HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 111495lJ
1
C7
ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
NOVEMBER 14, 1995
MINUTES
CLOSED SESSION:
Approved as Submitted
Meeting Date: 12/12/95
The City met in Closed Session at 6:30 p.m. for purposes of discussions pertaining
to:
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR
Agency negotiator: Andrew Takata
Employee organizations: Management, Mid -Management Professional,
Atascadero Fire Captains, Atascadero Firefighters, Atascadero Sergeants
Service Organization, Atascadero Police Officers Association, Atascadero Public
Safety Technicians Organization, Service Employees Intl. Union Local 817,
Confidential Employees
Closed Session was adjourned at 6.45 p.m. There were no announcements regarding
the matter; however because of a matter of urgency concerning a potential threat of
litigation, the City Council voted unanimously to go back into Closed Session. The
second Session adjourned at 6:59 p.m. There were no announcements.
REGULAR SESSION:
The Mayor called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Councilmembers Bewley, Carden, Johnson, Luna and
Mayor Highland
Absent: None
Also Present: Lee Price, City Clerk
Staff Present: Andy Takata, City Manager; Steve DeCamp, City Planner;
Art Montandon, City Attorney; Roy Hanley, Deputy City
Attorney; Brady Cherry, Director of Community Services;
Brad Whitty, Finance Director; Mike McCain, Fire Chief; Lt.
CC 11/14/95
Page 1
Bill Watton, Police Chief Department and John Neil,
Assistant City Engineer
COUNCIL COMMENTS:
Councilman Carden inquired as to when the draft environmental impact report for the
South Atascadero Area Plan would be available. The City Manager reported that the
document would be forthcoming in a month or so.
Councilman Luna asked staff for a status report on Atascadero Mutual Water
Company's plans for a pump station on San Marcos. He asserted that citizens should
be notified and commented that he would like to see the road brought up to City
standards. Andy Takata noted that the Assistant Engineer had already sent out a
survey to property owners to determine interest in forming an assessment district.
John Neil added that the Water Company is scheduling the improvements for mid-
November and pointed out that there would not be enough time to get the assessment
district formed. He noted, however, that the project may be the catalyst and
indicated that it may take a year and a half or two years to formalize the district,
based upon previous experience.
Councilman Carden if there was still time for the City Council to add items for
consideration for the next cycle of the General Plan update. Steve DeCamp advised
that the Council would have an opportunity to do this at the next meeting when other
applications submitted would be presented. Councilman Carden noted that he had an
item he wished to add at that time.
COMMUNITY FORUM:
Denise Mortorff, 7910 Balboa, read a prepared statement (see Exhibit "A") requesting
that weed abatement charges for her property be removed and that Council consider
changes in the weed abatement policy.
Ray Jansen, 6655 Country Club Drive, spoke to the issue of chelation therapy.
Lee Mosher, Salvation Army Christmas Ring Chairman, asked for community
volunteers to participate in the Salvation Army Christmas Ring program.
Eric Greening, 7365 Valle, urged all to take an interest in the Draft Environmental
Impact Report on proposed improvements to the Cuesta Grade.
John Cole, 8710 Sierra Vista Road, asked for a status report on road improvements
under construction on San Gabriel Road. He stated that he was dissatisfied with the
road surface and asked if the street would eventually be smoothed out. John Neil
reported that the project was a week away from completion and emphasized that
there are no immediate plans to overlay the road. He offered to meet with Mr. Cole
CC 11/14/95
Page 2
to review the situation.
Rush Kolemaine, 4580 Potrero Road, announced that the San Luis Obispo Council of
Government's telecommunications consortium would be meeting the following day
and remarked that recent Council action to not participate has resulted in no
representation for the City of Atascadero. On another matter, Mr. Kolemaine pointed
out that the City Council agenda does not include the Citizens Task Force for
Economic Recovery under the list of committee reports.
Tom Austin, 10780 EI Camino Real, spoke to the issue of the proposed adult
bookstore and encouraged Council to stand firm on the City's existing ordinance
relative to vending machines.
Mark Egan, 10025 EI Camino Real, also urged Council to fight the issue.
Deputy City Attorney: Status report on the adult book store (verbal)
Deputy City Attorney Roy Hanley reported that staff is on track with the permanent
ordinance regulating adult businesses.
