Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin 12-06-89 (2)383 MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH - DECEMBER 6, 1989 The City Council convened in a regular meeting at 6:40 p.m. in the Council Chambers at the Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California. Roll was taken and the following Councilmembers were present: Shoemaker, Schneiter, Hickey, and Mayor Henderson. Councilmember Wattenburger was absent. Staff present was Director of Planning/Assistant Redevelopment Director Harris, Assistant to the City Manager Horsley, City Attorney Rapport and Recording Secretary Smith. INVOCATION/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Councilmember Hickey delivered the invocation and Councilmember Schneiter led the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF AGENDA M/S Hickey/Schneiter approved the Agenda for this meeting of December 6, 1989. The motion was carried by a unanimous voice vote. APPROVAL/CORRECTION OF MINUTES - November 9, 1989 M/S Schneiter/Hickey approved the City Council Minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 9, 1989 as submitted. The motion was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Shoemaker, Schneiter, Hickey and Mayor Henderson. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilmember Wattenburger. APPROVAL/CORRECTION OF MINUTES - NOVEMBER 15, 1989 Mayor Henderson made corrections to the City Council Minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 15, 1989, as follows: Page 1, under Approval/Correction of Minutes "Hennesey" is still misspelled, it should read "Hennessey." On Page 2, under Item 10a, second paragraph should read "Councilmember Shoemaker " rather than "Councilmember requested." requested..., On Page 4 under 10c, first paragraph should read "Shoemaker absented himself...," rather than "Shoemaker was still absent." Under 10d, second paragraph should read "contribution to the American Red Cross via the League...," rather than "contribution to the League." On Page 6, under Mayor Henderson, at the end of that paragraph it should read "April 26, 1990, and notified the Council of the Planning Session therefore on December 3, 1989." Councilmember Shoemaker made a correction on Page 6, under Mayor Henderson, that Earthday is on "April 2~, 1990," rather than "April 26, 1990." M/S Shoemaker/Schneiter approved the City Council Minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 15, 1989, as amended. The motion was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Shoemaker, Schneiter, Hickey and Mayor Henderson. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilmember Wattenburger. APPROVAL/CORRECTION OF MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 21, 1989 M/S Schneiter/Hickey approved the City Council Minutes of the Special Meeting of November 21, 1989 as submitted. The motion was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Shoemaker, Schneiter, Hickey and Mayor Henderson. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilmember Wattenburger. RIGHT TO APPEAL DECISION Mayor Henderson reviewed Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding the appeal process. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Hickey requested that Item 7c be pulled and continued to the December 20, 1989 meeting, as he has not had time to review the material. 384 Mayor Henderson indicated that she spoke with Mrs. Kirch regarding Item 7d prior to the meeting and she indicated that there was no new information regarding BMX. City Manager Watson advised that the BMX Club is still trying to get another insurance carrier for the track. He further advised Council that he would bring the Audit Report back to Council on December 20, 1989, along with the Management Letter and its response. Candace Horsley explained that relative to Item 7f concerning the Volunteer Firefighter Coordinator, after writing the Staff Report the Unit met one more time. They discussed a flat rate of premium pay of $70 per month rather than a percentage. The Unit still feels this is not adequate for the duties and responsibilities but have agreed that they do not plan to meet and confer again on this item. If approved, it will be posted in the Fire Department. M/S Schneiter/Schneiter approved the Consent Calendar Items 7a, 7b, 7d, 7e, 7f, 7g, 7h, and 7i, as follows: a. Approved the Payroll Warrants of October 29, 1989 to November 25, 1989, #28044 to 28414, in the amount of $239,394.39; and the General Warrants of December 6, 1989, #44385 to 44567, in the amount of $1,528,805.36. b. Denied the following Claim for Damages, and referred to the insurance carrier. i. Roy Edward Miller ii. William and Billie Smith iii. June Woolley iv. Sharon Bayne d. Accepted report on BMX Track Progress. e. Adopted Resolution No. 90-29 Approving Final Subdivision Map for Sierra Sunset Village. f. Approved Volunteer Firefighter Program Coordinator Speciality Assignment. g. Awarded Bid for a Two Post Vehicle Lifting Hoist to Eagle Automotive Equipment in the amount of $7,897 (including sales tax). h. Approved the change in the Police Department clerical position to eliminate the Typist Clerk position and add a Typist Clerk/Dispatcher, for a total of two Typist Clerk/Dispatcher positions within the Police Department. i. Report of Administrative Actions and Proposals (R.A.A.P.). The motion was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Shoemaker, Schneiter, Hickey and Mayor Henderson. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilmember Wattenburger. