Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 121190MEETINQ, AGENDA 4b rrEm# A, 1 Approved as Amended 1/9/91 ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DECEMBER 11, 1990 Mayor Pro -Tem Shiers called the meeting to order- at 6:07 p.m. The Pledge of Allegiance was deferred until after commencement of the regular session. ROLL CALL: Present: Also Present: Borgeson Councilmembers Shiers,/ Nimmo, Dexter and Mayor Lilley (6:19 p.m.) Muriel Korba, City Treasurer and Lee Dayka, City Clerk Staff Present: Ray Windsor, City Manager; Art Montandon, City Attorney; Mark Joseph, Administrative Services Director; Henry Engen, Community Development Director; Steve DeCamp, City Planner; Greg Luke, Public Works Director; Andy Takata, Director of Parks, Recreation & Zoo; Mike Hicks, Fire Chief and Bud McHale, Police Chief CREEKWAY MAPPING STUDY SESSION Greg Luke, Public Works Director, gave an overview of the staff report using maps to illustrate the areas studied. He pointed out that the maps provided information on topographic contours, creek reservation boundaries, roads and bridges, 100 -year flood plain, as well as the riparian habitat zones. He emphasized that the committee did not map structures (or other human intrusions into the creek), ownership status, current pools of water, specialized biological features, soil type, social activities (trails, picnic areas or teen hang-outs), scenic areas, archaeologically significant areas and utility or access easements. Mayor Pro -Tem Shiers indicated that the study session was not a public hearing, but opened the floor for comments. CC12/11/90 Page 1 Public Comments: Sarah Gronstrand, 7620 Del Rio Road, asked the Public Works Director to describe the purpose of the creekway mapping. Mr. Luke explained that it was to enable staff to collect and present data to the Council to be used as a tool for formulating a creekway managing policy. Mrs. Gronstrand stated that erosion is a natural process and human activity increases the rate of erosion. She noted that there were corrals and dog runs in the various creeks of Atascadero and asked Mr. Luke if during the mapping process structures of this type were noticed and mapped. The Public Works Director indicated that the committee was aware of human activity in the creek, but had not mapped them. On the street in which she lives, Mrs. Gronstrand explained, there is a corral in the creek. She reported that she had contacted the Health Department and was told that there was nothing they could do. She expressed deep concern for what she described as a health menace. (Mayor Lilley arrived and apologized for being late. He explained that he was participating in the Hospice Light Up a Tree Ceremony.) Roger Zachary, 1800 Traffic Way, indicated that he was a biology teacher and a member of the creek mapping committee. He recommended that the Council address identified areas owned by the City, develop those portions of the creek to some extent and incorporate an educational program to enlighten the community on the sensitivity of this valuable resource. Eric Greening, 7365 Valle, referred to a suggestion (made by Councilwoman Borgeson at another Council meeting) to calender the matter of off-road vehicle use in the creek bed and asked if any action had been taken. The City Manager noted that, in response to Councilwoman Borgeson' request, the police chief had submitted a report. He indicated that the report is in the pending agenda file with a notation that the matter parallel or come after a discussion on the creek. He added that the whole issue of mapping the creek was triggered by a request from a planning commissioner to re- establish a fifty -foot setback on the creek and explained that for Council to determine whether this was appropriate, had directed staff to study the creek. CC12/11/90 Page 2 Councilman Dexter commended staff for their report and emphasized that without the information, Council could not make appropriate policy decisions. Councilwoman Borgeson agreed and expressed concern for off-road vehicles, dog runs and the like in the creek. She suggested that the Council take action to prohibit such uses. The mayor concurred that it was necessary to regulate the activities that pollute or artificially alter the creek and asked staff to address these issues. He indicated that the mapping that had been done so far had been helpful and was supportive of the process being continued. There was consensus among the Council to continue with the creek mapping and direct staff to draft ou creek preserve protection ordinance. The City Manager asked Council to clarify the issue of setbacks. Council agreed to defer land use matters relating to the creek until precise parameters are established. The study session was closed at 6:51 p.m. The regular meeting was celled to order at 7:02 p.m. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilman Nimmo. Mayor Lilley read the proclamation for "EOC Silver Anniversary Month", December, 1990 and presented it to Biz Steinberg, Executive Director of the Economic Opportunity Commission. Ms. Steinberg invited all to the 25th anniversary celebration to be held on December 14, 1990 in San Luis Obispo. COUNCIL COMMENTSs Councilwoman Borgeson expressed appreciation on behalf of the Council to all members of staff who participated in sending Christmas packages overseas to the troops in the Middle East in lieu of exchanging gifts. The effort, she reported, was coordinated by Georgia Ramirez. ' In addition, Councilwoman Borgeson announced that she had been appointed to the County Water Advisory Board and that she would be happy to present reports to the Council on their meetings. Councilman Dexter reported that the next "Pride Daze" effort to CC12/11/9D Page 3 0 de -trash Atascadero would be Friday, December 14. The City Manager indicated that the clean-up session would commence at 7:00 a.m. at the fire station and the focus would be on the downtown. Mayor Lilley recognized the great work done by Bonnie & Bob Wilkins, Bob & Sue Brown, as well as others who participated in the Hospice Tree Lighting Ceremony held earlier in the evening. COMMUNITY FORUM: Sarah Gronstrand, Co -Chairperson of the Friends of the Lake Pavilion, gave an update on fund-raising efforts. She noted that she had brought for display, the hand -made Lake Pavilion quilt ---one of the many special prizes to be raffled off and indicated that she had tickets available for purchase. Erika Banner, representing the B.I.A., presented the mayor with a check for $1,300 to be used to provide additional lighting for the Rotunda. Larry Sherwin, 2755 Campo Road spoke out against proposed mandatory garbage collection and the service being provided by the present trash hauler. He complained that earlier in the day, Wil -Mar Disposal had not picked up garbage cans in his neighborhood and relayed that, as a result, trash was scattered everywhere. On another matter, Mr. Sherwin asked the Council why it was continuing to allow subdivisions and condominium construction during a time of water rationing. A. CONSENT CALENDAR: Mayor Lilley read the Consent Calendar as follows: 1. NOVEMBER 27, 1990 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 2. NOVEMBER 29, 1990 CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3. CITY TREASURER'S REPORT — OCTOBER 1990 4. FINANCE DIRECTOR'S REPORT — OCTOBER 1990 5. RESOLUTION NO. 126-90 — ADOPTION OF ANNUAL CITY INVESTMENT POLICY CC12/11/90 Page 4 0 s 6. RESOLUTION N0. 131-90 - AUTHORIZING FILING OF CLAIM FOR LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND MONIES FOR FISCAL YEAR 1990-91 7. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 25-90m 9755 ENCHANTO ROAD - Considera- tion of a vesting TPM to divide 9.15 acres into two parcels of 4.99 and 4.16 acres (Henderson/Vaughan Surveys) 8. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17-90, 5392 BARRENDA AVE. - Request to subdivide one lot into eight airspace condominiums and a common area (Lopez/Cuesta Engineering) 9. RESOLUTION N0. 124-90 - EXPANDING THE LIST OF CERTIFIED ARBORISTS AUTHORIZED TO PREPARE TREE PROTECTION PLANS IN THE CITY OF ATASCADERO 10. RESOLUTION NO. 123-90 - ELIMINATING A STREET NAME (NUDOSO ROAD) FROM THE CITY'S OFFICIAL MAPS 11. RESOLUTION NO. 130-90 - SALARY ADJUSTMENTS FOR MID - MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES (First Amendment to the FY 90-91 Annual Salary Resolution) 12. RESOLUTION NO. 132-90 - SALARY RANGE ADJUSTMENTS FOR RECREA- TION SUPERVISOR, SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER AND PERSONNEL COORDINATOR (Second Amendment to the FY 90-91 Annual Salary Resolution) 13. REOLUTION NO. 129-90 - APPROVING INDUSTRIAL DISABILITY RE- TIREMENT FOR CHET MYERS 14. RESOLUTION NO. 128-90 - AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR URBAN STREAM RESTORATION PROGRAM GRANT Item A-6 was pulled for further discussion by Councilman Shiers. Jeff Fredericks, Police Department, asked that A-12 be removed. MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo and seconded by Councilman Dexter to approve the Consent Calendar with the exceptions of items A-6 and A-12; motion unanimously carried. 6. R€SOLUTION NO. 131-90 - AUTHORIZING FILING OF CLAIM FOR LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND MONIES FOR FISCAL YEAR 1990-91 Councilman Shiers indicated that he had received a letter from a member of the public relating to this matter and asked for clarification. Mark Joseph, Administrative Services Director, reported that the San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council CC12/11/90 Page 5 # 0 annually allocates monies for transportation purposes and it is the City's responsibility to submit a formal resolution requesting those funds. He explained that a portion of the money is earmarked for bicycle/pedestrian paths. Councilwoman Borgeson stated that each year the Area Coordinating Council holds a hearing relating to unmet and alternative transportation needs. She asked the City Manager whether the City needs a specific bikeway element as part of the Circulation Element in the General Plan in order to keep more of the transit funds for development of bicycle paths. Mr. Windsor