HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/17/19741
1
1
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY_ COUNCIL'S
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER I.7, 1.9.7.4 - I2:00 NOON.I
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
CITY.HALL
Roll Call
PRESENT: John C. Brown, Myron Graham,- T. Keith Gurnee,
Jesse Norris, and Kenneth E. Schwartz
ABSENT: None
City Staff
PRESENT: J. H. Fitzpatrick, City Clerk; W. Flory, Director
..Parks 8 Recreation; R..Mil.ler, City Administrative
Officer; E. L. Rogers, Police Chief; D. Romero,
City Engineer; A.. J. Shaw, Jr., City Attorney
7. Memorandum - from Jim iStockton. Assistant Director of Parks 8
Recreation;: regarding Mission 'Plaza reconstruction, reviewed the proposed
Change Order to re- design the lower 'dam in the Mission Plaza and finishing
the raw-end of the rip -rap wall The Change Order would consist of
rebuilding the dam to accommodate weirs; to place large rocks In 'area
•
now worn from foot traffic through plantings to the creek; to place
stepping stone rocks in the worn area; to furnish weir boards and anchors
at an estimated cost.of $4,400:-:
A. J..Shaw,.City, Attorney, advised the City Council.that they should.
determine whether.-this Change Order was a change in the basic contract
or new construction.not envisioned ,in.the original contract`, and if it
were-new work; wouldr-it require a negative::E.I.R -. Declaration by the' .
Planning Commission. And, further, i-f:this.additional. work' would
require approval of the Fish and Game Commission.
Mayor Schwartz urged the City Council to approve the-.,Change Order as
presented by Jim Stockton in order to finish this work while the
contractor's equipment. was still in the creek area.
On motion cf Mayor. Schwartz, -seconded.by Councilman Brown that the-Council
'authorize the-staff to proceed with the.change -order as submi.tted i:f
there was 'no change -requi red i.n the E. I .R.: or by the Fish :and Game
Commission.. Motion carried.
8. A memorandum from D. F. Romero,. City. - Engineer, regarding the
parking prohibition proposed on the east, side of Broad Street '.be tween
High and Capitolio`Way to provide bike lanes; elimination of parking.on.
the west'side of Broad Street between'•Orcutt.and Capitol.io Way.; and
parking prohibition on the west side of Broad between High and.Funston
Street; and suggested that as much of this property was residential,
he felt that it might be worthwhile for the City Council:to.set up
hearings to restrict-parking so that the plans could go ahead for develop-
ment.
Councilman Norris objected to authorizing the implementation of a "No
Parking" red zone along Broad Street without a public hearing or a
notice for discussion of parking restrictions with the property owners
and tenants of the property involved.
City Council'Minutes
September 17, 1974
Page 2
On motion of Councilman Gurnee; seconded by Mayor Schwartz, the following
resolution was introduced: RESOLUT.I:ON NO. _2680,`a resolution of the
Council of the City of San Luis Obispo' prohibiting parking on Broad Street.
Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Brown, Gurnee, and Mayor Schwartz
NOES: Councilmen.Graham and Norris
ABSENT: None
The resolution was to become effective when Department of Transportation
completed their widening project on Broad Street.
The Council also set for - public hearing on a!proposil to ban parking in
front of properties :from Orcutt Road :to Capitolio Way.
9. The following recommendation f.rom'the Park & Recreation Commission
to the City Council regarding After School Recreation Program for Youth.
The San Luis Obispo Park and Recreation Commission reviewed communications
from the County Probation Department, the San Luis Coastal Unified School
District, the City of San Luis Obispo Housing Authority and Eleanor
Weinstein representing the joint group. All groups were:interested in
h'avi'ng the Recreation Department continue their summer p:layground program
at elementary schools to include an after school program of supervised
activities.
After discussion by the Park & Recreation Commission with the recreation
staff, it was indicated that such a program had been tried with volunteers
from Cal Poly Child Development Classes used as leaders. The staff
indicated that the after school programs were welI'attended; however,
using volunteers as leaders who were fulfilling class requirements was
less than satisfactory since they could not be held responsible for ful=
filling their commitments as in the case of: paid: recreational; leaders:,
The staff indicated that to have a successful program, paid leaders were
a necessity and that to initiate such a program without additional
recreational leader funds would limit the planned activities for the
remainder of the year.
