HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/13/19751
1
1
Pledge
Roll Call
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
MONDAY, OCTOBER 13, 1975 - 7:30 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
PRESENT: Councilmen Gurnee, Graham, Norris, Petterson and
Mayor Schwartz
ABSENT: None
City Staff
PRESENT: J.H. Fitzpatrick, City Clerk; R.D. Miller; Administrative
Officer; A.J.-Shaw, City Attorney; Robert Strong, Community
Development Director; D.F: Romero, Director of Public Works;
Robert Mote, Utility Engineer; William Flory, Director of
Parks and Recreation; Paul Landell, Civil Engineer Asst II
1. City Council members reported on activities of Council committees that
they represent:
A. Area Planning Council
B. Solid Waste
C.• Traffic Committee
D. Tree Committee
E. Waterways Planning Board
F. Whale_ Rock Commission
G. Zone 9 Advisory Board
H. Water Advisory Board
I. Central Coast Criminal
Justice Committee
J. Mass Transportation
K. County Office of Manpower
Services:
Councilman Gurnee
Mayor Schwartz
Councilman Norris
Councilman Graham
Councilman Petterson
Mayor Schwartz
Councilman Graham
Mayor Schwartz
Councilman Norris
Councilman Petterson
Councilman Norris
2. %A.J. Shaw, City Attorney, informed the City Council that it was his
understanding that Senate Bill No. 1 had been signed by the Governor which was
an amendment'.to "the present Brown Act conditions which'would require City Councils
to conduct open meetings whenever they considered appointments to'such positions as
Planning Commissions or vacancies to elected offices. 'He explained that what the
law actually did was prohibit executive session consideration for the appoint-
ment and dismissal of all public officers including members of. -advisory - committees,
but excepting employees, and he suggested that the City Council should consider
new procedures for the consideration of appointing members to City boards and
commissions to the City for example: (1) selection could be by a Council sub -
committee (2) could be initial screening by a staff member and then appointment
by the Council (3) draw lots or chance (4) any combination of the above (5)
Councilmen select appointees on a rotating basis (6) positions to be appointed
by designated Council members.
After much discussion about SB l which was to go:.into effect on January 1, 1976,
it was moved by-Councilman Norris, seconded by Councilman Petterson, that the
City Council continue with the Council subcomittee of 2 members.to interview
applicants for committee board and commission members with recommendation to the
City Council in open session with the chairperson of the subcommittee advisory
body -to be allowed to attend as.an expert witness.to the - interview,.but to take
no part in the voting by the subcommittees. The following resolution was adopted:
Resolution No:';2899:, a:-resolution of the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
establishing the procedure for appointment suspension or dismissalcof: all non-
employee officers.
Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote:
City Council Minutes
October 13, 1975
Page 2
AYES: Councilmen Norris, Graham, Petterson and Mayor Schwartz
NOES: Councilman Gurnee
ABSENT: None
3. The City Council received the preliminary draft of the noise element
prepared by Envicom and a brief review by the Planning staff as to its content.
Terry Sanville, Associate Planner, reported that the document under consideration
was prepared for the City by Envicom Company and represented analysis of noise
levels generated by rail and major street traffic. Additional work would have
to be completed by the consultant for the City within the next few months under
separate contract to the San Luis Obispo County City Area Planning Council.
This portion of the contract would analyze-(1) the existing noise levels related
to San Luis Obispo County Airport operation (2) identification of significant
stationary noise sources within the San Luis Obispo area, and (3) projection of
noise levels for major arterial street, rail and airport traffic. He continued
that the draft noise element had been presented to the City Planning Commission
on two separate occasions, one being an advertised public hearing held October 7,
1975, at which time representives from Envicom made a complete presentation of
element materials. The Planning Commission was forwarding the draft element to
the City Council . with their unanimous recommendations for adoption. He con-
tinued that the noise element was orie of nine General Plan documents and one of
the four newer elements "bandaided" by the State for completion by September 20,
1975 and that the Commission and City Staff recommend adoption of the draft noise
element with the understanding by the City Council that previously mentioned
supplementary materials received from the consultant would require additional
public hearings and environmental review before their inclusion as part of the
adopted noise element of the General Plan. Further the staff anticipated addi-
tional analysis and development of the policy and implementation section of this
and other General Plan element reports subsequent to guidance from the Council
in the coming months.
Robert Strong, Community Development Director, reviewed some of the major
conditions of the noise element stating that the basic goal of the noise ele-
ment was to-achieve and maintain a noise environment that was compatible with
a variety of human activities which called for cooperation of all levels of
government. The purpose of the noise element was to outline some of the land
use and other types of noise reduction alternatives that were available for
implementation by the City. He continued that generally noise controlled strat-
egies might be thought.of as belonging to one of three approaches from least
restrictive to most restrictive: (1) to encourage voluntary noise reduction
measures by property.owners and developers (2) require,:no se reduction or
compatible land use through zoning and planning powers and (3) inact noise
control through City ownership of the affected property. Which of the approaches
was used depended in large measure on the severity of.the noise problem. The
technical analysis in the element concluded that for the most part, the City
of San Luis. Obispo was free from.excessive noise levels from rail and road
traffic except in close proximity to certain major sources such as U.S. Highway
101 and the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks. It was unlikely then, that the City
needed to consider the most restrictive.approach and could rely on zoning and
planning to prevent major noise problems from occurring. All of the strategies
dealt primarily with reducing future noise problems rather than existing ones.