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Jim Rickel, 3900 N. State Street, #71, representing the Mendocino County Veterans, expressed appreciation to the City Council for their help in moving the Vietnam Veteran Memorial. He presented a framed print to the City. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS 10a. Letter Regarding Building at 7 Highland Drive - John Gibson Barbara Brittingham submitted a letter to be entered in the record, dated December 4, 1989, from Axt Mitchell Architects - Planners. City Manager Watson advised that this arose last week by concerned neighbors regarding a structure being built at 7 Highland Drive. Planning Director Harris explained the structure that is being built is at a 3 to 4 foot higher elevation than the Planning Commission had approved under a Site Development Permit. The owner came to that meeting with plans that were different in that they had added an additional floor. The Commission considered the revised plan and approved it. This matter has been reset for the December 13, 1989 Planning Commission meeting for reconsideration inasmuch as there is a variation from that which was approved. Reg. Mtg. December 6, 1989 Page 2 385 Planning Director Harris reiterated that verification of compliance will be determined by the Planning Commission and it would be appropriate to discuss the particulars of the project at that time. Councilmember Shoemaker determined that the Planning Director had met with the contractor and had written him a letter indicating that if he continues to work on the project at this site it will be at his own risk. Planning Director Harris indicated that the contractor is operating under an existing Building Permit and Site Development Permit. Portions of the building could be constructed in compliance with those permits. City Attorney Rapport reported that the Planning Commission could revoke the Site Development Permit or require that he apply for a new permit or an amended permit, which would involve the right of appeal to the City Council. Since it may come before the City Council again in the context of a land use proceeding, he cautioned the Council to not get into a great deal of detail tonight because if it does come back on an appeal a decision based on the record that is presented at that time must be made. He recommended that it be referred back to the Planning Commission. Discussion followed concerning not receiving comments from the audience at this meeting, allowing the contractor to continue construction on the building, and the time frame for this coming back to Council if the matter was appealed. M/S Schneiter/Hickey to receive and file the communication and refer the matter to the Planning Commission. The motion was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Shoemaker, Schneiter, Hickey and Mayor Henderson. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilmember Wattenburger. PUBLIC HEARING 9a. Zoning Code Amendment No. 89-108 - Allowing Over Height Fences in the Front Setback Subject to Securing a Use Permit i. Introduction of Ordinance Planning Director Harris explained how matters regarding fences are presently handled and Planning Commission felt it would be easier for the applicant and Planning Commission to deal with fences with a use permit. Findings would not have to be made relative to uniqueness of the property or special circumstance. However, other areas such as how it fits into the neighborhood could be evaluated with the Use Permit. Staff feels the use permit is appropriate. Councilmember Shoemaker asked how aesthetics can be dealt with in the Code. Also, he is afraid persons will feel they automatically have a right to have a fence and he does not feel fences should be singled out for this revision. City Attorney Rapport indicated that a use permit is determined by the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood or community, and is a general welfare standard that the City can use in exercising its local police power. That standard is broad enough to cover aesthetic considerations. There is no legal reason why the City Council could not cover aesthetics in deciding whether to grant or deny a use permit. Discussion followed concerning wording alternatives for the Ordinance, taking aesthetics into account, and corner lots. Public Hearing Opened: 7:16 p.m. Morey McCloud, 301 Snuffin, felt that since people also request variances for sideyard and backyard fences over six feet, all the setbacks should be included in the Ordinance. Roy Albright, 541 Nokomis, sees nothing but safety problems if you permit fences over three feet in front yard setbacks. Reg. Mtg. December 6, 1989 Page 3 386 John McCowen, P.O. Box 454, feels the variance is a good process to use and changing the process the Planning Commission will still have to make a decision. He suggested a special fee for a fence permit. He feels the present system works well and recommended not making this change. Public Hearing Closed - 7:25 p.m. Discussion followed concerning finding an alternative for persons who had special legitimate needs. Councilmember Shoemaker indicated that he agreed that sideyards and backyards should be included. Councilmember Schneiter said he cannot support the Ordinance the way it is worded. Discussion followed concerning the wording of the existing Code and the minor change this Ordinance will be making. Enforcement problems were discussed. Corner lots and cul-de-sacs in future subdivisions were also discussed. Councilmember Hickey felt that they would be exchanging one set of problems for another. Planning Director Harris reiterated that this would be a tool to allow the Planning Commission greater flexibility in approving appropriate fences