HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 0724900
ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
JULY 240 1990
AIEVING AUNM
�
DATE-W-1�4 ITEMS A-3
Minutes approved as
written 8/14/90
The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. The Pledge of
Allegiance was led by Councilman Shiers.
ROLL CALLs
Present: Councllmembers Shiers, Borgeson, Nimmo and
Mayor Lilley
Also Present: Muriel Korba, City Treasurer
Lee Dayka, City Clerk
Absent: Councilman Dexter
Staff Present: Ray Windsor, City Manager; Art Montandon,
City Attorney; Henry Engen, Community
Development Director; Andy Takata, Director
of Parks, Recreation and Zoo; Mark Joseph,
Administrative Services Director; Mike Hicks,
Fire Chief; Bud McHale, Police Chief; Greg
Luke, Public Works Director; and Lisa
Schicker, City Arborist.
COUNCIL COMMENTS:
Councilwoman Borgeson requested that staff investigate an
incident concerning Southern Pacific Railroad and the mowing down
of 100 trees. The City Manager indicated that the matter is
currently being looked into. Additionally, Councilwoman Borgeson
asked that the Mayor and City Manager get together with the news
media and take a stand on the issue. Mr. Windsor agreed to
report back to Council on August 14, 1990.
Mayor Lilley reported that he, Councilmembers Shiers and Nimmo
had recently returned from a councilmember/mayor conference in
Monterey. He reported that the theme of the conference was
ethnic diversity and noted that there appears to be increasing
frustration among cities regarding relationships with County
government.
CC7/24/90
Page 1
0 &
A. CONSENT CALENDAR:
Mayor Lilley read the Consent Calendar:
1. JUNE 269 1990 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES (Cont'd from 7/10/90)
2. JULY 10, 1990 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
3. JULY 11, 1990 SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES (Study
Session)
4. CITY TREASURER'S REPORT - JUNE 1990
5. FINANCE DIRECTOR'S REPORT - JUNE 1990
6. RESOLUTION N0. 100-90 - ADDING CERTIFIED ARBORISTS TO CITY -
APPROVED LIST (POPPENBERG, FORISTER & CONNER)
7. CLARIFICATION OF FY90-91 BUDGET FIGURES
The City Manager asked that Item A-3, July 11, 1990 Minutes, be
pulled and continued.
MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo and seconded by Councilwoman
Borgeson to approve the Consent Calendar with the
exception of Item A-3; motion unanimously carried by
roll call vote.
MOTION: By Councilman Shiers and seconded by Councilman Nimmo
to continue the Minutes of the July 11, 1990 meeting
until August 14, 1990; unanimously passed by voice
vote.
COMMUNITY FORUM:
There were no public comments.
B. HEARINGS/APPEARANCES:
1. APPEAL PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF PRECISE PLAN 74-89
CONDITION REQUIRING CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK AT 5160 PALMA
AVE. - JIM & KRIS HAZARD (Fisher/Washburn)
The Community Development Director gave staff report describing
the neighborhood and noted that of the fifty-seven lots on Palma,
thirty-three of them have development potential. Mr. Engen added
that the applicant has a lot next door with a mirror-image
proposal and stated that any policy decision emerging would bear
CC7/24/90
Page 2
on staff's decision on the adjoining lot. Mr. Engen gave staff
recommendation to support the conditional requirement of curb,
gutter and sidewalk.
The Public Works Director noted that he was available for
questions. Councilwoman Borgeson asked for an explanation of
"mitigation measures" suggested by Mr. Sims in an excerpt from
Planning Commission minutes of July 3, 1990. Greg Luke responded
that the preliminary method suggested is to use a series of four -
inch drains underneath the sidewalk noting that guiding
engineering principles do not allow concentrated drainage into
an area different than the normal drainage channel. He clarified
that one neighbor would not be an unwary recipient of water.
Discussion followed regarding the neighborhood and the
development of nearby properties without placing curb, gutter
and sidewalk conditions upon them. The Public Works Director
described the "hopscotch affect" and provisions of the Block Act
and Mr. Engen addressed questions regarding General Plan policy.
Additional discussion ensued regarding policy of previous
councils. Councilwoman Borgeson noted the need for Council
unity. Councilman Nimmo concurred that clear, coherent policy
guidance is necessary and that the public has a right to know
what is required of them. Mayor Lilley was in agreement and
asked that the matter be addressed.