responded that although it was not a legal requirement, he believed that there indeed should be such a plan in place to allow proper prioritizing and budgeting. Public Comment: Eric Greening, 7365 Valle, commented that he had attended the Area Coordinating Council's meeting on December 5th and asked that, before the funds are allocated, the Council hold a local public hearing. He emphasized that, although he did not have a conflict with the City's intent to apply for the funds, he was hoping that the community would be given an opportunity to affirm their desire to improve the roads and/or to establish whether or not there are unmet transit needs in the community. The City Manager pointed out that the Council might want to look at this matter during the mid -year budget review in February. Councilwoman Borgeson indicated support for scheduling a local hearing on a yearly basis for receiving public hearing relating to transit needs sometime before the annual review by the San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council. In addition, she agreed with Mr. Greening that there is a need to spend the money meant for transit on transit, and not on roads and highways, unless that is what the community wants. She indicated that there appears to be countywide public support for expanded bus services, creating more bike ways and other alternative transportation modes other than automobiles. Ms. Borgeson asserted that the funds are intended for transit and the City of Atascadero is only using a small portion for this purpose while it continues to improve the roads and highways for automotive usage. Regarding the public hearing process related to unmet transit needs, Councilwoman Borgeson explained that the matter had been noticed and had taken place in early December. She indicated that it would be more appropriate for a local hearing of this nature to be held before the annual Area Coordinating Council's CC12/11/90 Page 6 meeting. There was consensus among the Council to address the matter during the mid -year budget session and establish whether there is further public interest. It was agreed that if there is the interest, a local hearing would be scheduled for the year of 1991. MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo and seconded by Councilman Shiers to adopt Resolution No. 131-90; motion carried unanimously. 12. RESOLUTION NO. 132-90 - SALARY RANGE ADJUSTMENTS FOR RECREA- TION SUPERVISOR, SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER AND PERSONNEL COORDINATOR (Second Amendment to the FY 90-91 Annual Salary Resolution) Sergeant Jeff Fredericks, of the Atascadero Police Department, noted that, while he and members of the Police Department did not have any opposition to the adjustments made as a result of Resolution No. 132-90, the changes were being made outside of negotiated M.O.U.s. He reported that item C-2 was a request for a City Council hearing to address similar issues currently being faced by the Sergeants Service Organization and reminded the Council that other salary adjustments have been made for equitable reasons. Sgt. Fredericks concluded that the sergeants' reasons for bringing up the matter of salary compaction was also an equitable reason. MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo and seconded by Councilman Shiers to adopt Resolution No. 132-90; motion unanimously carried by roll call vote. B. HEARINGS/APPEARANCES: 1. TREE ORDINANCE: CONSIDER ADOPTION OF A REVISED NATIVE TREE ORDINANCE AND TREE STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES TO IMPLEMENT THE NATIVE TREE ORDINANCE A. Ordinance No. 214 - Native Tree Ordinance (First Reading) B. Resolution No. 125-90 - Tree Standards and Guidelines Henry Engen introduced the matter and introduced Lisa Schicker, former City Arborist. Ms. Schicker explained that the intent was to simplify the present tree ordinance and briefly summarized the revisions. In addition, she outlined the Tree Standards and CC12/11/90 Page 7 • 0 Guidelines, which set forth the procedures for implementation of the Native Tree Ordinance. Brief Council comments followed. Public Comments: Gerry Gast, of Atascadero, asked if there were any restrictions as to the size of trees a homeowner would be permitted to take down. Ms. Schicker indicated that as the ordinance was written, there were none. Mr. Gast commended staff for their work and commented that he supported the ordinance as it is written. Larry Sherwin asked if a homeowner needed to get a permit to do major pruning on private property. Lisa Schicker indicated that it was not necessary for a single-family homeowner to obtain a permit and reported that the Tree Standards and Guidelines provides recommendations for pruning. In addition, she clarified that the ordinance did not specify that the City require property owners to prune their trees according to set standards. Eric Greening spoke in support of the ordinance, noting that the ordinance could be amended as needed. He urged the Council to retain the threshold of two inches dbh for medrones and deciduous oaks because the trees were