Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/09/1979City Council Minutes October 9, 1979 - 7:30 p.m. Page 2 The reports were received and filed. 2. At this time the City Council considered a request from Gann Invest- ments regarding landscape improvement design for Tract No. 781, Exposition Park Unit III, landscape improvements - Phase II. Gann Investments stated that they were completing construction details for the tract including landscape improvements for the channel and greenbelt , areas. Landscape plans and specifications were prepared by Ted Elder & Associates and were approved by the City Council on November 8, 1978 except the irrigation plans for Phase II and precise drainage channel design. Gann Investments estimated that the greenbelt planting, drainage improve- ments, pathway and trail pavements, entrance plaza, and parkway development and special wall improvement involved in Tract 781 will exceed $150,000 in expense, exclusive of the value of more than five acres being dedicated to the city for greenbelt and parkway. They stated that although these pro- posed dedications and improvement contributions by the development are substantial, it was requested that the city budget funds for the turf planting and irrigation system installation as part of the Phase II, similar to the capital improvements made in Phase I. Assuming that the city's cost would increase ten percent due to escallation during the year, it is estimated that the irrigation and turf planting would cost approximately $50,000. Gann Investments requested that the City Council place this proposed expenditure as a high priority in the 1980/81 C.I.P. budget in order to enable corrdination with the construction by their firm. D.F. Romero, Public Services Director, stated that in accordance with the request from Gann Investments, it looked like that unit of the subdivision would be proceeding next year. He continued that the city is left with the choice of accepting the landscaping without an irrigation system or budgeting sufficient funds to assure proper maintenance. He stated that he agreed ' that the developer was forcing the city's hand and causing the city continued expenditures for irrigation systems to serve the park being developed within the subdivision, however, he felt this was a good deal for the city and the council should take advantage of it while they have the chance. He felt that if they did not install the irrigation system at the time of construction, the city would be faced with an almost impossible maintenance problem and large expenses at some future date when it is installed. He recommended that the City Council accept the recommendation from Gann Investments and place this project as a high priority in the 1980/81 C.I.P. Robert Strong, representing Gann Investments, reveiwed a map showing the type of improvements proposed in this phase. _Councilman Jorgensen stated he would support the prior commitment to complete the open space. He did not feel the city should support Phase III, but he would urge continuation of plans for Phase II in the 1980/81 C.I.P. budget. Councilwoman Billig stated that she agreed that the city should proceed on the commitment made from Phase II, but she would not support city involvement in Phase III development. On motion of Councilman Jorgensen, seconded by Councilman Bond, that the City Council adopt this landscaping improvement in principle and refer to the 1980/81 C.I.P. study. Motion carried on the following roll call vote: r AYES: Councilmembers Jorgensen, Bond, Billig, and Vice Mayor Dunin NOES: None ABSENT: Mayor Cooper 3. At this time the City Council attempted to review the entire Golf Course operation, concession contracts, and professional and driving range operation. City Council Minutes October 9, 1979 - 7:30 p.m. Page 3 _Jim Stockton, Park & Recreation Director, submitted a report dealing with this program showing the cost for operation over the last three fiscal years and the amount of money received from the concessionaire as a share of the operation. He stated that some of the major factors in the decrease of the course income was that since December 1978, the driving range has been inoperable due to weather and for the past eight months due to construc- tion of the modular home site to the west of the range. He felt this has been a financial hardship on both the city and the concessionaire. Prior to closing, the average income from the range was $380 to $400 per month of which the city received thirty percent. He continued that the concessionaire felt the effects of the range closure even more than the city in that he lost 70 percent of driving range income as well as the area used to give lessons, income from lessons of which 100 percent goes to the pro as per his contract with the city. One further factor that must be noted is the effect the inoperable driving range is having on regular play. He stated that this cannot be measured objectively, therefore, he had talked informally to a number of people who played regularly at one time or the other. The majority of these people indicated they liked to "hit a bucket of balls" before they played their round and further, that they would like to have an opportunity to have corrective lessons when they choose. Both of these opportunities are very limited or non - existant with the driving range inoperable. These people have, therefore, taken their play elsewhere. He continued that the following were other factors which limited regular play and green fee income: 1. Impact of the modular home park construction. 