Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 050890The Mayor Allegiance Luke. CALL:ROLL Present: �DATE"—.j/.90 AffQEeMN#DAA-1 -) MM Approved as amended 6/12/90 ATABCADERO CITY COUNCIL MAY So 1990 called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. The Pledge of was led by the Director of Public Works, Mr. Greg CounciImembers Lilley, Mackey, Borgeson, Shiers and Mayor Dexter. Staff Present: Henry Engen, Community Development Director; Grey Luke, Public Works Director; Andy Takata, Director of Parks, Recreation and Zoo; Art Montandon, City Attorney; Mark Joseph, Administrative Services Director; Lieutenant Bill Watton, Police Department; Lisa Schicker, City Arborist and Lee Dayka, City Clerk. COMMENTS:CITY COUNCIL Councilman Lilley noted there were many present to watch Girl's Softball on the new Traffic Way Ballfields and thanked the Department of Parks and Recreation and the California Conservation Corps for their efforts. Councilwoman Borgeson reported that she had sent a memorandum to the City Manager asking him to contact CALTRANS regarding the "mutilation'` of plantings along El Camino Real and added that CALTRANS also be asked to re -plant. Introduction of Steghen Hicks.j Now Building Official Henry Engen introduced Mr. Stephen Hicks as the new Building Official. Mr. Engen reported that Mr. Hicks has a degree from Caj Poly together with certifications from the International Conference of Building Officials, has had extensive private experience in construction and was formerly a building official for the City of Grover City. Mayor Dexter welcomed Mr. Hicks. CC5/8/9O Page 1 Mayor Dexter read the following proclamations: - "Head Start Month", May, 1990 - Biz Steinberg, Executive Director of Head Start, accepted the proclamation. - "National Nursing Home Week"» May 13-19° 1990 - Mayor Dexter explained that he would present the proclamation to nurses and staff at the Danish Convalescent Home on May 14, 1990. Mayor Dexter announcethat th t one other proclamation, "Public Scrutiny of Unsafe Conditions iti at Atascadero State Hospital"' had been prepared and presented to him to be read. He called upon Jay Salter, Chairperson of the Associated Unions of Atascadero, who explained that this coalition of seven unions represents approximately 1,700 employees working at Atascadero State Hospital. Mr. Salter read � prepared statement (see Exhibit A) regarding ~ d t turmoil following the the hospital, its employees an present recent murder of a much -loved employee at the hands of a patient. He explained that this incident has brought to the surface many concerns which the employees have felt about the safety conditions in the hospital. The spokesman asked the Council to adopt a resolution calling for legislative investigations into safety conditions at Atascadero State Hospital. Mayor Dexter asked Mr. Salter to clarify whether itwas a proclamation or a resolution that he was requesting; to which he responded that it was a resolution he was seeking. The City Attorney advised that consideration of a resolution would have to be placed on a regular agenda for full Council discussion. By common consent, the item was scheduled for the newt meeting of the Council. ~- � dl 4740 Del Rio Road acknowledged the on-going Marty u ac" the problems State Hospital is investigation regarding e pro em inmates now facing and addressed excessive privileges of nma es stating that they are given too many rights. He indicated that he hoped the current study would point out where corrections are needed a�I added that staff have become the victims. Mayor Dexter thanked Mr. Kudlac and asked that further comments regarding this issue be held until the May 22, 1990 meeting. CC5/8/90 Page 2 Larry Sherwin, 2755 Campo Road, congratulated Andy Takata and the Department of Parks and Recreation on the completion of the Girl's Softball fields. Mr. Takata added that an official grand opening ceremony of the Traffic Way Park will be held, date to be announced. A. CONSENT CALENDAR: Mayor Dexter read the Consent Calendar: 1. APRIL 24, 1990 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 2. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 29-89, 5100 CASCABEL ROAD - Subdivi- sion of one lot containing 6.0 ac. into two lots containing approx. 3.2 and 2.6 ac. (Safarjan/Volbrecht Surveys) 3. STATUS OF HERITAGE TREE REMOVAL REQUEST (Lindsey/Hilltop Mobile Manor)(Cont'd from 4/10/90) 4. EMPIRE INN MOTEL PROPOSAL FOR TRANSITIONAL HOUSING 5. RESOLUTION N0. 48-90 - AUTHORIZING THE DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO PURCHASE CERTAIN ITEMS DURING FISCAL YEAR 1990-91 b. AWARD OF BID #90-4 FOR PURCHASE OF MODULAR PLAYGROUND STRUCTURE - ATASCADERO LAKE PARK 7. 