Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/10/1979City Council Minutes July 9, 1979 Page 2 1 -C Council reviewed the budget request for the library: Page 4 -63 Library Services. 2. Councilman Dunin stated that he has second thoughts on the Council's Action in approving the addition of the staff writer to full -time status, and that he wished his vote to be changed to a "no" vote. The Council had no objection to this change in the record. 3. There being no further business to come before the Council, Mayor Cooper adjourned the meeting at 6:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., Tuesday, July 10, 1979. APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON: August 21, 1979 J. itzpatrick, City Clerk M I N U T E S ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TUESDAY, JULY 10, 1979 - 4:10 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, 990 PALM STREET SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA STUDY SESSION Roll Call ' Councilmembers PRESENT: Melanie Billig, Alan Bond, Ron Dunin, Jeff Jorgensen, and Mayor Lynn R. Cooper ABSENT: None City Staff PRESENT: Leland Walton, City Administrative Officer; J.H. Fitzpatrick, City Clerk; George Thacher, City Attorney; Roger Neuman, Police Chief. Human Relations Commission Members PRESENT: Jerry Kaml, Chairman, Ruby Siegel, Walt Lambert, Jeff Giuffrida, Terry Elfrink, John Carse l. Human Relations Commission Staff PRESENT: Jackie Megow, Pat Wickstrom. 1. The City Council continued their review of the recommendations of 1 the Human Relations Commission for funding in the 1979 -80 City Budget. Page 2 -16 Human Relations Commission (05- 01 -35) The Council again reviewed the recommendation of the Human Relations Commission for grants -in -aid for the fiscal year 1979 -80. A. Family Services Center $3,300 B. Grandmothers' House 500 C. Hospice 3,600 D. Hotline 3,600 $9,900 City Council Minutes July 10, 1979 Page 2 On motion of Councilman Jorgensen, seconded by Councilman Dunin, that the City Council approve the grants -in -aid as recommended by the HRC for the Family Services Center, Grandmothers' House, Hospice, and Hotline. Councilwoman Billig stated she would vote no on the motion due to lack of discussion on each grant and no adhearance to the times published in the agenda. Motion carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Jorgensen, Dunin, Bond, and Mayor Cooper NOES: Councilwoman Billig ABSENT: None At 4:30 p.m., the City Council called a recess as the Grassroots were scheduled to appear at 5:00 p.m. on their budget request. At 5:05 p.m., the City Council reconvened, all councilmembers present. Staff present - Walton, Fitzpatrick, and Thacher.• HRC members present - Kaml, Siegel, Lambert, Biuffrida, Elfrink, and Carsel. HRC staff present - Megow, and Wickstrom. The City Council then reconvened to consider an appeal by the Grassroots II, from a denial of any funds by the HRC for the fiscal year 1979 -1980. Ken Walker spoke in support of granting funds to continue the good work per- formed by the Grassroots II staff. He felt that no one questioned the work done by Grassroots. He felt the problems were with organization to perform the project. He felt that now that reorganization had been completed, they are capable of performing. Margarite Harris, client of Grassroots, felt they did a good job and performed a needed service and hoped the Council would continue to fund. Norman Stone, 233 Branch Street, board member for Grassroots for ten years, felt that the main reason for problems between Grassroots and the City, as seen by HRC, is that the HRC does not believe that there are any poor people in the community. Mr. Peterson, 1654 Fairview, stated that he has just been appointed as the business manager for Grassroots II. He thought that the service provided -by Grassroots was excellent. He agreed that they do need some business approaches to their operation. He offered the City Council to work for 90 days, so that he can investigate and look into Grassroots operation. After 90 days, he would honestly tell the City Council whether the City should continue to fund or not. He urged the City Council to continue funding for 90 days. - , 108 Crandall Way, a client of Grassroots II, felt that they had done a good job in helping people who are down and out of the main- stream of the community. She then reviewed her personal experiences and the help granted by Miss Lewis. Mrs. Gamble, long -time resident of San Luis Obispo, felt that the Grassroots serves a great need in the community. She felt that they served people who have no place else to go, or to get help. She felt that other agencies, county, state, etc., do not understand the problems of the minorities and the unprivileged people of the community. City Council Minutes July 10, 1979 Page 3 Mrs. Apperson, Director of West Coast Education and Research Center, 225 N. Chorro, spoke in support of-the Grassroots operation in helping people of various ethnic - groups work.and live.