Loading...
07/15/1974MINUTES 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