slow-growing. Lora Diggins, 6525 Palma, asked whether or not a homeowner would be expected to plant a five gallon tree if he/she applied for a building permit to allow an addition to an existing home. Ms. Schicker clarified that unless a tree was being removed, she would not be required to plant a tree as a condition of approval for the building permit. She added that this requirement would be placed on new residential construction. Ursula Luna, 10060 San Marcos Road, commended the Planning Commission and Lisa Schicker, and urged Council to adopt the ordinance. Whitey Thorpe, 8025 Santa Ynez, proclaimed that the ordinance was an infringement on the individual rights of a property owner and proclaimed that he resented the fact that he could not cut down a tree he had planted on his own property. Lisa Schicker pointed out that trees planted by a property owner are exempt from the removal requirements of the ordinance. Joan O'Keefe, 9985 Old Morro Road, expressed appreciation to the staff and the Planning Commission for the time and effort put CC12/11/90 Page 8 into the revisions to the tree ordinance. She remarked that trees have the right to be protected and urged the use of locally grown native stock for replacement to ensure maintenance of the gene pool. In addition, Mrs. O'Keefe commented on attitudes regarding individual property rights and ethics, as it relates to the environment, and remarked that good land stewardship will benefit the society. James Patterson, 9312 N. Santa Margarita Road, commented that the single-family exemption was a major contradiction to the intent of the ordinance. He indicated that he was opposed to the exemption and did not believe it to be enforceable. Livia Kellerman, Honda Avenue resident, stated that she agreed with the previous speaker and asked the Council to reconsider the single-family exemption. Robert Johnson, Planning Commissioner, clarified comments made at Commission meetings relating to public trust and pointed out that every single-family homeowner will not take out three trees per year. Jerry Clay, 7285 Sycamore, replied that the average homeowner will take care of his trees because they add to the property's value. He asserted that the ordinance is a good compromise and suggested incorporating a program, perhaps during Colony Days, which would promote community planting of oak tree seedlings. Additional Council comment followed. Councilwoman Borgeson asked how far along staff was on the wood lot management program. Mr. Engen reported that Ms. Schicker had left the final draft with staff and that it would be going before the Planning Commission soon. Councilman Dexter indicated that he was in support of adopting the ordinance in principle, but wanted the opportunity to clean up some of the language. Art Montandon, City Attorney, indicated that additions would require a motion to amend and the ordinance introduced with the comments added. If substantive changes were required, he advised, the ordinance would need to be re -introduced and noticed again. Councilman Nimmo stated that he agreed that there was some unnecessary verbiage and noted that he would like to see some changes in the content. He remarked that recommendations should not be a part of the ordinance, but rather contained in the Tree CC12/11/90 Page 9 0 9 Standards and Guidelines. Additionally, Councilman Nimmo asserted that the ordinance covered too many kinds of trees and tree removal replacements were too complex. Discussion followed regarding possible elimination of some varieties of trees from the Tree Standards and Guidelines' "List of Atascadero Trees". It was noted that some trees included on the list were in the riparian area of the creek and should be addressed as part of the creekway management plan. MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo and seconded by Mayor Lilley to remove from the List of Atascadero Native Trees the Big Leaf Maple, Digger Pine, cottonwoods of all varieties, California Pussywillow and Red Willow; motion carried 4:1 with Councilwoman Borgeson in opposition to the motion. Councilman Shiers reiterated that all trees in the creeks should be protected as part of the future creekway protection ordinance; Council concurred. Henry Engen indicated that the City Attorney and staff had concerns relating to enforcement of penalties. Mayor Lilley read the applicable portion of the ordinance (Sec. 9-11.17) and stated that it was needlessly punitive and unenforceable. MOTION: By Mayor Lilley and seconded by Councilman Nimmo to delete from the ordinance the following sentence: "Furthermore, persons convicted of violating the Tree Ordinance may have any further building and development permits denied for a period of two years."; motion passed unanimously. Brief discussion followed regarding replacement requirements. By common consensus, Council tabled the discussion until resolving the issue of the single --family exemption. Mayor Lilley stated that he strongly supported the single-family residential exemption. In addition, he remarked that he would like to see some kind of compromise