-.within the community. She ¢hen read.a.case study of.a referral from.Grassroots. She urged tax - supported funds for Grassroots II. John Dearhart, Director of West Coast.Education and Research Center, spoke in support of Grassroots funding.by the City.in order to serve the poor, minorities and people of .different recial backgrounds. He thought Grassroots served a.need'in the community like no other agency has.- Liz Fisher, member.of.C.A.C. and.Hotline, urged continued.city funding to Grassroots. She felt that they do .a good job for the hopeless and destitute citizens of the community, and also transients coming through. Jim Rogers, Granada Hotel, spoke in- support of service provided by Grass- roots to himself as a client. . Robert.Bond, President of Grassroots :II, stated that the Grassroots II. has now reorganized, have .hired .a business-manager, and have tried to comply with.all past_criticisms.of the HRC as to their operation. He felt that Grassroots was needed in-order-to serve the disadvantaged citizens of the city and-county. He.feels.that.the:new Board of Directors have dedicated themselves to putting Grassroots.on a business -like basis, and they hope that they'can work.with HRC to provide good human services for the- city and county citizens. He continned:.that he:.hoped the Council would-look into what-Grassroots is really accomplishing for the poor and underprivileged of the City. Mr. Deno, felt that the .Council should:.listen.to. all areas of the com- munity to comply with .laws which require: access by disabled people, to all facilities of the City, both.public -.and private. He felt that any funds granted to agencies !by . the .City should. comply. with- -State -and Federal laws to make these offices:and programs:savailable to the disadvantaged. He stated that Grassroots office was impossible for disabled handicapped people.to even go to the office for help. Jerry Kaml,.2411 Flora Street, Chairman.of. the HRC, stated.that.the HRC. was not opposed.to.Grassroots:II or_to.the people involved, but that HRC wished a method -of monitoring the City.funds.that are allocated by the City to an agency over which they have general supervision. It was the feeling of HRC that many of the services performed are duplicated by other agencies and that by putting services out to competitive bid, possibly other agencies might be able to.better serve the disadvantaged citizens of the community. Pat Wickstrom, HRC staff, at the request of the chairman, gave examples of the types of service that are handled by HRC, in coordinating aid to the destitute transients which are similar to.service being done.by Grassroots II. Mike Stansbury, Title I Committee, Hawthorne - Emerson School, an organization to help the disadvantaged students in public schools, stated he found that Grassroots was the only agency they can go to for support in their area of expertise. Pat Wickstrom, HRC staff, reviewed the results of.y,the.Human Needs Assessment, ' as related to the funds requested by Grassroots II for service. Councilman Dunin, stated that Human Needs .Assessment was a program to define human needs lacking in the City. He felt that Grassroots II was a.service needed in the City.,He felt HRC was an advisory body to the Council and the Council should listen to.their recommendations. He continued that Grassroots II should continue to operate but should try to get their organization under control. City Council Minutes July 10, 1979 Page 4 Councilwoman Billig, acknowledged the�need for the Grassroots organization. She also felt..that they are many poor.people in the City who use the service. She continued that she would like-to see something:done for the poor and the disadvantaged; but she is concerned with the "Grassroots organization and administration. She was pleased that Grassroots II has reorganized to better help the disadvantaged poor etc. She also felt that the County Board of Supervisors should help, as many of the Grassroots clients are County re- sidents. Councilman Jorgensen. stated ._that =he caascagonized_ over this; - particular item for quite a while, due to what he feels is .a need for a service, and whether the Grassroots organization is the one to deliver this service. He would be willing to continue to fund Grassroots II for 90 days to allow the new chairman and officers to get their operation together and updated, and modernized. He felt that there were.many problems involved with other agencies. He felt the problems were more of those with personalities than actual-,._. problems. Councilman Bond said that.he.concurred with Councilman Jorgensen. He felt the problems were.one-of personalities: He felt that a good program was being hurt by poor personalitg.