without the ominous requirements of the variance. Mayor Henderson indicated that the general feeling was that because it was a use permit people will feel that they are entitled to the fence and then the City would have a difficult time denying inappropriate fences. City Attorney Rapport indicated that with a use permit you are not supposed to grant in every case if it is detrimental to the neighborhood. The advantage is that you have greater flexibility. The neighbors are still noticed with the use permit process and they have an opportunity to appear at the public hearing. A variance is supposed to be for an unusual exception of the Zoning Ordinance standards where it is going to produce an unfair result in that the property owner is going to be deprived the same use of his property that his neighbor has. A use permit is saying the City may allow this type of use, but reserves the right to say yes or no in any given case so they may take into consideration the use having the potential of adverse impacts. M/S Schneiter/Shoemaker to retain the fence Ordinance as it is, including the variance process, and not adopt the Ordinance. The motion failed by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Shoemaker and Schneiter. NOES: Councilmember Hickey and Mayor Henderson. ABSENT: Councilmember Wattenburger. Discussion followed concerning developing a hybrid permit process for fences. M/S Hickey/Schneiter to return the proposed Ordinance to the Planning Commission for revisions to include that design and safety considerations be taken into account. The motion was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Shoemaker, Schneiter, and Hickey. NOES: Mayor Henderson. ABSENT: Councilmember Wattenburger. b. Zoning Code Amendment No. 89-109 - Establishing Property Maintenance Standards and Enforcement Procedures i. Introduction of Ordinance City Manager Watson indicated that property rights are involved with this issue but believes because the City would be working on a complaint basis, that it will not be abused, and it will give the City a tool to deal with nuisance and unsightly situations. Planning Director Harris advised that this process was instigated due to some complaints received approximately two years ago by the Planning Commission from neighbors wanting to know what they could do about properties that are not maintained. The City tried to pursue the issue by dealing with it as a Reg. Mtg. December 6, 1989 Page 4 387 junk yard type situation. It appeared that there should be a process to try and address these cases. The City of Paramount's Maintenance Ordinance was considered. Many cities throughout California have these types of Ordinances. There was a lot of discussion at the Commission level about rampant enforcement, however, it will be dealt with on a complaint basis. Each case would be reviewed by Staff, a letter would be written, and then further reviewed by a sub-committee of the Planning Commission. If no solution is reached, the Planning Commission would consider it, and there is also an appeal process. It appears to staff that this does provide a tool for those issues that may come up and recommends that Council approve the Ordinance. Discussion followed concerning the terminology and meaning of the Ordinance. It was determined that the unsightliness must be visible from the street or neighboring back yard. Equipment stored in yards was discussed. Councilmember Hickey opposes the Ordinance because he believes it infringes on property rights. He does not think the City, or anyone else in town, should be able to use this if they don't like the way his house looks. He appreciates trying to get rid of some eyesores, but what is an eyesore to one person is not necessarily an eyesore to another. Chairman Henderson discussed recreational vehicles in private yards and driveways. Public Hearing Opened - 7:59 p.m. John McCowen, P.O. Box 454, agreed that there is a legitimate concern over people who establish a de-facto junkyard and would like to see an Ordinance that addresses this issue. However, what is proposed is an attempt to regularize and codify human nature and it is not appropriate. Public Hearing Closed - 8:09 p.m. Councilmember Schneiter felt that the wording of the Ordinance was too loosely defined. Mayor Henderson indicated she had a problem with the confidentiality portion of the Ordinance. She believes people should know who their accusers are. She does not like the appeals portion going through the Planning Commission, she felt it should be with the City Council as they are elected officials. She does not want to be in the position of causing difficulties between neighbors. Councilmember Shoemaker felt that it is very important for the City to have a Property Maintenance Ordinance. M/S Schneiter/Hickey to not adopt Zoning Code Amendment No. 109, Establishing Property Maintenance Standards and Enforcement Procedures as presented in the Staff Report. The motion was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Shoemaker, Schneiter, Hickey, and Mayor Henderson. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilmember Wattenburger. It was the consensus of the City Council that the Planning Commissioners and Councilmembers consider this Ordinance on the next fifth Wednesday of a month. Recess - 8:22 p.m. Reconvened - 8:32 p.m. 9c. Adoption of Resolution Approving Tentative Subdivision Map 89-113 - Cagle Councilmember Shoemaker absented himself due to a possible conflict of interest. City Manager Watson indicated that a petition has been received from the residents of Nokomis Acres Subdivision requesting modifications to the subdivision. Planning Director Harris advised that the proposal is a 15-lot subdivision on 3.22 acres. It is consistent with the General Plan, Zoning Code, and adjacent residential neighborhood. Nokomis Drive and Marwen Drive would be extended to Reg. Mtg. December 6, 1989 Page 5 388 their ultimate destination and there will also be a road out to Washington Avenue. The Planning Commission did approve the map as presented. Staff is recommending that the map be adopted as proposed. The Fire Department indicated that the access as proposed was appropriate and cul-de-sac streets would not be appropriate. Public Hearing Opened - 8:38 p.m. Casey Clausen, 1195 Marwen, indicated that the main objection of the neighbors is that the new road will go directly to Nokomis School and give a 3/4 mile shortcut to residents living above the Marwen access, so instead of going around Dora and Washington they will be using the new road. They also feel that the minimum right-of-way should be 60 feet. They would prefer the cul-de-sac and feels that the Fire Department would have ample room to turn around. Roy Albright, 541 Nokomis Drive, immediately adjacent to the proposed development, sees nothing wrong with the proposed development as presented, and feels it will be an asset to the neighborhood. George Rau, 100 N. Pine Street, indicated that Mr. Cagle is in agreement with the Conditions of Approval and recommended adoption of the subdivision as presented. Councilmember Schneiter questioned how the transition between Nokomis and Marwen would be accomplished as Marwen is currently 50 feet and Nokomis is proposed to be 56 feet. George Rau indicated that an angle 10 to 20 feet long will tie the two streets together and there will not be a street tree strip within that area. The Public Works Department is satisfied with this solution. There would be no modifications in the old subdivision. He requested that the Council consider eliminating the 3 foot street tree strip in the subdivision as it is a continuation of an already constructed street. Mike Ford, 1113 Marwen, is concerned over the extra traffic that will occur on Marwen Drive as there are a lot of children in the area, the possibility of a drainage problem, and the possibility of cars driving into yards as the corners are so sharp. Lorie Leaf, P.O. Box 1616, reported that there is a need for a park in this area rather than a subdivision, and she is also concerned over increased traffic and the children. Mayor Henderson indicated that the government is in the process of declaring property on Observatory as excess and the City has their name in line to acquire the property for a park. Diane Clausen, 1195 Marwen Drive, advised that two lots on the proposed subdivision are sub-standard sizes for which variances were approved. Public Hearing Closed - 8:51 p.m. Planning Director Harris indicated that the public right-of-way on Marwen and Nokomis is actually 50 feet, 37 feet would be the curb to curb travelway width. In the proposed subdivision the right-of-way will be 56 feet, the 3 feet on either side would accommodate the street tree program which was not in place when the other subdivision was built. Street trees would be between the sidewalk and the curb. As far as the drainage, in new developments there is a requirement to keep the drainage on the developer's property. The Engineering Department would ensure that adequate drainage is provided. Councilmember Schneiter advised that the concerns expressed were very similar to those when Capps Lane was developed and that development has worked out fine. M/S Hickey/Schneiter moved to adopt the Negative Declaration of Tentative Subdivision Map Application No. 89-113. The motion was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Schneiter, Hickey, and Mayor Reg. Mtg. December 6, 1989 Page 6 389 Henderson. NOES: None. Councilmember Wattenburger. ABSTAIN: Councilmember Shoemaker. ABSENT: M/S Hickey/Schneiter adopted Resolution No. 90-30 accepting the Tentative Subdivision Map Application No. 89-113. The motion was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Schneiter, Hickey, and Mayor Henderson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: Councilmember Shoemaker. ABSENT: Councilmember Wattenburger. Councilmember Shoemaker reentered the meeting. UNFINISHED BUSINESS lla. Introduction of Ordinance for Public Restrooms in Restaurants Planning Director Harris indicated that the Planning Commission reviewed this subject and considered the County's Ordinance. The Planning Commission proposed that the Ordinance before the Council be introduced. It is not a public hearing as it is not a portion of the Zoning Code. The proposal is very similar to the County Ordinance but the County Ordinance did include retroactivity. It would require restrooms be provided for all restaurants which provide seating on the premises. The City recently received an application for a drive-through restaurant with car-hop facilities. There is actually no seating provided on the premises. He requested that it be considered along with this matter to determine whether it would require a restroom as technically, it is not providing on-site seating. Discussion followed concerning which restaurants should be required to have the restrooms and the 50% of existing value figure, which would prompt the necessity of a bathroom being installed. Councilmember Shoemaker felt that the 50% figure should be lowered. Planning Director Harris indicated that 50% is standard for non-conforming uses. M/S Shoemaker moved to introduce the Ordinance by title only, but adding the amendment that 25% be the trigger value for requiring that a bathroom be added. The motion died for lack of a second. Councilmember Schneiter felt that a 25% figure would discourage improvement of the restaurants. M/S Schneiter/Hickey, to Introduce the Ordinance by Title only. M/S Schneiter/Hickey, to withdraw the motion. M/S Shoemaker/Schneiter, to Introduce by Title only the Ordinance requiring public restrooms in restaurants, with an amendment in Section 4482 adding the phrase after "eating on premises" in the second line, or food service to vehicles parked on premises. The motion was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Shoemaker, Schneiter, Hickey and Mayor Henderson. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilmember Wattenburger. Recording Secretary Smith read by title only the Ordinance. M/S Hickey/Schneiter to introduce the Ordinance as amended. AYES: Councilmembers Shoemaker, Schneiter, Hickey and Mayor Henderson. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilmember Wattenburger. NEW BUSINESS 12a. Approval of Contract with the Chamber of Commerce City Manager Watson indicated that this is a $21,000 budgeted item. The Agreement is similar to those of prior years with three exceptions: 1) the City has always advanced the funds after the end of the quarter and he suggested that since the Chamber is doing the work for the City that the City advance funds at the beginning of the quarter. They would then receive the first half year, and receive the other quarters in January and April, 2) the City would ask that their principal effort be in the way of assisting the City in its Redevelopment efforts, and 3) in prior contracts there has been a flat dollar amount in each of the categories, which doesn't give much flexibility. He suggested a range in which the Chamber must spend the money for a Reg. Mtg. December 6, 1989 Page 7 390 particular purpose. He advised Council that he will be meeting with the Chamber at their next meeting to discuss Redevelopment. Discussion followed concerning wording in the Agreement. Mayor Henderson would like to be notified when she can see the information regarding Annexation which the Chamber will be generating. M/S Schneiter/Hickey to approve the Contract with the Chamber of Commerce. The motion was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Shoemaker, Schneiter, Hickey and Mayor Henderson. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilmember Wattenburger. 12b. Introduction of Ordinance for Mitigation Program for Unreinforced Masonry City Manager Watson indicated that Planning Director · Harris has done considerable work on this Program and held a workshop with the affected people. Planning Director Harris advised Council of the history and time frames involved with this Program. The law requires that the buildings be identified, adopt a mitigation program, and send a report to the State Seismic Safety Commission by the deadline of January 1, 1990. He outlined the Ordinance for the Council. Staff would recommend that on page 3, under Section 3076, on line 20, that "civil or structural engineer" be replaced with "structural engineer," to ensure that the property owner is provided a suitable solution to their project. The evaluations would be based upon standards in the State Historic Code that are also proposed to be adopted in this Ordinance. They are less stringent than the Uniform Building Code. By adopting this it is addressing standards and not including the implications for historic buildings. The valuation would identify the degree of severity and the feasibility of rehabilitating a building. A task force will determine when the work shall be completed within the two year time frame. The property owner has many opportunities to address the concerns they have. The Council would approve the task force recommendations. On page 4, lines 9 and 10, where it indicates "uniform building code," it should read "provisions .requiring earthquake resistance design as adopted herein," and would refer back to the State Historic Code and include it so that two different standards would not be used. There is an appeal provision in the Ordinance. Staff feels the Ordinance provides the property owner with the greatest flexibility as it allows them to work with their engineer and determine their end result and how to meet the concerns. In light of the San Francisco earthquake, the timing for this Ordinance is very appropriate. Staff feels positive in recommending this mitigation program to the Council and community. Discussion followed concerning where the County stands on their program, and the accuracy of the list of properties involved. Ted Feibusch, 240 S. Highland, indicated that he owns three buildings downtown that are on the list by way of a window survey. No one ever interviewed or asked him about his buildings. He advised that only portions of his buildings are not seismically safe and wondered if a portion of a building does not comply, does that make the whole building not comply? In regards to eliminating the civil engineer as a consultant, he suggested that the City Attorney read the Business and Professions Code dealing with civil engineers and structural engineers as there is very little difference. Arlene Hughey, 602 N. State Street, has a concern regarding her tenants. In a standard lease it states that tenants of any building that is hazardous or that can be condemned can break a lease. Some tenants have already contacted her stating that they can break the lease and not pay the rent. She explained to them that she is trying to comply. She does not want all her buildings empty while this program is being