Public Comments:
The applicant, Kris Hazard spoke in support of the appeal by
noting that there are no curb, gutters and sidewalks on Palma.
She stated that new units (Elliott project) located on Olmeda
were not required to provide curb, gutter and sidewalks and
related that Olmeda is much more congested than Palma.
Ms. Hazard stated Palma is very rural and that sidewalks would
have to ribbon around existing trees or require removal of trees.
She also questioned who would be responsible for maintaining the
sidewalks.
Ms. Hazard made reference to the new police facility and stated
that there were no sidewalks required. She concluded her
comments by stating that she was willing to asphalt and berm the
street and reiterated that putting in sidewalks did not make much
sense.
Michael Palister, 7460 Sombrilla, stated that the City needs to
make a plan and provide more sidewalks.
CC7/24/90
Page 3
Julie Conn, 5100 Olmeda, stated that in her opinion Olmeda, which
has no sidewalks, has more children walking to and from school
than on Palma.
Paul Washburn, 8250 San Rafael, addressed Council stating that he
was the developer/builder for the Hazard project. Mr. Washburn
referred to staff's recommendations and opposed the curb, gutter
and sidewalk requirement and addressed the issue of drainage. He
explained that if both the Hazard projects are developed with 200
feet of curb and gutter any rain water will be picked up and will
end up dumping right in front of the neighboring property. Mr.
Washburn offered alternatives, including asphalt and berm.
Mr. Washburn stated that, because of the past history of the
street and the fact that the new police facility received a
building permit with exception for curb, gutter and sidewalk, he
was surprised that he was being asked to provide them. He added
that he was the developer of a four-plex on Amapoa where he was
assured that after he paved out the street, lowered the sewer and
provided curb, gutter and sidewalk everyone else would follow
suit. He related the current status of, that street describing it
as dangerous and implied the possibility of the same happening on
Palma.
Mr. Washburn concluded by stating that El Camino Real should be
looked at first to establish a bike route, and alternatives be
determined after that. Additionally, he suggested a citizen
committee to provide input to Council for creating walkways
without patchwork and the incorporation of Cal Poly student ideas
for pedestrian and bike paths.
Eric Greening, 7365 Valle, commended the Council for development
of sidewalk policy and recommended that an "on foot" tour be
conducted to view the City from that perspective.
Discussion came back to Council.
Councilwoman Borgeson remarked that a series of meetings are
needed for development of master plans for drainage; curb, gutter
and sidewalks; bikepaths; equestrian routes, etc. She added that
the Public Works Director has vision, knows what needs to be done
and recognizes that the City is growing. She referred to Mr.
Davidson's analysis (see item #3: Premature Development) and
expressed support in upholding the Planning Commission decision.
Councilman Nimmo remarked that
and to what extent it wantsto
CC7/24/90
Page 4
Council needs to determine where
maintain rural atmosphere and
'
still accommodate pedestrians. He referred to other cities
where, in an effort to preserve a rural atmosphere, sidewalks
have been created only on one side of the street and flexibility
has been used to allow for trees and avoid straight-line, rigid
confirmation.
Councilman Shiers concurred with other Council comments relating
to the need for development of clear, consistent policy dealing
with curb, gutter and sidewalks. He suggested that if curb,
gutter and sidewalks are not required, the developer be asked to
pay into a fund to develop a safe pedestrian walkway in the
future.
Mayor Lilley asserted that the Council must "bite the bullet" and
develop a master plan for pedestrian pathways designed for a
purpose, with no obligation to have sidewalks down both sides of
the street. The mayor expressed sensitivity to not wanting to
let the Hazards off the hook, but disagreed with Councilman
Shiers's suggestion of requiring them to commit to an amount
uncertain for a cause unknown. The mayor than asked the
Community Development Director to relate options the City has and
how it can ensure adequate drainage.
Mr. Engen stated that although he would defer to the Public Works
Director the issue of drainage, he was in support of Council
direction to clarify standards regarding walkways and sidewalks.
He asked Council to specify, with any motion they make, whether
they want to set aside money for future Palma Street walkways or
waive the requirement and give direction to staff to bring forth
appropriate standards and policies.
