Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/11/1975Pledge ' Roll Call MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 1975 - 7:30 p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL PRESENT: T. Keith Gurnee, Jesse Norris, Steven Petterson and Mayor Kenneth E. Schwartz ABSENT: Myron Graham City Staff PRESENT: J.H. Fitzpatrick, City Clerk; R.D. Miller, Administrative Officer; A.J. Shaw, Jr., City Attorney; Robert Strong, Community Development Director; Wayne Peterson, City Engineer 1. Re A. B. C. E. F. H. I. J. ports on activities of standing Council Committees: Area Planning Council Councilman Gurnee Solid Waste Mayor Schwartz Traffic Committee Councilman Norris Waterways Planning Board Councilman Petterson Whale Rock Commission Mayor Schwartz Water Advisory Board Mayor Schwartz Central Coast Criminal Councilman Norris Justice Committee Mass Transportation Councilman Petterson 1H. Mayor Schwartz introduced Clinton Milne, Deputy County Engineer for Hydraulics, who reported that the Zone 9 Advisory Committee's consultant was still negotiating with the County as he felt that the job was bigger than the money allowed for the job, which was originally estimated $65,000. The con- sultant felt that this was inadequate, as he felt that a fee of $120,000 was more in line with the job requirements. A subcommittee of Mr. Milne, Robert Strong, Dave Williamson, and Mr. Filloponi had met with the consultant and recommended a compromise negotiation of $73,200 plus $5,000 for printing of the report for completion of the project. They also removed from the contract the EIR report which now would be done by another consultant at an extra cost. Mr. Milne continued that the consultant was still not satisfied with the amount worked out by the subcommittee for the work accomplished and he was still trying to get additional sums of.money. Apparently, the original negotiations with the consultant were not clear as to whose responsibility certain areas of the work would be, and the consultant was standing behind these confussed issues. He stated he would keep the Council aware of progress with the consultant. Mr. Milne then gave a brief review of the work being done by-the consultant, Nolte; and also work that had-been accomplished to date by the Zone 9 Advisory ' Committee. Mr. Milne made a point that one of the errors made in the Corps of Engineers' study of San Luis Creek basin, cost the consultant $27,000 to restudy. This was part of the problem in the renegotiations of the contract. 2. Robert Strong, Community Development Director, reviewed with the City Council the action and recommendation of the Planning Commission in recom- City Council Minutes August 11, 1975 Page 2 mending adoption of the Envicom Seismic Safety Element of the General Plan including the consultants goal recommendations, policy recommendations and implementation recommendations by the City. Upon question, Robert Strong stated that the City might be required.to retain ' a further consultant to implement and interpret geological.engineering reports submitted to the City was recommended Envicom in the Seismic Element study. R.D. Miller, Administrative Officer, asked.if ,- the report by.Envicom really wasn't a report that met the State mandate for elements of the General Plan and did it need implementation, unless the City agreed or so desired? Strong advised that the City should not adopt Plans or Plan Elements which it did not intend to implement. The City-Council then discussed some of the recommendations of the Planning Commission dealing with the draft of the Seismic report. The matter was continued to the public hearing to be held on August 18, 1975. 3. The City Council then discussed the Special Census Questionnaire prepared by the Community Development Department as part -of the Special Census to be held in San Luis Obispo. The questions primarily concerned the wording of questions 9, "As a taxpayer, are you willing to pay the cost for extension of urban services to.new growth areas ?" Answers provided were: 0) No response, 1) Yes, the City should pay all costs, 2) Yes, but the City should split the costs with the developer, 3) No, the developer should pay all costs, and 4) No opinion.. ' Question No. 10, "Would you support City expenditures for.developing additional water supplies -to permit further population growth ?" Answers provided were: 0) No response, 1) Yes, 2) No, and 3) No opinion. The City Council discussed at length ways and means of attempting to reword these two questions in order to get what they felt was the proper input from the citizens filling out the questionnaire. After some discussion, it was moved by Mayor Schwartz that.the Council direct staff to reword questions 9 & 10, with 10 to be a question of growth or no growth. The motion lost for lack of.a second. On motion of Councilman Petterson, seconded by Mayor Schwartz that the staff be authorized to proceed with the special census questionnaire in light of Council discussion at this meeting. Motion carried. 