Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 06/23/1998 *PUBLIC REVIEW COPY Please do not removg AGENDA Mounter ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY,JUNE 23, 1998 City of Atascadero 6500 Palma Avenue,4th floor Atascadero, California CLOSED SESSIO 6:30 P.M.: 1) Conference with labor negotiator(Govt. Code Sec. 54957.6) Agency Negotiator: City Manager Empl yee organizations: Department Heads, Mid-Management/Professional, Atascadero Fire Captains, Atascadero Firefighters, Service Employees Intl. Union Local 520, Atascadero Sergeants Service Orgn.,Atascadero Police Officers Assoc , Atascadero Public Safety Technicians Orgn. 2) Conference with legal counsel (Govt. Code Sec. 54956.9 (b)) Signif cant exposure to litigation. REGULAR SESSI N, 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLI GIANCE: Council Member Clay ROLL CALL: Mayor Carden Mayor Pro Tem Johnson Council Member Clay Council Member Lemo Council Member Luna APPROVAL OFA ENDA: Roll Call COUNCIL ANNO NCEMENTS AND REPORTS: (On their own initiat e, Council Members may make a brief announcement or a brief report on their own activities. Council Members may ask a question for clarification, make a referral to staff or take action to have staff place a matter of business on a future agenda. No formal action by the Council will be taken unless an item is identified on the Agenda) PRESENTATIONS i COMMUNITY FORUM: (This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wanting to address the Council on any matter not on this agenda and over which the Council has jurisdiction. Speakers are limited to five minutes. Please state your name and address for the record before making your presentation. The Council may take action to direct the staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda.) A. CONSENT CALENDAR: Roll Call (All items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine and non-controversial by City staff and will be approved by one motion if no member of the Council or public wishes to comment or ask questions. If comment or discussion is desired by anyone, the item will be removed from the consent calendar and will be considered in the listed sequence with an opportunity for any member of the public to address the Council concerning the item before action is taken) 1. City Council Minutes—May 26, 1998-(City Clerk recommendation:Approve) 2. City Council Minutes—June 9, 1998—(City Clerk recommendation: Approve) 3. Zone Change#97011 —Amending the land use designation from"Public"to "Commercial Park"between 1200-1800 El Camino Real (Davidson)-Fiscal Impact: Positive (Planning Commission recommendations: Council adopt Ordinance No. 349, , waive reading in full and introduce for second reading by title only, approving Zone Change#97011. [Paul Saldana] 4. Graves Creek Road Overlay Project—Award of Agreement for Construction-Fiscal Impact: $350,834 (Staff recommendation: Council authorize the Mayor, by Minute Order, to execute an Agreement for the Construction of Graves Creek Road Overlay Project with Souza Construction, Inc) [Brady Cherry] B. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Sewer Service Charges—Authorization to place on the 1998-99 property tax rolls- Fiscal Impact Revenue of$1,348,743.16 (Staff recommendation: Council adopt Resolution No. 1998-027 authorizing placement of Sewer Service Charges on the 1998- 99 property tax rolls.[Brady Cherry] 2. 1998-99 Proposed Budget-Amending the 1997-98 Budget and Adopting the 1998-99 . Budget--Fiscal Impact: Revenues of$12,676,12 7 and expenditures of$15,108,985 (Staff recommendation: 1) Adopt Resolution 1998-030 amending the 1997-98 Budget, and 2)Adopt Resolution 1998-026 adopting a budget for the 1998-99 fiscal year and delegating to the City Manager authority to implement same)[Rachelle Rickard] 2 C. MANAGEMENT REPORTS: 1. Designation o'Redevelopment Survey Area—for redevelopment project study purposes —Fiscal Impa t: None (Staff recommendation: Approve Resolution 1998-029 designating a redevelopment survey area) [Paul Saldana] 2. Consideration of Ballot Measure—on General Municipal Election,November 3, 1998 - Fiscal Impact None (Staff recommendation: No action) [Wade McKinney] 3. Information Bulletin D. COMMITTEE REPORTS (The following represent standing committees. Informative status reports will be given, as felt necessary): 1 S.L.O. Counc 1 of Governments/S.L.O. Regional Transit Authority 2. Finance Committee 3. Economic Roimd Table 4. Water Committees A. SLO County Flood Control& Water Conservation District Water Resources Advis ry Committee B. Naci 'ento Water Purveyors' Contract Technical Advisory Committee C. North County Water Task Force 5. Integrated Waste Management Authority 6. North County Council 7. Air Pollution ontrol District- 8. istrict8. County Mayor's Round Table 9. Economic Vitality Corporation, Board of Directors 10. City/ School Committee E. INDIVIDUA DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTIONc I. City Council 2. City Attorney 3 City Clerk 4. City Treasure F. ADJOURNMENT: THE COUNCIL WII.L ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THIS MEETING. P 6 3 i CLOSED SESSION: 1) Conference with real property negotiator(Govt. Code Sec. 54956.9) Negotiator: City Manager Wade McKinney Property: Parcel#028,152,001 Negotiating parties: John Dunn& City of Atascadero Under negotiation: Instruction to negotiator will concern price and terms of payment. THE COUNCIL WILL ADJOURN TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THIS MEETING. Please note: Should anyone challenge any proposed development entitlement listed on this Agenda in court, that person may be limited to raising those issues addressed at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at or prior to this public hearing. 4 City of Atascadero WEL OME TO THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL MEETING GENERAL INFORMATION The City Council meets in regular session on the second and fourth Tuesday of each month at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambet of City Hall. Matters are considered by the Council in the order of the printed Agenda. Copies of the staff reports or other documentation relating to each item of business referred to on the Agenda are on file in th office of the City Clerk(Room 208)and in the Information Office(Room 103), available for public inspection during City Hall business hours. In compliance with the mericans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in a City meeting or othe services offered by this City,please contact the City Manager's Office,(805) 461-5010, or the City C erk's Office, (805)461-5074. Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting or time when services a e needed will assist the City staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide acc ssibility to the meeting or service. TO SPEAK AT PUBLIC HEARINGS Scheduled public hearir gs are itemized on the Agenda. The Mayor will identify the subject, announce when the public hearin is open and request anyone interested to address the Council regarding the matter being considere If you wish to speak for, against or comment in any way: • You must approach the podium and be recognized by the Mayor • Give your r ame and address Make your statement • All comments should be made to the Mayor and Council • All comments limited to 5 minutes(unless changed by the Council) • No one may speak for a second time until everyone wishing to speak has had an opportunity to do so, an I no one may speak more than twice on any item. The Mayor will announ a when the hearing is closed,and thereafter, no further public comments will be heard by the Council. TO SPEAK ON SUBJECTS NOT LISTED AS PUBLIC HEARINGS Under Agenda item, "COMMUNITY FORUM",the Mayor will call for anyone from the audience having business with th Council to: •. Please apprDach the podium and be recognized • Give your r ame and address • State the nature of your business This is the time items n t on the Agenda may be brought to the Council's attention. A maximum of 30 minutes will be allowe for Community Forum(unless changed by the Council). y TO HAVE ITEMS PLACED ON AGENDA All business matters to appear on the Agenda must be in the Office of the City Manager ten days preceding the Council meeting. Should you have a matter you wish to bring before the Council,please mail or bring a written communication to the City Manager's office in City Hall prior to the deadline. i ITEM NUMBER: - Al r DATE: 06/23/98 MINUTES r ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY,MAY 26, 1998 CLOSED SESSION116:30 P.M.: 4 1) Conference with labor negotiator(Govt. Code Sec. 54957.6) Agency Negotiator: City Manager Emploee organizations: Department Heads, Mid-Management/Professional, Atascadero Fire Captains, Atascadero Firefighters, Service Employees Intl. Union Local $20, Atascadero Sergeants Service Orgn.,Atascadero Police Officers Assoc.; Atascadero Public Safety Technicians Orgn. City Attorney Roy Hanley announced that the Council gave direction to the City Manager. I REGULAR SESSIO�, 7:00 P.M.: Mayor Pro Tem John�on called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.'and led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: t Present: tCouncil Members Clay, Lemo, Luna and Mayor Pro Tem Johnson Absent: j Mayor Carden f Others Present: City Clerk Marcia M. Torgerson Staff Present: k City Manager Wade McKinney,Fire Chief Mike McCain, Police Chief Dennis Hegwood, Community Services Director Brady Cherry, Acting fFinance Director Rachelle Rickard, Community Development Director Paul Saldana, Finance Technician Valerie Humphrey and City Attorney Roy Hanley. , l' f APPROVAL OF AGENDA: s MOTION: By Council Member Luna and seconded by Council Member Clay to approve the agenda. Motion passed 4:0 by a roll-call vote. { 000001 COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REPORTS: Council Member Clay expressed his appreciation to all that served in the Korean War. PRESENTATIONS: A. Proclamation: "Commending the Atascadero Native Tree Association for their Commitment to make Atascadero a Tree City" Cory Meyer, President of ANTA accepted the proclamation and thanked the Council for the recognition. Ben Parker,Unit Forester, CA Department of Forestry, presented the City of Atascadero, for the tenth year,the recognition of Tree City USA. He presented the Council with a plaque and flag. B. Proclamation: "Supporting Amtrak's Purchase of New Equipment for San Diegan Rail Corridor" C. Recognition of Tom Way, recipient of the Distinguished Service Award from the Emergency Medical Services Agency. Tom Way accepted the certificate. COMMUNITY FORUM: Eric Greening,7365 Valle, expressed his concern with the fact that the fixed route service item on tonight's agenda never went through a public hearing. He also updated the Council on the status of the Salinas Dam Project. Mayor Pro Tem Johnson closed the Community Forum. A. CONSENT CALENDAR: Roll Call 1. April 1998 Accounts Payable& Payroll—Fiscal Impact: $913,859.44 (Staff recommendation: Review and approve) [Rachelle Richard] 2. Weed Abatement Awarding of Contractor Bid—Fiscal Impact: None (Staff recommendation: 'Council authorize the Mayor to execute an agreement with R & S Landscaping) [Mike McCain] 3. Zone Change#98001 Planned Development Overlay Zone No. 8 (Gearhart/Cannon Associates)—Fiscal Impact:None (Staff recommendation: Waive reading of Ordinance No. 348 and introduce for second reading by title only) [Paul Saldana] Council Member Lerno announced that he would be abstaining from Item#A-3 as he has a conflict of interest. CC 05/26/98 000002 Page 2 of 11 Council Member Luria stated that he wanted to pull Item#A-3 so that he could vote against it. He also asked for clarification concerning the votes required for this item as Mayor Carden is absent. City Attorney Roy Hanley stated that an ordinance needs 3 yes votes to pass. There was Council consensus to continue Item #A-3 until they have a full Council. Rush Kolemaine asked that Item#A-2 be pulled for discussion. MOTION: By Council Member Luna and seconded by Council Member Clay to approve Item#A-1, the April 1998 Accounts Payable and Payroll. Motion passed 4:0 by a roll-call vote. RE: Item #A-2: Rush Kolemaine, P.O. Box 1990, noted the agenda states that Item#A-2 does not have a fiscal impact even though he knows this generates $60,000-$70,000 annual income to the City. Fire Chief McCain explained the weed abatement program is budgeted annually at $40,000 which cover$ the administration of the weed abatement and is recovered by the City. MOTION: By Council Member Luna and seconded by Council Member Clay to approve Item #A-2, authorizing the Mayor to execute an agreement with R& S Landscaping for weed abatement. Motion passed 4:0 by a roll-call vote. Mayor Pro Tem Johnson announced again that there was Council consensus to continue Item #A-3 until they have a fidl Council. B. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Weed Abatement—Hearing of Objections—Fiscal Impact: None (Staff recommendation: Hear objections and authorize the Fire Chief to proceed and perform the work of abatement) [Mike McCain] Fire Chief Mike McCain gave a brief staff report and answered questions of the Council. Council Member Luna asked if the weed abatement deadline can be extended. Chief McCain responded by stating that if citizens have made an effort to do the best that they can, considering the conditions resulting from the late rains, that is all the Fire Department will ask for. There was no Public Comment. MOTION: By Council Member Luna and seconded by Council Member Clay to approve Item#B-1, authorizing the Fire Chief to proceed and perform the work of abatement. Motion passed 4:0 by a roll-call vote. CC 05/26/98 000003 Rage 3 of 11 C. MANAGEMENT REPORTS: 1. Anza Trail Certification Agreement—with the National Parks Service—Fiscal Impact. 40 None (Staff recommendation: Authorize the Mayor to enter into an agreement with the National Parks Service to certify a portion of the Juan Bautista de Anza Historic Trail located on City property) [Brady Cherry] Community Services Director Brady Cherry gave the staff report and answered questions of the Council. PUBLIC COMMENT Lindsay Hampton, 8402 Alta Vista, invited everyone to the dedication of the trail this Saturday at 10:00 a.m. at the Wranglerette Arena Rush Kolemaine, P.O. Box 1990, encouraged everyone to attend this event. Eric Greening, 7365 Valle, stated his concerns for the Anza campsite that is near to the Lakes Project. Mayor Pro Tem Johnson closed the Public Comment period. MOTION: By Council Member Lerno and seconded by Council Member Clay to Approve Item #C-1, authorizing the Mayor to enter into an agreement with the National Parks Service to certify a portion of the Juan Bautista de Anza Historic Trail located on City property. Motion passed 4:0 by a roll-call vote. 2. Tree Ordinance Review—Fiscal Impact: None (Staff recommendation: Direct staff to make changes to the Tree Ordinance and return with a revised Ordinance) [Paul Saldana] Community Development Director Paul Saldana gave the staff report and answered questions of Council. Mayor Pro Tem Johnson asked for clarification that staff is only asking for direction at this time. Mr. Saldana responded, yes. Council Member Lerno asked who our current Natural Resource Specialist is. Mr. Saldana stated that all of the Planning Services staff review the tree protection plans as well as replacement plans. Council Member Lerno also stated that one of his major concerns about the Tree Ordinance is that there is no way to monitor the replacement of trees. He said that he would prefer developers being required to pay into a fund instead. Council Member Lerno also stated that he supports the exemption for 5 acres or less. 0 CC 05/26/98 000004 Page 4 of 11 Council Member Luna stated that since this issue is before them, he felt that the Council should make this a more effective ordinance. He stated that to do that, Atascadero needs to re-hire a Natural Resource Specialist and have that person write the tree standards guidelines and the ISA arborist guidelines. He went on to state that to pay for that staff person the City should raise the fee for tree replacement. Council Member Luna also stated that he felt the City should eliminate the tree replacement process and require payment in lieu to the Tree Fund. He went on to explain his concerns about potential amendments to this Ordinance, such as exempting the Colony Roads, with the use of overheads (see Exhibits A, B & C) Council Member Clay stated that our trees are our most important asset. He said that he is in favor of all the Planning staff acting as the Natural Resource Specialist. He also supports designating areas that!need trees and having trees planted there. He explained that he does not support making the public pay for the replacement of trees on future Colony road paving. He also stated that he does not agree with the 5 acre exemption that was suggested by Council Member Lerno. Mayor Pro Tem Johnson asked what would a Natural Resource Specialist do all day. Mr. Saldana stated that a Specialist would be acting as an arborist but mostly would be enforcing compliance of the Ordinance. Mayor Pro Tem Johnson stated he supports the in lieu fees instead of tree replacement. He stated that he cannot support a full-time Natural Resource Specialist. He also stated that he does support the Colony Road exemption and the 5 acre exemption. Council Member Clay stated that he supported a brochure for the public. He also suggested that in the future, parking''lots should be required to have native trees planted. CouncilMember Luna expressed ressed his concerns of exemptions for 5 acres or less. He also p p expressed his concern of removing the Colony Road tree issue from the Ordinance. He stated that to do so would go against the General Plan. He asked the City Attorney Roy Hanley what would the procedure be to make this amendment. Mr. Hanley stated that, if the Council gave direction to staff, they would have to look at the environmental effects of such changes and marshal the facts. PUBLIC COMMENT Carol DeHart, 4305 Lobos Ave., read a prepared statement in which she concurred with Council Member Luna and that being a Tree City USA, we should have an Arborist. She stated that she is happy with the Tree Ordinance as it is (see Exhibit D). Livia Kellerman, Atascadero, asked if Stadium Park receives funds from the Tree Fund. Mr. Cherry responded that it does not. She expressed her support for the Tree Ordinance as it is. Jack Brazeal, 4531 Sipjack Lane, Paso Robles, read a prepared statement in support of the existing Tree Ordinance (see Exhibit E). Trena Gleason, 5575 Nogales, read a prepared statement supporting the existing Tree Ordinance (see Exhibit F). Kate Leonard, 8600 Santa Lucia Road, read a prepared statement supporting the existing Tree Ordinance (see Exhibit G). 