HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/09/1976Ij
1
1
Pledge
Roll Call
City Staff
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1976 - 7:30.P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
PRESENT: Councilmen Graham, Gurnee, Petterson and Mayor
Schwartz
ABSENT: Councilman Norris
PRESENT: J.H. Fitzpatrick, Acting City Administrator /City Clerk;
Rob Strong, Director of Community Development; William
Flory, Director of Parks and Recreation; D.F. Romero,
Director of Public Services; Wayne Peterson, City Engineer;
Jeff Jorgenson, Law Clerk
1. Report on activities of standing Council committees:
A. Area Planning Council
B. Solid Waste
C. Traffic Committee
D. Tree Committee
E. Waterways Planning Board
F. Whale Rock Commission
G. Zone 9 Advisory Committee
H. Water Advisory Board
I. Central Coast Criminal
Justice Committee
J. Mass Transportation
K. County Office of Manpower
Services
Councilman Gurnee
Mayor Schwartz
Councilman Norris
Councilman Graham
Councilman Petterson
Mayor Schwartz
Councilman Graham
Mayor Schwartz
Councilman Norris
Councilman Petterson
Councilman Norris
2. The City Council considered the proposed ordinance regarding a
residential construction tax for park purposes continued from the City
Council meeting of January 12, 1976.
Rob Strong, Director of Community Development, reviewed for the City Council's
information park land dedication and /or in lieu fees presently existing vs.
the proposed residential construction tax. He reviewed the activities
under provisions of Ordinance 565 (1972.Series), which became effective
in 1973 requiring that new subdivisions provide for dedication of land
and /or payment of a fee for park and recreational facilities on the basis
of.5 acres of property for each 1000 residents anticipated in the area. The
ordinance, enabled by the.Quimby Act,.allows.up to one =half of the dedi-
cation or fee requirements to be satisfied.where local schools are
determined by the City to be so located as to serve the.park and-recrea-
tion needs of the subdivision. He then.reviewed the 8-residential sub-
divisions which have bees.-approved by the City.since.the adoption of
Ordinance No. 565 and that the City had collected.a total of $18,272.00
in lieu fees. The average fee per unit.had.beea.approximately $61:00
although the actual fees had.ranged.from.a low..of $18.22 to a high of
$150.00 per dwelling unit. He continued that in Phase 2 of the Preliminary
General Plan Revision Report,.it was estimated that.the..City of San Luis
Obispo had approximately 600 acres devoted to park land, recreational
facilities, and school grounds to serve the present population. Approx-
imately 465 acres, however, were: in the Laguna Lake Regional Park,-San
Luis High School,:San Luis Junior High'and Laguna-Junior High School area
and were not really intended to function-as-neighborhood recreational
facilities which would leave an.actual inventory-of 135 acres for such
purposes. Based on the general design criteria of 5 acres per 1,000
City Council Minutes
February 9, 1976
Page 2
population, the present population of 33,500 people warranted approximately
170 acres of local park and recreation space and the apparent deficiency
exceeded 35 acres.
He concluded that the present dedication and /or in lieu fees for residential
subdivisions were inadequate and inequitable if the City intended to imple-
ment its basic neighborhood and community park objectives. The staff of
the Community•Development Department and the Parks.and Recreation Department '
proposed and the Planning Commission and the Parks and. Recreation had con-
curred that "residential construction tax" would be an appropriate complement
to the subdivision dedication and in lieu fees. The two commissions had
recommended that the initial tax be $150.00 per dwelling unit but the staff
had suggested that the appropriate fee, based on actual land costs and
improvement costs, should be at least $375.00 per dwelling unit but agreed
that the taxing concept was more important than the amount of the tax.