90 - AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF SUPPLEMENT NO. 010 TO LOCAL AGENCY -STATE AGREEMENT FOR FEDERAL AID PROJECTS NO. 05 -5423 --WEST MALL & STATE ROUTE 41 CHANNEL- IZATION, SIGNALS & LIGHTING S. STATUS REPORT OF CREEKWAY MAPPING COMMITTEE - TIMEFRAME/ RESOURCES Councilman Lilley asked to pull item #8 for further discussion. MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson and seconded by Councilwoman Mackey to approve the Consent Calendar with the exception of Item #8; passed unanimously by roll call vote. Discussion followed: 8. STATUS REPORT OF CREEKWAY MAPPING COMMITTEE — TIMEFRAME/ RESOURCES Councilman Lilley referenced the Public Works Director's memo and asked if the Council was being asked for budgetary assistance in this project. Mr. Luke responded that the committee would be CC5/8/90 Page 3 0 0 meeting again on May 17, 1990 and that at a later date, he would be better prepared to give a cost estimate and time schedule. By common consensus, Council accepted the Status Report. B. HEARINGS/APPEARANCES: 1. RECONSIDERATION OF HERITAGE TREE REMOVAL REQUEST, 14400 EL MONTE (Ranallette)(Cont'd from 4/10/90) Henry Engen gave staff report and background. He indicated that the applicants and their architect had readjusted the home, but that the trees were still in the footprint of the house. Lisa Schicker, City Arborist, responded to Council questions regarding the leach field, driveway and attempts made to re -design the home. Alfred Clarke, 7805 Santa Ynez, addressed the Council stating that he was the architect, was representing the Ranallettes and would be available to answer questions. Mayor Dexter commented that he himself lived in this neighborhood and expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of vehicular access to the back of his own lot. He noted that the Ranallette's home may have the same problem and suggested that the house or driveway be repositioned in such a way to allow better access. Mr. Clarke responded to the Mayor's comment and answered specific questions from Council with respect to the leach field and its' 100 foot setback from the creek. Councilman Lilley asked the architect if, at the onset of designing this project, he had checked with the City as to conditions and procedures regarding trees. Mr. Clarke indicated that he, the engineer and the arborist were all keenly aware of the importance of the trees in this area and that prior to the design process, the only direction City staff had given the Ranallettes was a handout with a list of certified arborists. Discussion followed regarding the condition of the trees. Mr. Clarke reported that the arborist hired by the Ranallettes had not certified that the trees were dead and recommended removal with a 4:1 replacement. Mr. Clarke clarified that two smaller trees on the plan were not on site, but rather proposed. Councilwoman Mackey stated that the two heritage trees are an asset to the lot and cannot be replaced. Public Comment: Steve Caller, 14500 E1 Monte, opposed the homesite, location of the septic system and made suggestions for shifting the house. He offered to donate some of his land to the Ranallettes to CC5/8/90 Page 4 accommodate the leach field. Chris Lantzel from Sierra Madre explained that he owned adjoining property and stated that he could not see any reason why the Ranallettes would want to forfeit those trees. Dennis Bryant, 7410 Sombrilla, supported the applicants' request and stated that homeowner's rights should prevail in this situation. Mr. Clarke, architect, addressed comments made by Mr. Casler and supported the data compiled by the engineer. He gave additional suppo t justification for the driveway urn -around and indicated that the Ranallettes had hired licensed contractors. Mr. Clarke added that the proposed plan was the third solution for the RanalIette`s dream home. Lengthy Council discussion followed. Councilwoman Mackey stated that it was a beautiful lot, that the two trees were the only good ones on the lot and she could not vote to take them down. Councilman Lilley concurred with Ms. Mackey's comments, but alluded to the "short -sidedness" of the Tree Ordinance. He further stated that a pre -design consultation could have helped avoid the hardships endured by the Ranallettes but that the City cannot hold them accountable for the ordinance's short -comings. Councilman Shiers agreed that the request was tough to address. He stated that the purpose of the Tree Ordinance is to ensure sensitive design and that development should encourage preservation of trees. Mr. Shiers