2. Demanding creek crossings. 3. Reduction of course difficulty by eliminating one hole. 4. General course maintenance. He presented, for the City Council's consideration, four options or alterna- tives in the operation of the course. 1. Total lease to corporation or individual for a specific time period with the city receiving a given yearly set sum or percentage of income. This is usually a long term operation with any improvements added along the way becoming the property of the city at termination of the lease. In this instance, the leasee is responsible for all maintenance and operation. 2. Contract arrangement with PGA teaching professional who handles course operation and concessions. The owner, in this case the city, furnishes maintenance and anticipates that the amount of play (green fees) will cover cost of maintenance (this is how the course operates at this time). 3. Private contract with a course manager who under specific conditions would be responsible for the operation of play and concessions. Owner responsible for maintenance again hoping that green fees would cover the cost of maintenance. 4. Recreation program operation where department hires part time leaders to work in the shop, collect green fees, sell merchandise and start groups on their rounds. His comments on the four options were as follows: 1. I have been in conversation with two individuals who are at the present time engaged in long term lease arrangements with cities to operate golf facilities. Both individuals played the Laguna Course and both indicated that it was a nice little municipal operation but did not offer potential that would make it econom- ically feasible for lease type operation. City Council Minutes October 9, 1979 - 7:30 p.m. Page 4 2 & 3. These two options are anticipated as equals concerning contract arrangements that -would be necessary. In the case of the teaching professional, emphasis would be put on lessons from which the pro would derive a portion of his income and the city could anticipate a lower flat contract costa In the case of a course manager, emphasis would be more towards merchandising, driving range opera- tions, etc. A higher contract cost could be anticipated, however, additional income for the owner would be realized through increased sales. To guess at which type operation would be more economically feasible for the owner would be facetious. Both of these options would offer the user a professional type settinf for their activity. 4. A recreation program type operation would probably cost the least when looking at a paper budget. However, the golfing public is unique, they expect a certain pomp and procedure a certain etiquette that I do not believe could be generated by having part -time recre- ation leaders on duty in the shop. Because of this, I believe play would fall off, sales would drop and the operation would go further in the red. In addition, supervision would be necessary from existing personnel in the department who are at present over their head with responsibilities. Therefore, Jim Stockton make the following recommendations: 1. He would recommend that the contracts now in force for professional/ concessionaire services be extended as was previously done by the council. He would further recommend that in February 1980, the city advertise for proposals from all interested pros and /or course managers, that interviews be held in early March 1980, to determine which proposal is in the best interest of the city, and a multi -year contract be considered for the operation of the course prior to April 1, 1980. 2. He would recommend that factors listed that have contributed to a decrease in play be corrected at the earliest possible time. When the conditions have been corrected, an advertising program through regular department channels be conducted to lure back the players that have been lost and to entice potential new users. Concilmembers Dunin and Billig felt that the City Council should receive a full scale report on the viability of the course -- whether the city should continue to operate the course and what are other alternatives for the course. They felt a full report by December 1979 to include analyses of neighbors attitudes to the golf course was needed. Councilman Jorgensen felt this golf course was in the wrong location for this operation and felt that the park master plan will show that this should be a park. He urged that no long term contracts be made on the course until the City Council has reviewed and adopted a park master plan so the council could look at the options. Councilman Bond said he also questioned whether this should even be used as a gold course due to the proximity of dwellings all around it. After some discussion, the City Council took the following action by concensus: 1. Staff to include a complete analysis of the Laguna Lake Golf Course options in the park master plan. 2. Staff directed to complete maximum flexability in future contracts with the golf course -- shorter terms, including alternate approaches. 