Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 062690 '9A'Vt4k4U ITfM# A-1 � MEMA (Cont'd from 7/10/90 ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JUNE 26, 1990 The meeting was called to order at 7 :02 p .m. The pledge of allegiance was led by Councilwoman Mackey. CALL:ROLL Present: Councilmembers Mackey, Shiers , Lilley, Borgeson and Mayor Dexter Staff Present: Ray Windsor , City Manager ; Art Montandon, City Attorney; Henry Engen, Community Development Director ; Greg Luke, Public Works Director ; Lisa Schicker , City Arborist ; Mark Joseph , Administrative Services Director and Lee Dayka, City Clerk . CITY COUNCIL COMMENT: Councilwoman Borgeson asked that Council postpone their comments until after items #1 and #2 had been heard . Council concurred . 1 . - Certification of June 5, 1990 Municipal Election Results Mark Joseph reported that at 5:20 p .m. that evening, the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors had voted unanimously to certify the results of the June 5, 1990 Municipal Election. He reported that the County Clerk ' s office had experienced delays in providing the City of Atascadero with written results. MOTION: By Councilman Lilley and seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson to adopt Resolution No . 69-90; unanimously passed by roll call vote. 2. Presentation to departing CounciImembery Marjorie Mackey Councilwoman Mackey gave a farewell address expressing her thoughts, accomplishments and disappointments associated with her eleven-year service upon the City Council . CC6/26/9O Page 1 �� ���. V The Mayor presented to Ms. Mackey a plaque and silver plate in recognition- On behalf of the Council , Mayor Dexter also presented a dozen long-stemmed red roses to Ms . Mackey . Maggie Rice, representing the Chamber of Commerce, honored the councilwoman with a plague and T-Shirt illustrated with the words , " I love Trees" . 3. Administration of Oath of Office to newly-elected City Clerk and City Treasurer The City Attorney swore in Muriel "Micki " Korba as City Treasurer and Lee Dayka as City Clerk . ' 4~ Administration of Oath of Office to newly-elected Councilmembers Robert Nimmo and Bonita Borgeson The City Clerk administered the oaths of office to Bonita Borgeson and Robert Nimmo as Cuuncilmembers. Councilwoman Borgeson thanked the public for the confidence bestowed upon her by re-election. She recognized and thanked her, family and campaign committee members. Councilman Nimmo stated that he was deeply grateful to the people of Atascadero and thanked his campaign committee. Mr . Nimmo remarked that he was honored and proud to serve the people. 5. Council Appointment of Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore MOTION: Mayor Dexter nomi:atcd Councilman Lilley ss Mayor for the year 1990-91 , Councilman Nimmo seconded the nomination. There were no other nominations . Appointment was unanimously confirmed by roll call vote. MOTION: Councilman Lilley nominated Councilman Shiers as Mayor Pro Tempore. Councilwoman Borgeson seconded the motion and there were no other nominations . Council unanimously approved the nomination by role call vote. Councilman Dexter noted the accomplishments of the past year and extended his personal gratitude to the Council and to staff. Additionally, the councilman thanked Marj Mackey for her years of service to the City. ' Mayor Lilley commented on some of the difficult issues recently faced by the Council and expressed his hope for a continued CC6/26/9O Page 2 spirit of cooperation. Mr . Lilley presented a plague in recognition of his service as Mayor to Mr . Dexter . COMMUNITY FORUM: Lon Allen, 5625 Capistrano , gave brief farewell statement to Ms. Mackey, recognizing George Highland as the person who proclaimed that it was "an end of an era" ( regarding the departure of Ms . Mackey ) . A. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1 . JUNE 12, 1990 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 2. MAY 22, 1990 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 3. CITY TREASURER'S REPORT - MAY 1990 4. FINANCE DIRECTOR'S REPORT - MAY 1990 5. ACCEPTANCE OF FYBB-89 FINANCIAL AUDIT 6. ORDINANCE NO. 209 - AMENDING SECTIONS 2-13.02 AND 2-13. 11 OF THE ATASCADERO MUNICIPAL CODE, REDUCING NUMBER OF PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSIONERS FROM SEVEN TO FIVE (Second reading & adoption) 7. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 2-87, 9384 VISTA BONITA - Consideration of time extension (Metchik/Central Coast Engineering) S. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 4-90p 4400 OBISPO ROAD - Division of one 10.53 acre parcel into two lots of 4.00 and 6.53 acres (Brimfield/Cuesta Engineering) 9. FINAL TRACT MAP 24-89, 7425 EL CAMINO REAL (Messer/Cuesta Engineering) 10. FINAL PARCEL MAP 1-90, 8315 AMAPOA AVENUE - Subdivision of one lot into four airspace condominiums and a common area (Low/Cuesta Engineering) 11 . AUTHORIZE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE (3) PENDING VACANCIES ON THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DUE TO EXPIRING TERMS 12. AUTHORIZE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE ( 1 ) PENDING VACANCY ON THE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION DUE TO EXPIRING TERM CC6/26/90 Page 3 4 1* 13. RESOLUTION NO. 70-90 - AUTHORIZING THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS TO SUBMIT TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS FOR CONSIDERATION OF PARTICIPATION IN THE SB-300 PROGRAM 14. RESOLUTION NO. 74-90 - AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT NO. 008 TO LOCAL AGENCY/STATE AGREEMENT No. 05-5423 - GARCIA ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT OVER A TRIBUTARY OF GRAVES CREEK 15. RESOLUTION NO. 75-90 - AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT NO. 009 TO LOCAL AGENCY/STATE AGREEMENT NO. 05-5423 - SAN ANDRES AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT OVER ATASCADERO CREEK 16. RESOLUTION NO. 71-90 - ACCEPTING IRREVOCABLE OFFERS OF DEDICATION OF THREE EASEMENTS FOR ROAD PURPOSES (ADDITIONAL RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT THE MONTEREY ROAD BRIDGE ALIGNMENT) 17. IMPENDING REQUEST FOR CITY PARTICIPATION IN THE EXTENSION OF A STORM DRAIN PROJECT ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT AN APARTMENT COMPLEX AT 7407 SANTA YSABEL (Allred/Cuesta Engineering) 18. RESOLUTION NO. 72-90 - AUTHORIZING A PROCEDURE FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF POLICE RECORDS 19. RESOLUTION NO. 73-90 - CITY OF ATASCADERO RECYCLING PROGRAM Mayor Lilley read the consent calendar . Councilman Nimmo pulled ! tem A-7. Councilman Shiers pt..illed Item A-5 for further discussion. The City Clerk asked that Item A-1 be continued . Greg Luke asked that Item A-14 be pulled at a citizen ' s request . Mr . Engen asked that Item A-8 be pulled for clarification. MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson and seconded by Councilman Dexter to approve the Consent Calendar with the exceptions of Items 1 , 5, 7, 8 and 14. Motion unanimously carried . MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson and seconded by Councilman Nimmo to continue the minutes of the City Council meeting of June 12, 1990; all voted in favor . Discussion of the following Consent Calendar Items was as follows: CC6/26/90 Page 4 5~ ACCEPTANCE OF FY80-B9 FINANCIAL AUDIT Councilman Shiers reported that he had pulled this item to specifically note that the auditor ' s had given a much improved write up from previous year . He reported that in 1989, Council had approved a new position, Assistant Finance Director and added that the hiring of Rudy Hernandez appears to have paid off. Councilman Shiers quoted a portion of the staff report giving credit to Mr . Hernandez and noted that he was impressed and pleased with the audit . Mark Joseph also commended Mr . Hernandez for a job well done ' Mr . Joseph added that if Council so desired , he could have the auditors make a presentation at the next meeting . Mayor Lilley commented that he was happy to see the City get such an excellent report card . Mayor Lilley recognized and acknowledged former City Treasurer , Gere Sibbach , by thanking him for his service and wishing him well . Mr . Bibbach thanked the Council for their confidence and noted that it was a pleasure to have worked with Councilwoman Mackey. 7. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 2-87* 9384 VISTA BONITA - Consideration of time extension (Metchik/Cemta& Coast Engineering) ' Councilman Nimmo stated that he had requested this item be pulled from the Consent Calendar because he had , at one time, been an owner of this property. He clarified that while the property had been sold in October of 19B9, he did still retain a trust deed interest in the property. Mr . Nimmo stepped down from discussion on this item. The City Attorney concurred with this action. MOTION: By Councilman Dexter and seconded by Councilman Shiers to accept time extension for TPM 2-99 to April 26, 1991 ; motion carried 4:0 MOTION: By Councilman Shiers and seconded by Mayor Lilley to accept the Audit findings for the Fiscal Year ending June 3 30, 1989; motion unanimously carried by voice vote. 8. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 4-90» 4400 OBISPO ROAD - Division of one 10.53 acre parcel into two lots of 4~00 and 6.53 acres (Brimnfield/Cueste Engineering) Mr . Engen noted that Condition No . 5 of Exhibit H had been modified by the Planning Commission at suggestion by staff . He CC6/26/90 Page 5 explained that the phrase that states " . . .and a 100% Labor and Material Bond" had been deleted , but that the City Attorney had advised against the deletion. Mr . Engen recommended restoration of the language and indicated that the engineer for the applicant did not have a problem with this action. MOTION: By Councilman Shiers and seconded by Councilman Dexter to approve TPM 4--90 restoring language originally deleted ; unanimously passed . 14. RESOLUTION NO. 74-90 — AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT NO. 008 TO LOCAL AGENCY/STATE AGREEMENT No. 05-5423 — GARCIA ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT OVER A TRIBUTARY OF GRAVES CREEK Mr . Luke gave background and staff report . He indicated that the preliminary engineering has been completed and the City is ready to enter- into a contract with CALTRANS for a 80/20 cost sharing arrangement to proceed with the design and construction of the bridge. He stated that it is well and appropriate for the neighbors to have an opportunity to speak to the subject . Mayor Lilley asked the Public Works Director how much choice the City has in the design of bridges of this type. Mr . Luke explained that CALTRANS is in the business of building bridges and staff has very little exercise of authority. Public Comment : Lee Bradley, 1565 Garcia Road , stated that he has over 300 feet of frontage along the road , which will be affected the construction of the bridge. He acknowledged the need for the replacement , but voiced concern for the proposed height of the bridge. Mr . Bradley indicated that the bridge would be 18" above his driveway which may cause drainage problems on his property . In addition, Mr . Bradley spoke with concern for the proposed removal of five trees and speed/traffic control . He asked Council to come out and see the situation. Mr . Luke answered specific questions regarding recommended speed in the area of the bridge. There was Council concurrence that there was a need for a citizen committee to address the concerns and act as a liaison between the City and CALTRANS would be appropriate. Mayor Lilley asked Mr . Luke to approach CALTRANS regarding citizen input for mitigation. CC6/26/90 Page 6 The City Manager advised that Council should move ahead with the resolution in order to keep the relationship going with CALTRANS . MOTION: By Councilman Dexter and seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson to adopt Resolution No . 