000005 CC 05/26/98 Page 5 of 11 Christine Gyovai, 8600 Santa Lucia Road, her prepared statement supporting the existing Tree Ordinance was read by Kate Leonard (see Exhibit H). Valeen Mathews, 6950 Navarette, expressed her support of the existing Tree Ordinance by reading a prepared statement(see Exhibit I). Joy Greenberg, 11655 Cenegal Road, her prepared statement supporting the existing Tree Ordinance was read by Rick Mathews (see Exhibit J). Rick Mathews, 6950 Navarette, expressed his support of the existing Tree Ordinance by reading a prepared statement(see Exhibit K). He also stated that he is opposed to exempting removal of trees in Colony Roads and the exemption of 5 acres or less. He recommended hiring the Natural Resource Specialist. Mr. Mathews stated that the existing Ordinance works, it just hasn't been implemented properly. BJ Simms,Atascadero, expressed her support of the existing Tree Ordinance by reading a prepared statement (see Exhibit L). Kathy Romera, 8595 Casanova Road, read a prepared statement supporting the existing Tree Ordinance. (see Exhibit M). Robert Romera, 8595 Casanova Road, a prepared statement was read by Kathy Romera supporting the existing Tree Ordinance (see Exhibit N). Brian Stark 9900 Santa Lucia Road pp expressed his support for the existing Tree Ordinance. p g Nick Roberto, a prepared statement in support of the existing Ordinance was read by Emily Goers Dan Blakeley, a prepared statement in support of the existing Ordinance was read by Emily Goers. Emily Goers, 5200 Dolores, stated that she also supports the existing Ordinance. Barrie Haffler, 5455 Balsa Road, read a prepared statement that urged the Council to maintain the existing Tree Ordinance as is (see Exhibit O). John Goers, 5200 Dolores Ave., expressed his support for the existing Tree Ordinance by reading a prepared statement(see Exhibit P). Turko Simms, 8007 Toro Creek Road, stated that he is a builder and he knows he has to mitigate the damage he causes on property. He expressed his support for the existing Tree Ordinance. John Heatherington, 7825 Valle, read a prepared statement supporting the existing Tree Ordinance (see Exhibit Q). CC 05/26/98 000006 Page 6 of 11 Henry Engen, 9575 Lakeview Drive,member of ANTA, stated that the current Tree Ordinance was a compromise widely accepted. He expressed his support of the existing Tree Ordinance by reading a prepared statement(see Exhibit R). Mayor Pro Tem Johnson call for a recess at 9:00 p.m. Mayor Pro Tem Johnson called the meeting back to order at 9:15 p.m. Greg Cunningham, 8107 Casitas Road, read a prepared statement in favor of the existing Tree Ordinance (see Exhibit S). Rebecca Daugherty, 4005 Del Rio Road, prepared statement read by Greg Cunningham supporting existing Tree Ordinance (see Exhibit T). Eileen Cunningham, 8707 Casitas Road, read a prepared statement supporting the existing Tree Ordinance (see Exhibit U). Marcia Tittle, 6350 Navarette Ave., read a prepared statement supporting the existing Tree Ordinance (see Exhibit V). Janice Perlich, 8755 Sierra Vista Road, Marcia Tittle read a prepared statement for Ms. Perlich supporting the existing Tree Ordinance (see Exhibit W). Marge McGoff, 92911 Maple St., read a prepared statement supporting the existing Tree Ordinance (see Exhibit X). Lindsay Hampton, 8402 Alta Vista, stated that she thought it was ironic to have this item on the same agenda with the,presentation of Tree City USA. She stated that she supports the existing Tree Ordinance. Craig Dingman, 6620.Atascadero Ave., expressed his support of the existing Tree Ordinance. Karen Larson, 4465 Carrizo Road, stated she supports the existing Tree Ordinance. Jim Patterson, 9312 No. Santa Margarita Road, read the Purpose and Intent of the Native Tree Ordinance and a prepared statement (see Exhibit Y). He stated that he was involved in the creation of the original and existing Tree Ordinance. Mr. Patterson stated that the problems the City has had with the':Tree Ordinance are with the cross-training of staff to cover the Natural Resource Specialist position. He suggested contracting with an independent consultant for that purpose instead. He urged the Council to not change the existing Tree Ordinance. Fred Frank, 3615 Ardilla, stated that he disagreed with delegating the responsibilities of the Natural Resource Specialist to all the Planning staff. He felt that one staff member would be better. He agreed with the other speakers that the existing Tree Ordinance was a community effort and that he supports it as is. Eric Greening, 7365 Valle, expressed his concern of the lack of the inclusion of the community's letters to the Council. He felt they should have been part of the staff report for the public to review. CC 05/26/98 000007 Page 7 of 11 Barbara Shinicki, 7505 Marchant, stated that she was on the initial Tree Ordinance committee and expressed her support of the existing Tree Ordinance. Gretchen Gray, 10420 San Marcos Road, stated that she does not agree with exempting 5 acres or less. She also stated that she feels that the Ordinance should be strengthened so that owners could not be able to cut down trees on their lots (see Exhibit Z). Paul Gray, 10420 San Marcos Road,expressed his concern that this issue is even being discussed again. He also stated his concerns that the Council isn't listening to the public. Steve LaSalle, Atascadero, member of original Tree Committee, stated that the existing Tree Ordinance was a compromise between the environmentalists and the contractors. He stressed to the Council that any changes they want to make must comply with the General Plan. Jennifer Hagman, 8005 Santa Lucia, stated that, according to the Tree Ordinance, any amendments must be brought before the Planning Commission first. City Attorney Roy Hanley stated that the item on the agenda tonight is there at the request of the Council to review the issue and give direction if so desired. City Manager Wade McKinney stated that staff initially suggested to the Council that this issue be reviewed by a committee, but the Council decided they wanted to deal with this item themselves. If the Council decides to modify the Ordinance, there may be some required hearings by the Planning Commission. Daphne Fahsing, 5105 Llano Road, 47 year resident in Atascadero, expressed her support of the existing Tree Ordinance. 0 Bonita Borgeson, 4780 Del Rio Road, stated that she concurred with all the previous speakers. She was on the original Tree Committee and cannot believe that the Council is even considering amending this Ordinance. John McGoff, Atascadero, read a prepared statement supporting the existing Tree Ordinance (see Exhibit AA). James & Veda Thomas, 10695 Vista Road, Ursula Luna read a prepared statement supporting the existing Tree Ordinance (see Exhibit BB). Ursula Luna, 10600 San Marcos Road, read a prepared statement that expressed her support of the existing Tree Ordinance (see Exhibit CC). Dorothy Smith, 8795 Morro Ave., read a prepared statement supporting the existing Tree Ordinance (see Exhibit DD). Geraldine Brasher, 3202 Monterey Road, read a prepared statement supporting the existing Tree Ordinance (see Exhibit EE). Dorothy McNeil, 8765 Sierra Vista, read a prepared statement in support of the existing Tree Ordinance (see Exhibit FF). CC 05/26/98 00000 Page 8 of 11 Catherine Young, 6820 San Gabriel Road, read a prepared statement in which she stated her opposition to changing the existing Tree Ordinance (see Exhibit GG). Mary Hickey, 7950 Santa Rosa Road, read a prepared statement in which she expressed her support of the existing;Tree Ordinance (see Exhibit HH). Rose Flaherty, Templeton, asked that the Council not dismantle Atascadero's progressive Tree Ordinance. Charlotte Byrne, 4064'Tranquilla Ave., stated she agreed with the previous speakers and read a prepared statement(see Exhibit I1). John McNeil, 8765 Sierra Vista, read a prepared statement supporting the existing Tree Ordinance (see Exhibit JJ). Katherine Barthels, 6820 San Gabriel Road, read a prepared statement supporting the existing Tree Ordinance (see Exhibit KK). She stressed to the Council to act responsibly. Ernie Perlich, 8755 Sierra Vista Road, encouraged the Council to strengthen the existing Ordinance and read a prepared statement(see Exhibit LL). Bob & Jean Stafford, Atascadero, Ernie Perlich read their prepared statement supporting the existing Tree Ordinance (see Exhibit MM). Pam Marshall, 7825 Valle, stated that she supports the existing Tree Ordinance. Mayor Pro Tem Johnson closed the Public Comment period Mayor Pro Tem Johnson repeated that this is a review and not a hearing. There was Council consensus to 1) Amend the Tree Ordinance to accept in lieu fees instead of tree replacement as a mitigation for tree removal, 2) request a report from staff concerning the Colony Roads as they pertain to tree removal, 3) require developers to hire an independent arborist as opposed to hiring a City arborist, and 4) clean up the language in the Tree Ordinance. Mayor Pro Tem Johnson and Council Member Lerno asked staff to present alternatives to the proposed 5 acre exemption. Mayor Pro Tem Johnson stated that the receiver sites should be in the guidelines. MOTION: By Council Member Luna and seconded by Council Member Lerno to extend meeting after 11:00 p.m. Motion passed 4:0 by a voice vote. 46 CC 05/26/98 Page 9 of 11 000009. 3. Fixed Route Service—Atascadero Dial-a-Ride—Fiscal Impact: $10,000 for start up costs (Staff recommendation: Approve the modification of the existing demand response Transit service to a combination demand response and fixed route system) [Brady Cherry] Community Services Director Brady Cherry gave the staff report. Paul Jewel, Transportation Consultant from Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates, answered questions of the Council. PUBLIC COMMENT Rush Kolemaine, P.O. Box 1990, referred to the letter he gave the Council and stated his concerns regarding Nelson/Nygaard's proposed service (see Exhibit NN). David Mulvey, 5020 Sycamore, works with developmentally disabled, expressed his concern about transportation for people with disabilities. He urged the Council to keep the disabled in mind when converting Atascadero's system. Darlene Reynolds, 8040 Santa Rosa Road, expressed her concern for seniors on a fixed income. Rush Kolemaine, P.O. Box 1990, stated that Atascadero should not gear its transit system on the minorities, such as seniors and the disabled. He encouraged the Council to follow through with staff's recommendation. Cindy Draver, R&D Transportation, works with transporting the disabled. Asked the Council to keep the disabled in mind when making their decision. Mayor Pro Tem Johnson closed the Public Comment period. Mr. Cherry answered questions of the Council. MOTION: By Council Member Lerno and seconded by Council Member Clay to approve Item#C-3, approving the modification of the existing demand response Transit service to a combination demand response and fixed route system. Motion passed 4:0 by a roll-call vote. 4. Information Bulletin Wade McKinney announced that the elevator will be out of service for the next Council meeting on June 9`''. The meeting will be held in an alternate location. D. COMMITTEE REPORTS: None. 0 E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION: None. CC 05/26/98 Page 10 of 11 000010 F. ADJOURNMENT: Mayor Pro Tem Johnson adjourned this Regular Session at 11:40 p.m. to the Redevelopment Agency Meeting immediately following this meeting. MINUTES RECORDED AND PREPARED BY: Marcia M. Torgerson, City Clerk Attachments: Exhibit A—Exhibit NN, prepared statements CC 05/26/98 400011 Page 11 of 11 Attachment: A Atascadero City Council Meeting Date: : May 26, 1998 Cl* ty of At0 From the Office of the City Manager Date: 11/12/97 To: Council Member Luna From: Wade G. McKinney, City Manage, Subject: Trees Thank you for the reminder about your request concerning trees and the Colony Roads. I had been waiting for additional information and let the item get barried on my desk. I aplogize for the delay. There are approximately 18.66 miles of Colony Road left to build. Although the actual number of trees afected is unknown, the Community Development Department research estimates an average of 144 trees per mile. The estimate is rough and does not include information regarding size or canopy. The research was based on the following: o Highway 41 project 1.3 miles 265 trees v 3-F Meadows 5.5 miles 750 trees o Long Valley II .6 miles 55 trees It is important to note, that lands in Atascadero range from virtually no trees to extremely forested lands. Therefore, it is difficult to surmize the actual impact of the build out of Colony Roads based upon the averages included herein. I trust this information will be helpful, if you need more please let me know. cc: Council Members 000012 Attachment: B Atascadero City Council Meeting Date: : May 26, 1998 w TITLE 14 RESOURCES AGENCY Appendix G SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS A project will normally have a significant effect on the environment if it will (a) Conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of the community where it is located; (b)Have a substantial,demonstrable negative aesthetic effect; (c) Substantially affect a rare or endangered species of animal or plant or the habitat of the species; (d)Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species 000013 Attachment: C A. BASIC COMMUNITY GOALS Atascadero city Council Meeting Date: : ME 26, 1998 Atascadero should retain its overall character and rural atmosphere with the long-term protection of the environment as a primary guiding criteria for public policy decisions. Toward this end, the following goals are basic to all elements of the Atascadero General Plan: Preserve residential neighborhoods and respect the winding tree-lined nature of the street and road system. Preserve natural flora and fauna. 1 . OPEN SPACE POLICIES d. The city shall carefully evaluate both public and private projects to encourage the preservation of trees, watersheds, natural slopes, and other amenities from abuse and destruction. g. Tree-covered hills shall be preserved to retain the distinctive scenic quality of the community. 