•conflicts. Mayor Cooper felt that this meeting might be the catalyst that would bring everyone, Council, HRC, and Grassroot together, in order to work for the good of all-the people of San Luis Obispo,.City, County and even the transients. Councilman Dunin',.moved'that.the City fund.Grassroots for 30 days, with HRC to.prepare a scope of work for the.human and social service programs within the City of San Luis Obispo. Motion died -for lack of a second. On motion of Councilman.Bond, seconded-by Councilman...Dunin,.that the City Council accept the recommendation of the.HRC,.and advertise for bids to pro- vide human services to the City of San Luis Obispo under contract and that Grassroots II be-asked to apply. Motion carried on the following.roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Bond, Dunin, Billig, and Mayor Cooper NOES: Councilman Jorgensen 2. There being no.further business to come before the City Council, Mayor Cooper adjourned the meeting at 6:40 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. Tuesday, July 10, 1979. APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL August 21, 1979 i Poet - DATE J$$K F'ITnP ,TRICK, CITY CLERK 1 I 1 L.® M I N U T E S ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SAN LUIS.OBISPO TUESDAY,.JULY.10, 1979' - 7:30 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, 990 PALM STREET Pledge Roll Call COUNCILMEMBERS Present: Melanie Billig,`Alan Bond, Ron Dunin, Jeff Jorgensen and Mayor Lynn R. Cooper Absent: None CITY STAFF Present: Lee Walton, Administrative-Officer; J.H. Fitzpatrick, City Clerk; George.Thacher, City Attorney; Rudy Muravez, Finance Director; Roger-Neuman, Police.Chief; Richard Minor, Fire Chief; Terry Sanville, Senior Planner 3. The City Councilmember's reported on activities 'of standing Council Subcommittees: A. 'Area'Council of Governments Councilwoman Billig B. C.C.C.J.C. Councilman Bond C. County Water Advisory Board Mayor Cooper D. Whale Rock Commission Mayor Cooper E. Zone 9 Advisory Committee Councilman Dunin 4. The City Clerk reviewed with the City Council some of the major bills before the Legislature in Sacramento: AB 8 The long-term financing..bill amended with an escape valve or deflater amendment approved by the League was supported by the City'Council. AB 1843 The State Housing.Element Guidelines were reduced to a.directive to the Housing and-Community Development.Departments of the .State and were not mandatory. The City Council would support the bill if the mandatory provisions were removed. AB 1843 The Mandatory and - Uniform Municipal.Accounting and Budgeting Bill.pre- viously opposed.by.the City had now been defeated in Committee and would ,not appear on the floor,. ACR 51 Uniform Finance.Reporting : for.Cities and Counties'were approved by the Committee and were-now awaiting action by the full Assembly was recommended for approval by the League and previously supported by the City. AB 858 League Sponsored Local-Employee-Employer Relations.Act supported by the City and the League of.-California Cities but had not been con- sidered by the Legislative Committee who defeated consideration on a tie vote. SCR 39 A new bill which would.allow triple trailers on highways, streets and .roads of the State: The League-of California Cities recommended oppos- ition and due to the lack of more information the City Council decided not to take any action. The City Clerk was directed to continue with the City Council's past action on these bills. 5. The City Council held .a public hearing on the 1979 -1980 City Budget. City Council Minutes July 10, 1979 - 7:30 p.m. Page 2 Lee Walton, Administrative Officer, stated that during the budget study sessions, the City Council added roughly $75,000 to the proposed budget. He recommended that after reviewing the CIP, the Council adopt the budget as amended without trying to make up the $75,000. He stated his reasoning for this was that the City didn't know just how much the .carryover balances would be. These balances may be more than expected and thus sufficient to fund the deficit or it may be less, resulting in an even greater deficiency. This information would be made available to the City Council in two or three ' weeks. Then, if after accounting for recent employee pay adjustments a deficit remained there were basically three or four options available to the Council: 1) Defer CIP projects; 2) A significant reduction in operational and maintenance expenditures; 3) Delay hiring of new personnel; and 4) Reduction of proposed general fund reserves. Finally, he stated that at that time, the City would know for sure whether legislation dealing with State bailout funds had been approved. If