Mr. Luke stated that he did not have a definitive answer for an
alternative to curb, gutters and sidewalks as it relates to
drainage. He recommended that if Council chooses to waive the
condition, that it give qualitative instructions to the Public
Works Department to ensure that facilities are put in that will
adequately control drainage.
Councilwoman Borgeson suggested that, in the meantime, the road
be graded properly for drainage until a master plan is in place
and the City takes a look at where assessment districts are
needed.
Mayor Lilley proposed a continuance on the matter to allow staff
to come back with appropriate conditions to address drainage.
The City Manager indicated support of the mayor's recommendation
relating that he would like the opportunity to consult with the
CC7/24/90
Page 5
City Attorney regarding a method that would allow the property
owner to participate without having to put money up front and
acknowledge that improvements may be necessary in the future.
Mr. Windsor also advised that the next regular meeting set for
August 14, 1990 would be heavy and suggested that Council
consider a second meeting during that week.
Councilman Nimmo asked the applicants if a continuance would put
a financial burden upon them. Mr. Washburn indicated that it
would because they could not take out a building permit until the
matter is resolved.
Councilwoman Borgeson concurred with the City Manager's
recommendation that the matter be continued to allow the City
Attorney to make a determination.
Mr. Windsor noted that it would be three weeks until the next
meeting and suggested a compromise. He proposed that a building
permit be issued recognizing that Council still has to act on the
curb, gutter and sidewalk condition. The City Attorney advised
that he saw no problem with issuing the building permit as long
as there was a written agreement made whereby the applicants
acknowledge that they would be subject to the decision made by
the City Council.
The mayor proposed that the applicant be granted an appeal and a
building permit contingent upon compliance with alternative
requirements set forth by staff. Councilman Nimmo asked for
clarification on what the applicant would eventually be asked to
do regarding the sidewalk issue. Mayor Lilley responded that if
Council waives the requirement for curb, gutter and sidewalk,
there needs to be some other engineering solution required of the
applicant to address drainage on the site.
Councilwoman Borgeson suggested that, in addition to researching
alternatives, staff consider the option of an in -lieu fund for
future improvements. She added that by continuing the matter
over to the next meeting, a full Council would be present for
rendering a decision.
The City Manager noted that both parties would be served by
continuing the matter and reiterated support for continuance. He
further suggested that the applicant be given the right to draw
the building permit so that they be able to begin work.
Kris Hazard stated that she was in agreement with the concept of
continuance as long as the only issue was to be drainage. The
mayor indicated that he could not assure her of that due to
CC7/24/90
Page 6
Council concerns relating to future improvement
Hazard clarified that she was in support of the
continue based on the matters of drainage and future
fees.
MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo to uphold
further recommendations by
drainage problem on the site
would not be "held hostage"
of funds to be determined at
Lilley seconded the motion.
Discussion of the motion:
costs. Ms.
decision to
development
the appeal subject to
staff to resolve the
and that the applicant
to some future assessment
a later date. Mayor
Councilwoman Borgeson remarked that she thought Council consensus
was that there were options to curb, gutter and sidewalk and
that the condition may not appropriate at this time. She added
that staff should be given the opportunity to take a look at
this area and assess future needs. She asserted that the motion
was too restrictive and she would not vote on it.
Mayor Lilley asked Councilman Nimmo if he wanted to amend the
motion. Mr. Nimmo withdrew his motion.
MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson and seconded by Councilman
Shiers to continue the appeal for three weeks so that
staff could address other alternatives to'the curb,
gutter and sidewalk requirement now stated in Condition
#4. The motion carried 3:1, with Councilman Nimmo
voting in opposition.
The City Manager asked the mayor to clarify whether or not the
building permit issue was now moot. Mayor Lilley replied that it
was.
2. WEED ABATEMENT APPEALS HEARING:
A. RESOLUTION NO. 99-90 — CONFIRMING THE COST OF WEED
ABATEMENT
Mike Hicks, Fire Chief, gave staff report with recommendation to
approve the list of abatement charges and grant the 100%
administrative fee. He noted that there had been more
compliance than in past years and reported that the contractor
who performed the work had been very professional. The Fire
Chief also emphasized that the intent of the program was not to
subsidize weed abatement, but to encourage property owners to do
CC7/24/90
Page 7
it on their own.
