Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/04/1983M I N U T E S ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SAN.LUIS OBISPO WEDNESDAY, MAY 4, 1983 - 12:10 P.M. COUNCIL HEARING ROOM, CITY HALL, 990 PALM STREET SAN.LUIS.OBISPO, CALIFORNIA. STUDY SESSION ROLL CALL Councilmembers Present: GlennaDeane Dovey, Ron Dunin, Robert Griffin, Allen K. Settle and Mayor Melanie C. Billig Absent: None City Staff Present: Paul Lanspery, Administrative Officer; Pamela Voges, City Clerk; Toby Ross,.Community Development Director.; Wayne Peterson, City Engineer; Dave Romero, Public Works Director; Mike Szatlocky; Civil Engineer;.3teve'Adams, Administrative Intern.:. ... .. . . . . A. HANDICAPPED BOARD OF APPEALS Mayor.Billig polled the Council as to how the Handicapped Board.of Appeals would be established. After brief discussion and upon general consensus, Council concurred that the Handicapped Board of Appeals would be a permanent technical committee and, thereby, would allow for committee members to live outside city limits. Councilwoman Dovey suggested that Paul.Wolf from the Architectural Depart- ment at Cal Poly be contacted as he might be interested in serving on•this committee (5 -0). 1. FLOOD MANAGEMENT REPORT Dave Romero, Public Works Director, reviewed.the Flood Management Report dated April 1983 as submitted to the Council (see file 4597). He explained that the management report was divided into three sections; Section I is the resolution to adopt the Flood Management.-Policy-Statement and Flood' Management Action Plan. This would be expected to come back to Council at a formal public hearing for adoption after the Council.reviewed it today and made any suggested changes. Section II is the Flood Management Report and Section III are Exhibits.. Councilman Dunin questioned what this document would be used for. Paul Lanspery, Administrative Officer, stated that it was primarily a management tool. Only the resolution would actually require Council adoption, although it did incorporate portions of the management report. He would expect it to be used as a reference tool and not to be critiqued word byword. Councilman Dunin agreed with that concept but stated he would feel more comfortable if on page 1 of the Introduction under Purpose, the wording be amended-to state, "The purpose of this study is to consider measures and adopt actions which can be taken to protect against flood damage while preserving..." 1 I� �J 1 City Council Minutes Wednesday, May 4, 1983 - 12:10 p.m. Page 2 Dave-Romero then reviewed the Management Report, its purpose and general information. He stated the creek system included San Luis Obispo Creek, Old Garden Creek, Stenner Creek and Prefumo Creek, a total of 12.6 miles within the city limits. He stated that approximately 95% of those creeks within the community were privately owned; only 5% being public ownership. Although•only'a small portion is under public ownership, the maintenance responsibility rested almost solely on the public sector. He reviewed the flood -prone areas in each of the creeks (see pages 2 and 3 of the Report). Concerning,the historical perspective, he.emphasized that although little ' was known of engineering design standards used in the city prior to 1940, the city's design criteria has-'continued to� become more stringent, based on more complete hydrologic information and experience with heavy storms. Drainage improvements constructed under the current stringent criteria represented a small fraction of the total drainage improvements. Effective improvements to the drainage system would require consistent application of stringent criteria over a period of many years. With regard to past flooding damage assessment, although there have been many floods`.that have.occurred.since 1884, little. information had•been available with the exception of the storms of 1969, 1973, 1978 and 1982. The earlier floods did not make it'cost /beneficial to make major changes in the creek system. There is a cost /benefit ratio used by the Corps of Engineers in determining where they will expend funds. The Corps studies of the San Luis Obispo Creek determine that it was not cost beneficial to expend funds to protect the entire waterway. It was staff's.feeling, as verified in the Nolte Report, that in many cases it is cost beneficial to correct individual deficiencies to arrive--at a balanced capacity. Mr. Romero then reviewed Flood Management responsibilities by the property owner and the city and what flood insurance was available. He stated that the property, owner was responsible for maintaining private sections of the creek and for the abatement of nuisances or obstructions:within the property. Any drainage improvements on private property would be approved by the City ' Engineer. The city then maintains city -owned portions of the creek system and areas where there is a dedicated drainage easement.