3. Staff to do minimal development and improvements at the golf course until the final decision on the continuation of this operation. 4. On motion of Councilman Bond, seconded by Councilman Jorgensen, the following resolution was introduced: Resolution No. 3975 (1979 Series), a resolution of appreciation expressing the city's gratitude and appreciation to Utility Plant Supervisor Frank R. Reed for his long and dedicated service. 1 1 City Council Minutes October 9, 1979 - 7:30 p.m. Page 5 Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Bond, Jorgensen, Billig and Dunin NOES: None ABSENT: Mayor Lynn Cooper ' S. The City Council discussed the - preliminary work program for the Parks Master Plan. Henry Engen, Community Development Director, reviewed the preliminary work program for the Parks Master Plan for the Council's information. He stated that as part of the 1979 -1980 Capital Improvement Program, the City Council budgeted $25,000 for a consultant to prepare a master plan. This plan would be adopted by the Council and become part of the City's General Plan. He continued that the City was about ready to send requests for proposals to both local and out -of -town consultants to get this project on the road and he wished the Council or staff would make any comments or suggested changes or additions to the work program as soon as possible before sending it out the R.S.P.'s. The proposed work program was comprehensive and he questioned whether the budget would be sufficient to cover all the consultant's work. However, he stated that they would ask the consultant's to itemize their cost for each major work item in their proposals that were submitted. In this way, it would make it easier for staff to cut portions of the work program if the budget proved insufficient. He concluded his preliminary comments by saying that the work program had been reviewed by Jim Stockton and by a subcommittee of the Parks and Recreation Commission and he felt that if the Council had no objection they would proceed with the request for proposals. Lee Walton, Administrative Officer, felt the Parks Master Plan Work Program was very comprehensive but he felt that in the two sentences of the focused ' paragraph on the first page that the sentence "The plan will focus on planning and design of neighborhood and community parks." should be eliminated and in the second paragraph, first sentence "The parks master plan will deal mainly with the design and planning of facilities." be eliminated. He also felt that on the last page, the park priorities in a five year capital improvement program should be substituted for a five year CIP. Councilman Jorgensen suggested that rather than call this proposal a park master plan that it should be called a Recreation Element of the General Plan. He also hoped that when the plan was completed it would be one of high quality and could be used by the city. Councilwoman Billig stated she wanted a complete quality project for future development in the city. She also felt that this plan was needed when the Planning Commission and Council looked at developments in the community. She had no problem with the scope of the work program and felt it was quite comprehensive. Councilman Bond stated he agreed with Councilwoman Billig's statement on the quality of the program to be developed. He hoped the Council would not hire a consultant but possibly hire one employee for one year to prepare a staff report and ask for Park and Recreation Commission guidance. Councilman Dunin agreed with Councilman Bond as far as not retaining a consultant was concerned and to do it inhouse. Lee Walton, Administrative Officer, feared that the city might not be able to retain the most qualified person to do the work due to the specialized need and demands of this particular program. Also, he feared absorbing additional employees in the department, the project would never be completed. Councilwoman Billig felt the Council should authorize the retention of a qualified consultant to lead with staff to cooperate. She did not want to wait two years for the staff to come up with a report due to other commitments and lack of expertise. City Council Minutes October 9, 1979 - 7:30 p.m. Page 6 Councilman Jorgensen stated he agreed with Councilwoman Billig. He felt the work program was adequate, that the city should hire the best most qualified consultant, and that he should be an expert in the field. He added that the staff could support and supplement his research. It was the consensus of the council that the staff proceed with the following: 1) retain the best outside consultant in the field, and 2) adopt the staff work program as amended by Lee Walton. 