The Park & Recreation Commission stated that upon review of the.communi-
cations and staff report, the Commission indicated they thought the program
'deserving if it were possible- to initiate it without el.iminating any
existing program. This would necessitate additional leadership, material,
money and to supplement the current budget. Therefore, on motion of-.
B. Kardel, seconded by Joanne Jennings and passed by the'Commissibn, they
recommended that the City Council appropriate additional funds for
recreational leadership and material funds in the amount of .$5,200 to .
begin an after school program for youth -ages 6 - 14 years of age and that
this program'be experimental in nature for the 1974/75 school year and
that upon staff report of successful operations., that :it be included in
future budgets.
The City Council then.consi'dered the communication from Eleanor Weinstein
supporting the program for an after school playground program. The .
Council also considered a letter from John 0. Stettler, Delinquency.
Prevention Officer of the Probation Department, supporting the proposed
After School Recreational. Program.
1
1
1
City Council Minutes
September ,I -7, 1974.
Page 3
The Council also received a letter from William H. Newman, Superintendent
of the San.Lui.s Coastal.Uni.fied School District;•stating that they would
support the program ih.eve ry way that they,possibIy..couId and.the only
limitation that.'•th.ey.cou.Id. foresee .at this t.ime..wouId be storage.ot
supplies and possible conflict.wi'th uses of the playgrounds already
scheduled, such. as Youth Football practice, 'etc.
The Council . received a letter from the. ,Hous.i.ng.Author.ity.strongIy
endorsing the, recent efforts to develop an after school recreational
program for the community's.youth :._ 'Additional ly,. the Housing
Authority had. assigned a s'taf.f person to work with the committee in
attempting to work up this program with the Parks & Recreation Commi.ssion
staff and the other interested citizens.' ... 1
R. D. MU ler, Admi'nist.rati.ve Officer., stated that. due to the increase .i in
the assessed . valuations of property within -the City of San Luis Obispo
and ,a .further increase in..the tax revenues to the ,.Parks. and Recreational
Fund, he :fe..It.that.i funds would be 'avai.J.able_if the Counci 1•.wished to
go ahead.wi,th.the, after - school recreational program but as budget
office r, he would..be.opposed to :.i.ncreasing..a budget wi,th.a new prog ram.
dd'ri ng the, .f,i sca I year
Councilman Graham stated that he was in support. of' .' the —after school
program' and he would like to have it imp lemented'..now.
Councilman Norris .,stated ..that . he agreed that this.was a good.program
and felt it was in: an area that ..the City Counci I..had. not assumed 'their
responsibi.li.ties and he would 'support..such a program implemented
i mmed irate -I
Yom.._.... :_.. ..... .. -
R. D'. Mi I'ler, Admi ni•strati ve O.ffi cer, ,agai.n state'', that .this request
1 for funds was just a tip of' the 'iceberg and that additional required
costs . we re not known at th1s.time. He strongly opposed the proposed
proposal for after s'chooI - programs by the .Park & Recreati.on,Commission.
Councilman Gurnee stated that he'was in support of the request to
initiate an.after school recreational program.
Mayor Schwartz ;stated, that.,he, too, was in support .of the proposed
Park .& Recreation. Commissi -on,•proposal.„with. funds coming from the _Park
& Recreation Coinmission;budget. Mayor Schwartz also asked'.that 'staff
look into school participation in other communities between cities
and schools particularly in.other areas of this County..
On motion of Councilman Norris, seconded by Councilman Graham 'the.
following resolution was introduced: RESOLUTION NO. "2670 a resolution
increasing the 1974L75.Budget.:
Passed. and adopted on the.following..rol . l call vote:
AYES:.. Councilmen Brown,. Graham, Gurnee,.Norris.and Mayor Schwartz
NOES:
None
ABSENT:.
None
'
10. Communication
from the Park & Recreation Commission regarding
their di.scussio.ns recommending the repeal of
City Ordinance No. 565,
(1972.Series).'