- The city conducts an annual cleaning program of all waterways within the community in conjunc- tion with.Zone 9. The Municipal Code authorizes the Public Works Director to conduct an annual review of stream channels to.determine if there are dangerous obstructions and to remove them without.the permission of the owner if necessary. The city reviews grading.within the flood plain and has the responsibility to.design,�construct and maintain an adequate street drainage system. Councilman Griffin stated he would like additional clarification with regard to the responsibility.of the prop'erty•owner . vs..-that.of the city. He suggested that possibly the city could provide more of.an incentive to the property owner to take care of their own individual properties. Councilman Settle agreed and .suggested cross- referencing this area with the cost.distribution and sharing of costs section , on -page 15. Mayor•Billig-stated.if the program is going to be.effective, to-protect the community, the city may have to give thought to paying for the maintenance. Councilman Dunin suggested that the city could take the same approach with flood hazards-as it has with,fire.hazards.. Dave Romero explained that the League of.California Cities has conducted studies and-has recommended street.drainage criteria, and:the State has -mandated criteria for fire protection, the:state has not adopted a criteria for floods and drainage. Councilman Griffin suggested looking at:an equitable cost-share-ratio between the city and the private sector regarding maintenance: Councilman Settle agreed:that the maintenance must be proportionate to ownership.. City Council Minutes Wednesday, May 4, 1983 - 12:10 p.m. Page 3 Council then - reviewed Exhibit "C" of the Report entitled "Uniform Design Criteria," and requested that staff revise design standards-under items 1 and 2 for clarification purposes. Councilman Griffin suggested the report not be dated'Apri1,1983,,but clarify that the report represents "proposed" rather than• "adopted" standards. Staff then presented a series of slides showing various standard and non - standard methods of protecting and stabilizing the banks. Council then reviewed.Exhibit "D -1" of the Report entitled "1974 Waterway Management.Guidelines" revised April 1983.. Councilman Griffin again suggested that this be shown as proposed rather than revised. Mayor Billig suggested rather than going through each of these items for suggested changes, that Council get their suggestions and amendments to the Council subcommittee as soon as possible. Staff to come back with a legislative draft of what the changes were that have been previously adopted to the suggested changes.to date. Councilman Dunin requested all drainage-improvements on the major waterways be approved by the City Council rattier than the Architectural Review Commission. . Councilman Settle agreed and suggested that rather than hearing all such requests, some criteria be established as to which ones should be reviewed by Council and which ones could be handled by administrative staff. Mayor Billig was especially concerned that approval of any improvements being made in residential areas be a decision by the Council. After discussion and general consensus, that staff'was directed to come back with a report. , Dave Romero continued and stated that current expenditures from improve- ments and maintenance of;the drainage system fall heavily on the city with little or.no direct cost to the-individuals or neighborhoods receiving the primary benefits. There were several means by which cost could be more equitably distributed.and /or additional funds provided. The ones he would recommend were: 1) Adopt a creek policy, calling for developers or builders -to dedicate creek easements, improve adjacent creeks and contribute toward -creek improvements. • 2) Encourage assessment districts for either major or minor work. Under an assessment district approach, benefitted property owners would pay a proportionate share for a particular improvement. Drainage assessment districts were very difficult for political bodies since many owners, whose property contributes to the runoff -but does not directly benefit from the improvements, would 'protest either the individual assessment or the proceedings as a whole. 3) He would support the concept of drainage as an additional municipal utility similar to sewer or water. Under this approach the city could .levy fees against properties in-each'of several drainage basins. Funds would be used for drainage improvements for that basin and down- stream basins. The approach would generate substantial funds and allow much more rapid solution of flood problems. 1. 4) Adopt fees to cover inspection of private drainage "projects which would provide small firms to cover engineering costs. 