HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/11/1972Roll Call
Present
City Staff
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
OCTOBER 11, 1972 - 12:10 P. M.
City Hall
Emmons Blake, Joh C. Brown, Myron Graham,
T. Keith Gurnee, Kenneth E. Schwartz
Present: J. H. Fitzpatrick, City Clerk; R. D. Miller,
Administrative Officer; A. J. Shaw, City Attorney;
D. F. Romero, City Engineer; R. D. Young, Planning
Director;
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS: Marvin Dee, Andrew Merriam
1. Andrew Merriam, Planning Commissioner, presented to the City
Council the procedures adopted by the Planning Commission on Tuesday,
October 10, 1972. It was the opinion of the Planning Commission that
the adopted procedures would allow the City to process applications for
development in an expedient manner and at the same time provide for the
necessary environmental safeguards as required by State law and recent
court decisions. The Planning Commission recommended that the City
Council adopt a resolution approving these procedures and that these
procedures become effective immediately.
Commissioner Merriam reviewed the recommended procedure with the City
Council, which read as follows: SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED.
Marvin Dee, Planning Commission Chairman, stated that the Planning
Commission had.adopted these procedures in order not to hold up building
or development in the community. He hoepd the City Council would support
these interim measures with the Planning Commission to continue to study
and streamline the procedures to eliminate as much bottleneck as possible
to builders and developers in the City.
Commissioner Merriam stated that the Planning Commission will be asking
the City Council for additional staffing for the Planning Office, so that
the environmental impact studies and reports can be moved rapidly through
the permit procedures. He continued that two to four projects a day are
processed through the Building and Planning Office and no one is available
to review the appl- ications for permits and the Environmental Impact Reports.
The additional staff requested could be either a full time employee or a
part time consultant. Mr. Merriam also stated that the Planning Commission
is also reviewing all their own procedures to comply with the State law and
court decision on Environmental Impact studies.
The City Council discussed with the Planning Commission Representatives,
their recommendations as to procedures established for preparation and
submission of environmental impact reports to the City of San Luis Obispo.
On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Graham, the
following resolution was introduced: RESOLUTION NO. 2375 (1972 Series),
a resolution of the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo approving the
procedure adopted by the Planning Commission fo requiring preparation
and evaluation of environmental impact reports.
Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Emmons Blake, John C. Brown, Myron Graham,
T. Keith Gurnee, Kenneth E. Schwartz
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
City Council Minutes
October 11, 1972
Page 2
22. Continued from October 4, 1972.
On motion of Councilman Blake, seconded by Councilman Gurnee, the request
of the Park Department for premission to call for bids for Street Tree
Planting in Tract No. 400 was approved, and call for bids authorized.
Motion carried.
25.
The City Council reviewed the Resolution being proposed for consideration
at the Annual League of California Cities Conference, for guidance of the
City's official delegates.
26. The City Council adjourned to executive session.
The meeting adjourned to Tuesday, October 24, 1972 at 7:30 P. M., on
motion of Councilman Blake, seconded by Councilman Graham. Motion
carried.
APPROVED:
H. ZPATRICK, CITY CLERK
M I NUTES
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING
WHALE ROCK CO[AMISSION /CITY COUNCIL
October 11, 1972 - 2:00 P. M.
. City Hall
Poll Cal I 1
Present: Emmons Blake, John C. Brown, Myron Graham,
T. Keith Gurnee, Kenneth E. Schwartz
Whale Rock Commission
Present: Harold , °lilson, 1,111111am Ovesen, J. H. Fitzpatrick,
Richard D. Miller, Kenneth E. Schwartz
Absent: Dean Miller
City Staff
Present: R. A. Paul, Director of Water Services;
A. H. Shaw, City Attorney; 14. WooIpert,
Attorney
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. The City Council and Whale Rock Commission met in executive session
to discuss the on -going court trial with their respective legal counsel.
Councilman Blake left the meeting at 2:45 P.
On motion of R. D. Miller, seconded by J. H. Fitzpatrick, that the Whale
Rock Commission would agree to consider a plan from a responsible
governmental agency to operate and finance the fishing program at Whale
Pock Reservoir. [Action carried with Dean Miller absent.
