Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/02/1979M I N U T E S ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO MONDAY, JULY 2, 1979 - 12:10 P.M. HEARING ROOM, CITY HALL 990 PALM STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO Roll Call COUNCILMEMBERS I Present: Melanie Billig, Ron Dunin, Jeff Jorgensen and Mayor Lynn Cooper Absent: Alan Bond CITY STAFF Present: Lee Walton, Administrative Officer; J.H. Fitzpatrick, City Clerk; Henry Engen, Director of Community Development; George Thacher, City Attorney 1. Communication from-the Old Town Neighborhood Association regarding the demolition of historical structures within the city and asking that some type of a review process be established in order to give the city and the community an opportunity to save a building that once it's torn down it's lost forever. The City Council discussed various approaches -to protect truly historical structures within the city. Councilman Jorgensen suggested an interim action to protect the historical buildings until the Historical Element of the General Plan was finally adopted by the City. He felt that a ninety day period.from application to permit stage for demolition, which would allow the city government and neighborhood options to stop demolition after notice and hearing by the City'Council. Mayor Cooper suggested that possibly 45 days might be more realistic than 90 days after publication of theproblem in the newspaper. Councilman Jorgensen felt that any structure built prior to 1920 or any structure of architectural significance in the opinion of the Community Development Director should go through this procedure. By common consent of the City Council, the city staff was directed to prepare an ordinance requiring 45 day notification, plus publication by the city of proposed demolition of any building built prior to 1920, or which in the opinion of the Community Development Director, was of archi- tectural or historic significance. 2. The City Clerk announced that the State of California had scheduled a state -wide election for November 6, 1979 at which time the City Council, if they so desired, could add city measures to be consolidated with the city election. One item in particular was Resolution No. 3799 adopted by the outgoing 1977 -1979 City Council.,-which. was a resolution increasing the salaries of.both the Mayor and City Councilmembers. The City Clerk continued that the Council, if they wished to- proceed on that basis, would have to prepare consolidation requests with the state election sometime in the middle of August. George Thacher, City Attorney, read for the Council's consideration, the provisions of the City Charter, Section 410, which stated in part, that upon adoption of the Charter, the compensation for'the Mayor and Council - members shall remain in effect but the rate may be revised by the electorate as recommeded by initiative or referendum. The legal question was whether the Council could initiate the salary increase. The City Attorney was asked to review the law on this matter and make recommendations as to the approach for adding this to the election.as the Council desired. City Council Minutes July 2, 1979 - .12:10 p.m. Page 2 The second item brought to the Council's attention by the City Clerk was the possibility of changing the city election date as presently shown in the Charter which was the first Tuesday after-the first Monday in March in the odd numbered year. He stated the unified school district, the college and county school.district had moved their election back to November of the odd - numbered year as was permitted by an emergency law adopted in late 1978. He stated that if the City Council wished to change the election date, it would be financially beneficial to the city to consolidate with the school district so that each would pay a small share of the election. If the City , stayed with the March election date, then they would have to pay the entire election costs as was recently done. The City Council discussed the benefits for changing the election date and felt that financially and economically it.would be better to go along with the City Clerk's suggestion but that the Council was worried about them voting themselves an extension of several months in office from March to November and how the electorate would feel about that. The Council felt that the best approach would be at the next city election, to present this proposition to the public and at the same time make pro- visions for those offices elected in March, 1981 to have those terms continued due whatever date the City Council finally determined. The third item for consideration was other Charter amendments and the City Council had no suggestions. 