the bailout bills failed, then it would be back to the drawing board with respect to the CIP. Rudy Muravez, Finance Director, submitted a report to the.City Council of adjustments plus and minus in the various budgets made by the City Council during the Study Sessions. He listed the estimated amount for the 1979 -1980 year and then additional costs on a year by year basis after the first year. Lee Walton, Administrative Officer, again stated that in the additional action previously taken, the City was planning on adding one temporary park worker on a temporary basis to maintain the Meadow Park extension and expansion caused by the agreement with the subdeveloper and this would be a temporary appointment until a decision was reached by the City Council on street tree crews. Mayor Cooper declared the public hearing open on the 1979 -1980 budget. No I one appeared before the City Council for or against the budget. Mayor Cooper declared the public hearing closed. On motion of Councilman Jorgensen, seconded by Councilman Bond, that the City Council adopt the 1979 -1980 budget as amended by the City Council this date. Motion carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Jorgensen, Bond, Billig and Mayor Cooper NOES: Councilman Dunin ABSENT: None 6. The City Council held a public hearing on the proposed 1979 -1980 Expenditures of Federal Revenue Sharing Funds: Mayor Cooper declared the public hearing.open. No one appeared before the City Council for or against the Revenue Sharing expenditures. Mayor Cooper declared the public hearing closed. Total Budget Revenue Sharing Fund Administration $ 1,174,719. $ 10,000. Community Development 641,293. Public Services 1,839,005. Parks and Recreation 1,482,742. 40,000. Utilities 2,965,710. Parking 738,616. 560,000. Bus System 490,980. Police 1,723,098. Fire 19497,666. 7,600. Whale Rock 479,248. Other 262,082. $13,295,159. $617,600. Mayor Cooper declared the public hearing.open. No one appeared before the City Council for or against the Revenue Sharing expenditures. Mayor Cooper declared the public hearing closed. 1 1 City Council Minutes July 10, 1979 - 7:30 p.m. Page 3 On motion of Councilman Jorgensen, seconded by Councilman Dunin, that the City Council approve the proposed expenditure of revenue sharing funds in the 1979 -1980 budget. Motion carried, all ayes. 7. At this time the City Council discussed Minor Subdivision No. 77 -357, located at 975 Foothill Boulevard, Polin - Truchan Realty, subdividers. Mayor Cooper left the meeting due to a possible conflict of interest. Vice -Mayor Dunin presided. Jerry Kenny, City Engineer's Office, reported that the basis of the problem on this development is a deficient storm drain system draining the area bounded by Foothill Boulevard, Meinecke Avenue, Santa Rosa Street, and Chorro Street and that during a ten - year - storm, this area generates about 31 cubic feet per second of surface runoff. The drainage system, though, is only capable of handling 15 cubic feet per second of runoff. At issue in this final map is the.City Engineer's opinion that further development, which would increase runoff, should not be allowed until the deficient storm drain system is improved. In line with this opinion, the staff has recommended and the City Council has adopted a condition of approval for Minor Subdivision No. 77 -357 which states, "The final map shall contain a note that drainage improvements and structures, including off -site improvements, located on Parcel C may be required at the time parcels are developed, to the approval of the City Engineer." The land developer is protesting the "blank check" for off -site drainage improvements implied by the note on the map conditioning the development of his property. If the developer wants to develop his property, he must either wait for the city to improve the system, improve the system himself, partic- ipate with the city in some manner or develop the property without increasing runoff. The city has no plans at this time to improve the system. To develop the property without increasing runoff requires holding ponds or some other method of storing water for short times on the property. To develop the property without increasing runoff would not correct the present storm drain capacity.- The 1979 -1984 Capital Improvement Plan .identified $1,100,000 in flood control deficiencies needing correction in that five -year period. The CIP for 1979 -80 proposes allocating $200,000 to correct deficiencies. Therefore, it would clearly be in the-city's interest to require full resolution of drainage deficiencies at the time of project approval. To do otherwise simply adds to-the publics future CIP improvement obligations. The city staff felt that the following options were available to the city: 1. To-require the note to- remain on the map as stated. This would not resolve the specific issue of the developer's responsibility to make off -site improvements. 