.Where a noise problem already existed, one or. more of five .solutions were avail -
able: (1) the noise could be reduced at the source (2) the noise could be blocked
by an intersecting barrier (3) the source .could be removed from people and other
receivers (4) the receiver could be removed from the source or (5) the time expos
to the noise could be minimized: As was true with most environmental hazards,
preventing or reducing the cost of the future hazard was easier and less expensive
than trying to resolve the existing.problems. Therefore, the "basic goal recommended
'for noise control in the City-of San Luis Obispo was to_insure.'that the City of San
Luis Obispo was free from excessive-noise and abusive sounds. In defining the goal,
primary emphasis should be.placed on.protecting the general public from noise levels
which might be hazardous to hearing and second in importance is the minimization of
noise induced stress, annoyance and activity interference. The recommended
policies complemented the planning goals and defined specific direction for
the City to take in insuring a compatible noise environment:
City Council Minutes
October 13, 1975
Page 3
1. Establish land use, noise compatibility.standards. for general planning and
zoning purposes;
2. Provide for the identification and evaluation of potential noise problem
areas;
3. Reduce existing and potential incompatible noise levels in.problem areas
through land use strategies, building and subdivision code enforcement
t and other administrative means;
4. Provide for the education of the community in the nature and extent of
noise problems in the City;-
5. Coordinate noise..control. activities with those of ..other responsible juris-
dictions;
6...Provide for periodic review and revision of the noise element.
Robert Strong then concluded his presentation by reviewing.for the City Council
the various charts and studies in the Envicom Noise Element-Report.
The City Council set a.public hearing on.the draft of.the Noise Element of the
General Plan for. November 3, 1975.
4. The.City Council discussed the status of the Charles Pratt Construction
Company contract for the water line construction on South Broad Street, City Plan
No. 21 -75.
A.J. Shaw, City Attorney, announced that this portion of the Council meeting
would be reported by a.court.reporter, Jeri, Kane,.and the .transcript would
be dated October.l3, 1975..
.5. The City Council reviewed.the proposed resolutions to be presented
to the League of California Cities annual conference to be held in San Francisco
on October 20, 21, and 22nd.
The City Council reviewed the various resolutions and on.moEion of Mayor
Schwartz, seconded by Councilman Gurnee, that..the City.Council.accept-.the
recommended action on all resolutions as recommended by the Channel's
County Division except for Resolution No. 23, 54 and 62. Motion carried.
All ayes.
.6. Councilman.Keith.Gurnee requested that the City Council discuss
the issue of growth at Cal Poly and how it affected the community of San Luis
Obispo. He felt there was no issue that so affected the ability of the City
to preserve the character and environment than the explosive expansion at
Cal Poly. He continued that at a time the City was developing a General Plan,
they must also understand the dynamics of Cal Poly growth and also the-Council
must decide whether the people.of.San Luis Obispo had the right to decide the
future course of their city or should it be decided by a State Institution
dictated from somewhere outside.the City of San Luis Obispo. He then submitted
information which he felt was the-impact of Cal Poly growth and its effect on
the City's ability to protect its character. He also explained. how. the California
Environmental Quality Act applied to action.increasing enrollments or approving
- campus.master plans. He felt that the uncontrolled growth_of the University
.influenced whatever the City would-do-and whatever strategies it.might.take in
-order to plan for proper-growth.. He then submitted very.detailed graphs showing
a comparison of Cal Poly growth and the City growth for the periods 1960 through
'. 1975. He also submitted several sections of the Environmental Quality Act that
required expansions on campuses and changes in_master.plans to comply with the
Environmental.Quality Act of the State of California. He--recommended that the
City Council adopt several resolutions, for example: (1). Aresolution of the
Trustees of the State University system to prepare an E.I.R. on the 1975 adopted
master •plan for campus growth -at Cal Poly (2) a resolution to the Trustees to
appoint a -Community Advisory group to work with Cal .Poly on growth .and relations
.to the Community. This type of community group had been appointed by most State
..Universities and (3) a. resolution setting.up a study group.to work with the exist -
.ing.staff at Cal Poly in-order to mitigate the effect uncontrolled growth would
have on the.City of San Luis Obispo.
City Council Minutes
October 13,-1975
Page 4
Councilman Graham felt the Council.should consider the information submitted by
Councilman Gurnee for future consideration as he had felt that this had been
interesting information presented for.Council.consideration to.be considered
at a future meeting when the University staff would have an opportunity to present
additional information on this subject.