indicated that considering the open space that exists on the lot and Mr. Casler's offer to allow extension of the leach field onto his property, he would not be in support of the heritage tree removal. Councilwoman Borgeson's comments echoed those of Councilman Shiers and Councilwoman Mackey. Mayor Dexter expressed concern for neighborhood peace and reiterated his thoughts on vehicular access to the rear of the home He stated that the applicants have fulfilled all the requirements asked of them and that he could not deny them the privilege to build their home, particularly with the recommendation of a 4:1 replacement. Councilman Lilley indicated that, pending the adoption of the revised Tree Ordinance, Council has an obligation to direct staff to advise applicants that the Council will exercise its' discretion to deny and urge applicants to consult with the City Arborist and the Planning Department prior to proceeding with design. Councilwoman Borgeson added that architects and arborists involved with building homes in this area must become CC5/B/90 Page 5 responsible and read the Tree Ordinance. MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey and seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson to deny the request to remove two heritage trees; passed 3:2 with Councilman Lilley and Mayor Dexter opposing. Henry Engen confirmed that the applicants have the right to come back to the Planning Department with alternate plans. Mayor Dexter clarified that this action does not deny the applicants privilege to build on their lot. 2. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 22-89 - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL, 7900/8000 SANTA CRUZ (Long/Knowles)(Cont'd from 3/27/90) Henry Engen gave staff background on this appeal indicating that staff's recommendation had been to approve, but that the Planning Commission had recommended denial. Councilwoman Mackey asked for the City Attorney's determination on the applicability of the ordinance with respect to determining average slope. Mr. Montandon advised that staff's interpretation of the ordinance was correct. Brief Council questions followed regarding lot size and flag lot findings. Henry Engen reported that there would be no tree - taking or any new driveways proposed in this development. Public Comment: Alan Volbrecht, agent for the applicant, gave additional background information and comments to support the appeal. He stated that he had not been given specific reasons for the findings and believed the denial to be based more on feelings of dislike for the flag lot situation. Council discussion followed. Councilwoman Borgeson stated that she would find it hard to deny based on the City Attorney's determination. Councilman Lilley expressed his concern over "feelings vs. findings" at the Planning Commission level. Councilwoman Mackey commented that there were no trees being taken, the views are beautiful and that these lots are the best flags lots the City can get. Councilman Shiers stated that he shared the same concerns as Commission. Lopez-Balbontin in that lots created would be smaller than the average size lot in the immediate neighborhood. Mayor Dexter concurred with other councilmembers by stating that he saw no real problem with project and although he was not normally in favor of flag lots, saw this one as an improvement. CC5/8/90 Page 6 MOTION: By Councilman Lilley and seconded by Councilwoman Mackey to approve TPM 22-89 and adopt the findings and conditions of approval as set forth in the staff report of February 20, 1990; passed 4:1 with Councilman Shiers voting against the appeal. 3. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 19_89 - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIALv 7675 BELLA VISTA (Gearhart/Sierra Pacific Engineer- ing) Henry Engen gave staff report indicating that the Planning Commission had denied the lot split on April 3, 1990. He reported that Planning Commissioner Highland had filed an appeal and that staff's recommendation was to uphold the decision and deny the appeal. He noted public policy implications and asked Mr. Luke to expand upon his memorandum to Council. The Public Works Director gave additional staff recommendation to deny based on the condition of the road which he described as extremely substandard. He added that staff is working toward a universal road standard in the City, but that process has just begun and policy has not yet been established. Councilwoman Mackey asked the Public Works Director if the present lots could be built upon. Mr. Luke responded that the lots, as they stand, are buildable but that splitting the