3. The City Council considered a communication from the Planning Department regarding a policy determination which would implement the Council's decision.to eliminate the Environmental Review Committee. Henry Engen, Community Development Director, stated that there were two routes to go in establishing procedures in rewriting the EIR Guidelines: 1) Route all EIR determinations made by the Environmental Coordinator to the Planning Commission for affirmation prior to proceeding with develop- ment processing; or (2) have the Environmental Coordinator make the.decision. ' He stated that the city staff felt that the guidelines should be rewritten with the Environmental Coordinator responsible for EIR determinations with this decision subject to appeal by any interested party. The Planning Commission recommended that negative environmental declarations by the Environmental Coordinator appear on.the Planning Commission consent agenda for confirmation but the staff felt that the practical affects of this approach asked that it be reconsidered and not place all EIR calls on the Commission agenda as it only lengthened the already overloaded Planning Commission. He then reviewed time.tables.for processing various types of development requiring action by: 1) Architectural Review Commission; 2) Planning Commission; and 3) City Council. He stated that the advantages of having the Planning Commission making EIR determinations were to separate the EIR decision from the project decision and give it a potential public forum. The disadvantages included overloaded already full agendas, adding staff workload, slowing down the development process both for public and private projects and substituting one committee for another. Moreover, the use permits decided at the Planning Cormiission have historically not been subject to EIR controversy. The Commission's call on all projects going to the Council could be reversed even after the 10 -day appeal period had passed so there was no advantage to an applicant with respect to having a definitive determination by the Commission. Also, there was a greater probability of ' public comment at the time of the hearing on the project. On behalf of the staff he recommended that Council direct the guidelines to be rewritten to place responsibility for EIR determinations with the Community Development Director. Appeals would be invited as at present through newspaper adver- tisements. Moreover, the "decision making body ", whether Planning Commission or City Council, would still retain the right to reverse negative declaration at the time of public hearing on the project. Councilman Jorgensen emphasized that care in changing the rules must be made in making..sure that EIR.determinations so that the public right of appeal were so protected. He felt that an environmental impact call by a staff member should be given sufficient publicity for public notice. He also asked for clarification of various EIR determination documents. City Council Minutes July 2, 1979 - 12:10 p.m. Page 3 After discussion, the City Council agreed with Councilman Jorgensen's comments stating that the public.must at all times be protected in any EIR determination made by staff, Planning Commission and /or Council. The City Council directed the staff to rewrite the EIR Guidelines with the Community Development Director to make the calls and that the call on the EIR determin- ation be reviewed at the time the project was presented to the Planning Commission and City Council. 4. The City Council considered the adoption of the Downtown Specific Plan and Goals.Sta.tement for such a plan. Terry Sanville, Senior Planner,- stated that the Planning-Commission had completed a draft of the Downtown Goals Statement. This report was intended to be the first part of a downtown specific plan. The goals statement was sent to various community organizations for their comments and was made available to the public. The Community Development Department had received comments back from most of the groups. He suggested that the City Council should adopt the Downtown Goals Statement but not adopt a Specific Plan as such. By adoption of the Goals Statement, this would be the guidance for the individual development and public development of the downtown area. He then felt the City Council could proceed with the individual elements of the Plan such as: 1) parking; 2) circulation; 3) civic center; 4) cultural center; etc. The City Council then discussed.with Terry Sanville and Henry Engen the various elements of the proposed draft Downtown Goals Statement. Finally, the city staff recommended that the City Council should set a public hearing to review the'draft Downtown Goals Statement, invite comments from any members of the public or community.groups interested in downtown planning, the Council make any amendments they desired to the draft Goals Statement, and finally, adopt a Downtown Goals Statement and direct city staff to proceed with the provisions of the Goals Statement. ' The City Council agreed in principle with the recommendations of the city staff and set a public hearing on the Downtown Specific Goasls Statement for Tuesday, September 11, 1979. 5. There being no.further business to come before the City Council, Mayor Cooper adjourned the meeting at 2:15 p.m., to 4:00 p.m. Tuesday, July 3, 1979. Approved by Council on: Fitzpatrick, City Clerk August 7, 1979 M I N U T E S ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SAN.LUIS OBISPO TUESDAY, JULY 3, 1979 - 4:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL 990 PALM STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO 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 Clerk; George Thacher, City Development Director; Roger Public Services Director Officer; J.H. Fitzpatrick, City Attorney; Henry Engen, Community Neuman, Police Chief; D.F. Romero,