Jeff Jorgenson, City Law Clerk, reviewed the provisions of the draft
residential construction tax section.by section.. .Basically, the pro-
posed tax would impose a tax upon every person who constructed or
caused to be constructed any new dwelling unit or mobilehome space
in the City of San Luis Obispo, and the tax imposed by the section
would be at the rate of $150.00 per dwelling unit. The tax imposed
by this ordinance would be imposed regardless of whether the new dwell-
ing unit was created by new construction or by modification of existing
structures or by conversion by a different or exempt use. The tax
imposed would apply to new mobilehome park spaces regardless of .whether
or not they were part of a new mobilehome park or an addition to an
existing park. The tax imposed would also apply to the conversion of
an existing apartment building into a condominium if the construction
of the apartment building had not previously been subject to the tax imposed
by this article. The tax would be payable upon the issuance of .the
building permit or construction permit. He also listed several.exemptions
to the tax including governmental agenies, construction of buildings ,
intended and used exclusively to house the elderly or handicapped, recon-
struction of buildings damaged or destroyed by earthquake, fire, flood
or other cause over which the owner had no control, and replacement of any
building upon the same lot if the building were commenced within 12 months
from the date the previous building was removed from the lot.
Mayor Schwartz declared the discussion open to the public.
Mike DeNeve, Manager of the County Building Contractors Association objected
in principal to the additional tax and the costs this would place on new
residential development within the City, further inhibiting the construction
of needed residential dwelling units in the City.
A. Volny, Contractor, questioned the imposition of an additional cost to
the building of residential dwelling units. He suggested rather than fixed
amounts, the fee should be based on the value of the land being developed.
Dorothy.Connor, League of Women Voters, wondered about the equity of park
land in the downtown area when land costs were prohibitive for park acqui-
sition by any governmental agency.
Mayor Schwartz declared the discussion closed to the public.
Councilman Petterson questioned the equity in an arbitrary tax per unit
when the market value affected land acquisition for park purposes. He
also felt that some inflationary factors should be included. He also
felt that-the magnitude of costs to maintain our-operating parks as we
acquire new parks should be considered by the City Council.
Councilman Graham stated that he was supportive of the proposed tax but
felt that further study was needed before taking a position.
CITY.COUNCIL MINUTES
FEBRUARY 9, 1976
PAGE 3
Councilman Gurnee stated he was supportive of the concept.but felt that
one question the Council should decide was whether the City wanted more
parks geared to.some national standard or whether the City should update
the parks they now had to a higher standard. He also felt that the
rates .should be higher and maybe could generate the cost of development.
Mayor Schwartz was supportive in principal but felt that the fee should
be more in line with either the percentage of the building permit fees,or
some other basis. He also felt that the staff should clear up language
and prepare the proposal for public hearing.
Councilman Norris arrived at the meeting at 9:00 p.m.
Councilman Petterson felt-that-the staff should look into a percentage
figure of costs of construction, something like 1% of the cost of construction.
On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Mayor Schwartz, that the City
Council schedule a public hearing for March 1, 1976 with alternative cost
approaches for Council'consideration and -leave out costs in the ordinance and
adopt -byra- resolution.- Motion carried. All ayes.
Mayor Schwartz declared a recess at 9:05 p.m.
The.meeting reconvened.with all Councilman present at 9:15'p.m.
Paul-E. Landell, Jr., presented :a lengthy report of the George S. Nolte &
Associates, Zone 9.consultants, evaluation of alternative flood-control
.methods at a:public- meeting-held.on December-11; 1976,.and.submitted.various
alternatives for,the City Council-and for the :County in flood protection
for the City of San Luis:.Obispo.;'He also.submitted - cost :estimates for
various alternative .improvements to control,flood:.in the,San Luis-Creek
general -base and area:
' D.F. Romero, Director of Public Services, stated -that -.the - recommendations
in the Nolte-Report as submitted by Paul Landell were substantially the.
same as he made -to the.City.Council.on April 3, 1972: _.
Paul Landell.again stated that, based on the Nolte Report, the.technical
City - County Engineer's Committee felt that due to the low cost benefit
ratio, they did not feel that the Zone 9 agency could obtain any federal
financing assistance to make .flood control -work.
Mayor Schwartz opened the discussion to the public.