74-9{} authorizing the Mayor to execute Program Supplement No . 008 to Local Agency/State Agreement No . 05-5423, Garcia Road Bridge Replacement Project ; motion carried 5:0 by roll call . The City Manager asked Mr . Bradley to leave knowing that the City will be back in touch with him and that staff has been directed to address his concerns . B. : 1 . APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION FOR DENIAL OF DIVISION OF ONE PARCEL CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 3.4 ACRES INTO TWO LOTS CONTAINING 1 . 1 AND 2.3 ACRES EACH AT 7503 CARMELITA - THOMAS BENCH (Cont 'd from 4/24/90) Henry Engen noted that staff had requested a continuance on this item, but after reviewing the various alternatives was recommending going ahead with the appeal . Mayor Lilley asked the applicant , Mr . Bench , if he was prepared to proceed with the appeal . He stated that he was. The Community Development Director gave staff report giving background and outlining the characteristics of the property. Mr . Engen reported that the Planning Commission had recommended denial and summarized the concerns to be proximity to the creek , 3: 1 depth to width ratio of proposed parcel number two , and appropriateness of the land to be subdivided for an additional single family home site. In addition, he reported that the site was not suitable for the proposed density of development and that the design would impede upon the recreational easement on the property . Mr . Engen gave a status report on the work completed so far by the Creekway Mapping Committee, and indicated that information on Mr . Bench ' s property is not yet available. Concluding his report , Mr . Engen outlined alternatives and answered questions from Council . Councilman Shiers referred to testimony from Planning Commission minutes relating to the creation of a flag lot if subdivision was granted . The Community Development Director explained that the CC6/26/9O Page 7 ` ` property, although it does have theoretical frontage on Curbaril , does not have practical access and would require a bridge in the future. He reported that the split would create a lot located behind existing homes and access to it would be via an easement to Carmelita Avenue; thus creating a flag lot . Mr . Engen clarified that the applicant had originally requested a three-lot subdivision, but had since revised his request to allow for two lots. In addition, the Community Development Director reported that if a public entity were to buy a portion of one of the lots, it would not have to go through the Map Act process and could be acquired without going through the subdivision process . In response to a question from Councilwoman Borgeson, the Public Works Director , indicated that most of parcel number two is located in the floodplain. He noted that the proposed location for the residence is 20 feet above the 100-year floodplain' Mr . Luke gave an affirmative response to a question from Councilman Dexter regarding seweravailability to proposed parcel number two . Comments :Public Mayor Lilley acknowledged receipt of a letter from George Highland and asked the Clerk to read it aloud (see Exhibit A) . Council discussion followed regarding policy of reading letters verbatim. The City Manager advised that Council has discretion in the matter , but recommended that if a party who has been notified of a public: hearing and WisheS to Part1c41p6te but cannot , be allowed the opportunity to give their testimony. Councilwoman Borgeson strongly supported the public ' s right to address the Council and asked that courtesy be extended to those who ask that their comments be read into the record . Councilman Nimmo concurred . Tom Bench , applicant , asked the Clerk to read his prepared statement ( see Exhibit B) . Following the reading of his letter , Mr . Bench stated that continuing the lot split application until after the creek mapping is completed is unnecessary. The Mayor clarified that staff had withdrawn their request for continuance and no one on the Council has made a motion to continue the matter, Mr . Bench spoke in support of his appeal by quoting Council comments from a meeting in 1987 and related results of a soils test , which he reported confirmed that there is no underground CC6/26/90 Page 8 ' ���N ���0 �� �� water . In addition, Mr . Bench referred to documents from Hometown Industries indicating that he has the right to grant the easement to others. The applicant rebutted portions of the April 3, 1990 planning staff report relating to recreational easement and stressed that his property cannot be established for recreational use without his consent . In addition, Mr . Bench debated staff analysis that the proposed subdivision would result in the creation of a lot that exceeds the 3: 1 depth to width ratio and argued that the proposed homesite would not interfere with the recreational easement ' Continuing , Mr . Bench stated that he had not made comments reflected in the excerpts of Planning Commission minutes of April 3, 1990 and clarified that he had not offered to sell the property to the City. Mr . Bench stressed that he is a firm believer that the property should be in open space noting that the property is his back yard and objects to public destruction of it . He added that a pathway in the recreational easement could be very enjoyable, but reiterated that the property could not remain as natural as it is if the public is allowed to traipse through it . At 8:55 p .m. , Mayor Lilley called for a recess. The meeting was reconvened at 9: 10 p .m. Additional public comments followed . Virginia