City Council had all the information needed to make a decision
on this: matter.at this time such as: .
1. Future costs of the extra fifteen minute
work day, and
.2. How many times in the past were meal periods
interrupted and the police officers called back.
Councilman Graham stated that based on the evidence presented he would
reject the proposed new working conditions as proposed by the City staff.
On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman- Graham
1.. That the City Council table consideration of
Working condition changes,
2. The staff bring back cost of paying officers
for 8 -1/4 hours per day on a straight -time
basis, and also on a time -and - one -half basis,
3. How many times in the past five years have lunch
periods been interrupted during the work day.
Motion lost on the following roll call vote:
On motion of Mayor Schwartz, seconded by Councilman Brown that consideration
of the working condition changes be continued to August.5, 1974, that the staff
bring back the cost of paying officers 8 -1/4 hours per day on a straight -time
basis, and also on a time:- and - one: -half basis, and also how many times in the
past had lunch periods been interrupted during the work day.
Motion passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Mayor Schwartz, Councilmen Brown
and Norris .
NOES: Councilmen Graham and Gurnee
ABSENT: • • None
3. Continued ,discussion by the City -,Council of the County, Board of
Supervisors' action in rezoning the Danley property on Edna Road. - Continued
from July 8, 1974.
Councilman Gurnee stated that following the meeting of July 8 during which the
Danley rezoning is sue. was discussed by the City Council, he felt the Council
action recommended in his proposed resolution could be more clearly stated
and simplified.
AYES: Councilmen Gurnee, and Graham
NOES: Councilmen Brown, Norris and
Mayor Schwartz
ABSENT: None
On motion of Mayor Schwartz, seconded by Councilman Brown that consideration
of the working condition changes be continued to August.5, 1974, that the staff
bring back the cost of paying officers 8 -1/4 hours per day on a straight -time
basis, and also on a time:- and - one: -half basis, and also how many times in the
past had lunch periods been interrupted during the work day.
Motion passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Mayor Schwartz, Councilmen Brown
and Norris .
NOES: Councilmen Graham and Gurnee
ABSENT: • • None
3. Continued ,discussion by the City -,Council of the County, Board of
Supervisors' action in rezoning the Danley property on Edna Road. - Continued
from July 8, 1974.
Councilman Gurnee stated that following the meeting of July 8 during which the
Danley rezoning is sue. was discussed by the City Council, he felt the Council
action recommended in his proposed resolution could be more clearly stated
and simplified.
City Council Minutes
July 15, 1974
Page 8
He continued that in view of the Council's division over.-the two action clauses of the
original resolution, the issue of land development in the urban fringe and methods to
require the County to comply with the General Plan should be dealt with separately.
Therefore, he was now proposing two new resolutions for the Council's consideration, each
built around one of the two action clauses of the original resolution.
He continued that at the July 8 meeting the "WHEREAS" clauses of his original resolution
upset some of the members of the City Council, he felt these clauses reflected his
own opinion and served as verbal justification for the proposed action of -the Council..
Since the first resolution attached for consideration this evening was built around
essentially the same clauses, they served as his justification for proposing these
actions.
Resolution 1 embodies and expands upon the first action with the following changes:
1. While this resolution was build around the ' WHEREAS"
clauses of the original resolution; these clauses had been softened,
but not so much as to compromise -the proposed actions.
2. The action clause had been expanded:
A. to include a request to the County to rescind
their rezoning of the Danley property,
B. to lend increasing importance to finding a
.vehicle whereby both the City and the County
. -would have a parity of power in controlling
development within the urban fringe,
'C.• to expand upon the "minimum conditions which must
be met before City services would be extended to a
development now in unincorporated territory:
Resolution 2 as proposed by Councilman Gurnee was a request for action by the
ttor� ney General to require the County to comply with its General Plan and differed
from the original resolution as follows:
1. The basic change in this resolution was that of devisingn..
another set of "WHEREAS" clauses to support the particular
resolution. These clauses were worded in such a way as to
maximize the chances for the Attorney General. to honor
the City's request for this intervention.
Councilman Gurnee then read for the Council's information both resolution 1 and 2
as amende for t eir consideration.
The City Clerk presented a letter from the Department of Administrative Management,
Airport Land Use Commission, stated that it had been called to their attention that the
City Council was in a course of hearings on land uses in the area of San Luis Obispo
airport, and there apparently had been some confusion as to the regard of the planning
by the Airport Land Use Commission.
This letter was to advise the City Council that the official Airport Land Use Plan for
the San Luis Obispo County Airport was formally adopted after public hearings by
the Airport Land Use Commission on December 12, 1973, in accordance with
Section 21675 of the Government Code. Copies of the Plan were distributed to the City
Council and a presentation explaining the Plan was made to the City Council on
March 18, 1974. .......
The Plan was effective upon its adoption by the Airport Land Use Commission :and
did not require the endorsement or adoption by the Board of Supervisors or any
City Council.