PRESENTATIONS:
Final Report on Youth Recreation Center, presented by Project Architect, F.L.
Henderson & Associates
Frank Henderson, architect, provided the final report and summary of estimated costs.
He recommended that electrical upgrade be considered the first priority and noted that
detailed electrical plans can be done at no cost to the City by a mature, experienced
Cal Poly student, under his direction. Mr. Henderson recommended that additional
restrooms, heating and air-conditioning system and seismic retrofit are also serious
components and suggested that a reasonable phasing plan (including a schedule of
occupancy in the building during the construction of each step) should be developed.
Council questions to Mr. Henderson and staff followed.
By mutual consent, the Council directed staff to bring back an integrated plan,
including budget projections, how community groups are expected to contribute,
construction phases and related costs, future maintenance costs and an analysis of
Community Development Block Grant funding (including how they are allocated and
whether the city is meeting housing goals and guidelines of the CDBG program).
Jim Edwards, Atascadero's representative on the Citizens' Transportation Advisory
Committee, referred to his memo to Council regarding committee meeting procedures.
He shared concern that there may be violations regarding the State Open Meeting's
Act and asked Council for direction.
CC 11/14/95
Page 3
1
A. CONSENT CALENDAR:
Mayor Highland read the Consent Calendar, as follows:
1. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - October 10, 1995
(City Clerk's recommendation: Approve)
2. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - September 27, 1995 (Joint City Councils)
(City Clerk's recommendation: Approve)
3. RESOLUTION NO. 105-95 - Setting blanket position bond coverage sums for
City employees
(Staff recommendation: Adopt)
4. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 95004, 8295 MARCHANT AVE. - Subdivision of a
1.13 acre parcel into two (2) lots for single-family residential use (Bernard)
(Planning Commission recommendation: Approve)
5. RESOLUTION NO. 106-95 - Approving an application for grant funds under the
California Used Oil Recycling Enhancement Act
(Staff recommendation: Adopt)
6. RESOLUTION NO. 107-95 - Authorizing the execution of an amendment to
Contract No. 95004 with F.L. Henderson and Associates for architectural
design services for the Atascadero Youth Recreation Center Project
(Staff recommendation: Adopt)
7. RESOLUTION NO. 109-95 - CalTrans Cooperative Agreement for
Amapoa/Tecorida drainage improvements
(Staff recommendation: Adopt)
8. RESOLUTION NO. 108-95 - Authorizing execution of an agreement with
Addiction Medical Consultants, Inc. (AMC) for Service Agreement for drug and
alcohol testing
(Staff recommendation: Adopt)
9. AWARD OF BID TO AERATORS, INCORPORATED, FOR THE PURCHASE OF
TWO 25 H.P. AERATORS FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
(Staff recommendation: Approve)
Councilman Luna pulled Item #A-4. Councilmembers Carden and Johnson noted they
would abstain on Item #A-2 due to their absence from the Joint Cities meeting.
Councilman Carden pulled Item #A-6.
CC 11/14/95
Page 4
n
Re: Item #A-4. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 95004, 8295 MARCHANT AVE. -
Subdivision of a 1.13 acre parcel into two (2) lots for single-family residential
use (Bernard)
(Planning Commission recommendation: Approve)
Steve DeCamp provided a brief staff report.
Councilman Luna noted that he had pulled this item because he had some concerns
about exceptions approved by the Planning Commission relevant to flag lot standards.
He stated that he opposed the relaxation of some of those standards and
recommended that the matter be sent back for further study and/or public hearing.
Responding to inquiry from Councilman Bewley, Steve DeCamp clarified that the lots
do not meet the minimum lot size without the easement.
The City Attorney confirmed that the matter could be brought back for public hearing
after adequate notice is provided.
MOTION: By Councilman Luna, seconded by Councilman Bewley to continue
the matter for public hearing; motion carried 4:1 (Carden
opposed).
Staff noted that the item would be agendized for December 12, 1995.
Re: Item #A-6. RESOLUTION NO. 107-95 - Authorizing the execution of an
amendment to Contract No. 95004 with F.L. Henderson and Associates for
architectural design services for the Atascadero Youth Recreation Center
Project
(Staff recommendation: Adopt)
Councilman Carden indicated that he would prefer to continue this matter until after
City staff has prepared and presented the requested budget projections (see Special
Presentations, page 3). Mayor Highland and Councilman Johnson voiced support with
moving forward with approval.
