Loading...
09/17/19741 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