Robert E. Kennedy, President of California Polytechnic State University,
appeared before the City Council to discuss the relationship of the Univer-
sity to the City of San Luis Obispo. He reviewed action taken by his staff
and in cooperation with the City as a result of the same problems brought
to a public.meeting before the City Council on December 13,.1974. He felt
that Councilman Gurnee had presented no new information but that the staffs c h
of both Cal Poly.and the City were working together in attempting to solve
whatever problems did exist. He also stated that since he.had been-president
and he was sure prior to that time the University had kept the City appraised
of their growth strategies and their goals for development of the University.
He then reviewed for the City Council what had happened at Cal Poly since
1961 to date and,the adopting of the Master.Plan for the University in 1961.
He continued that the Master Plan for, the University adopted in 1961 was
based on the knowledge that the City's General Plan called for accommodating
more 80,000 population and that time,.Cal Poly's enrollment was approximately
5,000 students. Now, 14 years later, San.Luis Obispo had reduced their.esti-
mated population but the college was still- sticking to their Master Plan
which *as_for an ultimate ceiling of 15,000 full time equivalent students.
He concluded his:presentation by stating that the University and staff stood
ready at any time to cooperate in studies dealing with the growth at Cal
Poly and its effect -on the City of San Luis Obispo if truly done in a coopera-
tive and basis in gathering of information.
Dr. Kennedy also submitted a communication-from William G. Knight, Attorney
for the office of General Council of the California State Universitys and
College System which stated that annual fluctuations in enrollment did not
constitute projects as defined under the California Environmental Quality
Act and therefore they would not submit such a report . for minor fluctuations
in their student population.
Councilman Norris stated that he was disappointed with.Councilman Gurnee bring-
ing up this matter of requiring Cal Poly to file an E.I.R. for.normal fluctua-
tions in enrollment. He stated that the Council had taken action on this matter
and did not wish to go over the ground again.
Councilman Petterson stated that he too disagreed with Councilman's Gurnee
approach in solving problems within-the community by first going to the
news media making public pronouncements and then bring the matter to the
City Council as public outcry. He felt that a more informal face -to -face
problem solving would serve the people of San Luis Obispo and the University
much better.
Councilman Graham wondered whether Cal Poly was going to.increase on- campus
housing.
Robert Kennedy stated that Cal Poly had 4,800 spaces for single students on
campus and that this was the highest number on any campus in the State and
that funds were just not available for additional.housing. He did feel their
was a need for married student housing but that no funds were available for
the college as.Trustees did not feel it was the University's responsibility
to provide married students housing, although he personally, is still looking
for help in this area from the private sector.
Councilman Graham objected to Councilman's Gurnee approach in this matter as
he felt that a more personal approach and contact with President Kennedy might
have been more productive.
Mayor Schwartz felt the Council should wait for resolutions suggested by
Councilman Gurnee. He also felt that the energy being expended on this matter
should better be expended on the General Plan studies of the City. He also
hoped that the Council subcommittee on administration and management would
study methods of strengthening the agenda in order to.save the Council time
in considering the same item time and time again when the majority of the
Council had already taken action on it.
1
City Council Minutes
October 13, 1975
Page 5
There being no further discussion, the matter was received and filed.
7.a. On motion of Councilman Norris, seconded by Councilman Petterson,
the following resolution was introduced: Resolution No. 3002, a resolution
of the Council of the City of San Luis Obispoaapproving an agreement with
San Luis Coastal Unified School District for recreation use of school
facilities and the development of same.
' Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Gurnee, Graham, Norris, Petterson and
Mayor Schwartz
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
7.b. James Maul, Architect for the Meadow Park Recreation Building, sub-
mitted a report to the City Council recommending that the City Council take
steps to accept the building and to authorize final payment less the normal
10 percent retention for a final review by the architect of several punch
list items that must be completed, for example: completion of landscape
planting and window blinds ordered but not yet delivered. He stated that
the guarantees tied been submitted and reviewed by him from both the general
contractor and the primary sub - contractors from l to 3 years as required by
the specifications.
On motion of Mayor Schwartz, seconded by Councilman Graham, the City Council
took action to accept the Meadow Park building and ordered the filing of the
notice of completion. Motion carried. All ayes.
R.D. Miller, Administrative Officer, submitted for the Council's consideration,
' an increase in the Park and Recreation budget of $3,600 for recreation leaders
and programming at the new Meadow Park Community Center for the balance -of
the fiscal year.
On motion of Mayor Schwartz, seconded by Councilman Graham,_the following
resolution was introduced: Resolution No. 2900, a resolution increasing
the 1975 -76 budget.
Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Gurnee, Graham, Norris, Petterson and
Mayor Schwartz
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
8. There being no futher business to come before the City Council,
Mayor Schwartz adjourned the meeting.
APPROVED: gCg��ee
Fitzpatrick, City Clerk
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
MONDAY, OCTOBER 13, 1975 - 8:30 P.M.
BROAD STREET WATERLINE - C.A. PRATT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
REPORTED BY: JERI L. CAIN, MERIT REPORTING
SEE TRANSCRIPT ON FILE
1