Additionally, Chief Hicks reported that there were two errors in
his report outlining administrative costs for the program and
related the corrections. (Under Initial inspection - fuel costs:
total changed from $132.00 to $158.40. Under Compliance
inspections - utility truck miles: total changed from $234.50 to
$234.75. These two corrections changed the total administrative
costs from $18,978.90 to $19,005.55).
The Fire Chief then responded to questions from Councilwoman
Borgeson regarding the voluntary compliance, percentage of lots
abated and the method by which lots are prioritized. Chief Hicks
explained that there were approximately sixty to seventy fewer
lots abated than the year before and noted that the contractor
had completed the work on all the parcels he was assigned.
Additionally, the Fire Chief reported that work is begun first on
lots with the highest fire hazard and then abatement is completed
on property within the City for the purposes of public safety
and aesthetic appearance.
Councilwoman Borgeson expressed support for the 100%
administrative fee.
There was no public appeal or testimony.
To point out the necessity of the program, the Fire Chief
additionally reported that there had recently been two fires
which burned into abated areas, where they stopped.
MOTIONS By Councilwoman Borgeson and seconded by Councilman
Shiers to approve Resolution No. 99-90; passed
unanimously by roll call vote.
3. HERITAGE TREE REMOVAL REQUEST FOR PURPOSES OF SINGLE—
FAMILY HOME & GARAGE CONSTRUCTION, 8960 JUNIPERO (Foran)
Henry Engen gave staff report with the recommendation to approve
the removal of two of four trees requested. He noted that the
recommendation included a 2:1 replacement, same species on site.
Councilwoman Borgeson reported that, although she did not have a
problem with locating the site, it was not posted. Councilman
Shiers concurred that it was not posted, but noted that he, too,
had not had a problem finding the location.
Ms. Schicker responded to brief questions relating to tree #3.
CC7/24/90
Page 8
Councilman Nimmo referred to policy on tree replacement adopted
on July 10, 1990 and asked the City Arborist why her reports for
the tree removals on the Council's agenda before them did not
include optional in -lieu contribution fees. Ms. Schicker
responded that each of the applicants wanted to replant and
clarified that she had made the option clear to each of them.
Discussion returned to the site posting. The City Arborist
reiterated that it was the applicant's responsibility to post the
site.
Tom Foran, applicant, stated that his builder had posted the site
two and one-half months ago and asked Council to grant his
request.
Councilwoman Borgeson noted that her concern was to ensure that
the neighborhood was aware of the tree removal request.
MOTIONt By Councilwoman Borgeson and seconded by Councilman
Shiers to approve the heritage tree removal request for
trees #1 and 4; unanimously passed by voice vote.
4. HERITAGE TREE REMOVAL REQUEST FOR PURPOSES OF SINGLE-
FAMILY HOME RENOVATION & CONSTRUCTION, 8020 COROMAR (Van
Slyke)
Henry Engen gave staff report with recommendation to approve the
request with a 2:1 replacement, same species on-site.
The applicant, Tully Van Slyke, thanked the City Arborist for her
assistance and availed himself for questions.
There were no Council questions and no public comment.
MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo and seconded by Councilman Shiers
to approve the heritage tree removal request; motion
unanimously carried.
5. HERITAGE TREE REMOVAL REQUEST FOR PURPOSES OF SINGLE-
FAMILY HOME, GUEST HOME & STUDIO CONSTRUCTION, 8290 HERMOSA
(Shetler)
Henry Engen gave staff report with the recommendation to approve
the removal of all but one tree with a 2:1 replacement on-site.
Lisa Schicker noted that the site was complicated and that the
CC7/24/90
Page 9
map needed some corrections. She also noted that the applicants
had shown interest in transplanting some of the trees.
Councilwoman Borgeson and Councilman Shiers reported that they
had each inspected the site from neighboring property.
Steve Kahn, engineer, spoke on behalf of the applicant stating
that he was in agreement with the replacement requirements and
reported that the site plan had been revised. He asked Council
to give consideration to allowing the removal of the 8" Oak the
City Arborist recommended retaining noting additional engineering
analysis.
Darren Shetler, applicant, stated that he was willing to
transplant some of the smaller trees and asked Council to approve
all of the removals.
MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo and seconded by Mayor Lilley to
approve the applicant's request; motion unanimously
passed.