2. CONSERVATION POLICIES Conservation in the context of the General Plan is concerned with preservation and protection of natural resources; hence, where the land use plan map may designate large areas for single family residential use, for example, policies within the general plan and within the open space and conservation section provide direction for environmentally sensitive development of single family homes. Responsible stewardship to conserve our land, air and water quality is at the heart of the following conservation policies: h. Adopt a comprehensive Tree ordinance to protect and replenish native tree species within the city. Permits for both residential and non-residential development shall take into consideration the trees existing on the property. Buildings shall be designed to utilize existing trees in the landscaping pattern. Any trees removed shall either be replaced or in-lieu contributions made to the city's tree replacement fund, depending on the characteristics of the affected site. 000014 Attachment: D Atascadero City Council Meeting Date: M a y 26 1998 May 26, 1998 Atascadero City Council Members 6500 Palma Ave. Atascadero, CA. 93422 RE: Atascadero Tree Ordinance I have been a resident in Atascadero for 21 years after previously living in Southern and Northern California.. I moved here seeking a quality of life that is unique and now difficult to find. I stongly feel the present Tree Ordinance should be enforced. I have been very disappointed by the previous City Council decisions that have allowed ' .'A.' urban sprawl" to creep into Atascadero. Respect for all the living is what I have endeavored to teach my children, who were born and raised here. We must have reverence and appreciation for everything living on earth.The long-lived Coastal Live Oaks and White Oaks have been here longer than we have or will be. Please don't allow the pressure of greedy developers/contractors to shirk their public responsibility to maintain a quality of life here in Atascadero by changing the Tree Ordinance in any way., We must preserve the ordinance as it stands. Sincerely, Carol De art 4305 Lobos Ave. Atascadero, CA. 93422 000015 f ac L tasc d ro City Council "' Meeting Date: M a y 26 , 19 8 .THE CITY OF ATASCADERO IS VERY FORTURNATE TO BE LOCATED IN AN OAK WOODLAND. THIS VAUABLE NATURAL RESORCE IS A TREMENDOUS ASSET TO THIS COMMUNITY AND TO IT'S RESIDENTSf WITHOUT IT I SERIOUSLY DOUBT THAT THERE WOULD ITE ADCITY OF ATASCADERO HERE AT ALL. OAK TREES LIVE FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS AND THE MOST OF US FEEL HONERED AND PREVILIDGED TO BE THEIR CARETAKERS FOR A SHORT TIME. TREE PROTECTION AND TREE PRESERVATION IS A RESPONIBILITY AND OBLIGATION THAT WE HAVE AS CARETAKERS TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS VAUABLE RESOURSE IS PASSED ON TO OUR FUTURE GENERATIONS. OAK TREES ,, EXISTING IN THERE NATURAL ENVIORMENT HAVE THRIVED HERE IN THE ATASCADERO AREA FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS AND DID NOT NEED ANY PROTECTION UNTILL DEVELOPMENT BEGAIN AND ENCROACHED INTO TRIER HABITAT. FOR A CITY TO SURVIVE IT NEEDS TO GROW FOR A CITY TO GROW IT NEEDS TO DEVELOP NEW RESIDENCE. TO DEVELOP NEW RESIDENTS YOU NEED TO ATTRACT BUYERS. TO ATTRACT BUYERS YOU NEED TO DEVELOP A SALEABLE PRODOCT. OAK TREES IS WHAT MAKES ATASCADERO AN ATTRACTIVE PLACE TO LIVE. OAK TREES AND DEVELOPMENT CAN CO-EXIST IF PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES SUCH AS TREE PROTECTION AND TREE PRESERVATION ARE TAKEN. CONSEQUENTLY THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE DON'T KNOW OR UNDERSTAND WHAT IS REQUIRED TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE OAK TREES. I KNOW THIS TO BE A FACT BECAUSE PEOPLE CALL ME WHEN 'ITHIER OAK TREES ARE IN TROUBLE. SOMETIMES THESE TREES CAN BE SAVED BUT USSUALLY ITS TO LATE. THE MAJORITY OF THE TREES IN TROUBLE THAT I LOOK AT ARE IN TROUBLE DUE TO INAPPROIATE DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE TREES ROOTZONE AREA. 000016 TO FANTISIZE THAT OAK TREES DON'T NEED TO BE PROTECTED IN ALL AREAS THAT ARE BEING DEVELOPED IS JUST THAT A FANTASY. I URGE YOU TO PLEASE UP HOLD THE NATIVE TREE ORDIANCE AS IT NOW EXIST WITHOUT ANY CHANGES SO THAT THE CITY MAY CONTINUE TO IMPLRvIENT DIRECTION AND GUIDELINES FOR PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION OF YOUR MOST VAUABLE RESOURCE, THE OAK FOREST. YOU WILL FEEL GOOD ABOUT IT THE COMMUNITY WILL RESPECT AND LOVE YOU FOR IT AND THE CITY OF ATASTERO WILL PROSPER AND GROW BECAUSE OF IT . THANK YOU z J- 00001'7 Attachment: g Atascadero City Council May 261 1998 Meeting Date: M Atascadero City Council 6500 Palma Ave . Atascadero , CA 93422 Honorable Mayor and Council Members : My name is Trena Gleason; I live at 5575 Nogales . I was born in Atascadero and have spent my entire life here . This town is very important to me , my husband and my children. I know what it is like to play in a creek shaded by big trees. I am always aware of the beauty of our native forest when I ride my horse in this area. I have difficulty believing there are people who live and work here who do not realize we have something no other city in the county has--our wonderful tree cover. Cities that preserve their trees and creeds do better in attracting and keeping business than those that don't . Ask anyone buying a home if they want trees on the lot . Look at the. real estate ads. Please Council Members think of all of us who live here. ' We are proud of the award, Tree City, U.S.A. that we have received for ten years . We want to remain Tree City, U.S.A. Trena Gleason • 000018 i Attachment: G Atascadero City Council Meeting Date: May 2 6, 1998 • moi, �•�.she � � -0c)n t JV 1w+ 3 �Sf P�7 � 3 kdd lid vlgwr 6G e, t r. IL d-1vue, oak, 414� �lP�l`6�S 5-�"i c �xpa tAA - tLP— beIrt c L� 1,A. a``- 000019 Attachment: H Atascadero City Council Meeting Date: May 26, 1998 VA�ih e,. " Q-VA4r A-[5 CoAl)mun /fit. 2. � -__ - --�i.- �--- -Its —`2-e� � � _-� r— ---- _--------- - - --nak_ r_- - - - o � -to� (�-- +CA - --- - - - --- --- -- - yes - K -- ---- los s_ ,2 - Win.------ -------- ----- 1 —_vim - - h- -t� _- 1,00 �A"�A L/Ja d3 AA (A'C;+ ---- -- - — C-P.e2 n cew 'Pb1z' 7717e- C60 --- a020- Attachment: I Atascadero City Council Meeting Date: M 6 a There are costs associated with conducting business. This is true in any business, no less so for development and construction than any other. Any businessperson wants to keep those costs to a minimum in order to maximize profits. It was in recognition of and sympathy for that fact that,through much debate and hard work,the current tree ordinance was developed. The complaints of profit-seeking developers and property rights advocates were addressed then,within the context of the need to manage and preserve one of the most important physical and spiritual assets of Atascadero, its native trees. An acceptable compromise was reached, back in 1991. Don't undermine that work in your desire to be "customer-friendly." Non-developers are customers, too. Along with any discussion of property rights,should be included the responsibilities that go with them. Property owners do not live in a vacuum. They live in a community, . And developers, who may not even live nearby, do not operate in a vacuum of property rights. They operate in communities, and they must be made to conduct their business responsibly. An analogy could be made to parental rights and responsibilities. A parent is the absolute guardian of a child, but the standards of the community would not allow a parent's abuse of a child. Similarly,the tree ordinance is here to effect reasonable standards on development to prevent the abuse or degredation of a community resource. The benefits of our native forest should be obvious by now. The staff report before you tonight brings up certain issues. They include: -The absence of an arborist or natural resource specialist to implement the ordinance, as directed by the ordinance. This needs to be addressed. Staff indicated a desire to handle tree-related matters within the Community Development Department. If you want them . to do a good job, they'll need help in these matters. This would require a specialist or at least someone educated in horticulture, arboriculture, forestry and ecology. All of these disciplines are involved, and you minimize their importance at the risk of costing the city and taxpayers more in the long run. In fact there are many ways in which weakening the protection of our trees will cost us. These costs would include, first of all, lowered property values. Without the trees,values will go down. If that seems a long way off, consider that if new Colony roads alone are exempted from mitigation, that will involve approximately 18.66 miles of roads. At an average of 144 trees per mile, that equals 2687 unreplaced trees. Where those trees used to be, visualize hotter summers, colder winters, more erosion, less wildlife, etc. Visulaize a less attractive city for prospective residents and businesses. When this item came before you last fall, the public answered overwhelmingly in favor of retaining a strong ordinance. Your action should be in the interests of the whole community, not special interests. Doing business has its legitimate costs, and this is one of them. To contribute their fair share for managing and maintaining the trees that give Atascadero its identity is not too much to ask of developers. Don't contribute to the erosion of Atascadero's defining resource, by crippling this ordinance and these reasonable management standards. 000021 Attachment: J Atascadero City Council Meeting Date: May 2.6, 1998 JOY GREENBERG • 11655 Cenegal Rd. Atascadero, CA 93422 May 26, 1998 ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL 6500 Palma Ave. Atascadero, CA 93422 Dear City Council Members, It has come to my attention that the council is considering making widespread changes to the Atascadero Tree Ordinance, in essence rendering it weak and ineffective. If the reasons for doing so were to the benefit of the citizens of Atascadero, this might be an acceptable consideration. But it is obvious to anyone who looks into the matter that this proposal is for the good of a few developers, not the majority of the citizenry. Our trees are our heritage and legacy. We have an obligation to protect them--it is the reason many of us chose to live here. Allowing wanton removal of trees will destroy the ambience and beauty of Atascadero, eventually turning our area into another Orange County wasteland. Please do not allow this to happen! I urge you to strenthen, not weaken, our Tree Ordinance. Si cerely, Joy G 000022 Attachment: K Atascadero City Council /�►r1 Meeting Date:_ May .2 6, 98 The good news is that the construction and wine industries are'booming. The bad news is that currently, California is losing about 25,000 acres of oak woodlands a year,to development and conversion. Do we want the hills of Atascadero to resemble the hills of L.A. and Orange Counties? We all value the trees that grace the hills of Atascadero, and we all want to promote economic growth for our city. So it's very important for us to be smart about how we construct and enforce our laws governing development. I know there are a lot of smart . people in this town, as all over the state. The latest statewide polls show a large majority of these people support efforts to protect oak woodlands. That's what this ordinance was all about when it was created seven years ago. We were ahead of the curve on this issue. Right now people are beginning to institute protective measures for oak woodlands in 48 of the 58 counties'in California that have major oak populations. Following Mr. Lerno's request to review this ordinance last fall, about 60 people provided input to the city council. Jf4her-e asrrthe t-te #�e so did et .retarded-by-std The overwhelming majority of.6 the tree ordinance in its present form or stronger. I believe that a majority of Atascadero residents agredwith the tree ordinance and that you should direct staff accordingly. If you make changes allowing developers to avoid their responsibilities to replace trees,who will.benefit? Is it the community at large? I don't think so. I want to comment on proposed changes to two sections in particular: 1. -Section 6 of the Standards and Guidelines–Road Construction. The proposal is to omit this section altogether,thereby exempting developers from paying for the replacement of trees located where roads will go in. That would mean the unmitigated loss of thousands of trees, and hundreds of thousands of dollars in removal application fees and Tree Fund donations. This should hardly be characterized as zero fiscal impact as indicated in the staff report, and would hinder the city's efforts to implement a long term strategy to develop and grow sustainably. Further; exemption of road construction from the ordinance will most likely return it to the jurisdiction of CEQA, which will often add the additional time and expense of EIRs to those projects. 2. -Section 2-A(0)–a. exempting residentially zoned properties of less than five acres, and b. exempting properties being divided into four or less new parcels. This proposal would exempt a huge number, if not the vast majority, of developments from the requirement to replace trees. I must make the observation that these short, seemingly subtle changes in the ordinance would effectively render it meaningless. In summary, do not weaken this ordinance. My specific recommendations are: 1—train or hire a natural resource specialist to deal with tree issues; Z enforce the law-fairly, consistently and proudly; 3--monitor mitigation plantings, and increase. use of the Tree Fund option for mitigation; +�–reject any proposals for sweeping exemptions, such as for road construction and development of smaller parcels. These proposals run contrary to the intent of the ordinance. 000023 Please direct staff to uphold these reasonable requirements for development. The ordinance itself works,but its implementation has been inconsistent. I know that ANTA would love to help with efforts to improve that implementation. Please consider using our services in this way. We all need,to work together to make sure this is still a good place ciao for our children. fd`1 Ne- 000024 ' I i ! I i I I i ti i 000024 C/r Attachment: M Atascadero City Council Meeting Date: May 26, 1998 May 25, 1998 Dear. City Council, My name is Kathy Romera. I have lived in San Luis Obispo County since the age of four. I have spent the last twenty- three years living in Atascadero. - My. husband works at Lake San Antonio and I teach kindergarten at Monterey Road School. I treasure the natural beauty of San Luis Obispo County. My heart aches when I drive to Santa Maria and see the once beautiful hillsides of Pismo Beach and Arroyo Grande covered with homes without any trees. Please protect our wonderful trees in Atascadero. Enforce or strengthen our present Tree Ordinance. Put a stop to having the Tree Ordinance reviewed or changed. Protect Atascadero's most important asset................TREES! Sincerely, Kathy T. Romera 8595 Casanova Road Atascadero, CA. 93 +22 000026 Attachment: N Atascadero City Council Meeting Date: . May 26, 1998 May 25, 1-9.98 Gear City Council, The beauty'. of our oak forest is the very essence of our community. It is what defines Atoscadero and makes' it unique within our county. It is because of this natural treasure that many of my friends and I have chosen to live -here. But like all treasures or things of value, it comes with responsibilities. To squander this resource for the sake of expediency or profit, would truly be a crime. It is for this reason that I urge the Council to enforce or strengthen the Tree Ordinance guidelines and show both wisdom and foresight in its action. Sincerely, Robert L. Romero 85-95 Gasanovc Rood Atoscadero, GA. -93422 000027 Attachment: O Atascadero City Council Meeting Date: May 26 , 1 8 Barrie Hafler 5455 Bolsa Rd. Atascadero, CA 93422 May 26, 1998 Atascadero City Council Re: Tree Ordinance Modification I urge you to maintain the City's current tree ordinance. Our oak flora is an asset to be protected. I speak as the owner of several pieces of property which my husband and I have purchased in the past, some of which we developed, others were purchased with existing dwellings. Gauging the projects around existing oaks was a accepted consideration. I do feel that a balance is necessary, and that we cannot allow private profit to operate in a vacuum, or out of step with the opinion of citizens of this community. 1 value the tree protection afforded our city, and encourage this sustainable approach. Sincerely, Barrie Hafler 000028 Attachment: P Atascadero City Council Meeting Date: May 26, 1998 May 26, 1998 Atascadero City Council Council members Clay, Cardin, Johnson, Lerno, Luna Atascadero, California Dear Council Members: I am writing to urge',your support of the present Tree Ordinance. The remaining oak woodland is the defining characteristic of Atascadero. Without native trees, the residential landscape would be uninteresting at best, and reminiscent of urban sprawl at worst. The City Manager's review of the Tree Ordinance contains some helpful suggestions concerning the implementation of the ordinance, but also considers exemptions that should not be adopted. The exemptions of five acre properties, divisions of 4 or less parcels, and colony roads from mitigations is unacceptable in preserving the city's native trees. These exemptions would only serve the short-term interests of a few individuals rather than uphold the wishes of the entire community for generations to come. Please ensure the rural character, beauty, and integrity of Atascadero by continuing to support the current(Tree Ordinance. May your legacy to the people of this city be long-term stewardship and health of our community rather than support of narrow, temporary gains by'selected few. Thank you for your consideration, John Goers 5200 Dolores Avenue Atascadero, CA 93422 000029 Attachment: Q Atascadero City Council Meeting Date: May 26, 1998 Good evening, g My name is John Heatherington and I live on Valle Avenue in beautiful Atascadero. I am here tonight to speak for the trees. It's true. I am a tree-hugger. I love trees. That is why I am concerned about-proposed changes to the Atascadero tree ordinance. This ordinance is the result of hard work and serious compromise. It provides clear and workable guidelines for building and development, and it protects the property rights of the individual home owner. I have no objection to the proposed administrative and enforcement changes. I do object to additional exemptions to the tree removal permit process. These suggested changes would exempt most new development in Atascadero and would upset the balance that the authors of this ordinance worked so hard to achieve. Therefore I ask you to do three things: First, clarify the ordnance to ensure that it applies to all new roads in Atascadero. Second, make no new exemptions. The ordinance should apply to everyone. 