'an d initiation of. a. dwelling
uni.t t'ax.for Park & Recreation
purposes. The
Park & Recreation Commission
recommended that when 'the
Quimby Act and
Associated City Ordinance No.
565 were adopted, which
City Council Minutes
September 17, 1974
Page 4
were. to provide park land for increasing,popul.at,iony. they felt it was
not in fact accomplishing its purpose in that the above ordinance did
not provide• monies for development and.this ordinance collected fees
from only residential subdivision.. The .Park & Recreation Commission
felt that the ordinance should be repealed and that a dwelling unit tax
for Park.& Recreational purposes.be initiated that would tax al-1 units
built. in the City,. residential, apartments, mobile homes, student . _
housing, reconstruction or.addi.tions. They felt that in this way, this.
tax would be more equitable, would provide.monies for development as
well as acquisition and allow the City to plan its Park system more in
accordance with the General Plan.
They further recommended that monies coll.ected from this tax be set
aside by the City for acquisition and orderly development.of public
p.arks., playgrounds and other recreational .faciIit.ies to serve the.
increasing population of the. community. They further recommended that
the City Council direct their staff.to start immediately on drafting a
dwelling unit-tax ordinance and investigate an equitable .fee for all ..
types of construction. They then submitted for the Council's consideration
a portion of the City of Buenaventura Ordinance No'.'1756 entitled "Parks
and Recreation Faciliti.es Tax" in which the taxes imposed on the basis of
$70 for each dwelling unit with one.bedroom.pl.us $35 for each additional
bedroom and $100 for each new mobile home pad.
R. D.. Mil.ler, Administrative Officer, objected to imposing this.tax.as the
Council rejected,a construction tax several years ago in favor. of. the ..
Utility Tax. He also felt the City Council should take no action on this
proposal until the General Plan for Parks had been completed and ad'opted'by
the City Council and ..further, that no.pa.rk land: should be acquired or
parks developed unti.l .that p.lan was, comp.leted..
Councilman Brown.,stated that he was.opposed to earmarking any tax or
revenue source to any one department or commission. He further was
opposed to the proposed dwelling unit tax as recommended by the Park &
Recreation Commission.
Fred Strong, CEBES, etc. _felt that the Ci.ty Council shou_Id keep in mind.
that any tax collected under .this. proposal must.be.spent for the benefit
of the_cit.izens, tax payers, and property owners of the. area in..which the
money was-collected.
Mayor Schwartz felt that he - agreed with the proposal, that park development
should be in some way .related to.the dwellin.g.units an.d the people _living
in those dwelling units..
After discussion by the City Council, staff and citizens, Mayor Schwartz
stated he felt it was the consensus of the.City Council that this request
be re- referred to the Park & Recreation Commission and Department for
further_ refinement of their proposal to include unit rate, area, etc. which
would be brought back for further consideration by the City Council. He
also felt that the attorney should be asked to prepare a draft ordinance
after the Park General Plan had been received and adopted by the Council.
J
_Councilman Gurnee felt that a dwelling unit tax or a construction tax was 1
a good proposal and felt.that.the proposal should be explored by the City.
I.I. .. Communication from the.Park and Recreation.Commission . fina'lizi.ng
their. recommendations concerning auxiliary use of property adjacent to
Laguna.Lake Golf Course...
City Council Minutes
September 17; 1974
Page 5
I: That no neighborhood park be planned adjacent to the
Golf Course because of safety factors and lack of compatibility
between golfers and children at play.
2. That approximately 4.45 acres immediately adjacent to the
existing course be acquired by the City and developed as
1 a golf driving range.
3. Realizing the necessity of a neighborhood park in the area,
the fol[owing.sites were recommended for Council consideration:
a) The area adjacent to Prefumo Creek and immediately
behind the Laguna-Junior High School
b) Site 2 for further development; a minimum 10 acres
.'immediately outside the existing City Limits to the
west and on the•southwest side of Los Osos Road
c) Site 3 for future development: a minimum 10 acres
immediately existing outside the City Limits to the
'south and on the: southwest side of Los Osos Road at
the junction.bf Madonna Road
The City Council discussed with staff the recommendation of the Park &
Recreation; Commission re'lati -ve to the use of land adjacent to the Laguna
Lake Golf Course. It was the consensus of the City Council that no
acquisition of park land take place until-the Master Plan for Parks '&
Recreation had been completed and adopted by the City.