Powers, 7505 Carmelita read a prepared statement from Joan Okeefe, who opposed the lot split (see Exhibit C) . Ellen 1111einz , 7555 Carmelita, spoke in strong opposition urging Council to review the Subdivision Ordinance and building codes. She stated that setbacks are essential and asserted that the lot split would not be legal . Bob Powers, 7505 Carmelita, voiced his hope that the matter would be resolved once and for all . He stated that the split would be illegal because it would not be in accordance with the General Plan. Mr . Powers added that Mr . Bench does not own the easements and urged Council to deny the appeal . Don Hartig , 7205 Carmelita, expressed opposition to the split stating that it would destroy habitat and create erosion. He asked Council to uphold the Planning Commission decision. Don Saueressig , 10735 San Marcos spoke out against development on the creek and stated that it is the responsibility of the government to protect the rights of the existing property owners. CC6/26/9O Page 9 ' ` He added that the City needs to protect its ' resources and insisted that creek setbacks be addressed . George Luna, 100600 San Marcos Road , spoke as a private citizen and asked Council to make judgement on the proposal based on provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance. Mr . Luna quoted a portion of the ordinance as it relates to flag lots and stated that while Mr . Bench may own an easement , he does not own an accessway . Mr . Luna clarified that creek setbacks are not the issue because there are none. He further urged Council to deny the appeal and return peace to the neighborhood . Karen Coniglio ` 7600 Braves Creek , stated that the Council has an obligation to uphold staff recommendations to deny. Todd Rafferty, 8325 Curbaril , spoke in support of the applicant ' s request emphasizing that the Constitution guarantees property rights to the people and submitted that to deny the Bench ' s application would suspend those rights . He referred to the Planning Commission ' s findings for denial and offered his difference of opinion. Mr . Rafferty sympathized with adjoining property owners who wish to keep the community the way it is, but pointed out that nothing has been presented to support the contention that another house would destroy the habitat or creek . Dorothy Bench , 7503 Carmelita, responded to comments made by others . She reiterated that the proposed homesite is 100 feet from the creek bed and asserted that it would not impede on creek flow or on the recreational easement . Mrs. Bench stated that the reason she and her husband have persisted with their request is that they believe strongly that they are entitled to reasonable and legal use of their property. Mayor Lilley asked the Community Development Director for clarification of the recreational easement . Mr . Engen displayed overhead transparencies and reported that because of the easement and the 100-year floodplain, there is little land area suitable for development . Councilwoman Borgeson asked the City Attorney if Mr . Bench owns the accessway. Mr . Montandon explained that it appears Mr . Bench does have a fifty-five foot wide easement for access over other people ' s property to get to his parcel . Councilwoman Borgeson asked the Community Development Director whether or not Mr . Bench ' s property is currently a flag lot . Mr . Engen stated that technically it may not be because of potential CC6/26/9O Page 10 ' access to Curbaril , but practically it is such because it is predominantly situated behind another lot and must take it ' s access off of Carmelita. The City Attorney clarified that the determination was a close call . Councilman Nimmo noted that the proposed lot appears to be a flag lot and , as such , would fall under provisions of the deep lot subdivision ordinance. He added that after reviewing the actions of the court , he did not believe the Benches had been denied their property rights and made the following motion: MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo and seconded by Councilman Dexter to deny the application. Mr . Engen recommended an amendment to the motion. The City Attorney advised Council of appropriate language. Mr . Nimmo amended the motion to read that the City Council wishes to deny the appeal and direct staff to bring back appropriate findings of denial at the next City Council meeting . Councilman Dexter concurred . Before roll was called , Councilman Shiers commented that he had lost many a night ' s sleep over the issue and was concerned for peace in the neighborhood . He stated that the proposed split into two parcels does not conform with the Subdivision Ordinance because it does not provide for the appropriate setbacks . He further stated that he was prepared to go along with the specific motion to deny, but noted that in the past Council has allowed subdivision and the creation of more than 3: 1 depth to width ratios by imposing other conditions on the development . Councilwoman Borgeson concurred with Mr . Shiers remarks and added that nothing has convinced her that the property is a flag lot and because of that , would not vote for denial . Mayor Lilley expressed similar difficulty in reaching a decision on a land use issue such as this and asked for a vote. Motion to deny and direct staff to come back with findings for denial passed 4: 1 , with Councilwoman Borgeson voting against the denial . 2. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY REPORT REGARDING ACQUISITION BY THE CITY OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED ALONG ATASCADERO CREEK FOR OPEN SPACE AND/OR RECREATION PURPOSES — THOMAS BENCH (Cont 'd from 4/24/90) CC6/26/90 Page 11 Henry Engen gave staff report recommending that Council accept the Planning Commission ' s conclusion that the acquisition would not be in conflict with the General Plan but not be compelled by it . Mr . Engen stated that there is a recreational easement across the property that could be incorporated into recreational planning in the future. Comments :Public Virginia Powers, 7505 Carmelita, read a prepared statement from Joan Okeefe urging Council to support the recommendation (see Exhibit D) . Dorothy Bench , 7503 Carmelita, expressed confusion behind the motivation of the people protesting the purchase of their CurbariI property. She stated that those who are asking for a 50-foot setback should not object to said purchase. MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo and seconded by Councilman Dexter that the City Council find that the acquisition not be in conflict with the General Plan, but is not compelled by it , as recommended by the Planning Commission. Discussion on the motion followed . Councilwoman Borgeson asked for clarification. The City Manager explained that staff was recommending concurrence with the Planning Commission, but it not prejudice any future consideration of purchase of the property. Roll was called , the motion carried 5:0. 3. HERITAGE TREE REMOVAL REQUEST FOR THE PURPOSE OF ROAD CONSTRUCTION FOR THE EXTENSION OF GARCIA ROAD (Pippin/Veughn/LamgilIe) (Applicant requests continuance) Mayor Lilley noted that the applicant had requested a continuance. The Community Development Director indicated that the applicant had asked that the matter be continued to July 10 , 1990. MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson and seconded by Councilman Shiers to continue the tree removal request until the July 10, 1990 City Council meeting ; motion unanimously carried . 4. HERITAGE TREE REMOVAL REQUEST FOR THE PURPOSE OF SINGLE- FAMILY HOME CONSTRUCTION AT 6744 L8MITAS CC6/26/9A Page 12 �� 0 �� Mr . Engen gave staff report . The City Arborist was present to answer questions from Council . Councilman Nimmo noted that there is a variety of replacement requirements and asked that an interim policy for tree replacement be agreed upon to ensure equal and fair treatment . Ms. Bchicker answered Council questions regarding tree replacement and tree costs. She reported that the $100.00 figure is too low and does not really cover the costs of replanting . Councilwoman Borgeson inquired whether the revised Tree Ordinance would address the issue of replacement costs; Ms' Schicker responded that it would . Discussion followed regarding the need for developing an interim policy until such time as the new Tree Ordinance is adopted . The City Arborist offered to submit to Council e staff report outlining for them in more detail research she has completed on other similar areas and how their policies for replacement compare with those in Atascadero . MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo , pending the adoption of the revised Tree Ordinance, staff be directed in cases where trees must be removed , that the applicant replace such trees on a 1 : 1 basis with a 15 gallon tree or contribute $100/tree to the Tree Preservation Fund at the applicant ' s discretion. Mr . Nimmo further stated that this motion was not intended to address the issue of how man; trees or whether trees should or should not be removed . He stated that the motion simply addresses the valuation to be placed on whatever trees are removed and added that this action was to give the applicants an option and some insurance of fairness. The City Attorney advised that the matter can be acted upon, but he advised that Council place the matter on the next agenda to allow the City Arborist the opportunity to make a staff recommendation. He further suggested that Council adopt a resolution outlining the policy of how replacement is to be implemented . The following amendg2d Motion was made by Mr . Nimmo : Direct staff to bring back a resolution for consideration which sets forth policy of the City , Council on tree replacement pending adoption of the CC6/26/90 Page 13 0 0 revised Tree Ordinance. Councilwoman Borgeson seconded the motion; passed unanimously by voice vote. Mayor Lilley brought the discussion back to the specific tree removal request made by Jerry and Kathy Turner ' Comment ;Public Eric Greening , 7365 Valle, expressed his concern that , in addition to planting , maintenance of a tree until it becomes established is an essential part of tree replacement . MOTION: By Councilman Dexter and seconded by Councilman Shiers to approve the heritage tree removal request ; motion carried . 5~ HERITAGE TREE REMOVAL REQUEST FOR THE PURPOSE OF SINGLE- FAMILY HOME CONSTRUCTION AT 2700 BAN FERNAN0O (Bonneeme) Lisa Schicker gave staff report indicating that the site was difficult to build on, with little choice for the location of the home. She reported that originally the applicant had considered transplanting the tree, but since had decided that the costs would be too great . The applicant , Chris 8onnema who resides at 2300 Traffic Way, confirmed that he no longer was offering to transplant the tree because of the expense. Mr . Bonnema requested that Council approve the tree removal and agreed to replace it with a 15- gallon Oak . MOTION: By Councilman Shiers and seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson to grant the heritage tree removal ; motion unanimously carried . 