On motion of Councilman Graham, seconded by Councilman Brown, that the
City of San Luis Obispo does not wish to operate or to finance a fishing
program at Whale Pock Reservoir. [Action carried unanimously with
Councilman Blake absent.
The meeting adjourned at 3:00 P. M.
APPROVED:
J ATRICK, CITY CLERK
City Council Minutes
October 11, 1972
INTERICf PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINING THE NECESSITY FOR AN ENVIRONWENTAL IMPACT
' REPORT:
The staff shall review all projects, including building permits, grading
permits, subdivisions, use permits, and planned developments to determine if
proposed project falls within the following:
Category I: Those projects which would not have a significant impact
upon the environment. A list of said projects shall be
adopted by the Planning Commission. (See attachment A)
Category II: Those projects which may or may not have a significant
impact upon the environment and which are not listed in
Category I.
CATEGORY I:
when a proposed project falls within Category I, it may be determined by the
staff to have an insignificant impact and required permits may be issued
pursuant to standard City procedures.
CATEGORY II:
a. when a proposed project falls within Category II, the staff shall review
t the proposal to determine whether or not it may have a significant effect on
the environment. If necessary, the staff may consult with one or more persons
with a demonstrated expertise in ecological and environmental matters, to be
selected from a list of at least ten (10) such persons previously approved.by
the Planning Commission.
Upon completion of its review, the staff shall forward all available infor-
mation concerning the proposed project to the Planning Commission, together
with the staff's opinion as to whether or not the project will have a signifi-
cant effect on the environment.
b. Upon receiving the above information, the Planning Commission shall make
the final determination as to whether or not the project may have a significant
effect on the environment. if it finds that such an effect may result, the
Commission shall order the preparation of an environmental impact report.
1
1
October 100 1972
C w k i S eo MAN CITY COUNCIL POLICY
October 11, 1972
Attachment A
PROJECTS CLASSIFIED AS CATEGORY I:
1. External and internal alterations of existing buildings, providing they
are not in conflict with existing City codes or ordinances or buildings
of historical significance.
2. All demolition work except as noted in 1 above.
3. Moving of buildings in conformity with existing City codes and ordinances.
4. Al2 additions to existing buildings requiring no variance to planning
ordinances or building codes.
5. All swimming pools.
*6. Any new conforming individual residence or housing and apartment complex
not exceeding twenty (20) units.
*7. New commercial and industrial buildings not requiring variances in planning
or building ordinances within existing commercial and industrial zones.
*8. All grading not exceeding 5,000 cubic yards (within ten (10) years) and
cuts, slopes or fills not exceeding five (5) feet as defined under present
' excavation and grading ordinances.
9. Lot splits which can comply with existing grading standards.
1
10. Construction, erection, and moving of signs.
*Items 6, 7 6 8 shall not be applicable to projects involving hillside, creek -
side, lakeside, or flood plain lands or buildings of historical significance.
October 10, 1972 la
INTERIM PROCEDURE FOR PREPARATION AND REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT:
Environmental impact reports shall be prepared by the Dept, of Planning and
Building in accordance with the following procedures:
A. Upon determination that an environmental impact report is required, the
developer shall submit a written environmental impact report for the
proposed project within a time period to be specified by the Director
of Planning & Building.
I. Environmental impact report to be submitted by the developer shall
contain the following statements:
a. The environmental impact of the proposed action.
b. Any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided
if the proposal is implemented.
c. Mitigation measures proposed to minimize the impact.
d. Alternatives to the proposed action.
e. The relationship between local short term uses of man's environ-
ment and the maintenance and enhancement of long term productivity.
f. Any irreversible environmental changes which would be involved in
the proposed action should it be implemented.
g. The growth inducing impact of the proposed action.
h. The boundaries of the area which may be significantly affected
by the proposed action.
Note: For guidelines in preparing the report, the developer may
use Part C of report entitled Interim Guidelines for the Preparation
and Evaluation of Environment Impact Statement under the California
Quality Act of 1970 (see Attachment B).