MOTION: By Councilman Johnson, seconded by Councilman Luna to
approve Item #A-6; motion passed 3.2 (Carden and Bewley voted
in opposition).
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None scheduled
C. REGULAR BUSINESS:
CC 11/14/95
Page 5
1. COMMUNITY GROUP FUNDING REQUESTS
(Staff recommendation: Review and provide staff direction)
Brad Whitty provided the brief staff report.
Councilman Luna recommended that the Council increase support by $500 to the Red
Cross by reducing the $5,000 request by the Womens' Shelter by $500. Councilman
Bewley voiced approval. Eileen Allan, Executive Director of the North County
Womens' Shelter, responded to questions from Council regarding required matching
funds.
Public Comments:
Wendy Ferstchneider, representing the Senior Nutrition Program, spoke in support of
their funding request.
Eileen Allan thanked Council for continued support and provided a status report on the
newly constructed shelter. She clarified that the funding request would meet
matching requirements for obtaining other state and federal funds. Councilman
Johnson asked if the program would be significantly impacted if the request is not
fully funded. Ms. Allan demonstrated understanding and commented that other
funding sources could be sought.
Rush Kolemaine urged the approval of funds for the North County Womens' Shelter
because it provides for necessary public safety and emergency services.
---End of Public Testimony ---
There was consensus to reduce the Womens' Shelter request by $500 and increase
the Red Cross allocation by $500.
MOTION: By Councilman Luna, seconded by Councilman Bewley to approve
the staff recommendation as revised; motion passed 5:0 by roll
call.
The Mayor called a break at 8:25; the meeting was resumed at 8:35 p.m.
2. MILLHOLLIN MINE: Consideration of request of mine owner
(Staff recommendation: Provide direction to staff)
Art Montandon summarized three alternatives presented by the attorney John W.
Belsher, on behalf of Glenn and Darlene Millhollin, mine owners. Numerous Council
questions followed regarding operations, enforcement, the proposed development
agreement and plans for eventual closure. In addition, staff responded to questions
relative to environmental review.
CC 11/14/95
Page 6
1
John W. Belsher, representing the Millhollins, reviewed the background and
summarized the conceptual plan. He noted that his clients object to preparing an
environmental impact report (EIR) and asserted that said was not necessary because
other relative studies have already been conducted. Mr. Belsher outlined the
Millhollin's position on each option, as presented. Regarding Option #1, he noted that
his clients are willing to proceed with the tentative map and closure plan but stressed
that they are not willing to pay for an EIR. If Option #2 is chosen, he continued, the
Millhollin's will proceed with a development and closure plan, but without a
subdivision map. He reiterated that if an EIR is required, the applications will be
withdrawn. Option #3, he explained, provides for continued mining under the present
voluntary operational restrictions in place. Mr. Belsher remarked that the Millhollins
have a vested right to mine and are comfortable with continued mining with or
without City action. In conclusion, he mentioned that the Millhollins are willing to
voluntarily pay their portion of improvements to the San Lucia Bridge.
Councilman Luna asked the Millhollin's legal counsel which option was preferred. Mr.
Belsher indicated that his clients were agreeable to any of the three. Councilman Luna
inquired as to the expected date for mine closure. Mr. Belsher replied negotiations
with quarry opponents (Santa Lucia Neighbors Association) has not resulted in any
agreement on a closure date. He reported that the opponents have requested a yearly
limitation that is, however, unacceptable to the Millhollins.
Councilman Carden asked what the physical and legal limitations of mining are at the
quarry. The City Attorney reported that the present reclamation plan approved by the
County, although not completely clear, illustrates a physical limitation of 11 acres on
the site. John Belsher reported that the client's interpretation is that the mine's
physical limitation is 40 acres at 100,000 cubic yards per acre.
Public Comments:
Mayor Highland asked members of the public to be specific about what they want and
how they want to situation resolved.
Jim Brenton, 11665 Santa Lucia, provided a summary of a handout setting forth the
neighbors' position and including specific recommendations (see Exhibit "B"). He
asserted that the Council has the authority and responsibility to enforce and limit
mining pursuant to a revised recommendation agreement.
Mayor Highland commented that he hopes to ascertain what kind of annual
restrictions and operating standards are desired by residents.