Walt Crawford-felt that-.the City:Council.should.also consider-improvements
on Old Mission Creek at Mountain View Street as he felt that this small
stream carried. -great amounts- of:`water_at flood and high rain periods. ..
H. Miossi, submitted a lengthy statement to the City Council.
dated January 28, 1976 in which he felt that the solutions contained
too.much engineering and not enough land planning or environmental consid-
erations. He submitted several solutions for the.controlling of flood.
zones. He--felt that.there should be more . flood -proofing.and• less requiring
of engineering:.solutions such as dams, concrete culverts,, etc. He also
felt that.:the;City:and the_County:,spent:tremendous -sums of money. -for a
consultant fora very.mediocore teport. ;He..said the original contract was
for $55,000 but that $78,000 had been paid to date. He suggested that the
Zone - 9-'Advisory Board- shouldrbe-restriuctured so- that the,-City of San Luis
Obispo ;was better:- represented.than by City and-County.employees who.only
look to an engineering solution. He felt that more citizens should be
involved as they had to pay the bill and repair the damages, not public
employees. _
Finally, he recommended that master:planning appeared to be the solution
and that two activities, surveyance and clearance, should be stepped up
and given a full chance to prove their effectiveness over several years
of heavy rains before any engineering plan was adopted.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
FEBRUARY 9, 1976
PAGE 4
Robert Leitcher, Member-of the Zone 9:Advisory Committee, stated that he
felt the City Council should consider placing additional tax funds for
flood.control and less for..parks.and beautification, etc. He felt that
the estimated costs for flood control submitted by Nolte were mind- boggling
and out of line and felt that the taxpayers were not going to'pay the bill..
He felt that the City .should start on a pecking order in.order to get the
worst areas corrected first.
Rob. - Strong, Director.of Community- Development, urged that the City Council
support the consultant's preliminary report as'.he• felt it was well done,
complete, and technically. thorough.
D.F. Romero, Director of Public Services, stated the following: 1) improve
the channels in already developed areas or in especially sensitive areas to
provide for.25 -year protection, since this is the..most.cost- effective of
all alternatives; 2) Purchase the dam site and flood retention area at the
foot of Cuesta Grade. This would permit the City to develop a recreation
facility on.this land, and at the same time, .secure the site.:should. the
community determine to construct the dam at some future time; 3) All_drain-
age structures should be designed to meet 100- year.criteria; and 4) All
buildings should be designed to be flood proof from a 100 -year storm.
Mayor Schwartz reviewed for the.Councilmen, staff and..public present, the
steps that had been taken::since the..1969 and 1973 floods.in San Luis Obispo
He reviewed the actions taken, the formation of Zone 9, the inability of the
City to- negotiate a Joint Powers Agreement to administer the flood control
plan, an election which yielded voter approval of a 5C tax for initial
studies and some creek maintenance. Now, after all of these-years, the
City had before it.' the findings of the Zone .9 consultant and:a request
by City staff-that the City Council take.a position and advise Zone 9
Advisory Board::and Board of Supervisors accordingly. The:-Mayor stated
that because of the history of flooding in this area that any plan
supported by the City should be explicit: It should deal with specifics
as to long range goals and short range objectives, and he could not . .
support the staff's recommendations as presented. He stated that as he
saw it, the City Council had before:them, various options:..
ISSUE ONE: Protection Level
A. Accept periodic flooding and do nothing to existing system. If this
option was acceptable;- proceed no further..
B. Accept periodic flooding but take steps-to improve existing minor
constructions so as to raise system capacity and .reduce frequency of
.flooding = such as the'25 year frequency recommended..by.staff.
C. Establish 100 year storm standard and'lay out a program for achieving
that goal.
ISSUE TWO: Waterway Design
A. Accept the criteria established by the Fish and Game Commission that
the creek remain essentially.as is, but especially-that creek bottoms
and sides should remain natural in order to maintain.the waterways as
fish runs and spawning grounds. Essentially, this meant doing very
little beyond yearly.waterway.cleaning and accepting periodic flooding.