000030 And third, continue to work with the Atascadero Native Tree Association and other civic groups to preserve the natural beauty of Atascadero for future generations. Thank You. 000031 Attachment: R Atascadero City Council Meeting Date: May 26 , 1998 Tree Ordinance Review May 26, 1998 City Council Meeting My name is Henry Engen, 9575 Lakeview Drive and I'm speaking as a resident and member of ANTA It is indeed ironic that the City is celebrating its 10th year of being designated a Tree City USA while considering a staff report offering suggestions that would effectively trash its Tree Ordinance. When the City Council is considering giving direction to staff for policy changes in such an important ordinance, it would be prudent to begin with the policy direction that is contained in its General Plan. Under the Open Space & Conservation Element's Conservation Policies , subsection h, the plan states: • "Adopt a comprehensive Tree Ordinance to protect and replenish native tree species within the city..Permits for both residential and non- residential development shall take into consideration the trees existing on the property. Buildings shall be designed to utilize existing trees in the landscaping pattern. Any trees removed shall either be replaced or in-lieu contributions made to the city's tree replacement fund, depending on the characteristics of the affected site." In an earlier life, I was the city's planning director and lived through two hotly debated tree ordinances. The present ordinance was a compromise that has enjoyed widespread support since its adoption. Clearly, it is appropriate to refine such an ordinance and its implementing guidelines to make it more effective. But I am here to take exception to two "policy consideration" points in the staff report: 1. Colony Roads. This item calls for the City Council to "clarify the policy regarding tree replacement for the development of new roads." That policy has already been the subject of a well-considered opinion by former city attorney, Jeff Jorgenson, essentially saying that the California Environmental Quality Act prevails. 2. Exemptions from Permit. This item suggests that " the council may wish to discuss additional exemptions to the tree removal process..." with suggestions received proposing that "small lots" of less than 5 acres or parcel maps of less than 4 lots be exempt. WOW! That means that the other 95% of the city that the road exemption proposal had missed would also be exempt . Query: Who offered such a suggestion? 000032 Attachment: S Atascadero City Council Meeting Date: May 26, 1998 Atascadero City Council Atascadero, CA. 93422. 5-25-1998. Dear Council Members, My name is E.Crai',g Cunningham and my wife Eileen and I came to Atascadero 25 years ago to purchase property and to build our dream home amid the magnificent oak trees that offer us beauty and shade. Another thing that caused us to locate here was the fact that Atascadero is a bedroom com- munity with no heavy industry to speak of. The present Atascadero Tree Ordinance was proposed and passed after long and hard debate. There are no compelling reasons for the Council to consider any changes or revisions in the Ordinance, rather, it should be strengthened and enfor- ced more vigorously. It is a model that has served us well. Atascadero is known as a city of trees, must we bow to the wishes of those who wish to make a fast buck at the expense of our oaks that require centuries to mature? Sincerely yours, 8707 Casitas Road, Atascadero,.CA. 93422. 000033 Attachment: T Atascadero City Council Meeting Date: May 26, 1998 Rebecca G.Daugherty 4005 Del Rio Road Atascadero, CA. 92422 5-25-1998 Dear Members of the Atascadero Council, I have lived in Atascadero for thirteen years. One of the things that attracted me to this area are the beautiful oak trees. These trees not only contribute to the beauty of Atascadero, but also it's heritage:Please do not change the city ordinance that protects these trees from being cut down. Our city planning and developing should include these old landmarks instead of eliminating them. Please protect the trees. A concerned citizen, QA Rebecca G. Daugherty 000034 Attachment: U Atascadero City Council Meeting Date: May 26, 1998 ��- Ate- Az> 7L 4�1 ZL - � Z.0 9 � 1 i �-=-i�2 ter, /�- ��l vi n i h �i Qv,•� i 000035 Attachment: y Atascadero City Council Meeting Date: May 26, .1998 May 26, 1998 .To the City Council I'm aghast that. anyone is even thinking about changing our city' s tree ordinance. Because of it Atascadero is the loveliest town in the North County. Without it we would Iobk- mcre�l'ike`__the development going on at the new golf course and houses being built south of town. I can' t imagine living that way. Please save the things that make Atascadero special ! Marcia D. Tittle 6350 Navarette Abe. Atascadero, CA 93422 000036 Attachment: w Atascadero City Council Meeting Date: M a y 26, 1998 May 26, 1998 Atascadero City Council Members: I do not believe the goal of a city council should be to change and implement city laws for the financial benefit of a few people. Preserving tl4 trees in Atascadero should be an important goal of the Atascadero', city council. Stripping land and crowding as many houses as possible onto it always has a negative impact on the area and the people; look at Los Angeles. Please, do notlweaken the tree ordinance, if anything it needs to be strengthened. ''; Our trees make this area unique and desirable. Sincerely, Janice Perlich: 8", Sierra Vista Road Atascadero, California 93422 000037 Attachment: X Atascadero City Council Meeting Date: May 26, 1993 Tree Ordinance Review May 16,1998 As a resident of Atascadero since 1971,I have seen the effect of development in this city when little or no restraint.was placed upon removal of native trees. It is my understanding that you are reviewing the ordinance and guidelines primarily at the request of a developer connected councilman rather that having a review with community input. I am adamantly opposed to revisiting the ordinance and guidelines for any other reason than to strengthen them. This applies to mitigation, enforcement and assigning responsibility and accountability to a single qualified staff member. It is to the detriment of the entire community when we permit developers to assume that the only crime is getting caught,or,that it's easier to get forgiveness than to obtain permission Mr. McKinney has expressed his desire for community involvement in the development of a community vision What better way than to have an ad- hoc committee review,report and recommend changes,if any,to the City Council I would like to say,from a citizens perspective,that the business of government is not business,the purpose of government is to legislate and regulate in the best interest of the entire community not solely for the convenience or bottom line of special interests. Marge McGoff Atascadero,CA 4611125 - 000038 Attachment: v Atascadero City Council Meeting Date: May 26, 1998 Native Tree Ordinance - Comments to Atascadero City Council, May 26, 198 Major Johnson, Members of the Council, City Staff: I would like: to preface my remarks by reading the Purpose & Intent of the Native Tree Ordinance which says, in part "...The purpose of this ordinance is to establish regulations for the installation, maintenance, preservation, protection and selected removal of trees within the City limits. In establishing these procedures, it is the City's intent to encourage the preservation, maintenance and regeneration of a healthy urban forest This enhances other values that Atascadero holds for its community; among these are: . clean air and water, soil conservation, aesthetics, property values and an ecological diversity that will ensure that Atascadero will continue to be a desirable-place to live." Having been an active participant in the process that resulted in the adoption of the current Native Tree Ordinance, a process that *included several public hearings before the planning commission and city council, can assure you that it is a publicly crafted document. It is a document that reflects the :values of the majority of Atascadero's citizens. It is unfortunate that only one member of the council and one or two members of the planning staff, neither of whom are here tonight, were a part of that process. I feel that had more of you experienced that process, we wouldn't be dealing with this issue tonight. This staff report is deficient in its analysis of the public comment collected last fall and makes recommendations that, in my opinion, are not feasible, practical, or in the best interest of the community. As a certified arborist, I have worked extensively with the Native Tree Ordinance since its adoption in 1991 . My experience is that the problems encountered with tree protection and mitigation are not the result of deficiencies with the ordinance but the failure to properly implement and enforce it. I would like to reference letters .1 wrote to the Council on August 12, 1997 and September 27, 1997 for more detail. In the staff report, Mr. Saldana's and Mr. McKinney's recommendation to cross train the staff to implement the ordinance is analogous to cross-training the flight attendant to fly the airplane. While it is important for staff to know the process and procedures, it is equally important to have the specifics of each tree related project reviewed by a qualified professional. If the City does not have a qualified person on staff, then . 16 that service should be contracted out as has been done in the past with the City Attorney, City Manager, City Engineer, etc. 000039 Atascadero is fortunate to have gone through the process that • created the current Native Tree Ordinance. For once, Atascadero acted to close the barn door before the horse got out. Citizens, staff and elected officials worked hard to create an ordinance that would protect our urban forest. An ordinance that reflects the will of the community, not the ambition of an individual council member or staff person. Unfortunately, most communities act after most of the native trees have fallen and the urban forest effectively destroyed. Thousand Oaks is one such community. That community should be more accurately called Dozen Oaks. They have so few trees left that developers have been required to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to save mature trees on development sites. Lets learn from their mistakes, not repeat those mistakes. The proposals outlined in this staff report, if adopted, would eviserate the current Native Tree Ordinance. They would effectively let the horse out of the barn, leaving the vast majority of our urban forest unprotected and the majority of trees removed, unmitigated. As diverse a collection of individuals we, the residents of Atascadero, are, a common thread runs among us. That thread is a belief in participatory government. The Native Tree Ordinance is participatory government. The staff report is not. Recommendations in this report are not in the best interest of the community. And, must I remind you? You were all elected to act in the best interest of the community. My recommendation is, if the Native Tree Ordinance is to be changed significantly, then start the process at the planning commission level with public hearings. Better yet, leave it as written and begin to implement and enforce it. Thank you, James Patterson 9312 N. Santa Margarita Road Atascadero,CA 93422 466-2645 • 000040 Attachment: 7. Atascadero City Council Meeting Date:_ M a y 26 1998 May 26, 1998 TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO San Luis Obispo is a charming college town. Templeton has a charming "Old West"main street. Morro Bay, Cayucos and Los Osos have the ocean. But what does Atascadero have to distinguish itself? It has no charming downtown. Its downtown is a strip. It has no ocean and it lost out to Paso Robles in becoming a college town. What Atascadero does have are its hills and its TREES. When we were looking for a place to buy a home in 1989,we were looking in the canyons north of Santa Monica and we had tickets to look at Santa Fe,New Mexico. But one of our children said, "You should look at Atascadero. It is almost like the East. It has hills and trees, and it even has a tree ordinance to protect the trees. Well,that sold us.', A town that could be so progressive as to have a tree ordinance to protect their natural heritage had to be looked at. We drove up the next week and bought a home the day after we arrived here. We love the hills and trees around our house; and the view of hills and trees everywhere we look and drive around this town. From our point of view,the natural beauty they afford all current and future residents is the reason they should and must be protected. For more pragmatic-minded folks, they protect and enhance the value of their real estate investments. Without the trees,Atascadero would have no appeal and would become a place where people moved only because the rents or property prices were lower. We all lose if we lose our trees. I ask that you don't let this happen. Not now. Now ever. Gretchen Gray 10420 San Marcos Road Atascadero 000041 Attachment: AA Atascadero City Council Meeting Date: M a 2 r,, 1 qe Tree Ordinance Review May 26,1998 Recently.California's population exceeded 30 million people. That total represents 10%of the population of the entire country.Try imagining California without any environmental restraints,this state would look like the dark side of the moon There has been a lot of discussion recently about the"vision thing" .Well,E.G.Lewis was a true visionary when he developed the Atascadero Colony. Citizens of this community had a vision as they labored long and hard to sustain that vision by enacting"our" General Plan Rather than seek community support for review of the ordinance,you took it upon yourselves,with notable exception,to review and recommend developer-driven amendments to the ordinance. Tree ordinances have existed in this country since the early 1800's.. Tree ordinances are but one medium through which resident and community values are expressed. Do not amend this ordinance to remove provisions,which are currently codified in the ordinance. Do not amend this ordinances Tree Guidelines and Standards with respect to Colony Roads. Define and apply the same standards to new construction. Do not amend the guidelines to provide additional exemptions to the tree removal and permit process. To do any or all of the foregoing would leave Atascadero with a shell of a tree ordinance. Will we be a Tree City USA simply because we have an ineffective ordinance? I would hope that we could continue this recognition because we have trees and value our urban forests. The tree ordinance must be strengthened by: Raising the mitigation fees consistent with the economic and esthetic value. Eliminate the mitigation option of on-sitelantin replacement trees. P g of 1 000042 Planting and monitoring of trees by ANTA using Tree Fund monies is more effective. Strengthen the ordinance not weaken it,and then enforce it. I strongly urge the Council to step back from this issue,appoint a committee representative of the community to review and recommend changes,if any to this vital document. This committee must be able to: "Just say Ito", if indicated,and, Answer the question,"How much is enough"? John J.McGoff Atascadero,CA 461-1125 2 000043, Attachment: BB Atascadero City Council Meeting Date: May 26, 1998 May 25, 1998 Atascadero City Council: I am writing in support of the existing tree ordinance which maintains the rural, sylvan character of Atascadero. I see no need to create a Southern California-like Suburban sprawl by weakening the present ordinance. In fact according to my observations the existing ordinance needs more rigorous enforcement. Let's help maintain the quality of life that we've come to appreciate here in Atascadero. Sincerely yours, James E. Thomas Veda S. Thomas 10695 Vista Rd. Atascadero, CA 000044 Attachment: CC Atascadero City Council Meeting Date: May 26, 1998 May 26, 1998 Honorable Mayor and members of the Council: Our General Plan starts with the statement that the long-term protection of the environment should be a primary guiding criteria for public policy decision. At the Council's recent $5,000 2 day Strategic Planning Workshop, the council identified as their shared vision: 1 . a) Maintain rural atmosphere, protect.natural environment. At the same Workshop Council identified as their priority for special emphasis for 1998- 2000 2. c) Environmental Planning. If Council and staff have any integrity, how is the proposal before us possible? oppose any further weakening of the Tree Ordinance. Anyone who is familiar with the history of tree protection and the ordinance knows that the present ordinance seriously weakened what we had previously. The opponents of tree protection did not get what they wanted, neither) did the people that wanted strong protection. It was a compromise, supported by Bob Nimmo, Dave Bewley, George Highland, Bonita Borgeson, George Luna and many others. Today this compromise is under attack. It is suggested to exempt new roads, all parcels under 5 acres and lot splits creating 4 or less lots. This would make a mockery out of the Ordinance, exempting about 95% of the city's remaining oak forest. In the past Community Development Directors followed the City's rules. The Tree Ordinance went for public hearing to the Planning Commission with an in-depth analysis of each issue and recommendation from staff. From there it went to the Council for two hearings. New management has brought with it a new system. The Tree Ordinance appears on the Council agenda under "Management Report" without any analysis, General Plan or CEQA compliance report or recommendation. Based on a list of possible changes, staff is shopping for 3 votes on what changes to incorporate and bring back to them for approval, decision making without information and circumventing our Ordinance. At first glance it appears that staff listed all issues raised in the letters received before October 1, 1997. A closer look tells a different story. There was overwhelming support for strong tree protection. Out of 60 people's comments, only one person asked to weaken the Ordinance. Staff asks Council to consider adjusting the fees for tree removal. They do not disclose that 15 people asked to raise fees. No one asked to .lower them. Staff a exempting asks Council to consider exem tin all new roads, lots under 5 acres and lot splits creating 4 or less parcels. They do not disclose that only one person asked to do so, all others opposed such exemptions. UOOU45 32 people asked that the city employ someone knowledgeable in resource management. 