Marcia Torgerson, 6200 Llano, read a prepared statement responding to options
presented by the Millhollins (see Exhibit "C").
CC 11/14/95
Page 7
Jim Reyborn, 11705 Santa Lucia Road, urged the Council to assert its lead agency
status.
Daphne Fahsing, 5105 Llano, urged the Council against setting a dangerous
precedent, emphasizing that the quarry's mountain top has already been removed.
Barbara Rose, 7200 Llano Road, read a prepared statement opposing further removal
of materials along the ridgeline (see Exhibit "D").
Vicki Reyborn, 11705 Santa Lucia, implored the Council to take some action that will
result in a revised reclamation plan that complies with the California Environmental
Quality Act and the City's SMARA (State Mining and Reclamation Act) ordinance.
Fred Strong, Fred Strong & Associates and also representing the Millhollins,
referenced the Sierra -Pacific Groundwater Consultant's, Inc. study presented in 1993.
He argued that the mine does have a vested right and read portions of the mining act
that were in effect at the time the reclamation plan was approved by the County. Mr.
Strong emphasized that the mine has saved the County as a whole thousands of
dollars each year by providing road improvement materials at reduced price.
---End of Public Testimony ---
The City Attorney responded to questions from Council regarding the status of
pending litigation (Santa Lucia Neighbors Association v. City). Councilman Johnson
suggested that staff arrange for appropriate officials at the State level to meet with
the City Council, staff, the community and the Millhollins to clarify issues and seek
resolution.
Councilman Luna inquired if the mine was surveyed by staff after the City took over
as lead agency. Steve DeCamp advised that while staff conducts an annual
inspection, an initial survey was not done. Councilman Luna indicated that he
supports recommendations #2, 3, 4, and 5 as suggested by the neighbors (see Exhibit
"B") and requested Council discussion regarding these and the three options put
forward by Millhollins.
Councilman Carden suggested that another interim operations plan and a reasonable
plan for closure be negotiated. He also spoke in favor of looking into whether or not
the City can collect a royalty fee on the material mined, noting that this would be an
appropriate way to fund street and bridge improvements.
Councilman Bewley commented that he wants the neighbors to be involved in the
negotiations process. Mayor Highland added that he wants clarification of the legal
physical boundaries of the mine and about what the neighbors will agree to in terms
of annual extraction and eventual closure. The City Attorney pointed out that
renewed negotiations with concerned parties would not impact present litigation and
CC 11/14/95
Page 8
reiterated his opinion that it would be preferable to resolve the matter out of Court.
By consensus, staff was directed to determine the precise coordinates of the mine,
research the concept of adopting a royalty fee and return to negotiations with the
Millholl/ns and neighbors. This matter to come back to the City Council (no date
certain).
3. REQUEST TO RENAME CITY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING (Historical Society)
(Staff recommendation: Provide direction)
Andy Takata provided a brief summary and recommended that staff research the back
ground behind the former naming of the building as the Veteran's Memorial Building.
Mayor Highland spoke in favor of the idea to re -name the administration building after
E.G. Lewis and commented that the concept is within the guidelines for naming public
facilities. Councilman Luna indicated support and pointed out that the Atascadero
Historical Society can provide the necessary background research.
Councilman Carden noted that E.G. Lewis was a convicted felon and proposed that
this may be a problem.
Public Comments:
Marge Mackey, Atascadero Historical Society Board Member, mentioned that the
County bought the building in 1952 and explained that it was traditional to have a
Veterans' Memorial Building in each city throughout the County at that time. Mrs.
Mackey spoke in support of the proposal.
Lon Allan, also a Historical Society board member, elaborated on Mrs. Mackey's
comments and reported that the County put money aside for purchase or construction
of a Veteran's Memorial building in 1952. He also spoke in favor.
Bill Smith, President of the Atascadero Historical Society, spoke on behalf of the
proposal and asked the Council to recognize the City's founder by naming the building
after him.
Rush Kolemaine asked that consideration be given to simply naming the building "City
Hall".
George Schroff, EI Camino Real resident, pointed out that if the administration is re-
named as proposed, visitors or new -comers to the community could be confused and
think the city is named "E.G. Lewis City".
---End of Public Testimony ---
CC 11/14/95
Page 9
There was general consensus to direct staff to gather information relative to past
naming of the facility and provide cost estimates for sign changes.