B. Fight Fish-and-Game and establish design criteria ,permitting hard.coat-
ing of creek bottoms and /or sides in.'order to increase waterway capacity
within existing cross sectional area.
C. Accept the basic concepts.of.Fish and Game,
to increase capacity of creeks by.enlargemen
straightening creek segments,,yet- do:so in a
natural appearing waterway.
but work with Fish and Game
t of cross sections and /or
way which re- established a
9
1
1
1
City Council.Meeting
February .'9 ,..19 76
Page 5
ISSUE THREE: Administration and Execution
A:- Disband Zone-9 and allow City:and County :to.go.their =own ways as
before flood: .;
B. Continue Zone 9 administration.with Board of Supervisors maintaining
full responsibility for program and financing as well as flood lia-
bility:• Pay,as-:you go- or-bondingr possibilities for implementing plans.
' C. Continue Zone 9 for overall plan coordinating and taxing power and
develop Joint Powers Agreement to permit City and County to indi -..
vidually execute plan components within their jurisdictions.
D. Same but maintain a minimum creek maintenance program and await the.-
arrival of..Army'.Corps of 'Engineers support.
He felt the City.should strive for.a.100 year -storm protection by-.starting
at the south.end of San Luis Creek and making improvements coming up into town
using- whatever.. local,.funds -became.available.: He felt-.that-this should be
done up to the.Stenner%Creek intersection to-100 year standards; 'from:.there
north to Reservoir Canyon standards could be 35 years. At this time, he
did not feel.the dam was viable but - should be kept in the plan for.future
consideration. Further, some day the area through town could be opened up
by removal of buildings in the downtown.area as it was redeveloped.
Finall.y;.he-.: supported - the -creek improvements and developments as a multi-
purpose use such-as paths, trails, etc.
The City Council then discussed all the comments.and reports submitted by
staff and public with - solutions to the flood control proposals of Nolte.
Councilman Norris stated he supported the Nolte plan as the best plan and
as finances built up, work should be processed in accordance with the plan
but in the meantime, the.staff should start doing whatever was possible now
with whatever funds were available.
Councilman Gurnee disagreed.stating that he was more in support with the.
Mayor's proposal and comments. He felt the City and Zone 9 should be very
careful about damaging the creek environment by allowing too many engineering
solutions.
On motion of Mayor Schwartz, seconded by Councilman.Norris,. that the
City Council direct the City Zone9 representatives to take the follow-
ing position of. the City of.San Luis.Obispo based on present available
information:
1. The long -term objective.would be to establish the 100 -year storm
protection level for the entire creek system.
2. That a plan be devised which would allow 100 -year protection level
be achieved on a unit by unit basis from the southerly City limit
boundaries.
3.. That increments beg inning.at the confluence of Stenner Creek and San
Luis Creek be brought to the level of capacity depending on the
capacity of the enclosed channel under the City and all.options to
bring this segment to a 100 -year level be.kept open including:
' A. Up- stream dam;
B.': Diversion channel bypass;.and
C. Open constricted channel in downtown -San Luis Obispo.
4. In the administration of the work; Zone 9 would continue for the pur-
poses of overall plan coordination through Zone 9 and the City might
separately consider the raising of funds through voter approval necessary
to expedite the plan.
City Council Minutes
February 9, 1976
Page 6
5. For the purpose of EIR preparation, at this time, that the stretch of
San Luis Creek from Stenner- :Cieek:northerly be developed to 35 -year
basis and balance of the creek system to 100 year storm capacity.
Motion carried on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilman Gurnee, Norris, Petterson, Graham
and Mayor Schwartz
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
4. Council consideration of the appointment of members to the
Ad Hoc Citizens Committee to study the City Charter was continued to
February 17, 1976 Council meeting.
5. On motion of Councilman-Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Norris,
the meeting adjourned. Motion cafried.
APPROVED: August 16, 1976
itzpatrick, City Clerk
4
71
1
1