implemented. George Rau, 100 N. Pine, Civil Engineer, spoke in opposition to deleting the use of a civil engineer from the Ordinance. As of two years ago, the new tests for civil engineers includes a two-hour test on seismic problems. He has gone to a number of seminars and classes on seismic design. They design with the Uniform Building Code which requires seismic design for Seismic Zone Reg. Mtg. December 6, 1989 Page 8 391 4. Further, the profession polices itself in that those that have had experience or are obtaining experience in the field will take the jobs, and those that don't will shy away from the jobs because of liability. John McGowen, felt that the language regarding civil engineers should be left in the Ordinance. Planning Director Harris advised that deleting the civil or structural engineer is to make the wording consistent with the Historical Building Code. Relative to the leases, the tenants do have to be notified. Though the building is termed "hazardous," it is not dilapidated or unsafe which in the City Code requires immediate demolition. With respect to only portions of buildings being unsafe, that can be addressed to the State and the task force would make recommendations in these instances. The owner would want to submit documentation relative to their buildings. Arlene Hughey asked which Code the City wants her to comply with. Planning Director Harris indicated that the mitigation program adopts the standards of the State Historic Code. M/S Hickey/Schneiter moved to Introduce by Title only the Ordinance Establishing Mitigation Program for Unreinforced Masonry Building Program, and page 4, paragraph b, be changed to read Until made to comply with the provisions of the State Historic Building Code adopted in this Chapter,... The motion was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Shoemaker, Schneiter, Hickey and Mayor Henderson. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilmember Wattenburger. Recording Secretary Smith read the Ordinance by title only. M/S Hickey/Schneiter moved introduction of the Ordinance as amended. The motion was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Shoemaker, Schneiter, Hickey and Mayor Henderson. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilmember Wattenburger. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Councilmember Shoemaker Advised that on December 3, he attended a planning session for the April 22 celebration of Earthday. Some of those in attendance were Nelson Redding, Liz Henry, Jim Spence, Charles Peterson, and Nancy Roca who is the main coordinator of the project. Spiritual awareness of the earth to practical matters such as recycling awareness, environmental air quality awareness, etc. are proposed for this day. He thought he would try to promote the Spring Clean-up Week. Candace Horsley will also be participating in some way. There are no political overtones. They will need a facility and questioned the use of the front lawn of the Civic Center. He also noted that he received a letter and Resolution from Assemblywoman Diane Easton about recycled products and asked that it be agendized for the next meeting. A concern was expressed regarding the issue of weeds growing up in the parkways around trees. As a landscaper he has noticed this problem and questioned if the City Building Code could require that chases or open pipes be installed between the main yard areas and parking area so people could irrigate the planting areas. Recycled paper was briefly discussed and City Manager Watson indicated that he would prepare an FYI for the Council concerning the use of the recycled paper. He would also come back to them with information regarding weeds in the areas of the street trees. Councilmember Schneiter Councilmember Schneiter advised that several LAFCO meetings have been cancelled. The next one is scheduled for January 8, 1990. After Mr. Simpson's death they will have to readvertize for a public member. He suggested if Council had any candidates in mind they might ask them to apply. Reg. Mtg. December 6, 1989 Page 9 392 Councilmember Hickey Councilmember Hickey advised that on November 29, he attended the TANC meeting and will attend the NCPA meeting on December 7. He will have a report at the next meeting regarding NCPA. He did not attend the last meeting of MCOG. The next meeting will be in January. Mayor Henderson Mayor Henderson reported that she gave a speech to the Rotary Club on the state of the City. On December 7, she will be having lunch with the City Manager and Assemblyman Cortese in Hopland. She proposed having a reception for the new City Manager in the foyer of the Civic Center on January 12, which is a Friday evening, if it does not conflict with other community events. She felt the funds would be available in the Council Budget since no one is going to the League of California Cities meeting except for Councilmember Hickey. City Manager Watson advised that regarding Assemblyman Cortese, he is the Chairman of the Local Government Committee of the Assembly and he will be at the Civic Center on December 7, from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. The County will be presenting a slide show and the City will be sharing different ideas concerning subjects such as how hard it is to get property tax transfers on annexation, how proliferated the special districts are in this community, etc. Some legislation could flow from the meeting and he invited the Council to attend. CLOSED SESSION None. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:06 p.m. Karen Smith, Recording Secretary R:Ccmin4 Reg. Mtg. December 6, 1989 Page 10