2. To revise the note to indicate developer responsibility limited to a portion of the cost of off -site improvements. This would seem equitable in light of the fact that this is a problem shared by other properties. This would resolve the issue of developer responsibility but could delay correction of the deficient system until the city decides to.improve the system. 3. Eliminate the note and relieve.the developer of any responsibility for off -site improvements. This would resolve the specific issue of developer responsibility but would not correct the storm drain deficiency. George Thacher, City Attorney, submitted, for the Council's consideration, his Memorandum Opinion No. 79 -33, subject - Improvement Requirements for Minor Subdivision No. 77 -357. City Council Minutes July 10, 1979 - 7:30 p.m. Page 4 He stated that in regards to condition (9), previously mentioned, the City Engineer has informed the developer that when Parcel C is developed the storm drainage system must carry all runoff to Stenner Creek, the only adequate point of disposal. The subdivider has offered to be responsible for 18% of the drainage system proposed by the City Engineer, on the hypoth- esis that since the property to be subdivided is approximately 18% of the land area which the drainage improvements will serve, the subdivided property will contribute approximately that percentage of runoff to the system. He continued that presently the drainage area is served by a deficiently sized pipe which runs to Stenner Creek from a point of collection at the southeast corner of Parcel C. The pipe now in place is inadequate to handle a 10- year - storm, the adopted criterion for that drainage area. The City Engineer feels that an additional 24 inch pipe placed parallel to the pipe in place would eliminate the deficiency, that is, it would handle a 10- year- storm. Because there are no submitted development plans for Parcel C, it is unclear what additional burden such development would place on the drainage system, in terms of volume and peak flows. He stated that he had been informed that Parcel C could be developed in such a manner as not to alter the present volume and peak flows from the drainage area. This could be accomplished by allowing ponding and release as the system gradually handles the runoff. Whatever the development, the improvements proposed by the City Engineer would correct a drainage area deficiency and, therefore, result in a signifi- cant benefit to the other properties in the area. The City Attorney continued that there is certainly no question that the City may require improvements as a condition.of subdivision approval. A question of who shall pay arises, however, when the required improvements are constructed to benefit property not within the subdivision. Government Code provides that a city may require by ordinance that improvements installed by the subdivider for the benefit of the subdivision shall contain supplemental capacity, etc. for the benefit of property not within the subdivision. If there is such an ordinance the city must enter into a reimbursement agreement for the eventual repayment of the difference between the cost of the improvements to serve the subdivision only and the actual cost of the improvement. Funds for repayment may be derived from a charge on the property benefitted, by various means. The City of San Luis Obispo. has such ordinances, but only with respect to sanitary sewers and water service, it has none for drainage. Some argue that absent of such an ordinance, we are not in a position to require oversizing of storm drain facilities. The City Attorney disagreed. But in the event oversizing is required, the subdivider cannot be expected to bear the entire cost. This is in recognition of the well established principle that any improve- ment or design standard imposed by a governmental body as a condition of development must bear a reasonable relationship to public needs created by the development. It is on this principle that the reimbursement agreement provisions are founded. It is also on this principle that this City's sewer and water oversized refunding ordinances are founded. And given this principle, the City Attorney stated he is forced to say that the subdivider in this instance cannot be required to pay for the storm drainage proposed by the City Engineer to the extent that development of the subdivision does not create the need for the drainage, that is, does not exacerbate the existing situation. Finally, he stated that the question .here is just what sort of development will take place and what effect that development will have on existing con- ditions. It