lot would aggravate an already bad situation. Councilwoman Mackey and Councilwoman Borgeson concurred that City policy seems to be inconsistent with regard to roads. Mayor Dexter agreed that policy, because of the rural nature of Atascadero, is indeed sometimes inconsistent. Lengthy discussion followed regarding substandard roads. Councilwoman Borgeson referred back to the ueom implied that the grounds for denial of more than just the road. Councilman uncomfortable with the Commissions's recommended referring the matter back for their focus on land use issues, policy. Mr. Luke's memorandum and noted the lot split are based on Lilley stated that he was findings for denial and to the Planning Commission separate from the road George Highland, 7275 Carmelita Road, stated that his appeal was based an procedural grounds and that the minutes and tapes from the Planning Commission meeting would indicate that staff concerns were not considered. He added that the Commission became consumed with the road situation and urged Council to send CC5/8/9O Page 7 • 0 the matter back to the Planning Commission. Bob Nimmo, 7375 Bella Vista, stated that it was his understanding that Bella Vista Road was an adopted City street and is maintained by the City. He exclaimed that the if the street is as unsafe as suggested by Mr. Luke, then the City has a responsibility to do something with regard to the road. Mr. Nimmo referred to the road standard recently adopted by the City and warned against staff creating policy by determining that those standards be retroactive. He stated that he had no particular feeling one way or another on this lot split request and added that the potential for lot splits in the area is very limited. Tom Bench, 7503 Carmelita, stated that he did not have any objections to the lot split or any comments on the road issue, but noted that he believed one of the lots to be non -conforming. Mr. Bench stated that he did object, however, to the fact that a planning commissioner does not have to pay an appeal fee and can use position to get items to Council. Michael Sherer, 8405 Alta Vista, spoke in support of the lot split and stated that he believed it to meet the criteria of the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan. He stated that he was willing to improve that portion of Bella Vista to new City standards, but that the existing road is city -maintained. He added that the Planning Department has given its' approval and urged Council for approval. George Highland, adding to his previous comments, referred to a 1989 court decision regarding municipalities and the maintenance of roads within its' jurisdiction. Additional Council discussion followed regarding other lot splits and the cumulative impact on the area,and road. Councilman Lilley stated that he was uncomfortable with adopting findings that he believed to be deficient. He added that there may be excellent land use reasons to deny this subdivision and reiterated that the matter should be referred back to the Planning Commission. MOTION: By Councilman Lilley and seconded by Councilwoman Mackey to return the matter back to the Planning Commission for review of land use issues and obtain legal review of the road issue; passed unanimously by roll call vote. Mayor Dexter called for a ten-minute recess at 9:15 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:25 p.m. CC5/8/90 Page 8 4~ ZONE CHANGE 08 -89 - CONSIDERATION QF A REQUEST TO ESTABLISH A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE (PD -7) AND THE CORRES- PONDING CREATION OF A FOUR -LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION AT 7955 SINALOA (Voorhis/Mitsuoka) (Cont'd from 4/24/90) A. Amending Map 17 of the official zoning maps by rezoning certain real property at 7955 Sinaloa from RMF/16 to RMF/16 (PD7) (First reading) B. Tentative Parcel Map 26+89 - Approving Findings and Conditions of Approval for Tentative Parcel Map The Community Development Director summarized the request giving recommendation to approve. Mr. Engen added that the reason a zoning change is required is that the lots proposed are less than 1/2 acre and that the tentative map cannot go forward unless the ordinance is approved to allow for the smaller lots. He noted that the Planning Commission had added a condition of approval restricting the development of the lofts into bedrooms. Mr. Engen responded to Council questions regarding trees, setbacks, staff calculations and traffic concerns. Mayor Dexter stated, if approved, density would actually be reduced. Henry Engen reiterated that a 5-plex could be built under current zoning. Councilwoman Borgeson reiterated comments