6. HERITAGE TREE REMOVAL REQUEST FOR PURPOSES OF DRIVEWAY &
SINGLE—FAMILY RESIDENCE CONSTRUCTION, 10560 SAN MARCOS
(Stayart)
Henry Engen reported that the applicant had acquired construction
plans which included an approved tree removal precise plan and
was seeking relief by requesting removal of one 30" White Oak.
Mr. Engen noted that the recommendation was to deny the request.
The applicant or his agent were not present. There were no
further comments.
MOTIONS By Councilman Nimmo and seconded by Mayor Lilley to
approve the applicant's request.
Discussion on the motion:
Councilwoman Borgeson stated that the precise plan was approved
and the building permit ready to be taken out. She noted that
the tree was originally planned on being saved and gave support
for staff's recommendation.
Councilman Shiers commented that he shared the same concerns
clarifying that Council previously approved the tree removal
request, which did not include removal of this tree.
CC7/24/90
Page 10
0
Mayor Lilley called for a vote. Motion to approve the
request failed 1:3.
MOTIONS By Councilman Shiers and seconded by Councilwoman
Borgeson to approve the recommendation of the City
Arborist; motion carried 3:1 with Councilman Nimmo
voting in opposition.
7. HERITAGE TREE REMOVAL REQUEST FOR PURPOSES OF COMMERCIAL
PARK CONSTRUCTION, 2100 EL CAMINO REAL (Shannon)
Henry Engen gave staff report and recommendations to approve the
request with a 2:1 replacement on or off site, or with two native
oaks on-site.
Discussion followed relating to Council concerns for freeway
screening.
Richard Shannon, 507 San Bonita Road, stated that he was the
applicant and gave support for the request. He revealed that
the proposed project would be attractive and would front the
highway.
The Community Development Director responded to Council questions
regarding setbacks, reporting that the project would be required
to meet the 20' setback standard for a commercial park.
The applicant added that he was relying on the expertise of a
landscape architect and an arborist, who had advised him that the
trees were not compatible with the project.
MOTIONm By Councilman Nimmo and seconded by Councilwoman
Borgeson to approve the request based on staff
recommendations; motion unanimously carried by voice
vote.
C. REGULAR BUSINESS:
1. PROPOSAL FROM DENNIS BRYANT REGARDING DISPOSAL OF OLD APPLI-
ANCES
The City Manager asked the Administrative Services Director to
give the report. Mr. Joseph reported that Dennis Bryant, owner -
operator of SOS Appliance, had submitted to Council a proposal
for providing an appliance disposal service to the City. Staff
recommendation was to refer the matter to the Recycling Committee
CC7/24/90
Page 11
0
for review.
Discussion followed. Councilwoman Borgeson asked for
clarification of the recommendation and asserted that ultimate
decision would be made by Council.
Mr. Joseph reported that the referral to the Recycling Committee
would allow them to analyze the proposition in more depth and
give Council a better report. He confirmed that it would be up
to Council to confirm whether or not they wanted to allocate the
funds.
Councilwoman Borgeson was in support of the proposal stating that
it would be money well -spent.
Councilman Shiers pointed out that it might be appropriate to put
the service out to competitive bid. Mr. Joseph concurred and
reported that Wil Mar Disposal was also interested in bidding on
the service. He noted that the Recycling Committee could
research the matter more thoroughly.
Dennis Bryant, 7410 Sombrilla, reported that he suffers when
people drop off appliances at his appliance repair shop during
off -business hours. He highlighted for Council proposed
recycling techniques, noting that 98% of the appliances could be
recycled. He further explained that the 2% remaining is because
there has not yet been a way determined to dispose of foam
insulation.
Mr. Bryant answered questions from Council regarding technology
to remove fluorocarbons and the number of appliances he would be
handling. He emphasized that the appliances would need to be
accessible for pick-up.
Public Comment:
Whitey Thorpe, 8205 Santa Ynez, spoke in support of Mr. Bryant's
proposal.
Mayor Lilley stated that it is normally the procedure of Council
to comply with the competitive regimen and give consideration as
to whether the service would be provided as part of the budget
cycle or outside of it.
Councilwoman Borgeson supported moving ahead quickly
acknowledging the possible need to put the service out to bid and
added that the service would be a gift to the community.