4. CREATION OF AN "ADOPT -A -PARK" PROGRAM FOR ATASCADERO
RECREATION AREAS
(Staff recommendation: Provide staff direction)
Brady Cherry provided the staff report and recommendation to endorse. By
unanimous approval, the program concept was endorsed and staff was directed to
proceed with implementation.
D. COMMITTEE REPORTS: (The following represent standing committees.
Informative status reports were given, as follows:
1. S.L.O. Council of Governments/S. L. 0. Regional Transit Authority - Mayor
Highland reported on the meeting of November 8, 1995 meeting.
2. Economic Round Table - Councilman Johnson reported that this
committee meets next on November 15, 1995.
3. North County Council - Mayor Highland reported that the full council
meets on Thursday, November 30, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. in Atascadero.
4. Integrated Waste Management Authority - Councilman Luna reported on
the success of recent household hazardous waste recycling and
composting bin events and explained that more will follow.
E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION:
1. City Council
Councilman Carden asked staff to come back with a status report on inter -fund
transfer write-offs and unfunded sick and vacation leave accruals.
Councilman Johnson suggested that staff develop a log to record when and to whom
legal notices relative to land use actions are sent out.
Mayor Highland asked the status of a request for an opinion from the Attorney
General relative to LAFCO policies and annexations. Staff reported that the letter
requesting an opinion has been sent, but no response has yet been received.
CC 11/14/95
Page 10
C
1
2. City Manager
Andy Takata inquired if the Council desires to provide input to the Council of
Governments pertaining to transporting nuclear waste. Councilman Luna suggested
that if another unfunded state mandate is going to be approved, the City should begin
lobbying our representatives in Sacramento.
AT 11:02 P.M. THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED. THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING
OF THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL WILL BE NOVEMBER 28, 1995 AT 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES RECO D AND PREPARED BY:
LEE PRICE, City Clerk
Attachments: Exhibit "A" (Mortorff)
Exhibit "B" (Brenton/Santa Lucia Neighbors Assn.)
Exhibit "C" (Torgerson)
Exhibit "D" (Rose)
CC 11/14/95
Page 11
u
7910 Balboa Rd.
Atascadero, CA 93422
November 14, 1995
Honorable Mayor George Highland
& Councilmembers
City of Atascadero
Atascadero, CA 93422
Dear Mayor & Councilmembers:
EXHIBIT "A"
My husband and I, recently received a tax bill for property we purchased and owned as of
August 18, 1995. Parcel # 050,051,005. This tax bill included a charge for "Atas
Weed Abatmnt" in the amount of $452.00.
I would like your assistance in reviewing this tax bill charge, the policy and procedures
involved in billing for these charges and respectfully request your directing staff to have
this charge removed from my bill.
Based on my experience as a former Director elected to the Rodeo -Hercules Fire
Protection District Board, I would like to share its policy as it relates to fiscal costs
and weed abatement charges in a case like my own. It is my understanding that
the District relies on billing for weed abatement charges by initially relying on the
most recent tax roll to get address information, when noticing property owners
when they are not in compliance in maintaining their properties to abate weeds.
Notices are posted on most properties, as is customary, with the exception of
those properties for which mailed notices are returned. The District then checks
with the appropriate County agencies to get information for changes of ownership
and mails notices to the appropriate owners of properties for which initial notices
were returned. For those properties still not abated, the on-site notices are posted
and the property cleaned up under the direction of the District. The District then
files a lien through the ReCorrler'c nfaFice and hills the nwner fnr weed ahatement
charges on the next tax bill.
In my case, the City of Atascadero followed a somewhat similar approach with the
exception of two significant steps. The notices to property owners went out utilizing the
tax roll information. However, no check for changes in ownerships were made for
returned letters to ensure the proper parties were being held accountable. The City then
followed the appropriate steps by posting notices and seeing the property was abated.
The City did not file a lien however, and the abatement was placed as a billing charge
utilizing the Tax Assessors Office as a means for billing.
By the City not checking for changes in property ownership and resending out notices to
new property owners it resulted in not holding the existing owner accountable for
something for which they were responsible at the time and should bear the burden of the
cost. In addition, since there was no lien recorded, the title search on my property did
not discern any charge like the one in question. Therefore, I had no opportunity to deal
with the problem when acquiring the property.