Councilman Brown stated.he, was opposed to the purchase of the golf course
' and any adjacent land due to the cost involved and poor potential for
making a profit and that the City should acquire property more readily
available for development as a,gblf course.with,a better potential for
use.
Councilman Gurnee agreed with the general statements made by Councilman
Brown. ..
On motion of Mayor Schwartz, seconded by Councilman Gurnee that the staff
be asked to-1ook into the acquisition of: the driving range property, have
the property appraised and contact the owners'toward'acquisition.
Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Gurnee, Graham and Mayor Schwartz
NOES: Couhci.lmen Brown and Norris
ABSENT: None' .
12. The City Council considered a communication from three citizens.
regarding the Danley rezoning matter and requesting City support as .
follows:
Donald .I. Smith, Nei I.W. Webre;- Henry.W :.Rible.II', stated they
' had followed with great interest the City's concern over the
action taken by the County Board of Supervisors in rezoning the
Danley property in a manner inconsistent with the adopted General
Plans of both the City and.the County. 'They were also aware
that :the' City-had- asked : the Attorney- General fo'r:a formal opinion
concerning the legality of the County's action but had not.been
informed of the Attorney General's opinion as yet.
City Council Minutes
September 17, 1974
Page 6
The citizens recognized that there might be legal problems
in the City bringing a direct legal action against -the
County for this ?apparent misuse 'of County authority. They
believed a public purpose would be served by challenging
the County's action in -the courts-and these three
citizens were willing to use their names individually
as plaintiffs in such an action. However, they felt
that since the action would be for the benefit of all
the public, they requested that the City Council provide
financial, support. for -such a court: action.
They stated they: had contacted Attorney Harry Woolpert who
indicated he would provi.de attorney services in the trial
court in such an action for a fee not to exceed $1,500 .
Therefore; -they requested that the City guarantee to
contribute a sum not to exceed $1,500 :for attorney's
fees plus necessary court costs and other normal trial
costs.
They'conclude "d by stating.that-they wished this matter to
be considered'and concluded at the September 16, 1974
meeting of the City Council.
A. J::Shaw; City Attorney;.again reviewed for the City Council section
65860 of the Government Code of the State of California entitled,
"Consistency of zoning ordinance with General Plan; actions to force
compliance and its amendments ".
He also reviewed for the City Council an action taken by them on July 15,
1974 in adopting resolution 2634, a resolution.of the Council of the "
City of San Luis Obispo asking the City•Attorney to.obtain.an'opinion
from the State Attorney General concerning the' effects of :land use plan
adopted by the Airport Land Use Commission and-upon the cons istehcy. of
County zoning actions in relation to a County General Plan.
He concluded by stating that there was only a.90 -day period for appeal
of County actions and after September 27, 1974 the period of limitation
would be concluded.
Robert Strong, Planning Director again: reviewed for the City Council
the City and' County Genera 1. Plans map regarding the Dan ley property and
discussed proposed uses and the actual present land use. He continued
that both the City and County Planning staffs opposed the recent rezoning
of the Danley property to industrial uses by the County Board of Super-
visors.
Neil W. Webre, 2964 Flora Street, stated that even if the Attorney
General made a ruling, the County did not have to accept his opinion nor
take an action. He suggested that the City Council join with the three
citizens in a suit against the County and if the City were challenged on
their'right to sue the-County, then the citizens could continue the
suit.