0 Staff requests that such a position be considered only in the overall staffing needs of the city. Interesting, they wanted to reestablish the Public Works Department without such a consideration. Why did staff not include the letters in the staff report? For myself, I want the city to follow its own rules. I want the city to read and live by the General Plan. want the city's "we love our trees" talk to be followed with deed and action. want the people who don't want to preserve our magnificent native oak forest to live in the abundant treeless parts of the country. W A&- UGUA-.1 Ursula Luna 10600 San Marcos Rd. Atascadero, CA 93422 000046 Attachment: DD Atascadero City Council Meeting Date: : MU 26, 1998 4 I 8795 Morro Avenue Atascadero. California 93422 I May 26, 1998 To the members of the Atascadero City Council: I strongly object to the cutting of Atascadero's oak trees without mitigation anywhere in the colony. Our trees are and have been our greatest asset adding beauty and contributing to our clean air. Our city should not give up its trees for the sake of caring for the greedy. Respectfully, 00 D r th Srmth Y 466-9883 i ;j r 'i i E i 00004'7 Attachment: EE Atascadero City Council Meeting Date: : May 26, 1998 Atascadero City Council 6500 Palma Atascadero, CA 93422 Members of the Council: At the time the original tree ordinance was drafted, debated and approved, I was a member of the Planning Commission. At that time I felt that the adopted ordinance was well thought out and effectively protected our most valuable asset, our trees. The ordinance as later amended essentially was but a pale version of the original. However, it still required replace- ment with young trees when mature trees were removed for building purposes. Now it is being proposed to further amend the ordinance to the point that it will be essentially destroyed. This is really taking a very short term view of the needs of the people of this community. Most citizens would agree that one of the reasons they live here is because of ,pur oak woodlands. Take these woodlands away and you?i.d6 roy our most valuable asset. Sinc ly, Geraldine Brasher 3202 Monterey Rd. Atascadero CA 93422 000048 Attachment: FF Atascadero City Council Meeting Date: : May 26, 1998 May 26, 1998 Atascadero; City Council Subject :: Tre& Ordinance Honorable Mayor and Council Members : A few years ago the community engaged in long and hard debate about changing the tree ordinance we had at the time. After a great deal of giving on both sides, a compromise was reached which most certainly weakened the previous ordinance . The present attempt to throw out this compromise is an effort to kill all tree protection in our town. Perhaps th that is e councilman who shortly after election asked to intent of the , Y � have the Tree Ordinance reviewed. If I were that councilman, I would feel very uncomfortable in that seat tonight. Why? 1 . After asking for the review, he submitted a letter calling for specific changes . At that same time 60 people wrote letters saying, "Either strengthen the ordinance or leave it alone . " His was the sole letter calling for undermining the tree ordinance . 2 . The chan-os he asked for are the ones before us tonight : a. exempt '; all new roads, b. exempt all lots under 5 acres, c . exempt all lot splits creating 4 or less lots . Exempt them from what? From review., fees , fines , tree replacement , paying into the tree Fund--from any fore of mitigation for cutting down trees , be they 10 or 200 years old? You, wanna ' build on 4.9 acres? trees in the way? cut 'em down. No penalties . You want to split ,your lot to build 4 houses instead of 1? You wanna remove all the trees; No problem. you're developing acreage with roads--trees are on the roads`? Cut 'em down.! Pio replacement , no Tree Fund, no fees, no penalties . 3. The obvious question is :. "Why would a councilman make such a proposal which flies in the face of -the General Plan and in the face of public opinion?.'j 4. The obvious answer:. Financial gain. The councilman,and his partner who does most of the current building in Atascadero, will save! a lot of money by doing away with tree mitigation. In addition some fine lumber and firewood should prove to be very remunerative . 000049 pg 2 McNeil Tree Ordinance The conclusion has to be that Mr. Lerno has a blatant conflict of monetary interest. A very large portion of the public perceives it as such. We are asking why he is still sitting on that hot seat. How can he possibly parti- cipate in this discussion with any objectivity? he should step down. Dorothy I��ICNeil 8765 S rra Vista Rd. Atasca ero, CA 93422 000050 Attachment: GG Atascadero City Council Meeting Date: : May 26, 1998 May 26, 1998 To: Atascadekro City Council From: Catharine H. Young 6820 San Gabriel Rd. Atascadero, Ca. 93422 Re: Proposed Changes in Atascadero Tree Ordinance I am totally apposed to the proposed changes in Atascadero's Tree Ordinance. Trees are a major part of nature's infrastructure; benefits are shelter, food, cover to wildlife and humans, windbreaks and home landscaping with as much as 10 to 15 percent reduction in cooling costs. Trees play a major role in rural and small surburban communities: through their height and density they force wind up and over neighborhoods and the community as a whole. By weakening our City's TREE ORDINANCE we are damaging a major part of our environment and in turn weakening our local economy. It is difficult to place a monetary value on the benefits people derive from trees; it is not difficult to figure out ''who benefits monetanly from tree removal and land development. Thank you for keeping our Tree Ordinance in tact. nd -,O 000051 6la�l Attachment: HH Atascadero City Council Meeting Date: : May 26, 1998 Cooncvlrn-Qn `�h� e �� � "S esserc� c�-t}r�� ►on is dor 4zi c U- r-e-es throv3 ho cKf or Fo Ut t S i o cjr r o hd -fir-e-es a re- boo t �enttr �ht coo u ers��� o� . J -�.rauel tht ovs _e 1 n cr-ec,s �S Is 4-- r v 1J u a U'e- S S i Y31 thc' w p ck- rf- s�O e ve d cit h k S f o p 0 `rine S hem e o� n�e o o u.r ho ► a ������� ax-\8 s[�-e_.I fieri n o�l�S 5 Dir ex LS o rd i ncL nc< us�'eno I ro h rn-e-nt , h-e chcLn5 es so (; 5es�-ed � W ©Ldp p(A So Yn -e X oYS �-O `trwo W2- b-e, Ymoo�. Y m i n Ther-e,- _f0fz.. -eoe.r on- , C Y\oL 30s-t �t e Aeoe- curers) ou.c'[L cA b-e, Q-4e cte d b r hcs -e s �� • �' L),) Uj cwted 000052 f Attachment: II Atascadero City Council Meeting Date: : MU 26, 1998 1 tIJ u - --� � - n � l 9�� 000053 I Attachment: JJ Atascadero City Council Meeting Date: : May 26, 1998 I John W. McNeil 8765 Sierra Vista Atascadero, CA 93422 { City Council Atascadero, CA Honorable Mayor and Council Members : j Our city was planned with remarkable ingenuity and foresight . Lots increased in size the further situated from the downtown site . And no one would have imagined the plague of lot splits which eroded our General Plan. Now the developers, who else , want to revise our Tree Ordinance to permit cutting down trees on all Colony roads, on all parcels less than 5 acres , and in connection with almost all lot splits . What audacity! What an outrage ! Our trees make Atascadero unique in its rural atmosphere . the Tree Ordinance proposed revision would make Atascadero just another ordinary city. Save our trees ! Save, our city ! 0 Sincerely, —A-Atowo 000054 Attachment: KK Atascadero City Council: Meeting Date: : MU 26, 1998 May 26, 199 To Atascadero City Council From: Katharine M. Barthels Subject: Proposed change in City Tree Ordinance I am a 19-near resident and homeowner in Atascadero and am one of the many who appreciate the wonderful environment created by the nature around us. Preservation of our trees is key to maintaining its quality; they serve to protect the land and its animals as well as mitigate summer temperature extremes and air and noise pollution. 1 am against the proposal to change the tree ordinance as it now stands in order to permit more destruction of gees for development. The proposal will benefit individuals who would profit from cheaper and easier building projects on smaller parcels. Ibis proposal does not appear to have been made in the best interest of this beautiful city, its residents, and its wildlife. I urge the city council to be a responsible steward of our environmentby enforcing the present ordinance and looking for proposals to strengthen it, not. weaken it, as this proposal would do. Thanlyou for acting responsibly in this matter. 000055 Attachment: LL Atascadero City Council Meeting Date: : May 26, 1998 May 25, 1998 Attention: All Atascadero City Council Members I am strongly opposed to any weakening of our tree ordinance. If anything it should be strengthened and enforced more in the future. It takes hundreds of years for an oak tree to reach full maturity. Please protect and save our wonderful trees. Thank you, Ernest Perlich 8755 Sierra Vista Road Atascadero, California 93422 w • 000056 Attachment: MM Atascadero City Council Meeting Date: : May 26, 1998 s G � d C4 00005'7 05/26/98 TUE 03:04 FAX 8054668200 0 001 Attachment: NN Atascadero City Council Meeting Date: : May 26, 1998 ['S R. S. Kolemaine 1 P.O. Sox 19901 Atascadero CA 93423-19901 FAX1Fone(805)466-WOO lelfenix0aol-com Atascadero City Council 6550 Palma Avenue Pest-it'brand fax transmittal memo 7671 #of pages. l Atascadero CA 93422 �A/.ap= 114--!< Fromme..r Ca e:- 26 2& May 98 Dept. Phone# yam, SUB): Fixed Route Urban Transit Gentlemen.: With respect to the above staff report on your Council agenda for this date, I would like to submit the following comments for your consideration. Having thoroughly reviewed the submittal by Laidlaw Transportation regarding providing a mixed DAR and Fixed Route transit system for our citizen's use, I find these questions in meed of further clarification at this time. (a) The Laidlaw proposal indicates a total annual cost for their expert services in the amount of $215,517 for next year, increasing to $225,801 the next year and $233,0 the third year. While this appears substantially lower than costs for the existing DAM service, these figures omit Fuel and Variable Maintenance costs (to be provided by the City). My estimates for these costs would increase the actual cost to the City to $348,000 in the first year. While this appears to be a lower figure than our city's current expenditure, it also does not take into consideration the $10,000 being requested by Mr. Cherry for fixed route start-up costs. (b) Since Laidlaw's cost breakdown appears to be based on the suggested routes put forth by Nelson\Nygaard, (Laidlaw foresees only 9,700 operating hours annually) and since the routes proposed by Mr. Jewell of N\N do not follow the public recommendations previously made available to the City, the valid question at hand is to what extent Laidlaw's quotes remain completely valid, and to what extent the City should anticipate future modifications as experience should indicate ? (c:) Since the City does not now employ anyone on staff with adequate management experience familiar with transit operations (in comparison to the millions of passenger miles Laidlaw now operates successfully) how and when will the City conduct the TDA-mandated annual "unmet needs" required in order to identify these potential modifications hereafter, and (d) Given the forlorn effort (never) previously undertaken by N\N and/or the City's previously assigned °in-house" transit service manager, could not this type of sury .. e undertakers by Laidlaw's management experts at this time to in order to establish bend data suffi ient to base future modifications upon ? Ay ush Kole acne 000058 f ITEM NUMBER: A - 2 DATE: 06/23/98 MINUTES ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY,JUNE 9, 1998 r if CLOSED SESSION 6:30 P.M.: 1) Confe>ence with labor negotiator(Govt. Code Sec. 54957.6) Agenc�Negotiator: City Manager Empl Zee organizations: Department Heads, Mid-Management/Professional, Atasc ero Fire Captains, Atascadero Firefighters, Service Employees Intl. Union Local X20, Atascadero Sergeants Service Orgn., Atascadero Police Officers Assoc. Atascadero Public Safety Technicians Orgn. 2) Conference with legal counsel (Govt. Code Sec. 54956.9 (b)) Significant exposure to litigation. E 3) Conference with negotiator over real property(Govt. Code Sec. 54956.8) Negotktor: City Manager Proper*y location: 6500 Palma Ave. City Attorney Roy Hanley announced the Council gave direction to the City Manager during Closed Session. REGULAR SESSION, 7:00 P.M.: S s Mayor Carden called the Regular Session to order at 7:10 p.m. and Mayor Pro Tem Johnson led the Pledge of Allegiance. i ROLL CALL: Present: ' Council Members Clay, Johnson, Lerno, Luna and Mayor Carden Absent: None Others Present: City Clerk Marcia M. Torgerson Staff Present: g City Manager Wade McKinney, Police Chief Dennis Hegwood, Community Services Director Brady Cherry,Acting Finance Director Rachelle Rickard,Community Development Director Paul Saldana, r Assistant City Engineer John Neil, and City Attorney Roy Hanley. 4 000059 APPROVAL OF AGENDA: MOTION: By Mayor Pro Tem Johnson and seconded by Council Member Luna to approve the agenda. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote, COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REPORTS: Mayor Carden asked about single signature authority process for plan checks. He stated that it is taking place in Fresno and asked that City Manager Wade McKinney look into it as an option for Atascadero. CORRESPONDENCE: 1. Letter from SLO Council Member David Romero re: Vehicle License Fee - (Staff recommendation: Council approve Resolution No. 1998-023 supporting the elimination of the Vehicle License Fee ONLYIF such phasing-out is linked to a constitutionally- guaranteed replacement revenue source. City Manager Wade McKinney gave a brief explanation and answered questions of the Council. PUBLIC COMMENT Eric Greening, 7365 Valle, stated that he supports this Resolution. Mayor Carden closed the Public Comment period. MOTION: By Council Member Luna and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Johnson to approve Resolution No. 1998-023, supporting the elimination of the Vehicle License Fee ONLY IF such phasing-out is linked to a constitutionally-guaranteed replacement revenue source. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. PRESENTATIONS: 1. Amtrak's San Diegan Rail Corridor- Presentation of a plaque to the City by Eileen McNally, Government and Public Affairs Officer for Amtrak. Robert Crego of Amtrak presented Mayor Carden with a plaque. 2. Proclamation- Proclaiming June 22 and June 23, 1998 as California Special Olympics Law Enforcement Torch Run Day. CC 06/09/98 0000s� Page 2 of 9 COMMUNITY FORUM: Eric Greening, 7365 Valle, stated that he does not approve of the change of location for the Atascadero Farmers' Market. Mayor Carden responded by explaining that the City has attempted to convince the Farmers' Market Association to stay in the Sunken Gardens but they said that the move was in large part because of American Disabilities Act issues. Council Member Clay stated that all they would have to do is turn the trucks around and they would be in compliance. Community Services Director Brady Cherry stated that he concurred that the City staff did meet with the Farmers' Market representatives and tried to persuade them to remain in the Sunken Gardens. They stated they were also concerned about visibility and felt that the Payless parking lot will offer better exposure for them. Eileen Allan, Atascadero, stated that she wanted to speak on item C-1 and wanted to make sure that she would be able to speak at that time. Mayor Carden stated that she would be able to speak on the item when it comes up on the agenda. Mayor Carden closer Community forum. A. CONSENT CALENDAR: Roll Call 1. City Council Minutes—May 12, 1998— (City Clerk recommendation:Approve) . 