6. Geoff Grote, Assistant City Attorney and Assistant City Administrator, submitted for the council's consideration a draft ordinance dealing with discrimination against children in rental housing. He stated that the council, on August 21, 1979, instructed the city attorney to prepare such an ordinance, and pursuant to these council instructions, this ordinance was presented to the H.R.C. on October 4, 1979. The H.R.C. voted to support passage of this ordinance as written and send it on to the council for action. In doing so, the H.R.C. expressed the concern of what they perceive as a lack of rental housing availability to families with children in San Luis Obispo. Consequently, it was the opinion of the H.R.C. that the ordinance not be modified to exempt any household accommodations, except those used exclusively for the elderly or for students. For this reason, mobilehomes were included in the definition of housing accommodation and are included in the provisions of the ordinance. In addition, the H.R.C. did not find that the ordinance should be amended to state that landlords be required to accept households with children only when the premises are suitable and safe for children. The H.R.C. felt that these amendments and others of this kind would be used as loopholes by landlords unwilling to comply with the basic intent of the law. Thus the ordinance as presented, was one with a very broad scope. Geoff Grote then reviewed some of the general provisions of the draft ordinance. He then continued that the proposed ordinance suffers from several deficiencies which relate to its extraordinary broad scope. Further, he felt there were serious questions as to the validity of this type of ordinance. He stated that the appellate courts have not yet ruled on the issues involved, although, as discussed, cases are now pending which should provide more clearly in this area in the next several months. He. continued that the proposed city ordinance contains very few exceptions. He felt the failure of the H.R.C. to include exemptions indicates that there may be many housing accommodations in the city which will come within the scope of the ordinances regulation but which may very well be inappropriate for occupancy by minor children. Specific concern focuses upon apartment complexes or mobilehome parks which are unfit for children because of the presence of such hazards as inadequately protected balconies, swimming pools, parking lots, street access, and a variety of other potential problems. Also, the ordinance does not provide an exemption for owner- occupied duplexes and triplexes. This is important as forcing these small landlords to accept tenants with children may greatly increase their maintenance costs and a potential liability for injuries that occur to children because the site is unsafe or unsuitable. He continued that the Housing Element of General Plan contain under the heading of "Goals, Policies, and Programs" language which states that mobilehome parks will allow at least one half of their space to households with children. Such spaces could possibily be located in a designated area. This language gives the mobilhome park the right to set aside a minimum number of spaces and then reject tenants with children after that minimum has been reached. The proposed ordinance does not allow mobilehome parks to exclude tenants with children after their parks have reached the 50 percent I minimum. Thus the proposed ordinance would appear not to be in conformity with this part of the Housing Element. Geoff Grote then reviewed some of the legal issues relating to the adoption of an anti - discrimination ordinance in the City of San Luis Obispo. He stated that the legal status of this type of ordinance was unclear. He stated that the County of Santa Clara has an ordinance very similar to San Luis Obispo's ordinance which they are currently litigating. Also, the City of Berkley and the City of San Francisco are now in litigation. City Council Minutes October 9, 1979 - 7:30 p.m. Page 7 The County of Santa Clara had their ordinance declared invalid by the Superior Court and were prohibited from enforcement. The Superior Court's ruling was very broad in scope and declared their ordinance invalid on both statutory and constitutional grounds. Santa Clara County has appealed the ruling to the appellate court and when decided, will most likely be the case that determines the validity of this kind of ordinance. He hopes the city would await the decision by the appellate court. Such a decision, of course, would be appealed by the Supreme Court which might cost additional delay. He stated that he strongly recommended that the council put off adoption of this ordinance until the courts have ruled on this matter. To pass the ordinance at this time would in.all probability subject the city to immediate litigation. Such litigation would be needless since these issues are involved in the current suit in Santa Clara. George Thacher, City Attorney, stated that he agreed with the comments made by his assistant and that he hoped the City Countil would not adopt the ordinance at this time but wait for some guidance from the various courts. On motion of Councilman Jorgensen, seconded by Councilwoman Billig, that the City Council continue consideration of this matter until present state -wide litigation has been settled and that the staff