6. ESTABLISHMENT OF A ROAD NAME (ARTIGA 1ANE) FOR THE CUL-DE- SAC SERVING TRACT 2057 (DOVJCA) LOCATED OFF OF BALB0A ROADw BETWEEN GRAVES CREEK ROAD AND ARD%LLA ROAD Henry Engen gave staff report indicating that a resolution would be brought back to Council for their approval on the next Consent Agenda. There was no public comment . MOTION: By Mayor Lilley and seconded by Councilman Nimmo to accept the name of Artiga Lane; motion unanimously passed . CC6/26/90 Page 14 ' ` C. REGULAR BUSINESS: 1 . SET STUDY SESSION - ROADS STANDARD The City Manager reported that Councilman Dexter will be away n vacation for one month and because of this, requested that a date be to set before he leaves to , stressing that a full Council is required . Mr . Engen indicated that July 11 , 1990 at 3:00 p .m. was the preferred date and time. Mr . Luke proposed a field trip from 1 :00 to 3:00 p .m. on that date just prior to the meeting so that Council could take a look at the issues and view representative examples of street conditions. Mayor Lilley clarified that the study session would begin at 3:00 p .m, , following the tour . Councilman Nimmo asked if interested parties were to be invited . The City Manager reported that the press would automatically be invited and added that the session is for the purpose of study and is not a public hearing . Mayor Lilley suggested that publication in the local newspaper be arranged to notify the public of the intended route. The Public Works Director emphasized that the intent of the field trip is to look at the technical/engineering issues and stressed that during the trip no judgments would be made. He further suggested that conditions could be discussed at the 3:00 study session. 2. RECONSIDERATION OF VOTE ON ITEM C-2 OF JUNE 12, 1990 RE: RECYCLING COMMITTEE (Councilman Dexter) Councilman Dexter noted that there were some irregularities in the selection of two members to the Recycling Committee, including the fact that Council did not follow Resolution 35-81 in making the appointments, and asked Council to reconsider the matter . Councilwoman Borgeson indicated that she was in support of rectifying the situation by following the requirements of Resolution 35-81 , which includes interviewing the applicants so Council can have better knowledge of their qualifications. Council discussion followed regarding alternatives. The City Attorney advised that Resolution 35-81 is policy of the Council and there is no punishment for violating it . The City Manager suggested that Council adhere to Resolution 35-81 , re-advertise and re-open the recruitment . CC6/26/9O Page 15 0 0 MOTION: By Councilman Dexter and seconded by Councilman 8bieco to set aside the previous appointment , re-advertise and conform to the letter of Resolution 35-81 the appointments to the Recycling Committee. Councilman Shiers noted that a member of the public had spoken to him prior to the meeting and requested that Council handle the selection properly. Voice vote was taken, motion carried . 3. REQUEST COUNCIL CONSIDERATION RE: YOUTH MEMBERS ON CITY COMMITTEES (Councilman Dexter) Councilman Dexter spoke in support of youth representation on Cit; committees and suggested one year terms . Discussion followed . The City Manager asked for clarification as to which of the various committees or commissions Council wished to have student representation. Councilwoman Borgeson suggested the Traffic Committee, Parks & Recreation Commission and the Recycling Committee. The City Manager indicated that staff would come back with a formal request and advised no motion was necessary. COUNCIL COMMENTS: Councilman Shiers congratulated Councilmembers Borgeson and Nimmo on their election to City Council , and also to tho Cit; Treasurer and City Clerk . Councilman Dexter gave a status report on the new police facility indicating that the Police Department was anticipating moving into the building during the first week of July. In addition, he stated that there would be an open house sometime in August . D. : X . Council Committee Appointments: Mayor Lilley made the following Council Representative appointments to area committees : 1 ~ City-School Committee Councilman Nimmm ' Councilman Dexter CC6/26/9O Page 16 2. North Coastal Transit Councilwoman Borgeson Councilman Shiers Discussion ensued regarding this committee, Councilwoman Borgeson indicated that the North Coastal Transit had been incorporated with the San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council hearing transit items in the morning and transportation items in the afternoon. Councilman Shiers concurred with Ms. Borgeson. The City Manager indicated that he would check into the matter . 3. SLO Area Coordinating Council Mayor Lilley Councilman Shiers, alternate Discussion of committee followed . Mayor Lilley stated that it was his understanding that the mayor was, historically, appointed to SLOACC. Councilman Shiers indicated that he was not on the committee currently. The City Manager stated that Mari Mackey had been the alternate and advised continuity on the North Coastal Transit Authority and SLOACC. Councilwoman Borgeson declined the appointment of alternate. Councilman Shiers accepted . 4. Traffic Committee Councilman Dexter Councilwoman Borgeson indicated that she had not been consulted prior- to the meeting and stated that usually Council has input . She declined appointment to the Traffic Committee and requested that she continue serving on the WaLtel Resuut ces AdviSUr'y' t` oatfriittee . aCouinci1man Da x,ter volunteered to serve on the Traffic Committee. 5. Solid Waste Hazardous Mgmt. Councilman Nimmo Committee Grey Luke, alternate Discussion on this appointment included Mr . Luke ' s suggestion that a senior staff member can be appointed as the alternate. The City Manager concurred and recommended to Mayor Lilley that he appoint Mr . Luke as such . 6. Economic Opportunity Commission Councilman Dexter 7. Recycling Committee Councilman Shiers Greg Luke, alternate 8. Finance Committee Mayor Lilley Councilman Shiers CC6/26/90 Page 17 9~ Downtown Steering Committee Discontinued 10. Interim Growth Management Mayor Lilley Councilman Shiers MOTION: By Councilman ' Dexter and seconded by Mayor Lilley to continue the meeting past 11 :00 p .m. , motion unanimously carried . 