may well be that the development will be of such intensity that its contribution to the existing deficiency alone will necessitate installation of an additional parallel pipe of some size, the cost of which the developer must bear. The difference between such cost and the cost of installing a pipe of a size to accommodate a 10- year -storm over the drainage area would be borne by the City and /or benefitted property owners. He stated that another factor to consider is that this parcel is 1.2 acres, zoned R -1. If it remains R -1 there will undoubtedly be an application for further subdivision or a PD application. In either event furthur approvals and further exactions will be given and imposed. While condition (9) is satisfactory for the moment it could and should be subject to refinement when development intensity is better known. City Council Minutes July 10, 1979 - 7:30 p.m. Page 5 Vic Montgomery, representing the property owner, again reviewed the basis for their appeal which is that they do not object to making improvements that are caused by developments on their land, but they object to making area -wide improvements then have it charged to one small parcel of land. He continued that the property owner had retained hydraulic engineers to analyze the area of benefit.as defined by the City Engineer, and by calcu- lation, found that Parcel C would contribute approximately 18% of the runoff and represented about 18% of the area. The developer has offered to deposit ' 18% of the cost of improving the pipe to take the drainage to Stenner Creek, but this has been refused by.the.city staff stating that they felt the entire improvements should be put in by this one developer. Councilman Jorgensen stated that he agreed in principle with the policy that the developer should only pay for what water he generates on his property and passes on to his neighbors. He disagreed with the request that the City Council agree that 18% is the proper portion of cost to handle water for this development. He would agree to try and generate a special assess- ment district to handle the drainage for the entire district. The City Council then discussed briefly some of the points brought out by City Attorney, Geroge Thacher, and Vic Montgomery on behalf of the property owner. As this matter was to come before the City Council for final action on July 17, 1979; it was the consensus of the City Council as follows: 1. No change in condition (9), except that the City Council recognizes that the subdivider.cannot.be assessed for oversized off -site improvements for water not created by his development. 2. The council notes and.agrCes'with the improvement_#mposition limitations as set out in the City Attorney Opinion No. 79 -23. 3. Given those limitations there are various methods for financing of, or substitution for.the need for, oversized off -site improve- ' meats including but not limited to (a) shared funding between the city and developer, based on a calculated contributory burden of the subdivided property as a portion of the drainage area, 4. At the time of development of Parcel C the city may be willing either to share in the cost of oversided improvements or to create an assessment district. In this event it might be required fully to fund off -site impoovements which are adequate to off -set the additional burden the development imposes on the existing system, a cost to developer which could approach the amount now projected for the full oversized improvements suggested by City Engineer. 5. The engineering staff will calcuate the subdivided property's proportionate responsibility for off -site improvements for a ten -year storm. Minor Subdivision No. MS 77 -357 was continued to Tuesday, July 17, 1979. Mayor Cooper returned to the council desk at 8:50 p.m. 8. A survey report from the Human Relations Commission staff on Mobile Home Park Rents, etc. was continued to.a future Council study session which was to include the possibility of an arbitration board on rents, etc. on motion of Councilman Dunin, seconded by Councilman Jorgensen. Motion carried. ' At 8:50 p.m. Mayor Cooper declared a recess; at 9:00 a.m., the City Council reconvened with all Councilmen present. At 9:00 p.m., the City Council adjourned to Executive Session, all Councilmen Present. City Staff present: Lee Walton, J.H. Fitzpatrick, George Thacher and Rudy Muravez. 9:25 p.m., the City Council reconvened in Regular Session with all Councilmen present. 9.A On motion of Councilman Bond, seconded by Councilman Dunin, the following resolution was introduced: Resolution No. 3903 (1979 Series), a resolution of modifying salaries and wages and other conditions of employee compensation for the City of San Luis Obispo City Employees, members of the San Luis Obispo Police Officer bargaining unit.