bring this back for consideration in six months, April, 1980. Motion carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Jorgensen, Billig, Bond, and Dunin NOES: None ABSENT: Mayor Cooper 7. Henry Engen, Community Development Director, reviewed for the City Council the Housing Authority Site Ordinance, the right of first refusal in multi - family subdivisions. He stated that the Housing Element calls for adoption by the end of this year of regulations aimed at giving the Housing Authority the first chance to buy subdivided property in multifamily zones. After consultation with the Housing Authority and City Attorney, the staff has drafted an ordinance for the council's consideration. Henry Engen continued that the general idea of the program was discussed by the Housing Authority and City Council in spring of 1978. The Authority had been frustrated at finding few vacant parcels suited to their use and being unable to reach agreement with property owners on sales. It appeared in some cases, particularly larger developments where the Authority might reasonably expect to acquire a portion of the overall site, that developers did not want to open their projects to assisted housing because it might compromise their marketing intent. Like other developers, the Housing Authority has also been frustrated by the high cost and lack of suitable sites. The Housing Authority has been reluctant to use powers of condemnation because of HUD guidelines and concern with community relations. He stated that the pertinent language in the Housing Element is: "11. Problem: Site availability. The Housing Authority has been unable to secure suitable sites for assisted housing. The lack of commitment for specific sites has made it nearly impossible to generate response to requests for new construction. ' Policy: The city will take a more active role in providing suitable sites for assisted housing. Programs: A. Adopt regulations aimed at giving the Housing Authority the right of first refusal on dwellings or land for potential dwellings comprising ten percent of development in subdivisions of multifamily land. Time frame: to be effective by January, 1980." City Council Minutes October 9, 1979 - 7:30 p.m. Page 8 Henry Engen continued that the draft ordinance addresses a very limited situation: subdivision of multifamily zoned land where the subdivider disposes of one or more parcels. If-the subdivider is also the developer of all the parcels, none would be offered for sale and the Authority would have no right of first refusal. He continued that hearings on the Housing Element were getting under way as the last major rental apartment projects were being completed. Irish Hills I apartments, apartments on E1 Tigre Court, and those off Margarita and Bullock Lane were among the last to be built on resubdivided property before the current switch to condominium development. Other than the South Street Specific Plan area and the Edna /Islay Specific Plan area, there will be few opportun- ities for the ordinance to work. In the last 18 months there have been only two land divisions which would be subject to the ordinance, neither creating sites well suited to assisted housing. Finally, Henry Engen gave the following alternative to the ordinance provisions: 1. The ordinance does not apply to condominium subdivisions. A provision could be added that would require a portion of .sites proposed for condominium development, perhaps of a minimum size of three acres or fifty units, to be offered as a separate parcel upon the recommenda- tion of the Housing Authority. 2. The types of exempt land divisions could be expanded, but doing so would probably make the ordinance totally ineffective because then virtually none would be subject to the requirements. 3. The ordinance stipulates that a given land area can be subject to the requirements only once. This could be changed to require a first refusal right on resubdivisions. 4. The ordinance includes a "sunset" provision that would require a I deliberate choice to extend it after an initial trial period. This could be eliminated or the period could be made longer or shorter. Henry Engen then reviewed in general some of the provisions of the draft ordinance. Rich Chubon, representing the Housing Authority, felt this ordinance would give them the tool they needed to attempt to develop housing within the community. Councilman Jorgensen stated he would support the provisions of the ordinance, he felt it was needed but did not feel it went far enough. He felt he could support what was presented due to the need. On motion of Councilman Bond, seconded by Councilwoman Billig, that the City Council approve the ordinance and that the staff be directed to prepare a final ordinance for the council's consideration and introduction on November 6, 1979. Motion carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Bond, Billig, Jorgensen, and Vice Mayor Dunin NOES: None , NOES: Mayor Cooper There being no further business to come before the City Council, Vice Mayor Dunin adjourned the meeting at 9:15 p.m. to Monday, October 15, 1979, at 12:15 p.m. APPROVED BY COUNCIL ON: 11/20/79 J. Fitzpatrick, City Clerk