HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/10/1979M I N U T E S
ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
TUESDAY, APRIL 10, 1979 - 7:30 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
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; Henry Engen, Director of Community Development;
Terry Sanville, Senior Planner.
1. The City Council received a background report and an environmental
impact report for the South Higuera Commerce Park south of Prado Road and
north of Tank Farm Road.
Henry Engen, Community Development Dierctor, reviewed the studies to date
by the Planning Commission and staff .for the proposed South Higuera Commerce
Park. He also reviewed the provisions of the Municipal Code for the Specific
Plan and the conditions by the State and City laws dealing with specific
plans.
Terry Sanville, Senior Planner, then
final environmental impact report for
development would include: 1) an are
ing of six acres; 2) area for vehicle
special service commercial consisting
commercial and light industry.of 45 a
open space, etc. The plan was to be
over a period of years.
reviewed the proposed Specific Plan and
the Higuera Commerce Park. The proposed
a for home improvement complexes consist -
service area consisting of 10 acres; 3)
of 15 acres; and 4) general service
cres with balance made up in streets,
phased into two general developments
The City Council discussed with staff various considerations they had concern-
ing the EIR and Specific Plan brought to them before at prior meetings of the
City Planning Commission. The matter was continued to a public hearing to be
held on April 17, 1979.
2. The City Council then discussed a memorandum from the City Planning
Commission and an ordinance defining duties of Planning Commissioners and
consideration of changing membership from seven members to five members. It
was the Planning Commission's feeling and the planning staff, that less members
and an ordinance defining duties and responsibilities would streamline govern-
ment as far as this particular agency was concerned.
Charles Andrews, Chairman of the Planning Commission, stated that he felt that
the major concern of the Planning Commission and the public was not so much
the number of members but was in the method of appointing advisory board members.
The question was whether each Councilmember would appoint one member to the
' Commission or would they continue the present method of appointment., which was
by advertising by application, holding interviews and then appointing people
from the general public. He stated that he personally felt that a five member
commission would be much more advantageous and he felt it would be more efficient.
Several other members of the Planning Commission appeared before the Council
giving their views of five or seven person commission.
The City Council, after discussion, felt that one method to help the Planning
Commission to become more efficient would be not-to concentrate on the number
of members but possibly amending the duties and responsibilities to clearly
define what was staff's work and what was commission's work.
City Council Minutes
April 10, 1979
Page 2
Part,of.,the-discussion involved limiting the terms of members so that everyone
in the community might have an opportunity to serve on one of the boards or
commissions and also to require voting conditions similar to those of the City
Council where a member, if present, was required to vote and could not abstain.
These were some of the questions to be viewed at the time of reorganizing the
committees.
On motion of Councilman Jorgensen, seconded by Councilman Bond, that the City
Council defer further action on the proposal, either membership or responsi-
bilities and duties of the Planning Commission, until the City Council had
received a full report on advisory board and commission reorganizations ;'from
the Administrative Officer. Motion carried, all ayes.
3. The City Council discussed an ordinance recommending changing the
membership on the Architectural Review Commission from seven�to five members.
This recommendation was a result of the Citizens' Advisory Committee's recommend -
ation that steps be taken to streamline various aspects of city government and
reduction in membership of the ARC from seven to five members could facilitate
decision making without adversely affecting the powers and duties of the commission:
Since legal interpretation of the impact of the new charter requirements placed
in doubt the membership of two members, there was some urgency in resolving the
problem.
Again, the City Council, city staff and members of the Architectural Review
Commission discussed the proposal to amend the ARC-from seven to five members
and realigned some duties.
On motion of Councilman Jorgensen, seconded by Councilman Bond, that further
consideration of ARC membership be deferred until the Council receives the
full report on advisory board and commission reorganization from the Administrative
Officer. Motion carried, all ayes.
4. Council considered a recommendation that the.City's environmental impact I
procedures and guidelines be amended to eliminate the environmental review
committee.
Henry Engen, Director of Community Development, again presented the recommendation
of the Planning Commission which was to assume the function of the environmental
review committee -at a normal Planning Commission meeting rather than continue the
present process of having two staff members and a Planning Commission member hold
meetings out of the Planning Commission's control. It was felt that under State
law, the Planning Commission and /or City Council were the final arbritors of the
need for environmental impact reports or findings. Mr. Engen stated that he and
his staff disagreed with the Planning Commission recommendation and felt that the
function of the environmental review committee should be assigned to the Director
of Community Development. He stated that while he agreed with the Planning
Commission's objectives to providing a public forum.for EIR decision making
and concur with the elimination of the committee, he felt that the assumption
of this task by the Planning Commission would be a serious mistake.and would
run counter to the stated objective of streamlining government.. He felt that
the transferring of the EIR decisions to the Planning Commission would add up
to 100 agenda items to the-Commission's work schedule and would also slow down
the development review process. He felt it would be better to have the Community
Development Director make the determination and let the applicant or interested
individuals appeal the call of the need or exemption of the EIR. He felt that
this would be a much better way of doing business rather than letting the
Planning Commission hear all the decisions.
On motion of Councilman Jorgensen, seconded by Councilman Dunin, that the
City Council approve the recommendation of the Planning Commission and the
Community Development staff in concept to abolish to the ERC and to allow
the Community Development Director to act as the environmental coordinator
for the initial environmental review but regardless of his action, his decision
would be placed on the next available Planning Commission agenda for public
input and discussion. Motion carried unanimously.
There being no further business to come before the City Council, the meeting
adjourned to 4:00 p.m., April 17, 1979.
APPROVED: May 1, 1979 ��°C 47��A�
.01 Fitzpatrick, City Clerk
I