2. Review of Liquor License Applications—Delegation of authority to the City Manager— Fiscal Impact: None (Staff recommendation: Council delegate to the City Manager, or his designee, authority to review applications for liquor licenses) [Paul Saldana] 3. Zone Change',#98001 —Planned Development Overlay Zone No. 8 (Gearhart/Cannon Associates)—'';Fiscal Impact: None (Staff recommendation: Waive reading of Ordinance No. 348 and introduce for second reading by title only) [Paul Saldana] 4. Priority of Prgjects—Approve the priority for the Surface Transportation Program (STP) projects and the Transportation Enhancement Activity TEA) projects—Fiscal Impact: None (Staff recommendation: Council approve, by Minute Order, the priority for the STP projects and the TEA projects for which funding applications have been submitted) [Brady Cherry] 5. Transportatiog Enhancement Activity (TEA) Funding Applications—Approve the TEA applications slubmitted to the SLOCOG—Fiscal Impact: $1,200 (Staff recommendation: Council approve, by Minute Order, the TEA funding applications submitted to the SLOCOG) [Brady Cherry] 6. Acceptance of Final Parcel Map #96005 - Adjust lot lines between three existing lots of record— 14280 Morro Road (Yanes) - Fiscal Impact: None (Staff recommendation: Council accept Final Parcel Map 996005) [Paul Saldana] CC 06/09/98 000061 Page 3 of 9 i 7. General Municipal Election—November 3, 1998—Fiscal Impact: ±$12,000 (City Clerk recommendations: 1. Council adopt Resolution No. 1998-024 calling and giving notice of the holding of a General Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, November 3, 1998, and 2. Council adopt Resolution No. 1998-025 requesting the Board of Supervisors of the County of SLO to consolidate a General Municipal Election to be held on November 3, 1998) [Marcia Torgerson] Council Member Luna pulled Items#A-1 &2. Council Member Lerno pulled Item#A-3. Rush Kolemaine, P.O. Box 1990, pulled Items#A-4 & 5. MOTION: By Council Member Luna and seconded by Council Member Clay to approve Item #A-6, accepting Final Parcel Map#96005 and Item#A- 7, approving Resolution Nos. 1998-024 and 1998-025, calling and giving notice of the holding of a General Municipal Election and requesting consolidation with San Luis Obispo County. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. RE: Item #A-1 - Council Member Luna asked that the following be inserted into the minutes for May 12, 1998 on page 5 under Item#C-1: Council Member Luna asked if everybody in the Urban Services Line hooked up, what would we need as far as capacity in the sewer. He asked that they make the assumption i that all of a sudden, it's a cease and desist area. Mr. Cherry conferred with Mr. Markwort and stated that they did not feel they could answer that question. MOTION: By Council Member Luna and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Johnson to approve Item #A-1 with the following amendment: Council Member Luna asked if everybody in the Urban Services Line hooked up, what would we need as far as capacity in the sewer. He asked that they make the assumption that all of a sudden, it's a cease and desist area. Mr. Cherry conferred with Mr. Markwort and stated that they did not feel they could answer that question. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. RE: Item #A-2 - Council Member Luna stated that he could not support this item as he doesn't feel comfortable delegating to one person without any Council input. He stated that he felt it should at least come to Council on the Consent Calendar. There was discussion between staff and the Council concerning the current process,which is to have staff review the liquor applications, versus having the Council review the applications. PUBLIC COMMENT Wayne Hansen, 4634 Portola Road, member of the SLO County Substance Abuse Prevention Alliance and also an employee of SLO County Drug and Alcohol Services, expressed his CC 06/09/98 Page 4 of 9 000062 concern that liquor licenses are kept to a minimum. He stated that the City needs to make sure that the public has an opportunity to let you know their concerns. John McGoff, 9192 Maple, asked if there are zoning controls where liquor stores can locate. Mayor Carden answered, yes. Mr. McGoff stated that he sees no reason to fast track liquor stores. Jim Harris, represents';SLO County RID (Remove Intoxicated Drivers), stated that they sit on the DUI Task Force and work with Drug and Alcohol Services. He said that RID recently tried to stop Cal Poly from getting a liquor license for the Performing Arts Center because they knew that other applications for liquor licenses on campus would follow. Mr. Harris explained that under the guidelines of the ABC, Cal Poly is eligible to receive 15 separate liquor licenses. He encouraged the Council to vote no on this item. Paul Hamon, 10760 Colorado Road, Director of the SLO County Drug and Alcohol Services, stressed that public access and public comment periods needs to be kept open concerning the issuance of liquor licenses. Dorothy McNeil, 8765 Sierra Vista, asked why Council would want to have one person review liquor licenses and give up their ability to review them. She pointed out that every time the Council delegates a responsibility of theirs to a staff member you are also shutting out the public from being able to have input. Mayor Carden closed the Public Comment period. Mayor Carden stated that currently staff reviews the liquor licenses. He said he felt that by turning that responsibility back over to the Council, it would politicize the issue. Mayor Pro Tem Johnson stated that he could support the Council reviewing liquor licenses. Council Member Lerno expressed his opinion that he would prefer the Council review liquor licenses. Council Member Clay, said that he is in favor of liquor license applications coming to the Council. MOTION: By Council Member Luna and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Johnson to approve the direction that staff is to report to Council on the Consent Calendar any applications for liquor licenses, for Council approval. Motion passed 5:0 by a voice vote. RE: Item#A-3 - Council Member Lerno pulled this item as he must abstain due to a conflict of interest. MOTION: By Mayor Pro Tem Johnson and seconded by Council Member Clay to approve Item#A-3, adopting Ordinance No. 348,waiving reading in full and introducing for second reading by title only. Motion passed 3:1 by a roll-call vote. (Luna opposed,Lerno abstained) CC 06/09/98 Page 5 of 9 U00063 RE: Items#A-4 & 5 -Rush Kolemaine, P.O. Box 1990, stated that he feels the agenda did not have adequate information for the public on these items. Community Services Director Brady Cherry gave a staff report to explain to the public the details of these transportation items. Mayor Carden announced that SLOCOG has attempted to authorize as much as possible realizing that there might be additional funding. He also stated that Atascadero's staff is definitely doing one of the best jobs of getting into SLOCOG and getting in with the COG staff so that our projects meet the cut-off criteria and are most likely to get funded. MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Johnson and seconded by Council Member Clay to approve Item#A-4, approving the priority for the STP projects and the TEA projects for which funding applications have been submitted, and Item #A-5, approving the TEA funding applications submitted to the SLOCOG. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. B. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. General Plan Amendment#97010/Zone Change#97011 —Amending the land use designation from"Public"to "Commercial Park"between 1200-1800 El Camino Real (Davidson)—Fiscal Impact: Positive (Planning Commission recommendations: 1. Council find the Negative Declaration prepared for this project to be adequate under the provisions of CEQA and the State and local guidelines for the implementation of that Act. 2. Council approve Resolution #1998-022 approving General Plan Amendment#97010. 3. Council adopt Ordinance No. 349, waive reading in full and introduce for first reading by title only, approving Zone Change #97011. [Paul Saldana] Community Development Director Paul Saldana gave the staff report and answered questions of Council. Council Member Luna asked staff to include the minutes of the Planning Commission meetings with any items where the Planning Commission is making a recommendation to Council. PUBLIC COMMENT Sheri Danoff, Cannon Associates, commended staff on their evaluation and stated that she is available for questions. MOTION: By Mayor Pro Tem Johnson and seconded by Council Member Luna to find the Negative Declaration prepared for this project to be adequate under the provisions of CEQA and the State and local guidelines for the implementation of that Act. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. 40 CC 06/09/98 000064 Page 6 of 9 MOTION: By Mayor Pro Tem Johnson and seconded by Council Member Clay to approve Resolution#1998-022, approving General Plan Amendment#97010. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. MOTION: By Mayor Pro Tem Johnson and seconded by Council Member Luna to adopt Ordinance No. 349,waive reading in full and introduce for first reading by title only, approving Zone Change.#97011. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. Mayor Carden called for a recess at 8:20 p.m. C. MANAGEMENT REPORTS: 1. Financial Strattegy 1998-99—Review of the Strategies and Policies used to develop the Annual Operating and Capital Budgets—Fiscal Impact: None (Staff recommendation: Council review the 1998-99 Financial Strategy and set June 23, 1998 as a public hearing for the Annual Operating and Capital Budgets) [Wade McKinney] City Manager Wade McKinney gave the staff report. All the Council Members expressed their appreciation to Mr. McKinney and Ms. Rickard for all of their hard work in preparing the Financial Strategy and Budget. The Council asked several questions to clarify the information included in the report. Council Member Luna also asked Assistant City Engineer John Neil to answer questions concerning the Pavement Survey. Council Member Luna stated, in regards to bonds on the ballot in November 1998, that after seeing what happened in Paso Robles he didn't feel we would be able to put something on the ballot and have the public support it. He went on to say that he didn't have any objection to putting a bond on the',ballot as long as it doesn't cost the City a lot of money. Mayor Carden stated that he agreed with Council Member Luna because if we don't give the voters the choice, then the Council is making the choice of no for them. Council Member Luna said that he would support staff coming back to Council with a proposal as to putting a bond measure on the ballot. He asked if the City Clerk knew how much it would cost to put a bond on',the ballot. City Clerk Marcia Torgerson stated since this is her first election, she does not know what a bond on the ballot would cost. However, Atascadero is already paying to have an election and she stated that she would,:guess that it would be a nominal charge to add another item. She went on to state that she would find out what the exact costs would be and bring the information back to Council. Council Member Clay expressed his concern for putting a bond on the ballot without knowing where the public stands on the issue and without estimating the cost of advertising and the election itself. CC 06/09/98 Page 7 of 9 00006 L PUBLIC COMMENT Rush Kolemaine,P.O. Box 1990, commended Mr. McKinney and Ms. Rickard on their hard work at preparing the information in such a way that everyone will be able to compare apples to apples. Pam Marshall, 7825 Valle Ave., stated to Council Member Clay that she felt the new budget is a good start of a foundation for a good public relations campaign to educate the citizens of Atascadero. Mayor Carden closed the Public Comment period. Mr. McKinney introduced and explained the proposed 1998-99 budget. Mayor Carden stated that the budget will be on the next Council agenda on June 23, 1998. 2. Cuesta College North County Extension—Architects of North County Extension asking for meeting with North County Council representative -Fiscal Impact: None (Staff recommendation: Designate North County Council representatives to attend meeting with architects of the Cuesta College North County Extension) [Wade McKinney] City Manager Wade McKinney gave a brief staff report. Mayor Carden appointed Mayor Pro Tem Johnson and Council Member Luna to attend the meeting with the Cuesta College Architects. 0 3. Information Bulletin D. COMMITTEE REPORTS S.L.O. Council of Governments/S.L.O. Regional Transit Authority Mayor Carden stated that they Highway 41 issue came up again for a vote and an additional $400,000 was authorized for that project as well as the rating of the projects that were submitted by our City staff. Economic Round Table Mayor Pro Tem Johnson suggested that the City needs to decide whether the ERT will continue. He asked staff to come back to Council with a recommendation. County Mayor's Round Table Mayor Carden stated that 2 important items came up at this meeting. 1. How are we going to fund roads in the County. 2. EVC Economic Vitality Corporation, Board of Directors Mayor Pro Tem Johnson announced that they have an annual planning meeting scheduled on June 24, 1998. The City Managers have been invited and Paul Saldana has been invited to speak at the meeting. CC 06/09/98 Page 8 of 9 000066 City/ Schools Committee Mayor Carden announced that the next meeting will be in August and the City is hosting. E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION: City Council Council Member Lunn asked if there will be routes to school in place for the fall. Mayor Carden responded that no, the''routes will not be in place by fall. He explained that the program has been submitted through SL6COG for funding, $175,000. Mayor Pro Tem Johnson announced that he will be out of town this week and next week on business. Mayor Carden announced that he will be out of town for the next 2 Council meetings. F. ADJOURNMENT: Mayor Carden adjourned the Regular Session at 10:05 p.m. to the Redevelopment Agency Meeting immediately following this meeting. MINUTES RECORDED AND PREPARED BY: Marcia M. Torgerson, City Clerk CC 06/09/98 000067 Page 9 of 9 ITEM NUMBER: A - 3 : ....... DATE: o6;23/98 f City Manager's Agenda Report Wade G. McKinney Zone Change 97011 (1200-1800 El Camino Real; Davidson) RECOMMENDATION: f The Planning Commission recommends that: C .. 1. The Council adoOt by Title only, waiving second reading, Ordinance 349 approving Zone Change 97011. a DISCUSSION: On June 9, 1998, the (ity`Council held a public hearing on General Plan Amendment 97010 and Zone Change 97011. After finding that the Negative Declaration prepared for the project was adequate, both amendments were approved. Second reading of Ordinance 349 is now anticipated to occur as a routine ratter. RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT: Community Development P ATTACHMENT: Ordinance#349 4 r 6 a i i p F t v 000068 ORDINANCE NO. 349 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AMENDING MAP 4 OF THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAPS BY REZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1200-1800 EL CAMINO REAL FROM PUBLIC TO COMMERCIAL PARK (ZC 97011; Davidson) WHEREAS, the proposed zoning map amendment is consistent with the General Plan as required by Section 65860 of the California Government Code; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment is in conformance with Section 65800 et seq. of the California Government Code concerning zoning regulations; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment will not have a significant adverse impact upon the environment. The Negative Declaration prepared for the project is adequate;and WHEREAS, the Atascadero Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 1.9, 1998 and has recommended approval of Zone Change 97011. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does ordain as follows: Section 1. Council Findings. 1. The proposal is compatible with the surrounding land use and zoning. 2. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element and other elements contained in the General Plan. 3. The proposal will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts. The Negative Declaration prepared for the project is adequate. Section 2. 'Zoning Maw Map number 4 of the Official Zoning Maps of the City of Atascadero on file in the City Community Development Department is hereby amended as shown on the attached Exhibit A which is hereby made a part of this ordinance by reference. Section 3. Zoning Ordinance Text. Zoning Ordinance Section 9-3.253 (Conditional Uses) is hereby amended by the addition of the following land use categories: a) Animal hospitals b) Membership organizations c) Mini storage Section 4. Publication. The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published once within fifteen(15) days 000069 after its passage in the Atascadero News, a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published, and circulated in the City in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code; shall certify the adopting and posting of this ordinance and shall cause this ordinance and this certification together with proof of posting to be entered into the Book of Ordinances of the City. Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance 'shall go into effect and be in full force and effect at 12:01 a.m, on the 31st day after its passage. On motion by and seconded by the foregoing Ordinance is approved by the following role call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: DATE ADOPTED: By: HAROLD L. CARDEN III, Mayor ATTEST: MARCIA TORGERS N, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROY A. HANLEY, City Attorney -0000'70 EXHIBIT A ORDINANCE #349 Zoning Ordinance Amendment#97011 1200-1800 El Camino Real(City of Atascadero) 4 \ --mum �� \ n it 11 O 11cc 40 Or \�o N I I _0 Q A\ V ql CAMINo qEq` II S4 _ o/ 1 � ACIA cr O u Rpp Gia M O EXISTING DESIGNATION: Public(P) NEW DESIGNATION: Commercial Park(CPK) '0000'71 Y ITEM NUMBER: A - 4 'r DATE: 06/23/98 _■ on ■ e - 1918 p 19 9 t `r CiV Manat er's Agenda Report Wade G. McKie ney Graves Creek Road Overlay Project RECOMM ENDOON: Staff recommends Council authorize the Mayor to execute an agreement with Souza Construction, Inc. fdr construction of the Graves Creek Road Overlay Project (Bid No. 97-04). f Ii P DISCUSSION: 4 w The Graves Creek Road Overlay Project is identified in the FY 97-98 budget adopted by Council. The proje�t will rehabilitate the pavement between Monterey Road and Ardilla Road. New drainage improvements will be constructed and existing drainage culverts will be replaced with larger culverts which conform to current City Standards. Formal bids for the Project were received and publicly opened on June 4, 1998. Consistent with City procuremornt policies, the award of the contract requires Council approval. The bids have been checked f�r completeness and accuracy. Staff finds Souza Construction, Inc. to be the lowest responsible bidder G A bid summary prefared by the City Clerk and an itemized bid summary are attached to this report for reference:! The low bid was submitted p � to by Souza Construction, Inc. in the amount of $305,073.00. The laid exceeds the initial budget for the project, staff will work with the contractor to lower tie overall cost of construction. d FISCAL IMPACT: I E EXPENDITURES Const ction $305,073.00 Conti$gency @ 5% $15,254.00 p Const° ction Engineering @ 10% $30,507.00 TOTAL $350,834.00 0000'72 ITEM NUMBER: A - 4 DATE: 06/23/98 REVENUES Fund 705 - Streets & Bridges Fees $350,834.00 TOTAL $350,834.00 ALTERNATIVES: 1 Award Contract as bid. 2. Do Not Award Contract. Graves Creek Road is in poor condition and is in need of rehabilitation. Maintenance on the road has been deferred for several years. Delaying the project may result in more costly forms of rehabilitation. Additional liability may be incurred by the City as a result of a severely deteriorated roadway surface. 3. Revise Project Scope and Re-bid. The project as proposed includes the improvements necessary to address existing pavement and drainage deficiencies. The project could be re- bid eliminating or reducing certain items of work. Re-bidding the project will result in delays to the much needed pavement rehabilitation work. A project with a reduced scope of work may result in a shorter life expectancy for the pavement and may not adequately address existing drainage deficiencies. RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT: Community Services Department ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A - Construction Agreement Attachment B - Bid Summary Attachment C - Itemized Bid Summary 0000'73 Attachment A - Construction Agreement AGREEMENT For The Construction of GRAVES CREEK ROAD OVERLAY PROJECT This agreement is made and entered into this day of 19_, at Atascadero, California, by and between the City of Atascadero, hereinafter referred to as "City", and (name of individual or firm) hereinafter referred to as "Contractor". Whereas, the'Contractor, as will appear by reference to the records of the Proceedings of the City, was duly awarded the contract for the Work hereinafter mentioned. Now, Therefore, it is hereby agreed that: Article 1 - Witnesseth, that for and in consideration of the payment and agreements hereinafter mentioned, to be made and performed by said City, and under the conditions expressed in the two, bonds, bearing even date with these present, and hereunto annexed, said Contractor agrees with said City, at its own cost and expense, to do all the work and furnish all l materials, except such as are mentioned in the Contract Documents to be furnished by the City, necessary to construct and complete in good, workmanlike and substantial manner the above-described work in accordance with the Contract Documents as listed `!herein and are by such reference made a part hereof. Article 2 - The said City hereby promises and agrees with the said Contractor to employ, and does hereby employ, the said Contractor to provide the materials and to do the Work according to the terms and conditions herein contained and referred to, for the price aforesaid, and hereby contracts to pay the same at the time, in the manner, and upon the conditionsabove set forth; and the said parties for themselves, their heirs, executors, and administrators. Article 3 - The said Contractor agrees to receive and accept the price stated in the Bid Sheet(s) as full compensation for furnishing all materials and for doing all the work contemplated and embraced in this Agreement; also for all loss or damage arising out of the nature of the work aforesaid, or from the action of the elements, or from any unforeseen difficulties or obstructions which may arise or be encountered in the Graves Creek Road Overlay Project Bid No. 97-04 0000'74 prosecution of the Work until its acceptance by the said City and for all expenses • incurred by or in consequence of the suspension or discontinuance of the Work; and for well and faithfully completing the Work, and the whole thereof in the manner and according to the requirements of the Contract Documents therefore, and the requirements of the Engineer under their terms, to wit: Article 4 It is expressly agreed by and between the parties hereto that the Contract Documents shall consist of the Notice to Bidders, Proposal, Bid Sheet(s), Certification of Affirmative Action Program, Contractor's Licensing Statement, List of Subcontractors, Bid Security, Non-Collusion Affidavit, Agreement, Faithful Performance Bond, Labor and Materials Bond, Maintenance Bond, Worker's Compensation Certificate, Notice of Award, Notice to Proceed, Special Provisions, and the project Plans. In addition, all Change Orders and Work Directive Changes authorizing additions, deletions, or modifications, and all appendices, bulletins and addenda as prepared prior to the date of opening Bids setting forth any modifications or corrections or interpretations of any of said documents. In the event of any conflict between the provisions thereof, the terms of said documents shall control over each other in the following order: 1. Agreement 2. Change Orders and Work Directive Changes 3 Addenda 0 4. Notice To Bidders 5. Contract Proposal 6. Special Provisions 7. Contract Plans 8. City of Atascadero Standard Specifications and Drawings 9. State of California Department of Transportation Standard Specifications, July 1992, or the latest edition thereof. Article 5 - The Contractor agrees to commence work pursuant to this Contract within 10 working days from the date specified in the Notice to Proceed, and to diligently prosecute the same to completion within forty five (45) working days from the date of commencement as specified in the Notice To Proceed. Article 6 - For any withhold of amounts earned by the Contractor (under Paragraph 2), the Contractor may substitute securities as provided in Section 22300 of the Public Contract Code, as amended, which states in part as follows: Provisions shall be included in any invitation for bid and in any contract documents to permit the substitution of securities for any moneys withheld by a public agency to ensure performance under a contract, provided that substitution Graves Creek Road Overlay Project 0 Bid No. 97-04 0000'75 of securities';provisions shall not be required in contracts in which there will be financing provided by the Farmers Home Administration of the United States Department:of Agriculture pursuant to the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act V U.S.C. Sec. 1921 et seq.), and where federal regulations or policies,or both, do not allows the substitution of securities. At the request and expense of the contractor, securities equivalent to the amount withheld shall be deposited with the public agency, or with a state or federally chartered bank in California as the escrow agent, who shall then pay such moneys to the contractor. Upon satisfactory completion of the contract, the securities shall be returned to the contractor. Alternatively, the contractor may request and the owner shall make payment of retentions earned directly to the escrow agent at the expense of the contractor. At the expense', of the contractor, the contractor may direct the investment of the payments into securities and the contractor shall receive the interest earned on the investments upon the same terms provided for in this section for securities deposited by the contractor. Upon satisfactory completion of the contract, the contractor shall receive from the escrow agent all securities, interest, and payments received by the escrow agent from the owner, pursuant to the terms of this section.'; The contractor shall pay to each subcontractor, not later than 20 days of receipt of the payment, the respective amount of interest earned, net of costs attributed to retention withheld from each subcontractor, on the amount of retention withheld to ensure the performance of the contractor. Securities eligible for investment under this section shall include those listed in Section 164130 or bank or savings and loan certificates of deposit, interest bearing demand deposit accounts, standby letters of credit, or any other security mutually agreed to by the contractor and the public agency. The contractor shall be the beneficial owner of any securities substituted for moneys withheld and shall receive any interest thereon. The escrowagreement entered into must be substantially similar to the form included inPublic Contract Code Section 22300(e). The contractor shall obtain the written consent of the surety to such agreement. If any provision of this Section shall be declared by a court of law to be illegal or unenforceable, then, notwithstanding, this Section shall remain in full force and effect (exclusive of the illegal or unenforceable provision). In Witness whereof, the parties to these present hereunto set their hands on the date first above written. Graves Creek Road Overlay Project Bid No. 97-04 0000'76 City of Atascadero By Harold L. Carden, III, Mayor ATTEST: Marcia M. Torgerson, City Clerk Approved as to form: Roy A. Hanley, Deputy City Attorney Contractor Typed or Printed Signature Title • Graves Creek Road Overlay Project • Bid No. 97-04 l 0000'77 Attachment B - Bid Summary City of A Office of the City Clerk BID SUMMARY TO: John Neil,Assistant City Engineer FROM: Marcia M. Torgerson, City Clerk BID NO.: 97-04 OPENED : 06/04/98 21,:00 p.m. PROJECT: Graves Creek Road Overlay Project (3)bids were received and opened today, as follows: Bidder Total Bid Souza Construction, Inc. P.O. Box 3903 $305,073.00 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 Madonna Construction Company P.O. Box 3910 $334,271.00 San Luis Obispo, CA 934013 A.J. Diani Construction Co:, Inc. P.O. Box 636 $368,039.00 Santa Maria, CA 93456 Attachments: 3 bids I s , i 1998 A 1� aly C.- { 1 0000'78 Attachment C - Itemized Bid Summary w o 0 0 0 0 0 o c U O O O O O O O C 0- w W Q 0 a W U it a r Z w 0 0 0 0 00 0 00 0 0 00 0 00 0 C) 0 0 0 0 o O Co 00 0 0 CD o 0 0 009 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O C) 0 0 0 0 0 C CO C) v ri r tri O) W 0 C0 v OD 0 C7 0 v (D CD Co G 0 Ci LO tri 0 tri C=) CD O O Ln O to P- CO V N to to O CD to M 1- (D O M O O CD N to r O M Q? O J C) CO LO N 00 N O CA r- to u) O M r r- ',T N CO r O O LO ti r r N O r- to O Q L) FQ- V O cr CD a0 M O V CT fl: to N (D N M r r O N 'V' r Nrl Cn 00 M OC) r to r r CO r r CD 0 CO - W Q Cf) ff3 O M C U O N Clf U (n p C W 0 O C O N CP O t!) O O O O O O O 00 O N O O O O O O CA O O O O Li Co c O M to M to r (r Co r o o V v o 0 0 0 o) o o (>o o m o m o 0 0 0 CU M G0 N N r to O O rt 0 v O N N M to O o O M 'V r to r O r M to to O a n to v N N Co Co N. Co CD M N N 0) 1- r N M to V CD - LO m Z D Z (0 r r r m LO C Z LO V) M M r m 0 Q N c O 0000 O O O O O O 00 O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O. O O O O C U O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o O O O O O O O O O O O O pO O O O O O O O O O O 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o r 0 0 0 0 Q a M O O r O to O w M O O w N to 0 0 0 (D O v to O O O r Iq 0 0 0 n U 0 , J Cl C V r t!) - - CA N O O O 'V r O W N M 0 w to N (n C) r to O M O N U O Z r Co Do to M O trr-: to v N M M Nrr N N N 0 M Cr r C O CY)CpN O C7 U °i 00 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z w 0 0 0 r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o w 0 0 0 0 0 o to 0 0 0 0 cc p .( U O O O - to to to V r O.O N N 0 0 0 0 0 C) O to CN CV O r cr O O O C 7 d Cl) R 'ITr D) CA r O O to O O O O CD r r o v O O Co W Q: p m J a. Co r to to r to N N to O N u) WQ "O C OC) M N r CV (B 0 Z n Z 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O WW= U o o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cr-to C) CC) to O O to m 0 0 v N 0 0 0 O O O O O O u) O LO O N to CD Cl) Q n V' O Co to V 0) r O CD O M (D N 1- O O O (D r N 1- O 00 000 to tr) CA n (n C U M J M � CD oo Cl) O � r O N O ti O r 0 ti r a0 M O O M M CD r Q) M a0 O Q Q O O a V Ni a0 C Cl to O (D O to N M Ci N r r tV' 1- N 6 CO M 0 . U o a' O 2 m � rn CY) ~ 0r) p 00tnvtn000000tn00000M0000000a0a0 OU O M (D O M O M to r O O M N 0 0q 0 ,Zr O O O N O O to O O O O X E" U p •Cn to O r O V V O 1` o o N N to to O o 0 0 N r M Ln O N O O to M O U O w rl- Nr V r to to 1` V O N M O) CA O) (D r N M 0 N to to to Z W N m J F CO r CA r to s- r r to r Ni M V w (0 Q U D a } to Z Z >- Z Z >- LL LL Q Q LL LL Q Q Q Q LL Q Q LL LL LL 0 LL (x_ Q Q LL < _I F F- 0 F- (n J J W W J J W Lit W W -) LL W J J _) _I U) -j W W -j it CN > IT Z r Lo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O r r 0 N IT O OO N r v � r 0 Y O 0) ¢ CD .Oa. n M r O - N N N O N r to r r Co CV r V N N V LU w Q U Urh E o N W w> o n U a Q C:) Q Tao U) m � U to < m a U) - U U F- "v C) (CN C n > T Co J c N M to - o — c U O m m (moo C,4 Fo- In U U m Cd 3 c '0 o a E (A F¢- a) a) LL to > a (o x m m 0 O T T C m LL >Q 2 w Y Y C U a) N J U) CC N O M N T ~ F- c' F- F- 'S — � F" H U 5 5 ca N n `-M o L — m 4 F- a` U .0 N a) O :? °? aj 0) 0 T x C - FT .n O. U L c N a o 0 0 c o 0 0 0 a 0) (1) 2 0 (u O ai (u CU (a � =1 � m H Z ` ` CA s_ a C C m C U U U U N a F" C7 c c � m a n c c c 2) = a) � o ac) ac) aa)) -0 `m i a a2 0� mceO c0 U02in ?ia. M a) (aaa � 0 U) C Co CC CCo M U 6 CL CLO O N O O O O N Y J: 22 " O0 aO � ODa _ U (sO o R CT O O O N CA 0) a �• N LL U < < a- < UUacn < < < < F- 0W MCLwQItU Z a W N V) Q W t0 t` W C) CR N N N 7 W W A W O) N .�- N N N N N N N N N 0000'79 ITEM NUMBER:—B- 1 DATE: 06/23/98 . an in R i Y979 t f City Mana er's Agenda Report Wade G. McKlOney r Placing Sewer Service Charges on the 1998-99 Property Tag Rolls }4 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends: Ouncil adopt Resolution No. 1998-027, authorizing placement of sewer service charges on the 1998-99 property tax rolls. DISCUSSION: City Ordinance provi�es for the collection of sewer service charges on the general County tax bills. The attached resolution has been prepared in accordance with Section 54354.5 of the Government code to accomplish the necessary collection through the 1998-99 property tax bills. In addition, a Notice �f Public Hearing has been published noticing this action. FISCAL IMPACT: p The City will bill $1,48,743.16 in sanitation service charges for Fiscal Year 1998-99. RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT: Community Services ATTACHMENTS: Resolution No. 1998-027 r 'f t f f w I4 II 't i 000080 RESOLUTION NO. 1998-027 A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO ADOPTING SERVICE CHARGES TO BE ADDED TO THE 1998-99 PROPERTY TAX ROLLS WHEREAS, Council, after due notice was given in accordance with Section 5473 of the Health and Safety code has duly held a public hearing concerning the addition of the 1998-99 service charges to the 1998-99 property tax bills; and WHEREAS, at said hearing the attached report marked "Exhibit A" containing such charges was duly received by said council; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing opportunity was given for filing objections and protests and for presentation of testimony of other evidence concerning same; and WHEREAS, it is in the public interest that this body adopt the charges and determine and confirm the report presented at the hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE, IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Atascadero, as follows: Section 1. That the recitals set forth hereinabove are true, correct and valid. Section 2. That Council hereby adopts the service charges set forth on the attached report marked "Exhibit A" which is hereby expressly incorporated herein by reference as though here fully set forth; and Council hereby determines and confirms the report containing such charges as set forth in said "Exhibit A" and hereby further determines and confirms that each and every service charge set forth in said report is true and accurate and is in fact owed. Section 3. That the charges as so confirmed and determined and adopted shall appear as separate items on the tax bill of each parcel listed in said report, and such charges shall be collected at the same time and in the same manner as ordinary County ad valorem taxes are collected, and are subject to the same penalties in the same procedure and sale in case the delinquency is provided for such taxes. Section 4. The City Clerk shall file a certified copy of this resolution and said Exhibit A with the County Auditor upon its adoption. Section 5. This resolution is approved by at least a two-thirds vote of said Council. On motion by Councilman and seconded by Councilman the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety by the following vote: 000081 Resolution No. Page 2 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED: ATTEST: CITY OF ATASCADERO Marcia M. Torgerson Harold L. Carden, III City Clerk Mayor 000082 EXHIBIT A Due to the length of this document it will not be reproduced for the agenda. A complete copy of the listing is available in the City Clerk's Office. 