B. The Director of Planning and Building shall give public notice in a news -
paper.of general circulation of the City that-an environmental impact
report is being prepared for a specific project. Said notice shall
invite any interested members of the public to subrsit written statements
regarding the proposed project. Said notice shall also include (1) name
of project and its location (map), (2) description of proposed develop-
ment, (3) final date for accepting impact statements or other public inputs.
C. Upon receipt of environmental impact statement from developer and public
statements, the Director of Planning & Building, in consultation with
other departments and agencies, shall prepare a final report and recom-
mendation and shall schedule the matter for public hearing at least
fifteen (15) days after completion of the report. A copy of the report
shall remain on file in the office of Planning & Building for public
review preceding the public hearing to consider said report.
D. The Planning Commission, at a regularly scheduled public hearinq, shall
review the proposed project and environmental impact report and consider
it in conjunction with the original application.
October 10, 1972 2
Attachment B
PART C - CONTENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT:
SECTION 1 - NOTICE OF INTENT FORM
See Appendix D
SECTION 2 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. Name of the project and its location (city and county or counties).) The
precise location and boundaries of the proposed project must be shown on
a detailed map included in the EIR. A 7 112 minute USGS Topographic
Quadrangle Map* or portion thereof is the most desirable, where available.
The map included, if not a USGS Topographical Map, must include at a
minimum, either the section, range and township coordinates or longitude
and latitude coordinates accurate to one (1) minute.
The location of the project must also appear on a regional map, with
significant-environmental areas and landmarks indicated in relation to
the project areas.
Be A statement of the objectives souorht by the proposed project.
C. A general description of the project's physical (technical) and socio-
economic characteristics. This statement should be a description of the
project which considers the full range of values to be derived as well
as a discussion of the principal engineering proposals. The discussion,
however, should not be padded with unnecessary description but should
include only detail as needed for evaluation and review of environmental
impact. Appendix I can be used as a guide in preparing this description.
D. Any Army Corp or other governmental agency public notice or
permit number applicable with dates.
SECTION 3.- ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The description of the environmental setting should be of the setting without
(before) the project. Discussion should include the immediate areas of the
project and the regional aspects of the environment which surrounds the project
area. Knowledge of the regional setting is critical to the assessment of environ-
mental impacts. Legal, policy and institutional constraints relevant to the
project area should be identified. The environment of the project should be
described in terms of its natural (physical and biological) and socioeconomic
setting, with special emphasis on those rare and unique aspects, both good and
bad, that might not be common to other similar regions. The discussion should
provide sufficient information to permit an independent evaluation of the
environmental factors which could be affected by the proposed project such as
the plant and animal communities to be associated with the project area.
Specific reference to other related project activities, both public and private,
in the region should also be included. Appendix K can be used as a guide in
preparing this section.
' *USGS Topographical maps can usually be obtained at local map dealers, engineering
supply stores and sporting goods stores. All USGS maps can be obtained at the
following locations: (1) USGS Topographic Division, Pacific Region Office, 345
Middlefield Road, Menlo Park, Calif.; (2) 504 Custom House, 555 Battery Street,
San Francisco, Calif.; (3) 7638 Federal Bldg., 300 North Los Angeles Street,
Los Angeles, Calif.; (4) Distribution Section, US Geological Survey, Federal
Center, Denver, Co.
-2I=
SECTION 4 - ENVIP.ONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS
All phases of a project must be considered when evaluating the impact of the
project on the environment] planning, acquisition, development and the operat-
ional effects during the life of the project.
Action as used below and in Section 21100 of CEQA refers to those general and
specific activities necessary to carry out or complete a project.
A, The Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action
Describe the primary and secondary environmental impacts, both beneficial
and adverse, anticipated from the project. The scope of the description
shall include both short and long term impacts. It shall include specifics
of the area, the resources involved, physical changes, alterations to
ecological systems and changes induced by the proposed project in population
distribution, population concentration, the human use of the land (including
commercial and residential development) and other aspects of the resource
base such as water, scenic quality and public services.