11 ~ General F»%en Subcommittee Discontinued 12. County We±nsr Resources Councilwoman Bmrgeson Advisory Committee Greg Luke, alternate 13. United Way, FEMA Local Board Councilman Shiers 14. CelTrans Advisory Committee Councilwoman Borgeson Councilman Nimmm 15. Tree Ordinance Subcommittee Councilwoman Borgesom Councilman Shiers 16. Claims Review Committee Mayor Lilley B. Committee Reports: The following status reports were given: 1 . North Coastal Translt/SLO Area Coordinating CoumciI- Cou,'cil�om�n Borgeson reported that the next meeting would be on 6/27/90 from 2:00 p .m. to 4:00 p .m. and related agenda items to be discussed . 2. Traffic Committee - Greg Luke reported that the committee had met recently and were recommending many items to Council . 3. Solid/Hazardous Waste Management Committee - Greg Luke reported that all cities within the County are unanimously in support of asking that the governing body no longer be the County, but rather the SLOACC. The City Manager noted that at some a resolution may come to Council regarding this matter . 2. City Attorney - No report . 3. City Clerk - No report. CC6/26/9O Page 18 4. City Treasurer - No report . 5. City Manager - No report . Councilman Nimmo asked that the meeting be adjourned in memory of State Assemblyman Eric Seastrand , who as a dedicated public servant , had served the city and county well . THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED TO THE BUDGET SESSION SET FOR JUNE 27, 1990 AT 3:00 P.M. IN THE CLUB ROOM AT 11 : 10 P.M. MIZSEC D PREPARED BY: LEE DAYKA, ity ler Attachments: Highland (Exhibit A) Bench (Exhibit B) Okeefe (Exhibit C) Okeefe (Exhibit D) CC6/26/90 Page 19 7275 Carmelita Ave,$ A*adero, CA 93422. 26 June 9v /9d - E X A . 14 I would like to present evidence that will require the Council to deny the applicantts appeal. RE C F ! V r D 11't�1 x S In 1985 the applicant applied for 3 way lot split on thisy' ° CLERK parcel. The split was denied by the Planning Commission and the applicant's appeal was denied by the Council. The applicant was advised a two way split might be acceptable. In 1988 the applicant submitted another application for a 3 way Split of the property. Since one portion of the lot fronts on a paper section of Curbaril Ave. , and since the lot includes both banks of Ataseadero Creek, the Community Development Rept. Included a requirement that Curbaril Ave. be constructed to full City standards and that a bridge be constructed over Atascadero Creek. Rather than comply with these requirements, the applicant withdrew his application. The applicant then submitted the proposal that is under considera- tion. At the same time, he shepherded a General Plan conformity statement through the Parks and Recreation Commission dealing with the 1.2 acres fronting Curbaril Ave. I have little doubt this was done to put the burden of street and bridge construction on the City. Ironically, were the street and bridge to be constructed, there could be no access to the property from Curbaril. The applicantts current lot was created prior to adoption of the Flag Lot (deep lot subdivision) section of the Subdivision Ordinance. :although it was not classified as a flag lot at the time of its creation, I suggest any current subdivision of the property must be considered as division of a flag lot, The current lot has access only from a street on which it does not front. The applicant' s legal address is Carmelita Ave., not Curbaril Ave. The applicant' s current parcel is a flag lot itself, as defined in the Subdivision Ordinance. The proposed lot split shows a 20 ft easement, across the back of Lots 5A (Heinz) and 5B (Powers), as access to the proposed parcel 2. 1 obtained copies of the Grant Deeds for Lots 5A & 5B, submitted them to two attornies and requested a determination of who owns the easements. Both attornies informed me that the two sections of easement are owned by Jack Heinz? (5A) and. Bob Powers (58). The proposed Parcel 2 does not meet the requirements of Sect, 11-8.209 of the Subdivision Ordinance on the following points: 11-8,209B:a The original lot shall have frontage on a dedicated streett ' The original lot does not. It only has an easement and is itself a flag lot, 11-8,209E uThe lot farthest from the street shall own the accessway in fee. The proposed Parcel 2 does not own the accessway across Lots 5A & B, In summary, the applicant' s proposal fails to meet the require- ments of Sect. 11-8.209, the `Flag Lot" section of the Subdiv- ision Ordinance. Further, any discussion of creek setbacks is, under the circumstances, totally redundant, VP George P. Hig and Thomas Bench 7503 Carmelite, Ave, Atascadero, Ca. 93422 I wish to respond to George Highland-Is letter to the Council members regarding my lot split. I will be as brief as clarity permits . In paragraph three Mr. Highland states that in 1988 I was required to construct Curbaril Ave. to full standards as well as construct a. bridge over Atascadero creek, and rather than comply with these requirements 1 withdrew my application. This is incorrect. I was only asked to design a road and bridge not build one. Also an incorrect statement is that I withdrew my application. My application was denied because I did not comply with the Pla.nnin,g Commissioners request to donate two thirds of my property to the city. In paragraph four Mr. Highland errs when he states that the General Plan conformity ,request was engineered by me. The records show that the request came from the city staff and that I stepped down during the hearings and did not vote during this matter. In paragraph five, which deals with flag lots , Mr. Highland states that my "current parcel is a flag itself." This definition differs from Steve DeCamp' s definition as given to the Planning Commission on April 3, 1990. I 'quote. ." the way the parcel is situated right now it has frontage on Curbaril, even though that portion of Curbaril ha.s not been constructed. So, technically it does not fall in the flag lot category." (2) • In paragraph six which deals with the 20 foot