4 Paul Landell presented a report on the Waterways Planning Board meeting of June 27, 1975 at which time a discussion was held relative to City contract policy as it pertained to local firms. As a result of this discussion, it was moved, and unanimously voted by the Waterways Planning Board that, "the Waterways Planning Board ask the City Council to produce and adopt a policy regarding consultant employment. A model contract which clearly spelled out that contract payments should be made only after proof of specified work was done. Staff should be directed to make progress ' reviews as needed, even if necessary to visit consultant offices... Emphasis should be made on plugging.open -end contract cost loopholes. Even if it required the hiring of additional full -time or part -time personnel, the use of consultants should be limited to review,analysis and comment on certain studies., reports and plans done by staff. An exception to this policy would be in the case of very specialized situations, such as certain phases of water and wastewater treatment." City Council Minutes August 11, 1975 Page 3 Members of the Waterways Planning Board felt that the City had not received fair value for money spent on consultants Examples which were mentioned were the Eisner General Plan, the work done by KDG on the forthcoming General Plan, Penfield & Smith's work on the Edna Saddle Tank, George Nolte and Associates ' study on.the extension of Tank-Farm Road from Broad Street to Orcutt Road, and also the Zone 9 Flood Control Master Drainage-Plan which the City of San Luis Obispo was providing the major funding for through tax monies. One of the prime objections the Waterways Planning Board had of the Nolte Zone 9 work was that he had been paid $42,000 for work done.to date-with almost no result. The initial contract, which.was duly executed by both Nolte and the County, specified a total cost of $55,000 for the plan, including printing and an EIR on the completed plan. Nolte refused to sign without a clause for an open- end.dollar amount. About six months after signing the contract for $55,000, Nolte notified Zone 9 that they.estimated the final cost to be in excess of $120,000 because of the work they had not anticipated. A team of County and City representatives went to San Jose and negotiated a final cost of $78,000. This was at the cost of a reduction in the scope of work. It was felt that the City Council should adopt a policy of more control over consultants. Councilman Gurnee suggested that the Administrative Officer should review existing and past consulting contracts, and then make a recommendation to the City Council for adoption of a policy on the use of consultants, when to use consultants, and also prepare a model contract for all consultants to enter into with the City. Councilman Petterson agreed that the past performance of consultants used by the City had not been very satisfactory in his opinion. R.D. Miller, Administrative Officer, explained that the past good experience with consultants prior to the present Council's method of group selection of consultants was that the department heads would study the group of consultants and then make recommendation to the -City Council;. when the recommendation was made they would be held responsible for the results of the study. But, when a group decided who would be a consultant and who would hire the consultant, no one was really responsible. Robert Strong, Community Development Director, stated that this matter should in no way be accepted as an objection-to citizens' committees getting involved in administrative programs. He felt that the letter from Paul Landell on the Waterways Planning Board was full of erroneous accusations as he felt that contracts entered into his administration had been successful. He further stated that if the City Council would staff the departments as requested by the department head, there would be less reliance on consultants and more responsibility-by the department heads and staff. He also felt that more work should be done in -house and rely less on consultants... He felt the Council should allow the staff more freedom in operating their-departments with only general policy direction from the City Council, and not detailed, daily direction from the Administrative Officer and City Council. He concluded that it was very difficult to be responsible for operating a department when you had no input into what was being done or how the department was staffed or financed. ' Clinton Milne, Deputy County Engineer for Hydraulics, spoke in defense of the Zone 9 Advisory Committee's consultant George Nolte, that they felt at the time and still feel they are an excellent engineering firm and would put out a good product. Unfortunately, the contract was not prepared in such a way that the County was protected from overcharges-and expansion.of the work program. Councilman Gurnee felt that the Council should adopt a policy on retaining consultants for City work. He felt that the Waterways Planning Board was City Council Minutes August 11, 1975 Page 4 very interested in flood control and felt the Zone 9 studies were inadequate and would so prove in another winter. He felt that the Waterways.Planning Board and any citizens of the City had .the right.and duty to question any expenditure of City funds and hiring policy of consultants, and -if he offended the staff, he was sorry. Mayor Schwartz.felt that possibly the Council was to blame in attempting to ' operate the City as they felt there was a void in leadership and.management. He hoped the studies now going on by the Council subcommittee in attempting to pinpoint responsibility and who was nanaging the City, and passing respon- sibility and authority to various.staff. members.might get the job done. He felt that this might include allowing the staff to investigate and recommend consultants, but he also felt that the staff.members, if they wished this responsibility, must also take the blame,if .something went wrong. Councilman Petterson agreed with the Mayor but felt that the Council should adopt a broad policy that would,.for example, prohibit any .payments to a consultant without a product being delivered.. He also felt that the City Council should look to leadership and management in the staff in an attempt to get the City departments moving. Robert Strong stated he still objected to advisory committees going directly to the City Council with inaccurate complaints of non - production by departments or consultants, which he felt intimidated staff and.the employees. Councilman Norris felt that he first objected to the Waterways Planning Board recommendation or discussion of hiring and control of consultants. After, the discussion this evening, and the attitude of the staff members, he was pleased that this matter was brought up and he hoped the Council would adopt some policies to guide staff in recommending.consulting firms. He also hoped that staff would accept responsibility for their.actions. The matter was continued for the staff to bring back suggested.policy on con- sultants for the Council's adoption. 