CC7/24/90
Page 12
• 0
Councilman Shiers recognized, given the mandate of the City
having to reduce the amount of solid waste, that there is a need
to recycle appliances.
It was the consensus of the Council to refer the matter to the
Recycling Committee and consider what criteria is necessary for
the matter to go out to public bid.
2. STATUS OF WATER CONSERVATION EFFORTS (Mayor Lilley - verbal)
Mayor Lilley submitted a memorandum (see Exhibit A) relating to
communications he made with the members of the Board of
Directors of the Atascadero Mutual Water Company regarding water
conservation efforts.
Councilwoman Borgeson reported that she had received calls from
the public opposing the manner in which they had been told to
comply and asserted that she objected to the fact that the public
and Council did not have any input. Councilwoman Borgeson stated
that she had asked the mayor to call an emergency meeting of the
Council and was surprised to be receiving only a verbal report on
the matter. She asserted that that the City and public has been
misled about the status of water resources and strongly objected
to the Police Department becoming patrol for a private water
company. In addition, Councilwoman Borgeson requested that there
be scheduled a full public hearing with a representative present
from the water company.
Councilman Shiers commented that he would like to see a written
report from Atascadero Mutual Water Company and noted that
completion of a Water Master Plan is required by the State by
December 31, 1990. He stated that he also wanted to know the
status of the master plan and added that there is a need for
better communication with the water company.
Councilman Nimmo related that every homeowner is a shareholder in
the Atascadero Mutual Water Company and can attend their
meetings. He spoke in support of better communication with the
water company but stressed that he did not favor demanding an
appearance (of a representative from Atascadero Mutual Water)
before the City Council. He commended the mayor for his efforts.
Mayor Lilley clarified the purpose of his memo and summarized the
activities leading to it. He stated that he had contacted the
Police Chief to establish whether RSVP individuals could aid in
conservation efforts should the Council deem support of that
endeavor. Mayor Lilley reported that he had also asked the City
CC7/24/90
Page 13
Attorney review the appropriateness of sanctions imposed by the
water company. He stated that staff has already been directed to
acquire a copy of the Water Master Plan to determine whether or
not it is consistent with the General Plan. He noted that his
efforts were to enable the City to make an independent evaluation
of the actions of the water company.
Councilwoman Borgeson reiterated her objections to the procedures
in which the issue was handled and stressed that one or two
Council members cannot give direction to staff.
Councilman Nimmo related that he occasional attends meetings of
the water company as a shareholder and gave assurance that he had
not discussed with any member of staff the issues raised at the
latest one he attended.
Councilman Shiers clarified that it was during an agenda review
meeting that the issue of requesting a copy the water company's
Water Management Plan was raised. He concurred that it takes at
least three members of Council to make a decision.
The City Manager stated that he would provide a memo to Council
to clarify issues and noted that the staff is independently
moving to acquire information to provide to Council. He stated
that one of the issues of concern is the legal status of the
Mutual Water Company and asked for the opportunity to consult
with the City Attorney before he comes back to Council.
Chief Hicks commented upon the fire defense system as it relates
to water supply. He clarified that he had been in constant
contact with the water company and was very confident that the
City has adequate water supply to deal with any fire emergencies.
Mr. Windsor asked Council whether they wanted the matter brought
back as an agenda item.
Lengthy discussion ensued. Councilwoman Borgeson requested that
staff come back with information relating to the Water Master
Plan and recommendations from the Police, Fire and Public Works
Departments for a scheduled public hearing on August 14, 1990.
Councilman Shiers concurred with Councilwoman Borgeson's earlier
comments that a representative of the water company should be
invited to participate in the discussion.
Councilman Nimmo stated that he wanted to wait until Council had
received a memorandum from the City Manager and reiterated
concern for damaging the spirit of cooperation already in
CC7/24/90
Page 14
0
0
existence between the City and the water company.
Councilman Shiers debated that a public hearing would not be
detrimental to on-going communications but could be a way of
providing information to the Council and public.
The City Manager voiced concern for setting the hearing too
prematurely. He stated that it may be more logical to allow
staff time to address the issues, obtain information and prepare
a report before setting the public hearing. He advised that he
could place the matter on the next agenda as a regular business
item and clarified that the public would be allowed to speak.