relating to un -built sites. Councilman Nimmo referred to a letter dated December 8, 1990 (see Exhibit A), in which Commissioner George Highland recommends a modification of the exemption. Councilwoman Borgeson indicated that she thought it was inappropriate for the planning commissioner to approach the Council in this fashion. Mr. Nimmo disagreed. CC12/11/90 Page 10 Councilman Shiers pointed out that the issue had received a lot of attention at the Planning Commission meetings and that the result was a compromise. He stated that he was in support of the Planning Commission's decision to exempt the single-family property owner and that the exemption indicates that the City Council is putting a lot of trust in the people of Atascadero. Discussion ensued and there was a concern among the Council to protect trees on vacant, privately owned lots. Councilman Dexter suggested adding some of the language proposed by Mr. Highland and made the following motion: MOTION: By Councilman Dexter and seconded by Councilman Nimmo to amend Ordinance No. 214 Sec. 9-11.06 (b - 5) as follows: (5) Single family residences with the following conditions• a. A permanent dwelling exists on the lot. b. Building or grading permits are not being sought. C. Single family residential lots, on which no dwelling unit exists and which cannot be further subdivided. A consultation with a city arborist before an application would be required. Brief discussion of the motion followed. Mayor Lilley called for a recess at 9:18 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:40 p.m. Discussion of the motion relating to the single-family residential exemption continued. Councilman Dexter indicated that he was not completely happy with the wording of the proposed 5 (c) and stated that the intent was to keep undeveloped lots from being stripped of trees. After questioning the Community Development Director, Councilman Dexter amended the motion to read as follows: CC12/11/90 Page 11 9 0 (5) Single family residences with the following conditions: a. A permanent dwelling exists on the lot. b--.- Building or grading permits are not being sought. Councilman Nimmo indicated that he was agreeable to the amended motion. A vote was called for on the motion to amend Sec. 9-11.06(b-5); motion unanimously carried. Deliberation continued focusing on the replacement criteria. Councilman Nimmo stated that he would like to see the replacement criteria for single-family residential be simply 2:1, and at the discretion of the property -owner, replacements to be planted either on the site or a site selected by the City; or by making a payment into the Tree Preservation Fund in an amount equal to $100/tree. Councilman Shiers asserted that the larger oaks were more valuable than other, smaller ones and made the following motion: MOTION: By Councilman Shiers and seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson to keep the existing language relating to replacement criteria as it is written; motion passed 4:1 with Councilman Nimmo voting in opposition. Ms. Schicker clarified that the ordinance does not require replacement if the tree is dead, diseased or damaged beyond repair. She pointed out that the Tree Standards and Guidelines does state that the City will donate trees from the nursery to replace if requested. Councilman Nimmo referred to Sec. 9-11.08 Required Findings for Tree Removal and offered a revision. Ms. Schicker concurred with his suggestion and noted that the intent had been to ensure that trees were not simply deciduous and without leaves because of the season. MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo and seconded by Councilman Dexter to amend Sec. 9-11.08 (a) and (b) as follows: Strike "(a) The tree has been dead for at least one growing season." and add the words, "dead, is" to (b), allowing it to read "(a) The tree is dead, diseased or injured beyond reclamation." Motion carried. CC12/11/90 Page 12 The City Attorney reported that during the break, several members of Council had asked if the matter would have to go back to the Planning Commission in light of the changes proposed. He indicated that he had confirmed with staff that the tree ordinance is not part of the Zoning Ordinance and that the only aspect of it which touches on the Zoning Ordinance is the deletion of the current tree ordinance. Mr. Montandon continued that the matter had gone before the Planning Commission because it involved a repeal. For this reason, he stated, the revised tree ordinance would not require going back to the Planning Commission for consideration due to the changes Council was proposing. The Community Development Director noted that the Planning Commission had expressed concern about the appeal period and suggested shortening the time frame to five days. The City Attorney advised that five days be specified as "five business days". MOTION: By Councilman Dexter and seconded by Councilman Nimmo to amend the appeal period from fourteen (14) days to five (5) business days; motion unanimously passed. There was a consensus among the Council to direct staff to revise the draft ordinance by incorporating the substantive changes made and to eliminate advisory or cautionary language from the ordinance itself. The City Attorney recommended that, because the matter had been a noticed public hearing, it be continued. MOTION: By Mayor Lilley and seconded by Councilman Dexter to direct staff to make appropriate changes based on the consensus reached by the Council and to bring back the ordinance for adoption at the first scheduled meeting in February 1991; motion unanimously carried. 2. DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 1E-90/ZONE CHANGE 4-90 - Consider the adoption of the Downtown Master Plan as an element of the City's General Plan, and Zoning Ordinance Map and Text amendments to implement the provisions of the Plan. A. Resolution No. 127-90 - Adopting the Downtown Master Plan, as amended by the Planning Commission, as an Element of the City's General Plan CC12/11/90 Page 13 • • B. Ordinance No. 2.15 - Adopting various amendments to the City's Zoning Ordinance to implement the Downtown Master Plan (First Reading) Henry Engen gave a brief background and introduced Steve DeCamp, City Planner. Mr. DeCamp gave an overview of the Downtown Master Plan and pointed specific policy recommendations regarding land use, parking, urban design and signage. He then responded to brief questions from Council. Public Comments: John Himes, President of the Business Improvement Association, noted that parking standards had changed slightly for the downtown and asked why not standardize parking for the entire city. He indicated that he was opposed to the master plan's recommendations for reducing signage and the absolute restriction of all freeway signs adding that freeway signs done in good taste would encourage travelers to come into the city. Mr. Himes also noted that the plan includes the realigning of Highway 41 and added that he would support the creation of a downtown task force and of re-establishment of a redevelopment agency. Jim Berger, co-owner of American Classics in Atascadero, spoke in opposition to freeway sign restrictions. He reported that during the past year and one-half, approximately 1,800 people had stopped by his showroom because of a banner he has been using to advertise his classic car business. Not only has he sold a number of cars because of this, he pointed out that the City has received revenues from these sales. He asked that the matter be studied further and a decision postponed. Individual Council comments followed. There was a consensus among the Council to support the guidelines set forth in the Downtown Master Plan with the exception of recommendations relating to signage. Council agreed that "tasteful" freeway signage could be appropriate and it was suggested that staff develop a theme and also take a look at sign ordinances from other cities. Henry Engen noted that the consultants had provided a list of implementing measures which included the preparation of detailed downtown sign regulations. He explained that the work could be prepared either by the consultants for an amount of $5,000 or be completed by City staff. In addition, he proposed that a committee or task force, in conjunction with the H.I.A., could study other communities and provide some input relating to signage. CC12/11/90 Page 14 • 0 signage. MOTION: By Councilman Dexter and seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson to approve Resolution No. 127-90; motion unanimously carried. MOTION: By Councilman Dexter and seconded by Councilman Nimmo to approve on first reading Ordinance No. 215 adopting various amendments to the City's Zoning Ordinance to implement the Downtown Master Plan; motion passed unanimously. There was consensus among the Council to establish an interim committee to make a preliminary recommendations of signage for the downtown area. The following appointments were made: Bob Johnson, Planning Commissioner Bob Lilley, Mayor Rollin Dexter, Councilperson John Himes, President of the B.I.A. Erika Banner, B.I.A. Steve DeCamp, City Planner MOTION: By Councilman Dexter and seconded by Councilman Shiers to extend the meeting past 11:00 p.m.; motion carried. 3. ORDINANCE NO. 216 - CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE TO REGULATE THE CONVERSION OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL UNITS TO CONDOMINIUMS (First Reading) Henry Engen gave the staff report noting that the City was now operating under a moratorium on condominium conversions. The Planning Commission, he explained, had held a hearing on the matter and was recommending approval of Ordinance No. 216. Public Comment Tom McNamara, 8130 E1 Camino Real, expressed concern for regulating the conversions of apartments to condominiums and the escalating costs imposed upon property owners. He explained his vested interest and cautioned the Council to study the matter thoroughly before implementing costly conditions. Individual Council comments followed; all of which were in support of the ordinance because it would assure a continued CC12/11/90 Page 15 MOTION: By Councilman Dexter and seconded by Councilman Shiers to adopt Ordinance No. 216 by title only on first reading; motion carried unanimously. Mr. McNamara again addressed the Council to clarify that there was nothing inferior in the construction of any of his apartments. Mayor Lilley assured him that the Council's action was not making reference to any one, particular project. 