5) An ordinance calling for fines..for those found guilty of.littering, polluting or causing excessive siltation of the waterways.. It.is difficult to determine the source of a large percentage of the littering and the pollution. Additionally, staff time, court costs and collection City Council Minutes Wednesday, May 4, 1983 - 12:10 p.m. Page 4 problems could well be greater than the fines; however, the threat of a fine could provide some deterrent, and that in itself could make the program worthwhile.: 6) Consider establishing a redevelopment district and - using tax increment financing. The approach would generate substantial funds and.the city could establish a redevelopment district, including areas prone to flooding from the middle reaches of San Luis Obispo Creek. A redevelopment plan would identify specific-projects including ' flood control and would require adoption by the Council. The Council would be designated as the redevelopment agency:, 7) He was supportive of continuing to pursue Corps of Engineers funding and improvement of tight spots for such improvement is -shown to be cost beneficial. 8) Pursue Federal grants or loans for drainage improvements. Councilman Settle expressed caution to staff, when it comes to pursuing Federal grants.or loans, about looking at the administrative costs.involved, as they can quickly become exorbitant: Mike Szatlocky showed-additional slides emphasizing the bottleneck areas along San Luis Creek. • Dave Romero then reviewed the major tight spots (see Exhibit I). The top five priority.projects being: .l) Prefumo Creek; 2) Old Garden Creek at .Broad Street; 3) San Luis Creek at-Toro;,4) Old Garden Creek at Tropicana parking lot; and 5) San Luis Creek at Santa Rosa Street. He reviewed the top five priority projects for street drainage (Exhibit K); -minor waterways (Exhibit L); and major waterways (Exhibit M). Dave Romero, - Public Works Director, then reviewed non - structural solutions. ' Staff was recommending several actions for the Council to review: 1. Policy, Criteria, Guidelines: a. Adopt Flood Management Policy Statement. b. Adopt Uniform Design Criteria (Exhibit C), Waterway Management Guidelines (Exhibit D) and Creek Policy (Exhibit G): C. Direct staff to prepare creek setback lines for the four major creeks. (Will require approximately'1� man -years of work). d. Direct staff to investigate the feasibility.of requiring the installation of individual flood protection for business and residences. 2. Maintenance, Management and Flood Response a: Direct staff to.set up separate budget account for drainage-and to increase maintenance activities:• , b. Indicate Council approval of concept of City acceptance of mainten- ance responsibility and funding from Zone 9, for major ,.waterways within the City. c. Indicate Council approval of addition of one staff member (subject to final budget approval), whose sole responsibility will be drainage management. . d. Direct staff to continue preparation of Emergency Response Plan for floods. 3. Funding Possibilities a. A drainage utility. City Council Minutes Wednesday, May 4, 1983 - 12:10 p.m. Page 5 b. A redevelopment district. c. Setting of fees for drainage permits and inspection. d. An ordinance relating to littering or polluting of creeks. e. Obtaining Federal or State grants or' loans. 4. Waterway Improvement Plan a. Review, modify.and adopt solutions and priority list for correction of Points of Restricted Capacity - Four Major Creeks (Exhibit I). b. Review, modify and adopt Street Drainage Priority - April 1983 (Exhibit K). c. Review, modify.and adopt Minor Waterways Improvement Priority - April 1983 (Exhibit Q. :d. Review, modify.and adopt plan for ultimate.improvement, entitled Major Waterway Improvements (Exhibit M). - The Council then reviewed the resolution which would adopt the.Flood Management Policy Statement and Action Plan. Councilman Griffin suggested adding an item 7 to section -3 to state, "An analysis of existing ordinances to determine whether more effective regula- tion is needed to prevent flood hazards and coordinate creek improvements." Council concurred (54). 2:25 p.m. Councilman Griffin left the meeting. 2:30 p.m. Mayor Billig declared a recess. 2:35 p.m. City Council reconvened, ' Councilman Griffin absent. Upon general consensus Council concurred with the following: 1. Section I, item 6, be reworded to read "To require, with any new development, that minor creeks be improved to carry a design storm." Council further agreed that the resolution for Flood Management Policy be put in a priority form. 2. Section II;,Councilmembers to get any suggested changes or amendments of the various exhibits listed in Section II back to the Council Subcom- mittee ( Griffin /Settle) as soon as possible for incorporation.into the resolution. 3. Section III, add item 8, "An analysis of the cost /benefit ratio between private and public properties." .. ' . Council agreed that this item would be continued for corrections and set for the Council meeting of Tuesday, June 7, 1983. There being no further business to come before e City Council, Mayor Billig adjourned the meeting at 2:55 p.m. P mela ogee, Cfty 1,wfk APPROVED BY COUNCIL: 7/5/83