As to the legal affect of the plans adopted by the Airport Land Use Commission, they
respectfully directed the City Council's attention to Section 21675 of the Government Code.
n
1
1
City Council Minutes
July 15, 1974
Page 9
The City Clerk then read a letter for the Council's consideration from the
Environmental Center of .'San Luis Obispo, signed by the Chairperson,
Elizabeth H. Webre; enclosing a resolution of the Board of Directors of
ECOSLO supporting a resolution of the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo advising the County Board of Supervisors and the state agencies that
the City did not feel obligated to provide water and sewer service to a
forty acre real property parcel recently zoned industrial by the County of
San Luis Obispo, and requesting the Attorney General to investigate said
rezoning.
The Environmental Center was greatly concerned that sound planning policies
be followed by the City Council. It was obvious that the decision made by the
County Board of Supervisors was inconsistent with the General Plans of both
the City and the County of San Luis Obispo. They strongly urged the City to
support the formation of a joint City- County Planning Board to preside over
development and planning withing the urban reserve lines. If this policy
was adopted through mutual planning and decision making, problems such
as the Danley might no longer exist.
Councilman Brown stated that lie: felt the discussion of the Danley property
involved technicalities of state law in that all zoning must comply with an
adopted County and City General Plan.
Robert Strong, Planning Director,-. reported that both the 1965 General Plan
a opte by' the County as well as the City) and the 1972 City General Plan
(adopted only by the City) show the Danley property as low density residential
uses. He then reviewed for the City Council both the County and City
General Plans and also the Airport Land Use Plan in the vicinity of the airport.
The Airport Land Use Plan designated agricultural certain residential and
industrial uses compatible.
Councilman Norris asked if the latest letter and resolution of Councilman
Gurnee had been distributed to the public.
Councilman Gurnee stated "no ", that only the City Council had received the
new information. I .
Fred Stron Executive Secretary of Citizens' for Environmental.Balance and
Economic bility, spoke in support of the County action in rezoning the
Danley property to industrial uses. He objected to the implication of the
resolutions. proposed. by Councilman Gurnee in calling for help from the
State Attorney General and also references to the Water Quality Control
Board action. He stated he felt this was an attempt by Councilman Gurnee to
blackmail the County by proposing the refuse to serve the properties with
City services such as sewer and water. He also objected to the other provisions
of the proposed resolutions as he felt that they did not present factual information,
were unrealistic in demanding that the County Government turn over control of
County land for City decision mailing. He felt that these resolutions were
unnecessary and were an attempt to ursurp the power of the County of San Luis
Obispo.
Don Rosenfield, ECOSLO stated that he was in support of the resolutions
opposing the rezoning of the Danley property.
Ann Shoup, Tanglewood Drive, stated she was opposed to the County action and
supported the adoption of the resolutions as presented.
Dr. Fields stated that if this rezoning in fact was illegal, and if the action of the
upervisors was illegal then the City Council must support the resolution and
stop the rezoning and make the supervisors comply with state law.
City Council Minutes
July 15, 1974
Page 10
Don Smith stated he was opposed to the action of the Board of Supervisors as he felt
it was an illegal act in rezoning the Danley goyerty. He urged support of the
resolution.
Dan Hoffineister' Serrano Drive, was opposed to the Danley rezoning andjurged Council
to support the resolutions in opposition.
Roy Garcia, Edna Road, stated that he was in support of the Danley rezoning. He
felt that this was the only way for a property owner to pay his taxes and to recoup '
his investment in the land. He felt the County Planning Commission and Supervisors
did the right thing i.n Jrezoning this property.
Joe Cardoza, Edna Road, stated that he was in support of the County action of rezoning
e Danley property. He felt it was unfair for a City to continue to stop development
in the County area.. He felt it was only fair to property owners to be allowed to develop
their property to their best use and he further felt it was unfair for a small group of
citizens to stop all development in the County of San Luis Obispo.
Charles Wiswell, Swift Aire, stated that he was in support of the action of the County
in zoning the Danley property for industrial uses. He felt that this use would be better
in the vicinity of the airport than residential use in order to avoid future conflict
between flights and residences.
Joe Cresione, member of the Airport Land Use Commission, stated that his com-
mission supports the action of the County in rezoning the land adjacent_to the airport
to industrial uses. He continued that the Airport Land Use Commission felt that
commercial, industrial, agricultural uses were compatible to the airport and that
residential properties and developments were not. And they, therefore, would
oppose residential uses near the airport.
Althea Meisner, property owner, stated she was in support of the County action in
zoning the Danley property to industriaLuses. She assured the City Council that this
land was not suited to intensive agricultural uses. ,
W. L. Danley, property owner, read for the Council's information the regulations
that the Airport Land Use Commission must follow in general planning of land
adjacent to airports. He felt that under the rules of the Airport Land Use Commission
that they had the final say as to the uses in the sphere of influence of the airport.
He felt that the Board of Supervisors had complied with the state directives. He
then reviewed for the City Council his attempts to develop and annex his property
on Edna Road to the City of San Luis Obispo. He concluded by objecting to the
tactics of Councilman Gurnee to stop any use that could be made of the land he owned.
All he asked was that the City Council leave him alone and allow him to develop
his property under County laws and regulations.