from two residents who had spoken in opposition on April 24, 1990 who were anxious about increased traffic. Councilman Lilley communicated concern that a potential risk of over -drafting land intended for rental stock may be occurring and suggested staff analysis. Mr. Engen responded that staff has, on a request from the Planning Commission, begun an inventory and proposed a future study session to discuss the matter. The architect, Richard Mitsuoka, gave support for the planned unit development (PUD) and reiterated that the project does not meet strict criteria of affordable housing. : Charles Voorhis, owner/applicant, spoke in favor of the request and asked Council for their approval. Lengthy Council discussion followed. Councilwoman Borgeson voiced apprehension stating that the concept of the PUD is to provide amenities in exchange for smaller lots. She added that she believed this project would increase the density and that the homes would not be affordable. CC5/8/9O Page 9 i 0 - Councilman Lilley debated that PUD's should not be competing with single family houses and that the PUD is a land use device, not a bargaining unit. Mr. Lilley also stated his concern for the possibility of the loft being turned into a bedroom, but acknowledged that the City does not have an ordinance addressing that issue. Council concurred that there is a need for policy determination of minimum lot size for PUD's. Councilwoman Mackey commented that the lots were small and that children need a place to play, but indicated she would vote for this project because there was no current policy. Councilman Shiers stated that although he felt a mix of PUD's, condos and apartments was good, he was concerned over the density standards. Mayor Dexter's comments were in support of the request. He suggested to staff that when a loft is proposed, that it overlook the living room allowing it to remain a loft only without the potential of being converted into a bedroom. MOTION: By Councilman Lilley and seconded by Councilwoman Mackey to waive the reading in full of Ordinance No. 206 and approve by title only; passed unanimously by voice vote. MOTION: By Councilman Lilley and seconded by Councilwoman Mackey to introduce Ordinance No. 206 on first reading; motion carried 3:2. Councilmembers Shiers and Borgeson opposed. MOTIONS By Councilman Lilley and seconded by Councilwoman Mackey to approve TPM 26-89 subject to findings and revised conditions of approval; passed 3:2 with Councilman Shiers and Councilwoman Borgeson voting against. 5. ZONE CHANGE 13-89 & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 23-891 11455 VIEJO CAMINO - CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST TO ESTABLISH A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE (PD -7) IN THE RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE FAMILY 30/FLOOD HAZARD OVERLAY (RMF/10(FH)) ZONE, AND FOR A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO CREATE 19 LOTS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES WITH 4 LOTS FOR COMMON AREAS (Van Gundy/Bond) A. Ordinance No 207 - Amending Map 23 of the official zoning maps by rezoning certain real property at 11455 Viejo Camino from RMF/10 (FH) to RMF/10 (FH) (PD7) (First reading) CC5/8/90 Page 10 B. Tentative Tract Map 23-89 - Approving Findings and Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map Mr. Engen gave staff report with the recommendation to approve. He stated that the reason for the zone change was that the lot sizes would be smaller than 1/2 acre, but that the amenities of open space, recreational areas and pedestrian paths are built in. The Community Development Director answered Council questions regarding the road system, architectural styles, the departmental review process and CC&R's. Councilwoman Borgeson referred to a letter from concerned citizens (see Exhibit B) and directed questions regarding drainage to the Public Works Director. Mr. Luke responded that the drainage area and the creek have been subject to study by FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Administration). He further stated that the project will be completed in accordance with strict engineering standards. Henry Engen added that a benefit to a planned development such as this is that many of the improvements would be put in first, thus eliminating a piecemeal effect. Joseph Boud, developer, addressed the Council speaking in support of the proposed development describing it as a market -wise, reasonable way to develop providing many amenities. He gave additional project descriptions and answered Council questions regarding open space areas, home designs and