He reiterated that the agenda for the August 14, 1990 was already
large and recommended a second meeting for that week.
Councilman Nimmo proposed that Council allow the City Manager and
staff to pursue the issues of concern, compile the information
and come back with recommendations before Council decides whether
to schedule a noticed public hearing.
Council concurred to place the matter on the August 14, 1990
agenda as a regular business item.
D. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION:
1. City Council:
A. Committee Reports (The following represents ad hoc or
standing committees. Informative status reports were
given on the following committees):
1. gan Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council -
Councilwoman Borgeson gave a report on the latest
meeting indicating that the Area Council had
assumed responsibility for integrating the
County's Solid Waste Plan and voted to retain
language in the Joint Powers Agreement allowing
any member to call for a "supervote". She
described this as one which requires eight
affirmative votes for approval and the City
Manager clarified that without the supervote, the
Board of Supervisors would dominate.
The City Clerk confirmed that she was not
presently receiving copies of minutes from
meetings of the Area Council. Councilwoman
CC7/24/90
Page 15
0
Borgeson noted that it would be appropriate for
them to be on record with the Clerk.
2. Solid/Hazardous Waste Management Committee -
Councilman Nimmo reported that the City had
received it's portion of the bill for the
Hazardous Waste Collection Day and discussed how
to fund another one. Mr. Windsor added that the
program had not been as successful as it might
have been if the North County had a site for this
service.
3. Recycling Committee - Councilman Shiers reported
that the committee had met and would be coming to
Council with a report at the August 14, 1990 City
Council meeting.
4. B.I.A. - The City Manager gave a brief status
report on the downtown parking lot noting that it
was hopeful to be underway in the very near
future.
Mayor Lilley highlighted the discussions of the well -attended
Mayors' Meeting recently hosted by the City of Atascadero.
2. City Attorney - No report.
3. City Clerk - No report.
4. City Treasurer - No report.
5. City Manager
The City Manager suggested that Council meet for an additional
meeting on August 16, 1990 and further requested that Council
meet in a closed session for discussions including potential
property purchase, the Gordon Davis roads issue, employee
negotiations and the Alegre drainage matter. Council consensus
was to meet for the closed session at 6:00 p.m. prior to
convening their regular meeting and delay making a decision to
schedule a second meeting until the evening of August 14, 1990.
THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT APPROXIMATELY 10120 P.M. TO A CLOSED
SESSION BEGINNING AT 6100 P.M. ON AUGUST 14, 1990 IN THE CLUB
ROOM.
CC7/24/90
Page 16
9
MINUTES RECORDED.,AND TRANSCRIBED BYs
CITY CLERK
Attachment: Exhibit A -(Mayor's Memo of July 23, 1990)
CC7/24/90
Page 17
elele_ -
COPY FOR YOUR
INFOR IMIATION
M E M 0 R A N D U M
To: City Council Members
From: Bob Lilley
Subject: Status of Water Conservation Efforts
Date: July 23, 1990
As you are aware, the water company's announcement of conservation
requirements and water use restrictions of Thursday, July 12th,
caught all of us a bit surprized. In addition to Council members,
various members of staff have been subjected to a flood of calls
(Police, Fire, etc.) inquiring as to the urgency and the basis of
the conservation decisions and evidencing various levels of con-
cern.
In an effort to aide the council in coming to grips with this
matter, I engaged in some information -gathering efforts and, in so
doing, made contact with two members of the Water Board, to wit
Gordon Davis and Roger Viera, as well as conversing with Bob
Hamilton. The thrust of all these conversations was to make the
point with them that it is essential that we have clear and re-
sponsive communications between the City and the water company and,
specifically, on those issues that impact the citizens of this
community, the various departments and their ability to deliver
services to the public, whether it is maintaining public parks and
recreation facilities or fire protection. Further, I've made it
clear to them that it is essential that they discuss the situation
candidly so that the scope of the problem is clear --not only to
the City but also to the public --and that, unless they're prepared
to do this, it is difficult, if not impossible, for the City to
cooperate in their efforts to conserve and to establish policy
tailored to meet the problems facing the City as a result of any
potential water shortages.