4. ORDINANCE NO. 213 — ESTABLISHING BACKYARD BURNING RESTRICTIONS (First Reading) Mike Hicks, Fire Chief, introduced the ordinance and explained that the purpose was to give local control to deal with violators of the present burning regulations set forth by the City and the Air Pollution Control District. Public Comments: Jerry Clay asked that the public still be given the opportunity to burn. On another matter, Mr. Clay remarked that he would like to see the City provide a recreational park with restroom facilities in the downtown area. Whitey Thorpe asserted that burning should be allowed and asked that the burn period be spread out over a longer period of time than had been scheduled during past years. Doug Lewis, of Atascadero, criticized the ordinance for being a bit too restrictive and asked if property owners could combine their burns. Chief Hicks explained that this provision was not new and clarified that the purpose is to discourage bad burning and eliminate.as much pollution as possible. The fire chief also emphasized that the burning of leaves is prohibited. Councilwoman Borgeson commented that she did not see the harm in two neighbors burning their materials together. MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo and seconded by Councilman Dexter to adopt Ordinance No. 215 on first reading by title only; motion unanimously carried. CC12/11/90 Page 16 i 0 5. CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL BY GLEN R. LEWIS OF PLANNING COMMIS- SION'S ACTION RELATIVE TO SIGNAGE FOR HOTEL PARK Henry Engen reported that staff was recommending that the Council uphold the Conditions of Approval established by the Planning Commission, with the exception of allowing a ten square foot sign for Homestead Title. He noted that a sign of this size was a standard ordinance allowance. Public Comment: Glen Lewis, appellant, stressed the importance of the sign and the fact that the sign did comply. He stated that he concurred with the prohibition of signs on the backs of buildings facing Capistrano Avenue. Councilwoman Borgeson commented that she agreed with the staff's recommendation and made the following motion: MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson and seconded by Councilman Shiers to uphold the Conditions of Approval established by the Planning Commission, with the exception of allowing a 10 square foot sign for Homestead Title facing the parking lot; motion unanimously carried. b. TREE REMOVAL REQUEST, 9800 CORRIENTE, FOR PURPOSES OF DRIVE- WAY/HOME CONSTRUCTION (Barnes/Phillips) Mr. Engen presented the staff report with a recommendation to approve the removal of five trees with a two for one replacement. Public Comments: Bill Barnes, speaking on behalf of the owner, indicated that he might be able to save two, possibly three of the trees. Frank Henderson, representing the adjoining lot owner, spoke in support of the tree removals. MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo and seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson to approve the applicant's request to remove five trees, noting that two to three trees might be saved; motion unanimously carried. C. REGULAR BUSINESS: 1. APPLICATIONS FOR TRAFFIC COMMITTEE AND EX -OFFICIO STUDENT REPRESENTATIVES CC12/11/90 Page 17 0 9 MOTION: By Councilman Dexter and seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson to continue the matter until the next regular meeting; motion unanimously passed. 2. REQUEST FOR HEARING BEFORE COUNCIL ACTING AS PERSONNEL BOARD SERGEANTS SERVICE ORGANIZATION The City Attorney reported that he had been asked whether or not the matter represented a violation of the "Meet and Confer Act" (Meyers-Milias-Brown Act) and indicated that, in his opinion, it was not. He advised that it was a proper item for discussion during negotiations and recommended that no hearing be set. Councilwoman Borgeson stated that the Sergeants' Association request should be accommodated. She added that police officers and fire fighters should be adequately compensated. Councilman Nimmo asked for clarification from the City Attorney. Mr. Montandon explained that State Law does not require the re- opening of contract negotiations and added that the grievance procedure does not cover this type of concern. He reiterated that his recommendation was to let the matter wait out the final three months of the contract, but pointed out that Council had the right to schedule a hearing. Mr. Nimmo indicated that he would be satisfied to follow counsel. MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson to set the matter for hearing before the City Council; motion died for lack of a second. MOTION: By Councilman Shiers and seconded by Councilman Nimmo that Council not set the matter for public hearing; motion carried 4:1 with Councilwoman Borgeson opposing. D. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION: 1. City Council: A. Committee Reports (The following represents ad hoc or standing committees. Informative status reports were given, as follows.): 1. City/School Committee - The City Manager announced the next meeting date as January 24, 1991. CC12/11/90 Page le 2. North Coastal Transit/S.L.O. Area Coordinating Council Councilwoman Borgeson mentioned that she had not been able to attend the last meeting because of a conflicting assignment and reported that the council would be meeting again in January. She noted that the Area Coordinating Council sends outs the minutes to all the members of the City Council. 3. Recycling Committee - Councilman Shiers gave a brief report. 2. City Attorney - No report. 3. City Clerk - No report. 4. City Treasurer - No report. 5. City Manager Mr. Windsor reported that he had received two estimates for obtaining a property appraisal on Stadium Park and asked for direction. He indicated that the two estimates were from Richard Schenberger and Dennis Green and that they were both in the amount of $3,500. He noted that Mr. Green would not be able to begin the work for at least forty-five days, while Mr. Schenberger could have a price within four to six weeks. MOTION: By Councilman Dexter and seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson to obtain an appraisal by Richard Schenberger not to exceed the amount of $3,500 on Stadium Park property; motion unanimously carried by roll call vote. THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 11:50 P.M. TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING SCHEDULED FOR JANUARY So 1991. MINU S RECORDED AND PREPARED BY: LE DAYKA City Clerk Attachment: Exhibit A (Highland) CC12/11/90 Page 19 ecember 90 To City Council CC12/11/9O EXHIBIT "A" RECEIVED From: George Highland stabject: Tree Ordinance, Proposed Revision c SC DRK° Dear Council Members: Due to personal co:rmittments (of which you are aware), I am unable to appear in person at the hearing scheduled for 12 Dec. I would request that the ftsllowing comments become a matter of public record. I think that no one will argue the fact that no ordinance is ever effective without widespread public acceptance and support. In order to gain such acceptance and support the public must see the ordinate as equitable, easily understandable and simple to comply with. The public must feel they are trusted by the governing body. As far back as my history extends in Atascadero (30+ years) native trees have never bedn indiscrimately removed by owners of single family residential lots. Homeowners have shown restraint and common sense in the matter of tree removal. The problems the community has experienced have been limitted to multiresidential, commercial and industrial sites plus lot splits and road cons- truction. These are the ureas that are in need of oversight. I am convinced that single family residential lots should be totally exempted from the provisions of the ordinance. Such action by the Council would send the message to the overwhelming.majority of Atascaderans, in its. -,most understandable form, "WE TRUST YOU'D. In order to do this.,I strongly urge you to eliminate Sec. 9-11,06 (b) (5) as written. As the section is now written, I believe it unenforceable. The plain fact of life is the City has neither the personnel or the resources to monitor such tree removals. It would be ludicruous to pass an ordinate that containes provisions which the City cannot and will not enforce. In place of this section I would propose the following: (5) Single family residential lots on which a dwelling unit exists. Is is strongly suggested that the property owner consult with the City Arborist prior to removing a tree. I would further urge the addition of (6), to read as follows: (b) Single family residential lots, on which no dwelling unit exists and which cannot be further subdivided, on,y i a consultation is held with the City Arborist before any application for site development is applied for. The express purpose of such consultation shall be preserva- tion of the maximum number of native trees on said site, The arguments against this proposal, by other members of the Highland to City Council pg 2 of 2 Planning Commission, centered on l) What is to prevent!a property owner from clearing a site on an undeveloped lot and then ' applying for a lot split? and 21 Who determines whether a lot can be further subdivided? It is clear that the majority of the Planning Commission -does not trust the public. I do, and I think the Council should. If you should choose to adot my proposals, in order tomaintainconsistency See. 9-11.02 (b� should have the phrase 'except as exempted in Sec. 9-11.06" added, In summary, no one can devise a law in which someone cannot find a loopholes -nor can they pass a law that no one will violate. I urge you to send the message to the residents of this community "WE TRUST YOU'D; Soncerely, eorg�and g cc: City Manager City Clerk News media