Since I am not negligent for improper maintenance of this property at the time notice was
given on this property, and since the process didn't enable me to resolve this problem
when acquiring the property I would appreciate your having this charge removed from bill.
I would also like to see the current policy for recovering weed abatement costs examined
with consideration for the steps we found effective in the former District for which I
served. It is my understanding from discussions with City staff they are examining this
carefully in an attempt to resolve this issue. I have found the staff extremely courteous
and interested in the isssues I have presented to them.
I realize there are many other serious matters you have to consider in the next few weeks,
and any time you can give to resolving this measure would be most appreciated. It would
be most helpful if my request for removal of this charge could be considered at the next
Council meeting as a discusssion item.
Respectfully,
IlIn
Denise K. Mortorff
`�G -97�?'
11/4/95
EXHIBIT "B"
SANTA LUCIA NEIGHBORS' ASSOCIATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Deny all options proposed as worded in the 11/08/95
letter from Mr. John i3,elsher.
2. Certify that vested rights were granted, by the
County of San Luis Obispo(lead agency at the time),
to Mr. Millhollin in writing in 1980 when his
reclamation plan was approved.
3. If you are unable to determine the legal boundaries
of the 1980 reclamation plan, then require a
current survey of the site.
a. Limit the mining operation to within the
reclamation plan's legal boundaries.
5 If Mr. Millhollin wanes co expand beyond the legal
boundaries, you must require an amended reclamation
plan.
MARCIA MCCLURE TORGERSON
6200 Llano Road
Atascadero, CA 93422
805-466-7980
November 14, 1995
Atascadero City Council
RE: Millhollin Mine
Dear Councilmen:
EXHIBIT "C"
After Mr. Millhollin's attorney withdrew his appeal of the requirement on an EIR on
the day of the Council hearing, September 26, 1995, 1 was under the impression
that the City Council put this item on the agenda tonight for the purpose of your
considering his request that you waive fees, requirements, conditions, etc. on the
development he has proposed. However, Mr. Belsher's latest letter, dated
November 8, 1995, makes no mention of waiving anything. Instead, he continues
to argue the need for an EIR for Mr. Millhollin's proposed development.
In his option #1 he mentions all the study's Mr. Millhollin's experts have
conducted. I have not seen most of those study's so I cannot speak to most of
them. However, 1 have seen the traffic study. It analyzes the impact of six homes
on the neighborhood. It fails to even mention the 10-12 years of mining truck
traffic that would have to take place to achieve those six homes. If this traffic
study is any indication of flow thorough his environmental studies are, it falls short
of being complete. He also mentions under option #1 that "No expert hired by the
City or the neighbors has pointed to any such impacts." I don't know about the
City, but I do know the neighbors have not hired any experts. So for Mr. Belsher
to imply that experts have been unable to identify environmental impacts is
dangerously misleading.
In Mr. Belsher's option #2, again he misleads you. He states that, "The State has
made it crystal clear the mine is presently able to continue its present mining
operation without any permit required of the City." He then refers to the letter
addressed to me from the State that I previously gave to you. It amazes me how
both Mr. Montandon and Mr. Belsher love to quote from my correspondence, but
neither of them bother to quote in context. I also doubt either one of them have
bothered to call Dr. Parrish and talk to him about this issue. As Jim Brenton
mentioned, we spoke again with Dr. Parrish on the `telephone this morning. In
discussing this situation with him he told us that the mine is only able to continue
its present mining operation if it is in compliance with the existing reclamation
plan. As Jim showed you, this mining operation has expanded outside even its
vague, incomplete reclamation plan. Mr. Belsher goes on to say that the only
change proposed -is to close the mine. Not True! The Millhollins want to expand
outside the -vague boundaries of their existing reclamation plan before they close
1
November 14, 1995
RE: Millhollin Mine
the mine and, according to the State Board, the lead agency cannot let them do
that without a revised reclamation plan.
In Mr. Belsher's option #3, he suggests that the mine continue as it is currently
operating and that "the extraction will be done in a way which will result in the
final topography called for by the Conceptual Development Plan." If they do that,
they will be mining outside the boundaries of the existing reclamation plan.