proposed market price. MOTIONS By Councilwoman Mackey and seconded by Councilman Lilley to waive the reading in full and approve Ordinance No. 207; passed unanimously by voice vote. MOTION: By Councilman Lilley and seconded by Councilwoman Mackey to adopt Ordinance No. 207 on first reading; roll was called and the motion unanimously carried. MOTIONS By Councilwoman Mackey and seconded by Councilman Shiers to approve TTM 23-89 subject to the findings and revised conditions of approval; passed unanimously by roll call vote. C. REGULAR BUSINESS: 1. RESOLUTION NO. 49-90 - ADOPTING PROCEDURES TO RESOLVE TIE VOTE The City Attorney introduced the resolution and brief Council discussion followed. CCS/8/90 Page 11 Councilwoman Mackey stated a preference for resolving a tie vote by lot, rather than by election, indicating that holding an election would be too expensive. Councilwoman Borgeson concurred. MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey and seconded Councilwoman Borgeson to approve Resolution No. 49-90, amended to specify that a tie would be resolved by lot. Motion carried. 2. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Mr. Windsor gave his report and recommended that Council adopt the Memorandum of Understanding. MOTION= By Councilwoman Mackey and seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson to approve the Solid Waste Management Memorandum of Understanding; passed unanimously by voice vote. 3. ESTABLISH DATES FOR COUNCIL BUDGET SESSIONS IN JUNE (Verbal) The City Manager asked for tentative dates for budget hearings explaining that a full Council must be present. Brief discussion followed with Council consensus for dates during the week of June 25, 1990. Mr. Windsor indicated that he would report back to Council with confirmation. D. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION: 1. City Council: Councilman Shiers asked that the Traffic Committee look at the parking situation on Santa Ysabel behind the Vons/Williams Brothers Shopping Center. Mayor Dexter additionally requested that the Traffic Committee consider stop signs at the exits of the Bordeaux House Apartment Complex on El Camino Real. Councilwoman Borgeson reported that she had been asked by a local gentleman confined to a wheelchair to look into curb cut access in front of Baeker's Pharmacy. A. Committee Reports 1. City/School Committee - The City Manager reported that the Committee had discussed the pedestrian crosswalk over Atascadero Creek, adjoining the new bowling alley. He indicated that staff has been directed to begin conceptual designs and prepare cost figures, and explained that the matter will come before the Council CC5/e/90 Page 12 for input and direction when those tasks have been completed. 2. North Coastal Transit - No report. 3. S.L.O. Area Coordinating Council - Councilwoman Horgeson reported that this committee had adopted the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan giving priority to state highway improvement projects. She added that discussion was also held regarding the use of TDA funds. It was decided those funds could not be used for anything other than bike path projects. 4. Traffic Committee - No report. 5. Solid/Hazardous Waste Mgmt. Committee - Councilwoman Mackey reported that June 3, 1990 has been designated as Hazardous Household Waste Collection Day and announced volunteers were needed. 6. Recycling Committee - Councilwoman Mackey reported that the committee worked on a proposed budget and future activities. 7. Economic Opportunity Commission - No report. B. H.I.A. - No report. 9. Downtown Steering Committee - No report. 10. General Plan Subcommittee - No report. 2. City Attorney Mr. Montandon announced that he had been invited by the League of Women Voters to appear as an objective member on a panel for discussion of ballot measures. He stated that he had been chosen to answer questions about conflicts in the initiatives. 3. City Clerk - No report. 4. City Treasurer - No report. 