He concluded that if the City did not put up the $1,500, then the
citizens could hot pursue the case becauselof the cost. They felt
they-were carrying the-City's fight to protect the integrity of the
General Plan.'-
Donald Smith, 1750 Prefumo Canyon Road, stated that he was in full
support of Neil Web re's statements, asking for Council support in this
matte r:
City Council' Minutes
September 17,:1974
Page 7
Henry-W. Rib le 1 1, :1215 Mar.iner.'s Cove, agreed with -the previous two
speakers and felt.that the City should pursue this matter in order to
protect the General Plan of.the County and City.:
Fred Strong_ CEBES, - remi`nded.the City Counci I that the Al rport Land Use
Commission found and recommendedlto the Board of Supervisors 'that light
industrial zoning was compatible with.airport use. He also rerhi•nded the
City Council that the money being requested.to .fight the Cou'nty in 'this
matter was City tax money, to be used against.another.gove'rnmental
agency in an area outside the City of San Luis Obispo and he felt
outside their area of:influence:. He concluded that if..the City did .
enter-the suit.on.behalf of the 'citizens as requested, the Councilmen
could be charged with misapprop'riat.i ' on:.of. public funds..
Roy .Garcia; -property ow,ner,. stated) he was opposed:.to the use of City.
tax monies being used to .fight the County over zoning out:isde' the City
limits. He .felt that.this rezoning oftthe`['and was properly done' by. the
County. Planning Commission :, Board of`Supervisors and :the Airport .Land
Use Comm iss.ion'; it was done: in 'good faith. and after.public hearings, .
and that only one person within the City was interested in killing any
development on .the Danley property.
Jim Filbin, property owner, resident and taxpayer, and proxy member of
the A:L.U.C., ;stated.*that he was.opposed.to the use of- City funds to
flight the County and he-felt that its use, in:his opinion', would be
a. misappropriation of public monies:
W. A. Danley, property owner, read a letter from the Airport Land Use
Commission regarding the rezoning of his property. opposite the County
airport. He then read in its entirety PUC section 21676 of the State
' codes, regarding Airport Land Use Commission regulations and their
responsibility regarding zoning of land adjacent to the airport
boundaries. He urged the City Council to take no action on-the request
for City funds to fight this zoning in the courts.
CouncilmaniGurnee spoke in support of the citizens'.: request for City .funds
to take the County government. to. court. for violation of :their. own General
PI an i n. rezon i ng the property to- I i ght- i ndustr. i a I ..uses. • He fe It the
City should enter - action directly with the.three - citizens and proceed
with.-the. suit . against the: Board of Supervisors. .
Councilman.Brown stated he felt that this was unnecessary litigation
with the County., that it would not:serve,a public purpose for the City
or the County. Further, he felt that this case was an attempt by some
to pioneer new laws that had not been too well:l.i:tigated to. date in
the courts of California. Finally, he felt the City Council had already
taken sufficient action to stop extension of sewer and water to serve
the Danley property if it were developed.
Councilman Norris stated he objected to the granting of.public •funds:to
sue the 'County over-'a County'Iegis.lative action, which should be pursued
by :the County. residents-and not by City government.:, He .felt that the
expenditure of these funds would be a clear out - and -out gift of public
funds to three individual citizens of the City, and would not serve a
public purpose. Finally, he'felt the Supervisors-should-operate the
County of San 'Luis Obispo and the City - Counci: l :- should operate the City
of San Lui.s Obispo to the best benefit of .the majority 'of its citizens.
He felt that all County agencies had acted in good faith in this matter
and that the Counciil should` deny the request. -for fuffher court action.
Councilman Graham asked, could the City be sued for misuse of public
funds as' had been threatened by several of the speakers?
City Council Minutes
September 17, 1974
Page 8
A. J. :Shaw,: City Attorney, stated that it was his opinion that such .
funds would be a :legal expenditure by.the-City; if the Council feat
that it was a municipal purpose, and:that there was a.pubiic need::
Councilman Graham stated he "agreed that this matter, if it went to
court, would cause:difficult:ies, hardship; and anger upon the part of
the County; but. he felt that. the proceduraI'matters used by the County '
should be clarified, therefore, he felt the City should proceed to see
if the State laws meant what they say.
Mayor Schwartz felt the Council was talk.ing-ab'out : interpreta:tion of.