easement. Mr. Highland looked at the wrong deeds. He did not look at my Grant Deed which shows that I have 25 foot easement. I gave escrow papers to verify this. In paragraph seven Mr. Highland again refers to my lot as a flag lot. I again refer you to Mr. DeCamp8s statement that my lot is not a flqg lot. He further states that the proposed parcel two does not have access. My deed shows that I am the grantor and have the right to grant said easements to others. I would naturally grant ahem. Sincerely, Thomas Bench This is the statement made by Steve DeCamp at the April 3, 1990 planning commission meeting regarding our lot split. " The parcel that has the dwelling would technically be a flag lot because it would not have frontage on a. public street, The way it is situated right now it does have frontage on Curbaril even though that road has not been constructed. Therefore it does not fall in the flag lot category. If the subdivision does occur the new parcel would still have frontage on a public road. Parcel one would not have frontage on a public road. Parcel one would not have frontage on a public road, so it would be served by the existing easement from Carmelita. So parcel two would not be a flag lot, parcel one would be" . "The ordinance does not require that access be gained from a public street. It simply says' a flag lot does not have its principle frontage on a public street . A flag lot situated behind another lot with a narrow portion extending out into the street That portion of Curba.r:ll that is not constructed does provide the frontage which would be required to avoid calling parcel two a flag lot." Record- (alQq -b �► �.IvIVp 2` *90Gh G A -ft, 9985 Old Morro Rd. East Atascadero, Ca 93422 Mayor Rollin Dexter and Council Members: I, along with many others, am concerned about this proposed lot split before you because of its significant negative impact on the environment and the creation of what I perceive to be illegal flag lots. Certain conditions must be met in order to approve flag lots. I do not believe these conditions can be met. Assume the existing parcel is not a flag lot. By creating a new lot or lots,Parcel 1, which is the developed parcel, would turn into a flag lot that would not meet the flag lot requirements. The reason for this is that the Subdivision Ordinance section 11-8.209.D requires that there be a 10 foot building setback along any accessway whether it is an easement or lot line. As your map indicates the existing structure is setback about 5 feet from the easement. This does not meet the setback requirement for a flag lot. It does meet setback requirements for the present standard lot. In addition, Parcel 2, as presented on Tentative Parcel Map 88-307, will also have to be considered a possible flag lot. This will happen if the city allows the creation of a third lot adjacent to Curbaril. Whether the City purchases the lot or not, it will turn Parcel 2 into an illegal flag lot. The reason for this is the second residence will have access through an easement only. Subdivision Ordinance 11-8.209.E requires that the lot furthest from the street own the accessway in fee. As stated previously it only has an easement which on your map is labeled "private road." Next, assume that the existing parcel is considered a flag lot, and it is arguable that it is a flag lot, then the newly created parcel 2 would also be a flag lot and does not meet the requirement of Subdivision Ordinance 11-8.209.E. As stated previously this requires the lot farthest from the street to own the accessway in fee and this condition is not met No matter how you look at the proposal you end up with an illegal flag lot. The second issue I am concerned about is the applicant's statement in the Initial Assessment, 02. He plans to "subdivide into 3 residential building lots." The City has first option to purchase Parcel 3 as noted on the Parcel Map. If this parcel is divided 3 ways and the City chooses not to purchase lot 3, then will this steep riparian lot become a potential homesite in the creek? My third issue is staff's finding of no significant impact on the environment. I believe that consideration of approving a lot split of this kind does require an EIR. If the Council does not follow staff's recommendation the impacts to the environment will have never been adequately addressed. The potential for damage to the bed and banks of the creek by this proposed lot split are significant. The identified building site, the only building site, is on a sloping, shale swale which has been filled with dirt. During heavy rainy seasons the water i y has been observed to f w down this swale and dump into he creek. Long time residents of the area have observed the banks crumble and break off during rains. This is a single lot split. Other owners of creek reservations will be asking for lot splits. If this one is granted you will have set a precedent for approving them. The cumulative effects of additional development along the creek have not been addressed. I believe these impacts need to be addressed when considering this proposal. Joan Okeefe 2 r�Ec oi-d April 24, 1990 9985 Old Morro Rd. East Atascadero, Ca 93422 Mayor Rollin Dexter and Council Members: I urge you to support staff' s recommendation. There is no compelling reason to purchase this parcel of land. The only part of this parcel which is useable as a linear park is already available to the City through a recreational easement it owns . The remainder of the parcel is either in the creek or consists of relatively steep slopes, covered with thick riparian vegetation and would best be left in its natural state. This is a matter of priorities and fiscal responsibility. I think the creek and the citizens of Atascadero would benefit more by purchasing existing buildable lots on the creek that don' t already have public easements on them. Joan Okeefe