Both quantitative and qualitative information should be included (e.g:,
acres of habitat, numbers of ducks resting and the scenic value of a water-
fowl habitat). Quantitative data should be included but not over emphasized
to the expense of qualitative and subjective judgements, which are often more
important.
B. Any Adverse Environmental Effects Which Cannot be Avoided if the Proposal
Is Implemented
' Describe the kinds and magnitude of significant impacts which cannot be
reduced in severity or which can be reduced to an acceptable level but not
eliminated. For those which cannot be reduced without considering an alter-
native project or project design (Paragraph D below), their implications and
the reasons why the project is being proposed, notwithstanding their effect,
shall be described in detail. In particular, this analysis shall detail
any aesthetically or culturally valuable surroundings, human health, standards
of living, or environmental policies set forth in Sections 21000 and 21001
of the CEQA which would be sacrificed. Also, it shall describe the parties
affected and any objection raised by them.
C. Mitigation Measures Proposed to Minimize the Impact
Describe where mitigation measures such as design or construction features
have been included in the project to reduce significant environmental impacts
to acceptable levels, and the basis for considering these levels acceptable.
D. Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Consider two kinds of alternatives; first, the alternative kinds of projects
or locations of the same project, which have been considered or are under
consideration, as possible means of attaining the stated o.'-jectives of the
project. The specific alternative of no project must always be evaluated.
Second, describe the alternative design or mitigation measures which could
' be incorporated into the project to further minimize any significant environ-
mental impact (that have not been discussed under item C above), and the
reason these have not been included. This examination should also include
recommendations that consider "off site" alternative features or designs as
they could affect the environmental impact of the proposed project. Include
in this discussion alternatives capable of substantially reducing or
eliminating any adverse impacts, even if these alternatives substantially
reduce the project objectives. -22-
E. The Relationship Between Local Short -Term uses of Man's Environment and the
Maintenance and Enhancement of Long Term Productivity
Describe the cumulative and long term effects of the proposed project
which either significantly reduce or enhance the state of the environment
from the perspective that each generation is trustee of the environment
for future gererations. In particular, the desirability of the project
shall be weighed to guard against short sighted foreclosure of future
options or needs. Special attention shall be given to effects which
narrow the range of beneficial uses of the environment or pose long
term risks to health or safety. In addition, the reasons why the pro-
posed action is believed by the sponsor to be justified now, rather than
reserving a long term option for other alternatives, including no action,
shall be explained.
F. Any Irreversible Environmental Changes which would be Involved in the
Proposed Action Should it be Implemented
Describe the extent to which the proposed project curtails or expands the
diversity and range of beneficial uses of the environment. uses of renew-
able and non - renewable resources during the initial and continued phases
of the action shall be specified. In this regard, construction and facility
uses are basically irreversible since a large commitment of resources makes
removal or non -use thereafter unlikely. Such primary impacts and, partic-
ularly, secondary impacts (such as a highway improvement which provides
access to a non - accessible area) generally commit future generations to
similar uses. Also, irreversible damage can result from environmental
accidents associated with the project. Any irretrievable significant
commitments of resources shall be evaluated to assure that such current
consumption is justified.
G. The identity of all Federal, State or Local agencies and other organizations
and private individuals consulted in preparing EIS's and the identity of
persons, firm or agency preparing the report.
with respect to water quality aspects of the proposed action which have
been previously certified by the appropriate State or interstate organ-
ization as being in substantial compliance with applicable water quality
standards, reference to the previous certification is sufficient.
SECTION 5 - AMENDMENTS
Amendments shall summarize the comments and suggestions made by reviewing
organizations and shall describe the disposition of issues surfaced (e.g.,
revisions to the proposed project to mitigate anticipated impacts or objections).
In particular, they shall address in detail the major issues raised when the
sponsor's position is at variance with recommendations and objections (e.g.,
reasons why specific comments and suggestions could not be accepted, and factors
of overriding importance prohibiting the incorporation of suggestions).
Reviewers' statements should be set forth in a Comment and discussed in a
Response. In addition, the source of all comments should be clearly identified.
Amendments will be attached to the EIR before the EIR is submitted for administ-
rative action to proceed with the proposed project.
-23-