000083 ITEM NUMBER: B-2 ■ "" ' " DATE: 06/23/98 61-8 " ie e . E City Manager's Agenda Report Wade G. McKi�ney 1998-99 Budget E RECOMMENDt TIONS: Staff recommends: i 1. Council adopt Resolution 1998-030 amending the 1997-98 Budget(Resolution 62-97) 2. Council adopt Resolution 1998-026 adopting a budget for the 1998-99 fiscal year and delegating to he City Manager authority to implement same. REPORT IN BRIEF: Highlights p As in previous years the needs of the City/community far exceed the amount of funds available to fill those needs. Initial Council, community and department requests exceeded the amount of available funds by ver $2 million dollars. Funding for much needed equipment such as Emergency Communication Radio Repeaters, elevator repairs, park improvements and maintenance equipment was not found. However, in spite of the vast chasm between needs and resources, there is a wealth of good news included in this budget (including proposed changes to the 1997-98 budget):P ❑ Repayment, by the General Fund, of the remaining $539,583 borrowed from the Wastewater Fund. ❑ The addition�f over $134,000 to the General Fund Reserve for fiscal year 1998-99 and a reserve balan e of$1,425,891 at 06/30/99. (This is 17%of operations!) ❑ The purchase of a new financial software system. • The purchase of two new police vehicles. ❑ Approximately $150,000 set aside for employee salary adjustments. ❑ Repaymentb the Parks and Recreation Impact Fees Fund of the remaining balance owed to the Genera Fund. ❑ Establishmen of a computer replacement reserve of$61,070. r E 000084 ITEM NUMBER: DATE: 06/09/98 ❑ Construction of several capital projects including "new" projects such as the Atascadero Mall overlay, Lake Park parking lot overlay and El Camino Real crack sealing. ❑ Continued funding for projects such as the Amapoa-Tecorida storm drain project, Graves Creek Road overlay project, the Buena Avenue storm drain project and the Portola Road overlay project. A new loan of $168,080 is also proposed from the Wastewater Fund to the Amapoa-Tecorida Impact Fees Fund. This loan is intended to fund the Amapoa-Tecorida Storm Drain Project Phase I, which directly benefits the Amapoa-Tecorida area. The loan would free up Streets and Bridge Impact Fees that can be used for other projects. Revenues The City's revenues are generally consistent with the prior year. Projected General Fund revenues for fiscal year 1998-99 are $8,236,690 as.compared to an estimated $8,344,928 for fiscal year 1997-98. While some revenues are up slightly, several one-time revenues received in 1997-98 are not anticipated in 1998-99 thus causing an overall decrease. Overall City revenues are also expected to decrease slightly from $12,803,597 in fiscal year 1997-98 to $12,676,127 in the new fiscal year. Expenditures The 1998-99 proposed budget includes General Fund Expenditures of$8,102,205 as compared to $7,833,982 in 1997-98. This increase is due to increased personnel costs fromemployeesalary adjustments and full year staffing levels. As part of this budget, four new positions will be added and three part-time positions will be eliminated. The budget does not recommend funding community organizations. As revealed in the financial strategy, the City organization has many needs at this time that should be met prior to funding other interests. Overall City expenditures remain high at $15,108,985 due mostly to an aggressive capital improvement plan. An estimated $4,016,080 in capital improvements is proposed in this budget. Attached is a request for $1,500 received from the Downtown Business Improvement Association after the draft budget had been prepared. The City contributed $500 to the BIA in the 1997-98 fiscal year. Changes to the Prior Year In addition to the 1998-99 proposed budget,this document proposes the following changes to the 1997-98 budget: ❑ The General Fund pay off the remaining $539,583 loan balance to the Wastewater Fund ($100,000 was previously budgeted). 000085 ITEM NUMBER: DATE: 06/09/98 ❑ The General Fund increase the amount reserved for the replacement of the financial system from $30,000 to $179,000. (The remaining $66,000 needed for the $245,000 is budgeted in 1998-99) ❑ Increase the amount charged to the Wastewater Fund for administration to more accurately reflect actual costs. FISCAL IMPACT: Revenues of$12,676,127 and expenditures of$15,108,985 ALTERNATIVES: Council has the option to add or delete any budget item. This will decrease or increase the remaining reserve balance at June 30, 1998 by the amount adjusted. RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT: Finance ATTACHMENTS: Calculation of General Fund Reserves- June 30 , 1998 Calculation of General Fund Reserves- June 30, 1999 Resolution 1998-030 1998-99 Proposed Budget 00008 CALCULATION OF GENERAL FUND "RESERVE" BALANCES June 30, 1998 • Unreserved Fund Available Balance Resources Cash BUDGET: Balance at June 30, 1997 $ 577,246 $ 1,290,503 $ 1,017,343 Budgeted Net Income 394,379 394,379 394,379 Budgeted Repayment of Wastewater Loan - (100,000) (100,000) Budgeted Balances June 30, 1998 971,625 1,584,882 1,311,722 REVISION OF ESTIMATES Estimated Increase in Revenues&Other Sources 147,570 147,570 147,570 Estimated Decrease in Expenditures 72,037 72,037 72,037 Revised Estimated Balances June 30, 1998 1,191,232 1,804,489 1,531,329 PROPOSED ADJUSTMENTS Repayment of Wastewater Loan - (439,283) (439,283) Increase in Financial System Replacement Set Aside (149,000) (149,000) (149,000) Adjustment of Wastewater Administrative Charges 72,370 . 72,370 72,370 $ 1,114,602 $ 1,288,576 $ 1,015,416 Note: The Schedule above details the estimated change in General Fund "Reserves"for fiscal year 1997-98. Each column represents a different definition of"reserves". The first column represents the change in Unreserved General Fund Balance. This is the difference between unreserved General Fund assets and liabilities and is the definition of "reserves" most commonly used by the City's auditor's. The middle column represents the change in available resources. This is the definition of"reserves"used in the budget and generally represents what is available to spend within the next 60 days. (Please see the Preface included in the budget for further details.) The final column represents changes in the General Fund cash balance. 0 000087 CALCULATION OF GENERAL FUND "RESERVE" BALANCES June 30, 1999 Unreserved Fund Available Balance Resources Cash BUDGET: Balance at June 30, 1998 $ 1,114,602 $ 1,288,576 $ 1,015,416 Budgeted Net Income 134,485 134,485 134,485 Other Sources 2,830 2,830 2,830 Budgeted Balances June 30,1999 $ 1,251,917 $ 1,4252891 $ 1,152,731 Note: The Schedule above details the estimated change in General Fund "Reserves"for fiscal year 1998-99. Each column represents a different definition of"reserves". The first column represents the change in Unreserved General Fund Balance. This is the difference between unreserved General Fund assets and liabilities and is the definition of "reserves" most commonly used by the City's auditor's. The middle column represents the change in available resources. This is the definition of"reserves"used in the budget and generally represents what is available to spend within the next 60 days. (Please see the Preface included in the budget for further details.) The final column represents changes in the General Fund cash balance. 00008E RESOLUTION NO. 1998-030 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO,CALIFORNIA AMENDING 1997-98 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET RESOLUTION 62-97 WHEREAS,the City Council adopted Resolution 62-97 setting forth the budget for fiscal year 1997-98 and; WHEREAS,the City Council hereby wishes to amend said budget; NOW,THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of Atascadero that the Fiscal Year 1997-98 Budget is amended as follows: SECTION 1. The appropriation amounts for the general fund and wastewater fund are adjusted as follows: As previously Amended Budgeted Adjustment Budget GENERAL FUND $8,099,018 $588,283 $8,687,301 WASTEWATER FUND 2,282,040 72,370 2,354,410 SECTION 2. These changes are effective immediately upon adoption of this resolution. 1 On motion by Councilperson and seconded by Councilperson , the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll-call vote: CITY OF ATASCADERO By: HAROLD L. CARDEN,III Mayor ATTEST: MARCIA M.TORGERSON, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROY A. HANLEY, City Attorney 000089 f E 14 ITEM NUMBER: C - 1 f DATE: 06/23/98 Elio CADS/ City Managoer's Agenda Report Wade G. McKihey Designation of Redevelopment Survey Area RECOMMENDA' ION: Staff Recommends Council adopt Resolution 1998-029 designating a survey area for redevelopment prcject�study purposes. DISCUSSION: Background: California Community Redevelopment Law (Health & Safety Code) Section 33310 requires the bty Council to designate a "survey" area to study the feasibility of a redevelopment project area. Analysis: The first stip in the formal redevelopment project formation process is to establish a redevelopment survey1 area. Its purpose is to generally define an area within which a redevelopment prcject;area might be established. �I In April of 1996, a pieliminary blight analysis was conducted consisting of 327 parcels in the central portion of the City, including the El Camino Real Corridor,the Downtown area, and the Traffic Way Industrial District. The area that was studied in 1996 was chosen to include those areas where blightingonditions were most likely to occur. Staff is recommending that the area that was studied in 19P6 be expanded to include the entire area within the Urban Services Line and all property locatod East of State Highway 101 not in the USL. The designation this area will allow the Agency to determine which areas meet the blight criteria as established by State r Law. The designation of the area does not mean that the area will be included in the final redevelopment project'''boundaries. Once the survey area','is designated, it will be the role of the Planning Commission and the Agency to select from the survey area the actual boundaries of the proposed redevelopment project area. Concurrently, the Commission and Agency will prepare a preliminary plan that generally describes th¢ need for redevelopment and outlines the types of projects/programs that would be implemented to address these needs. As part of the preparation of the preliminary plan, additional field reconnaissance will be conducted, including a survey of land use, . building/property conditions, and a record of pertinent blight characteristics. 00009( ITEM NUMBER: C - 1 DATE: 06/23/98 Conclusion The selection of a survey area is required by State Law prior to the selection of boundaries and preparation of plans for redevelopment. This is a procedural requirement that does not prevent the City or Agency from selecting the final boundaries, of the proposed redevelopment project area. FISCAL IMPACT: None. ALTERNATIVES: Under redevelopment Law,the City Council can delegate the authority to designate a survey area to the Planning Commission or to the Community Redevelopment Agency. To delegate such authority, the Council is required by State Law to adopt a Resolution indicating its desire. This alternative is not recommended since the designation of the survey area is a procedural step in the creation of the redevelopment area and the Planning Commission and Agency will not only select the final boundaries of the proposed redevelopment area, but will play a key role in the analysis of the creation of the redevelopment plan. RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT: Community Development ATTACHMENTS: Resolution No. 1998-029 000 1 RESOLUTION NO. 1998-029 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO DESIGNATING A SURVEY AREA IN THE CITY OF ATASCADERO PURSUANT TO HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 33310 WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council to determine if a redevelopment project within the City of Atascadero is feasible; and WHEREAS, Health& Safety Code Section 33310 provides the authority for the City Council to designate a survey area by resolution; and WHEREAS,the designation of a survey area is for project study purposes only and the designation of the boundaries of the survey area may not result in the final boundaries of any proposed project area. NOW, THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO DOES RESOLVE,DECLARE,DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the City of Atascadero requires study to determine if a redevelopment project within the designated survey area is feasible. SECTION 2. That the survey area for project study purposes consist of properties located in the Urban Services Line of the City and all property located not located in the Urban Services Line east of State Highway 101. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED on this 23`d day of June, 1998, by the following vote: Ayes: Nays: Absent: Harold L. Carden, III, Mayor ATTEST: Marcia Torgerson, City Clerk 000092 EXHIBIT A 03 AY � p" \ J �� vvim•- , ;n(,� 1 e•W� t c i ' i k:R r T R` c.o 1 n �. �py '�� 1 y• . 'EDiANM1b C1 .----_... S.N /E( A ¢•m b i i r • I - i.- � Fd-•a�, � \ vim- 00009. ITEM NUMBER: C - 2 0 DATE: 06/23/98 ■ on go iais a is e � City Manag is Agenda Report Wade G. McKim my Consideration of Ballot Measure On (General Municipal Election, November 3, 1998 �f RECOMMENDATION: No action. DISCUSSION: • The City Council, at the June 9, 1998 meeting directed staff to investigate the timing and costs of a potential ballot measure for the funding of the City's road maintenance,Zoo, Parks and Recreation, and earthquake retrofitting of certain City buildings. iExact wording of a ballot measure including the dollar amount must be submitted to the County Clerk by July 8`h to be jincluded in the November 1998 election. The County roughly estimated the cost for one ballot!measure of approximately 100 words at$2,500. This would include the sample ballot printing'pf the full text of the measure, impartial analysis, arguments for and against the measure and a tax rate statement. The election is being shared with three other entities: County, Fedetal and State. If the Atascadero Unified School District has an election,the cost will be reduced further. The timing is a problem. The specific measure wording must be developed and a fiscal analysis completed defining p*ntial financing scenarios for Council review. Staff can not provide a comprehensive review in the available time. FISCAL IMPAC�: None I 000094 ITEM NUMBER: C - 2 DATE: 06/23/98 ALTERNATIVES: Council could"fast track"the issue by holding special meetings and develop the required information. This alternative is not recommended as public support for such an issue is essential and to move too quickly could undermine the needed support. RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT: City Manager • 000095 I l ITEM NUMBER: C - 3 Ili • •° ' • DATE: 06/23/98 i18 9 199 Il - i CADS !4 I� City Managor's Agenda Report - Wade G. McKinney Information Bulletin A. EMPLOYEE PDATE Melinda Simmons P/Time Scorekeeper Resigned 06/02/98 Daniel Miranda P/Time Scorekeeper Resigned 06/02/98 Matt Lawrence �/Time Scorekeeper Resigned 06/02/98 Ben Hyman P/Time Rec Leader I Resigned 06/02/98 Brooke Gaw P/Time Sr. Lifeguard Promoted 05/25/98 Kelly Vial N/Time Sr. Lifeguard Promoted 05/25/98 MeganPhelps P/Time Lifeguard Hired 06/09/98 Justin McIntire P/Time Lifeguard Hired 06/09/98 Wes Bettger P/Time WSI-Lifeguard Hired 06/12/98 f f f i f 000096 09 s