Jim Philbin, President, San Luis Obispo Pilots' Association, stated that he was in
support of the County action in rezoning the Danley property for industrial uses.
He felt that industrial was a logical use of land adjacent to an active public airport.
Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing closed.
The City Council discussed the testimony received on the action by the Board of
Supervisors in rezoning the Danley property to industrial uses. . '
Councilman Norris stated he was in support of the County Board of Supervisors' action
in rezoning e Danley property for industrial uses. He felt this was a. logical use
of land, and he was opposed to the.use of this land for residential purposes. He was
also opposed to the Council adopting the resoluuion before them at this time. '
City Council Minutes
July 15, 1974
Page 11
Councilman Brown stated he was opposed to.the resolution.asking for the'
Attorney General to come into the act. He would support a resolution
notifying the Water Quality. Control Board and the County Supervisors that the City
would not serve sewer and water to this property. He felt the industrial zoning was
more logical near the airport, and.he, was_sure this would be supported in
court.
' Councilman Graham stated he was opposed to the rezoning of the Danley
property for, industrial uses, until the City's new General Plan had been
completed. He would support the resolution notifying the County that the
City would not support property with sewer or water. . .
Mayor •Schwartz stated as he saw the problem, it was the adoption of a .
zoning change in conflict with adopted City and County General Plans. He
stated he would support an inquiry to the Attorney General as to procedures
in zoning law in the vicinity of the airport.. He felt the County Supervisors
were inconsistent in rezoning the Danley property in opposition to conditions
of an existing adopted General.Plan.. He did not support the resolution as
presented by Councilman Gurnee. He suggested a resolution asking the
Attorney General for interpretation of.state law as it related to action of
the Airport Land Use Commission, the County Planning Commission, and
the Board of Supervisors in rezoning property in the vicinity of San Luis
Obispo Airport.
Councilman. Gurnee again urged his fellow councilmen to adopt a resolution
urging action by the Attorney General as he felt this rezoning was. in violation
of state law.
On motion of Councilman Brown, seconded by Mayor.Schwartz the following
resolution tivas introduced:- A -resolution requesting an interpretation' from
the Attorney General as to the state laws relating to actions of.the Airport
Land Use Commission when it violates an adopted County and City General
Plan.
Motion lost on the following roll call vote:
AYES: _.Councilman Brown and Mayor Schwartz
NOES: Councilmen Graham, Gurnee and Norris
ABSENT: None
On motion of Councilman. Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Graham .the! following
resolution was introducted. A resolution advising the County Board of Super-
visors and state agencies that the City does not feel obligated to provide water
and sewer service to a forty acre real property parcel recently zoned industrial
by the County of San Luis Obispo.
Motion lost on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Gurnee and Graham
NOES: Councilmen Brown, Norris and Mayor Schwartz
ABSENT: None
On motion of Councilman'Grahain; seconded by Councilman Norris the following
resolution was introduced. resolution requesting the County to hold action
on the Danley rezoning until the City had received its preliminary General Plan
studies from the consultant and also City to ask the District Attorney to ask
the Attorney General for clarification of the action involving the Danley
rezoning with the Airport Land Use Commission.
City Council Minutes
July 15, 1974
Page 12
12:25 A.M. Councilman Gurnee left the meeting.
Motion lost on the. following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Graham. and Norris.
NOES: Councilman Brown and Mayor Schwartz
ABSENT: Councilman Gurnee
On motion of Councilman Brown, seconded by Mayor. Schwartz the following
resoltuion was introduced: ': RESOLUTION NO. 2634 (1974 Series), a resolution of the
Council of the City of San Luis .Obispo asking: the City Attorney to obtain an opinion
from the Attorney General concerning the effect of a Land Use Plan adopted by the
Airport Land Use Commission upon the consistency of County zoning actions in_
relation to a .County General Plan.
Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Brown, Graham and Mayor Schwartz
NOES:.. c Councilman Norris .
ABSENT: ;Councilman Gurnee
4A. David Williamson, Assistant Administrative Officer, reported to the City
Council on the prior action of acceptance of public improvements in conjunction with Tract
467, Unit I (Los Verdes Park).
At a prior Council meeting, the City Council approved the off -site improvements and
the on -site development of the Unit I, subject to depositing necessary fees by the developer,
Warren Dolezal, to cover the developer's share of the off -site improvements in sewer,
water, street, etc.
The Assistant Administrative Officer reported that the City had received bank
guarantees and cash deposit of $113,956.92. Of this figure, $97,378.58 had been
spent, leaving a balance or credit on hand of $16, 578.34; with an estimate of the developers
share of $22,000 more or less to complete the improvements. This amount of funds
were now on hand:with.the credit and a cash-deposit by the developer. Therefore, the
City staff reported that the condition set by the City Council had been met and the tract
could be accepted and occupance allowed as the individual units were cleared by the
Building Department.
On motion of Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Graham the meeting adjourned
to 12:00 noon Tuesday, July 16, 1974 to complete the balance of the agenda.
Motion carried, Councilman Gurnee absent.
APPROVED: September .16, , 1974
�!1?..Fitic"k, City. Clerk
1
r