Loading...
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