5. Memorandum from Councilman.T. Keith .Gurnee relative to the progress on the General Plan .revision, which he felt had been lingering.without. any recent visible progress. He felt that substantive information regarding plan progress, direction, and content had not been forthcoming to the City Council. He stated that during the two years the City had been engaged in this planning process, the Council had yet to have the opportunity or demonstrate willing- ness to set policy parameters for a meaningful planning product. This, coupled with some preliminary conclusions that had apparently been made by staff without benefit of Council perusal.or public input,.made it critical that the Council get a handle on this general planning effort with.regular staff progress reports and general policy parameters stated by the Council to guide the General Plan to its conclusion. He felt that the-City Council should hold discussions and meet with staff and the Planning Commission regarding the.progress of the General Plan .particularly as to the substance and content of the.product to date, as well as its status of completion, and to consider and discuss general policy in the areas of density and holding capacity to serve as broad Council - established directions and parameters for the completion of the General Plan. , Robert Stron ,.Con++nun ty Development Director, submitted a.lengthy report dated May 1, 1975, dealing with the progress on the General Plan revision program. He continued that despite increased activities.in the Planning Department, including Architectural Review Commission, Planning Commission, Housing and City Council Minutes August 11, 1975 Page 5 Community Development Task Force, and City Council assignments and expanding routine workload, the preparation of the General Plan had progressed, although behind schedule. The Commission held several public workshop sessions and hearings to consider.written draft text,.review related resource inventory and alternative plan maps., and verbal presentations-by-staff regarding pre- liminary Phase II findings. ' In summary, he stated that despite diversions and frustrations, the recovery from initial consultant complications and progress toward staff preparation and presentation of initial General Plan revisions was about to reach fruition with production of the hearing draft Phase II report in increments during May. To respond to the literal request of Councilman Gurnee (to outline the informa- tion base, assumptions, alternative directions and basic issues) was, of course, the purpose of the General Plan process itself. The only response Mr. Strong could complete in the two week period was to invite the Council to a workshop review of the Phase II summary report still only partially incomplete, but scheduled for May 20, 1975. He stated that staff was progressing with the General Plan, and various elements but that the overload on his department with every day problems, in addition to putting out a completed General Plan, had been very difficult. He did not feel that the Council adhered to the priorities necessary to get the plan out and often interjecting conflicting assignments. Robert Mote, Utility Engineer, submitted a report to the City Council dealing with the water report of Penfield & Smith on.design criteria. This report was made to a question regarding recent, current, and planned waterline construction and the recommendations on criteria submitted by the consultant, Penfield & Smith. ' Mr. Mote concluded that if substantial areas of low density residential prop- erties were to be changed to higher densities, it would likely have a serious impact on the water distribution.system design.. However, where the possibility of increased densities were confined to those areas that were already designed as medium density, residential, the resulting increases in flow to be accommodated could, in all likelihood, be handled by increasing the local distribution mains to serve the area as it was developed. The City Council then discussed some method or approach to was going in the General Plan studies, particularly in the annexation policies, the goals and aims of the City, growt and concepts of the City's viability. The City Council set September 22, 1975 as a joint meeting Commission for a study and workshop session-to discuss the was and as they felt it should be. see where the City area of the density, z parameters with the Planning General Plan as it 6. Council discussion of unresolved items previously discussed with the Council by the City Attorney's Office, memorandum dated May 30, 1975, was briefly reviewed by the City Attorney and was continued for further discussion by the City Council. 9. On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Petterson the meeting adjourned to 12:10 p.m., Tuesday, August 12, 1975. APPROVED: November 3, 1975 -- ,,-�. .Fitzpatrick, City Clerk 7. The 1974/75 annual report of the Citizens Advisory Committee to the City Council v",a dereH received and filed, on motion of Mayor Schwartz, seconded by Councilman Petterson, with the comment that the report was excellent and it seemed that the CAC was doing a good job for the City of San Luis Obispo. Motion ' carried. 8. The meeting adjourned to Executive Session. 9. On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Petterson the meeting adjourned to 12:10 p.m., Tuesday, August 12, 1975. APPROVED: November 3, 1975 -- ,,-�. .Fitzpatrick, City Clerk