State Taw as it applied to County an'd City`Genera'I Plans. He stated
that he supported the prior City act'i'on in this matter, andfalso he
felt that the test was to see if rezoning must comply with adopted
General Plans ,as prescribed- by State: law.. He felt „the: County - action
in the Dan ley rezoning was. iIIega1 in his understand.i.ng of: the present
State laws. He did not feel that this suit was�an idle act. He .felt
the principle involved was,of importance and in :the community's:interest
and felt only by a count action could-this principle be' clar.ified. He:
recogn i zed' th at this action could create hard feelings w1th -the County
government, but he felt the action must be taken, and felt ithat the City
should enter the suit as a party thereto.
On motion of Councilman Brown; seconded by Councilman Norris that the
City of San Luis•Ob'ispo refrain from taking`p'art in the suit as requested
as it would not serve a municipal and.public purpose. Motion lost on
the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen.Brown and Norri.s
NOES: Counciamen Graham, Gurnee and Mayor:Schwartz..
ABSENT: None
On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Graham that this
matter had a municipal and public purpose and that the City bring' legal
action against the County of.San Luis Obispo to force compliance with
the law relative to zoning and the adopted General Phan. Further, that
the City invite the: participation from the three interested citizens:
Donald I. Smith, Neil W. .Webre, and Henry-W. Rible .11. Motion carried.
on the following roll call vote:
AYES:. Councilmen Gurnee:, Graham:and Mayor Schwartz
NOES: Councilmen Brown and Norris
ABSENT-: None
13. A memorandum from the Mass Transportation Committee forwarding
their recommendations to the City Council relati.ve•to th'e:next contract'
phase for the local bus system. The 'Committee spent considerable time .
discussing the proposal and.made the following recommendations to the
City Council -
I:.. The Committee recommended that the City Council advertise
a new contract :for the operation of. the. City. Bus System
with the following modifications:
I. The contract to:be effective April 1, 1975:' Copy
attached for the Council's information.
2...Committed recommended that a'third route be included
in the proposal and a copy of the proposal submitted
for the Council's information.
City Council Minutes
September 17, 1974
Page 9
The Committee also advised Council that they felt that advertising should
be done early.in the year so that if there were a change, the contractor
would have sufficient time to get equipment and be ready to start when
a new contract started.
The Committee also suggested that the Council consider placing
advertising within the bus as was done in many areas. They felt that
this advertising could bring the operator an additional $250 per month
per bus which would allow advertising along the roof line above the
windows. The Committee wished to know if the Council would consider
this type of advertising to help reduce the cost of the bus franchise.
On motion of Mayor Schwartz, seconded by Councilman Gurnee that the City
Council accept the recommendation of the Mass Transportation Committee,
that a new contract be advertised, that a third bus and a third route
be also included in the bid specifications with two buses on standby and
also a contract with three buses plus standby and also include the approval
of advertising for a two -year period. Motion carried, a.11 Ayes.
The City Council also instructed the staff to notify the Promotional
Coordinating Committee to see if they would cooperate in developing an
advertising program for advertising within the buses themselves.
14. D. F. Romero, City Engineer, presented plans and specifications
for the Council's consideration for the Pepper Street Reconstruction
and Resurfacing Project, City Plan 49 -74. City Engineer explained the
scope of the work to be accomplished under this program and gave an
estimate of $17,100.
On motion of Mayor Schwartz, seconded by Councilman Gurnee that the
City Council approve the plans and specifications and authorize the
' call for bids. Motion carried, all.Ayes.
15. The City Council reviewed Legislative Bulletin dated September 4,
1974, of bills adopted by the State Legislature and waiting approval by
the Governor. The City Council reviewed the list, took action on
several for support and several of the bills in opposition and instructed
the City staff to contact the Governor as to the City Council's feelings.
16. On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Brown
the following resolution was introduced: RESOLUTION NO. 2671, a
resolution of the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo finding and
determining that Battalion Chief William Woodward was incapacitated.
as the result of an industrial injury and that he should be retired.
Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Brown, Gurnee, Graham, Norris and Mayor Schwartz
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by.Councilman Graham the meeting
adjourned to September 30, 1974, at 7:30 P.M. to discuss, in addition
to other items, a public hearing on the E.I.R. for the Johnson Street
widening, Bilodeau property; and the reorganization of the City Departments.
Motion carried.
APPROVED: December 2, 1974
i
H. PATRICK, CITY CLERK