As of the 15th, I was assured cooperation from some individual
members of the Board of Directors, as well as Mr. Hamilton, which
was confirmed in a luncheon meeting with Gordon Davis on Monday,
July 16th. Following that meeting, the Water Board recently set
a meeting for 7:00 p.m. on Monday evening, which was attended by
Mr. Nimmo and myself, I believe some members of the public and the
media. At that meeting, Mr. Hamilton outlined in great detail the
present difficulty facing the water company and acknowledged the
need for close cooperation between them and the City in meeting the
challenge that now faces them as a result of peak user demand,
litigation involving one new well, construction delays affecting
the completion of a second well and a five -million gallon storage
facility.
I have received assurances from the Water Board that they will
actively cooperate in exchanging information, and they have
directed Mr. Hamilton to work with the various City department
heads as appropriate to ensure adequate communication as to the
status of the conservation efforts and the overall water supply.
At the time of the meeting, it was clear that the problems are
temporary in nature and do not appear to in any way affect the
water company's long-term obligation and plan to be able to supply
adequate water and water hook-ups to the new development foreseen
from now until the time of build -out in accord with our General
Plan. He reviewed the fact that the Water Master Plan was
developed in conjunction with the General Plan and that the
implementation of pumping facilities, storage facilities and other
hardware to meet those obligations is well in advance of the growth
of the community. They further reassured us that, based on their
knowledge of the water base and the availability of the water as
a resource, we are not in any immediate jeopardy such as to require
any form of moratorium or slow -down in the issuance of permits as
a result of this temporary difficulty.
It would seem, at this point, that it's in the bests interests of
the City to work constructively with the water company in unifying
community support for reasonable conservation efforts to aide the
company through this temporary crisis. It also seems appropriate
that, apart from a crisis, good citizenship should require
consideration, at least, of an ongoing problem of reasonable
conservation, acknowledging that we are in the fourth year of a
drought and that our neighboring communities are suffering serious
shortages.
On Tuesday, July 17th, I met with both the Police Chief and the
Fire Chief to explore the possibility to ask the assistance of the
volunteers in RSVP of informing members of the public of the water
rationing restrictionswhen violators were observed by them. I
asked that this be done as a part of their residential checks and
mentioned the possibility that members of the Police and Fire
Departments might also consider reminding violators of the problem
when they notice someone violating the conservation methods. this
was really done as an effort to show community support and City
cooperation in meeting the conservation needs in a way that would
not materially disrupt the duties of our employees in any way..
I've asked the Fire Chief to coordinate with Bob Hamilton a com-
plete evaluation of the status of reservior and pumps so that he
can make his independent evaluation of the adequacy of the supply
of water to meet fire response needs within the community, as well
as response requirements to which we are obligated as primary re-
sponse through joint powers agreement with the County. I've also
2
asked chief McHale to obtain information from other cities who have
adopted ordinances designed to enforce water conservation policy.
The purpose of those requests is so that both Chief Hicks and Chief
McHale could report to the Council at our next regularly scheduled
meeting on those matters so the Council would have some input
determining what, if any, further action the Council may choose to
take to ensure we have an adequate capability to respond to fire
demands and/or to consider regulatory ordinances designed to en-
force conservation measures. I will request that Bob Hamilton or
some other agent of the water company attend our City Council
meeting and provide an updated report on the status of the situa-
tion as of that date.
It would appear that, as of the 17th of July, community response
to the water company's conservation requirements has been out-
standing and that, in fact, there has been a two -million gallon
demand drop within the past week --from a peak of approx. eight -
million gallons to approx. six -million gallons. This has allowed
the water company to fully supply its lower tanks and to refill its
upper tanks to more acceptable levels, despite being deprived of
the two wells but for the circumstances described would have been
on line during this peak demand period.
I've asked Chief Hicks to ensure that there is adequate ongoing
communication between the Fire Dept. and the water company to allow
continual monitoring of the situation. -
It is my hope that these efforts will increase the City's ability
to work with the water company in a constructive way to allow the
Council and the company to adopt long-term conservation methods
that are both measured to the problem, equitably applied and
appropriately enforced.
I was advised by Andy Takata that the City is endeavoring to comply
with the 7 p.m. -7 a.m. restrictions, and he has notified our con-
tractor to do so. If any exceptions are required that are of any
major significance, I will ask Andy to report on those situations
at our next Council meeting so the Council can provide appropriate
direction.
RBL:cw
c: Department Heads