In his final paragraph, Mr. Belsher states that the residents have told them that,
"they do not care if the mine stays open forever, as long as the extraction does
not exceed certain annual levels." We have never said that. From the beginning,
we have asked for a sunset date. Mr. Belsher also mentions that the extraction of
rock for 1994 and 1995 has been far below the horror stories projected by the
neighbors last year. That's absolutely right! And we have us, the neighbors, to
thank for that. If we had not put pressure on the City regarding the nuisance of
1993, the mine would have continued to operate at that accelerated rate.
The problem is that Mr. Belsher consistently tries to sway everyone into thinking
that we are talking about a development plan. The problem is that the property in
question is a mine and must comply with SMARA as long as rock is being
extracted. What Mr. Millhollin does with the property after the mine closes is up
to him and the City.
As Jim Brenton mentioned earlier, the Sierra -Pacific report offered the City Council
several recommendations regarding this mine (please turn to page C-1 of the
packet). #2 states that a revised reclamation plan should be prepared for this
mine. The City Council of that time, took that advice, and required a revised
reclamation plan on June 8, 1993 (please see page D-1 of the packet). As you
can see by the history listed on that page, since June 1993, which was 2 1/2
years ago, the City has not successfully enforced their decision. They have
continually given Mr. Millhollin 3 months here, 3 months there, etc.
According to Dr. Parrish of the State Board, if the lead agency has determined that
a mine needs a revised reclamation plan, they have the authority to require it
immediately. If you are unable to determine the legal boundaries of the mine, due
to an incomplete reclamation pian, you have the authority to require a survey of
the site to set legal boundaries. That is your job as lead agency. I know that the
City Attorney continually tries to scare you into believing that the State Board
would overturn your decisions if Mr. Millhollin files a complaint with the State
Board, but we sure get a different opinion when we talk to the State. Dr. Parrish
again asked me to read you portions of SMARA tonight (which I won't do because
of the time) to re -assure you that you have the authority to enforce SMARA and
that the State does not routinely overturn lead agency decisions when there is
obvious reasons for your enforcement actions. He told us to tell you that must
enforce SMARA. That is your job.
2
November 14, 1995
RE: Millhollin Mine
In regards to the issue of vested rights, Mr. Millhollin says he can mine as much as
he wants for as long as he wants because he has vested rights. I believe he is
under the impression that he has that right because he was mining before SMARA.
According to Dr. Parrish, the lead agency at the time of the approval of the
reclamation plan (which would be the County) should have determined what his
vested rights were at the time of his reclamation approval. The granting of those
vested rights should have been documented in writing by the lead agency with the
approval of the reclamation plan. I am not aware of any such document. Dr.
Parrish stated to us this morning that if Mr. Millhollin's vested rights were never
documented, he will have to apply now to the current lead agency for his vested
rights status. In the meantime, if his vested rights are not documented, he does
not have any vested rights.
Our recommendations to you tonight are listed in E-1 in your packet. We ask that
you deny all the options proposed by Mr. Belsher because to do otherwise would
be violating SMARA. if Mr. Millhollin's vested rights are not documented, then we
ask that you close the mine until his vested rights can be established. If the
existing reclamation plan does not clearly tell you the legal boundaries of the mine,
then we ask you to close the mine until you can survey the site and set the legal
boundaries according to SMARA. Once you have the legal boundaries, we ask
that you limit the mining operation to within those boundaries. And finally, if Mr.
Millhollin wants to expand his mining operation outside the legal boundaries (which
he already has), we ask that you close the mine until a revised reclamation plan is
in place.
Dr. Parrish explained to us that if, after exhausting all our efforts to convince you
to take action and use your authority to regulate this mine, we are unsuccessful in
convincing you, that our next step would be to file a complaint with the State
against you for not enforcing SMARA. We, the neighbors, fully intend to take that
step if you do not take appropriate action tonight.
Sincerely,
�q4 I'V Y4AA-,-
Marcia McClure Torgerson
/m
1
3
Off. EXHIBIT "D"
y4lajA
�.o w►� jLL , - `+-� 4ur`-0
tx .
tL4P� s�
4f,,L�
a �
C,vs•'�,v. �`�. .�n�..o. tate, .. Gni ,. , - - d xk. -,`{ ..�., Al M.a. j kO- s
+kazi- +�r� AA- +,4)- am"-�k
� jo rug,
a�q.tkz41
Ile
-+_r,,,.e,,,CLA
�w,,,.Q.,c
o-��-'-L�
t "��- °c-