Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/02/2006, C1 - ITEM C1 - AMENDMENTS TO THE APRIL 18, 2006, COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES . ^_\ �I!!II!IIIRI���I����IIIIIIIIIIIII'.��� council mEmouanaum May 2, 2006 RECEIVED TO: Mayor Romero & Members of the City Council MAY 0 2 2006 FROM: Audrey Hooper, City Clerk SLO CITY CLERK VIA: Ken Hampian, CAO SUBJECT: Item C1 -Amendments to the April 18, 2006, Council Meeting Minutes Council Member Mulholland has requested that pages C1-7 and C1-8 of the minutes be revised as recommended in the attached excerpt. The changes include an amendment to the first motion, and modifying and moving the summary of the Council's discussion prior to the motions. In addition, clerical errors will be corrected on pages C1-4 (indicating that item C6, Agreement with Palm Street Parking Structure, LLC, was removed from the Agenda and correcting the spelling of Dennis Kish's name on page C1-6 (correcting Mr. Kish's name). If Council concurs, the motion should reflect these revisions. GA301-04 Minutes\Correction to Minutes 04-18-06.doc COUNCI ,,72 CDD DIR CAO FIN DIR ACAO 7TORNEY �w oIRHIEF RED FILE MEETING AGENDA CLERK/ORIG ?'POLICE CHF DATE44 ITEM #�L ❑DEPT HEADS p'REC DIR TIL DIR �HR�DIRy `City Council Meeting 1 0 7 Tuesday, April 18, 2006-4:00 p.m_ Michael Sullivan, San Luis Obispo, discussed concerns he raised in his letter to Council (on file in the City Clerk's office). He suggested that the County is the only agency that should generate a report regarding the proposed initiative and that, if the County wants to use a task force to help develop that report, it should include input from all of the other cities in the County. He opposed Council participation in the proposed task force. Richard Kranzdorf, San Luis Obispo, expressed concern about comments made by members of the public regarding donations made to SAVE San Luis Obispo for the Marketplace special election. He referred to a letter he wrote to The Tribune and noted that attempts to enter in to a discussion witih Mr. Dalidio have gone unanswered. "-end of public comments— The following is a summary of Council's discussion. GewpGil disGussieA ensWed FegaFdiFig-, The discussion included. in part,the role of the proposed task force,whether there is a need to expand its membership to include other stakeholders(i e.,other cities and county agencies),and the importance of gathering information and educating the public on the implications of ballot-box planning. The discussion also included which two Council members should represent the City Council on the task force and other issues related to the role of the task force. During this discussion Council Member Mulholland indicated that while she did not favor the Council participating in the task force if the Council-chooses to participate,she thought she.should be appointed since at least one representative should be someone who was in agreement with the majority will of the people in the Marketplace election. Council Member Ewan indicated that he was not interested in serving. He Goung.4 MqmbeF Ova discussed the importance of having representation on the task force from the broadest representation of the community, and therefore spoke in support of Council Member Mulholland as one of the members. Council Member Brown and Mayor Romero disagreed with the appointment of Council Member Mulholland. The following motions were made throughout the course of this discussion. ACTION: Moved by Mulholland/Ewan to approve, if the Council agrees to participate in the proposed-task force, the following guidelines for obtaining objective information and the topics to avoid as recommended by the CAO; motion carried 4:0:1 (Settle absent): Guidelines for Agenda Topics: 1)The legal framework of what can be legally accomplished through the initiative process and what steps and procedures (e.g. permits via other agencies)will still remain if the vote is affirmative. 2) Policy and precedence implications for the county and its cities if land use decisions and projects are pursued in this manner. 3) Facility and service impacts of building a large urban project on land surrounded by an incorporated city, e.g. the impact on streets, fire and paramedic service, police response, water and wastewater service and what policy guidance would be offered regarding County development near City boundaries by the Memorandum of Understanding recently agreed to between the County and the City. 4) Likely fiscal consequences of building a large urban-like development on County land that is surrounded by a city and how will these impacts be addressed and who will provide the ongoing operation and maintenance support required by some public amenities now envisioned for the project. 5) Major policy issues for the City and County as they relate to open space and agriculture land preservation. 6)Traffic, street.and neighborhood impacts of not building the interchange with the project, how these impacts will be addressed, and how the needed interchange will be paid for in the future. 7)Other agencies that should be invited to participate in a task force fact-finding dialogue, such as Caltrans, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Air Pollution Control District, and other cities subject to the policy and precedent implications of the initiative. `City Council Meeting 8 Tuesday, April 18, 2006-4:00 p.m. Topics to Avoid: 1)Site planning (i:e., how the site could be redesigned to make it more compatible with the surrounding area). 2)Uses and project"mix"(other public or private uses and mix of public amenities vs. commercial uses. 3)Financial tools (financing mechanisms to facilitate the project or public improvements needed for the project). 4)Land use alternatives and competing philosophies (whether the site should be more or less aggressively developed or not developed and types of development). ACTION: Moved by Ewan/Mulholland to accept Supervisor Lenthall's invitation to participate in the task force; motion carried 4:0:1 (Settle absent). foraA RA ACTION: Moved by Ewan/Mulholland to appoint Council Members Brown and Mulholland to serve on the task force; motion failed 221 (Romero/Brown opposed, Settle absent). ACTION: Moved by Ewan/Mulholland to appoint Council Member Mulholland and Mayor Romero to serve on the task force; motion failed 2:2:1 (Romero/Brown opposed, Settle absent). ACTION: Moved by Mulholland not to participate on the task force;motion failed due to lack of second. ACTION: Moved by Ewan to delay selection of members on the task force until Supervisor Lenthall has accepted the guidelines adopted earlier;motion failed due to lack of a second. ACTION: Moved by Ewan to send a letter to Supervisor Lenthall containing the guidelines adopted earlier and indicating that the City wants to participate and that appointments to the task force would be made on his acceptance of the guidelines; motion failed 2:2:1 (Romero/Brown opposed, Settle absent).. At this time, Council Member Ewan indicated that he would reconsider and would serve on this task force if nominated. ACTION: Motion Brown/Romero to appoint Council Members Brown and Ewan,to serve on the task force; motion carried 3:1:1 (Mulholland opposed, Settle absent).