5. City Manager Mr. Windsor asked for a date for a closed session for the purpose of reviewing a proposal regarding employee negotiations. Dates were discussed and the date chosen was Monday, May 14, 1990 at 4:00 p.m. CC5/8/90 Page 13 AT 10:57 P.M., COUNCIL MEETING ROTUNDA ROOM TO PLAN. 0 THE MEETING WAS ON THURSDAY, MAY REVIEW THE CITY MINUTES RECORDED AND PREPARED BY DAY City f, erk Attachments: Exhibit A - Exhibit B - CC5/8/90 Page 14 • ADJOURNED TO A SPECIAL CITY 10, 1990 AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE OF ATASCADERO DOWNTOWN MASTER Jay Salter Atascadero State Hospital Concerned Citizens re: Viejo Camino Property rezoning CC 5/8/90 EXHIBIT A Statement to Atascadero City Council May 8, 1990 Mr. Mayor. Members of the city council. My name is Jay Salter. I'm the chairperson of the Associated Unions of Atascadero which is a coalition of the seven unions representing nearly 1700 employees working at Atascadero State Hospital. I'm here, tonight, as the spokesperson for these employees who need your help and support. But before I tell you why they need your help -- and how you can help -- let me say something about Atascadero State Hospital and the people who work there. I like to think of the hospital and the job we do there as a measure of the moral character of our society. I believe that societies are judged in large part by the way they care for their worst outcasts. The people we care for at Atascadero Hospital are some of the most damned, cursed, doomed and loathed people our society is able to produce. Very few citizens care to even think about them. Some would simply cast them into the void. But they are human beings after all. And if we want to call ourselves a decent, civil society, then we must care for these doomed people in a decent, humane fashion -- and in a decent humane setting. Atascadero State Hospital is that humane setting. And its staff are those decent, humane care givers. In short, they are heron, because their dedication to the difficult and dangerous work they do helps keep us all civilized. Now let me talk about how you can help us. As you know, the hospital has been experiencing considerable turmoil following the recent murder of a much loved employee at the hands of a patient. 0 9 - This incident has brought to the surface many, many concerns which the employees have long felt about safety conditions in the hospital. The great majority of these concerns are legitimate. And, in the main, they focus on lack of enough trained staff to provide effective therapy. Lack of enough staff to handle the mountains of paperwork the hospital now generates. Lack of enough staff to provide the necessary security that keeps the place safe, therapeutic, and business -like. And lack of enough engineers, food service workers and maintenance people to keep it a humane setting. This lack of staff is a direct result of insufficient budgeting for the state hospital system. By its budget -making decisions, the legislature says, in effect: "There isn't enough money to make the hospital safe. There's only enough money to make it appear to be safe." Well, the recent murder has stripped away the appearance. The hospital isn't safe. We, who live in this community now know that. Leaders of all of the seven unions have gone to Sacramento time and time again to testify about safety conditions before the legislature and to, ask for more staff. Invariably, we have been turned away empty handed. So, what is to be done? Well, we've decided to follow a new Same plan. We have decided to return to basics. Instead of starting at the top in this process of getting money from the legislature, we've decided to begin at the bottom -- at the grass roots. We know that the legislature is influenced by voters. And we know that if the voters understand what is going on at Atascadero State Hospital, they will respond and support their legislators when they risk voting for increased funds for Atascadero Hospital. . We begin our program to build voter awareness here tonight. We are asking you, members of the City Council, to lay the foundation for a groundswell of support for more staff at Atascadero. If we get your support, we will then move to Paso Robles City Ord ao 7 CC 5/8/90 Exhibit B TO: City of Atascadero, Council Members RECEIVF_ FROM: Concern Citizens ,,;Oh( 1a90 ATASCADER0 SUBJECT: Viejo Camino Property rezoning CLTY CLERK ming this memo in regards to the Viejo Camino property next to the Boudeux Apartments. 1) Please be advised that when it rains substantially that por- tions of that property, along with the park and other properties in that area are underwater. Our recommendation is to fill the low areas on that property with the appropriate fill dirt to be approximately 3-4 feet above the road and park. 2) The creek should be dug out on that property and the park to define the flow of water. 3) There should be no houses built close to or under that tower- ing apartment next to road or close to the creek or park parking lot. 4) A 75 foot to 150 foot set back from the Viejo Camino road planted with trees would be more appropriate. 5) Observing the plans at the Planning Commission meeting. A reduction in the number of units would be more suitable for the previously mention items. Thank you for your attention to this matter. E