Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 12/14/1999 • H AGENDA ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, DECEMBER 14, 1999 7:00 P.M. City of Atascadero 6500 Palma Avenue, 4th Floor Atascadero, California REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: 6:30 P.M. CLOSED SESSION: (Immediately following Redevelopment Agency Meeting) 1. Conference with legal counsel [Govt. Code §54956.9] Existing litigation: Atascadero Unified School District v City of Atascadero 2) Conference with labor negotiator(Govt. Code Sec. 54957.6): Agency Negotiator: City Manager Department Heads Compensation REGULAR SESSION, 7:00 P.M.: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Council Member Luna ROLL CALL: Mayor Johnson Mayor Pro Tem Arrambide Council Member Clay Council Member Luna Council Member Scalise APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Roll Call CITY COUNCIL REORGANIZATION: 1. Council Appointment of Mayor—The City Clerk will accept nominations from the Council Members 2. Council Appointment of Mayor Pro Tem—The new Mayor will accept nominations from the Council Members 3. Review committee appointments 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.) COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENT AND REPORTS: (On their own initiative, 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. The Council may take action on items listed on the Agenda.) 1. Atascadero State Hospital Expansion—Council Member Clay has requested Council discussion and possible action regarding the City of Atascadero as a site for the expansion of the Atascadero State Hospital. 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—November 09, 1999 ■ City Clerk recommendation: Council approve the City Council minutes of November 09, 1999 [Marcia McClure Torgerson] 2. City Council Minutes—November 23, 1999 ■ City Clerk recommendation: Council approve the City Council minutes of November 23, 1999 [Marcia McClure Torgerson] 2 3. City Council Study Session Minutes—November 30, 1999 ■ City Clerk recommendation: Council approve the City Council Study Session minutes of November 30, 1999 [Marcia McClure Torgerson] 4. Request for Utility Easement on City Owned Parking Lot Property— 5835 Traffic Way (Rentschler) ■ Fiscal Impact: The payment of$100 by the applicant would cover the fair market value of the easement. ■ Staff recommendation: Council approve the request to grant a 2-foot wide utility easement along the southwest side of the City-owned public parking lot on Traffic Way at parcel 029-341-020 for an amount of$100.00. [Community Development] 5. Acceptance of Final Parcel Map - #98010 /AT 98-104 - 5190 Aguila Road (Jones / Cannon/ Wilson) ■ Fiscallmpact: None ■ Staff recommendation: Council: 1. Accept the Final Map 498010 (AT 98-104); and 2. Accept a 6-foot wide Public Utility Easement along the frontage of Aguila Road. B. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None C. MANAGEMENT REPORTS: 1. Youth Center Options ■ Fiscal Impact: None ■ Staff recommendation: Council direct staff to discontinue efforts to renovate the Atascadero Masonic Temple building as a Youth Center, initiate a fund-raising effort and develop plans for a Gymnasium to be built on a site to be determined. [Community Services] 2. City Council 2000 Meeting Schedule ■ Fiscal Impact: None ■ Staff Recommendation: Council approve City Council meeting schedule for 2000. 3. Information Bulletin D. ATTORNEY REPORTS: 1. Urgency Ordinance Regulating Gambling—Proposed interim ordinance. ■ Fiscallmpact: None ■ City Attorney recommendation: Council consider this item as an urgency item. The Council may adopt Ordinance No. 369 as an urgency ordinance by a 415 vote. E. COMMITTEE REPORTS: (The following represent standing committees. Informative status reports will be given, as felt necessary.): 1. S.L.O. Council of Governments/S.L.O. Regional Transit Authority 2. Finance Committee 3. Water Committees: a. SLO County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Water Resources Advisory Committee b. Nacimiento Water Purveyors' contract Technical Advisory Committee C. North County Water forum 4. Integrated Waste Management Authority 5. North County Council 6. Air Pollution Control District 7. County Mayor's Round Table 8. Economic Vitality Corporation, Board of Directors 9. City/ Schools Committee 10. Economic Opportunity Commission 11. SCA-3 Steering Committee F. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION: 1. City Council 2. City Attorney 3. City Clerk 4. City Treasurer G. ADJOURNMENT: THE NEXT CITY COUNCIL REGULAR SESSION IS SCHEDULED ON JANUARY 11, 2000, AT 7:00 P.M. 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 WELCOME TO THE A TA SCADER 0 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 Chamber 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 the office of the City Clerk(Room 208), and in the Information Office (Room 103), available for public inspection during City Hall business hours. An agenda packet is also available for public review at the Atascadero Library, 6850 Morro Road. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in a City meeting or other services offered by this City, please contact the City Manager's Office, (805) 461-5010, or the City Clerk's Office, (805)461-5074. Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting or time when services are needed will assist the City staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting or service. TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEMS Members of the audience may speak on any item on the agenda. The Mayor will identify the subject, staff will give their report, and the Council will ask questions of staff. The Mayor will announce when the public comment period is open and will request anyone interested to address the Council regarding the matter being considered to step up to the podium. 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 name 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, and no one may speak more than twice on any item. The Mayor will announce when the public comment period is closed, and thereafter, no further public comments will be heard by the Council. TO SPEAK ON SUBJECTS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA Under Agenda item, "COMMUNITY FORUM",the Mayor will call for anyone from the audience having business with the Council to: • Please approach the podium and be recognized • Give your name and address • State the nature of your business This is the time items not on the Agenda may be brought to the Council's attention. A maximum of 30 minutes will be allowed for Community Forum (unless changed by the Council). 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. ITEM NUMBER: A-1 - DATE: 12/14/99 MINUTES ;Sri i9 ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 09, 1999 7:00 P.M. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, 6:30 P.M. CLOSED SESSION: (Immediately following Redevelopment Agency Meeting) 1. Conference with legal counsel [Govt. Code §54956.9] Existing litigation: Atascadero Unified School District v City of Atascadero 2. Performance Review: City Manager(Govt. Code § 54957.6) City Attorney Roy Hanley announced there were no reportable actions taken in Closed Session. REGULAR SESSION, 7:00 P.M.: Mayor Johnson called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. and Mayor Pro Tem Arrambide led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: Present: Council Members Arrambide, Clay, Luna, Scalise and Mayor Johnson Absent: None Others Present: City Clerk Marcia Torgerson and City Treasurer David Graham Staff Present: City Manager Wade McKinney, Fire Chief Mike McCain, Community Services Director Brady Cherry, Community and Economic Development Director Paul Saldana, Police Lieutenant Bill Watton, Finance Technician Liz Carlock, Principal Planner Warren Frace, and City Attorney Roy Hanley. 000001 APPROVAL OF AGENDA: MOTION: By Council Member Luna and seconded by Council Member Clay to approve the agenda. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. COMMUNITY FORUM: Ann Ketcherside, stated she was speaking for the Adobe Plaza business owners and they expressed concern that their businesses will suffer as a result of the construction of the new on and off-ramps at the Highway 41/Highway 101 interchange. She requested the Council and Planning Commission to consider the Adobe Plaza businesses when they review possible plans. She also expressed concern for the median on El Camino Real near the State Hospital and stated that she would like to have it removed. Mayor Johnson closed the Public Comment period COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENT AND REPORTS: 1. General Plan Amendment No. 98003 —The Mackey Project—Consideration by City Council of options concerning status of General Plan Amendment passed August 10, 1999. ■ Available actions include rescission, review or no action. [City Attorney] City Attorney Roy Hanley gave the staff report. He explained in detail the options available to the Council. Mayor Johnson asked the City Clerk to read into the record a letter received from an attorney representing former Council Member Ken Lerno. Derek Westen, 1800 Belinda Drive, Santa Barbara, stated in a prepared statement, read into the record by City Clerk Marcia McClure Torgerson, that previous Council Member Ken Lerno was unaware, on August 10, 1999, that Kelly Gearhart had purchased property close to the Mackey project. Mr. Westen also stated that Mr. Lerno had obtained a letter of opinion from the most experienced law firm in California prior to his vote, using information Mr. Lerno believed to be true, and the letter stated that legally Mr. Lemo could vote on the issue (see Attachment A). PUBLIC COMMENT John Falkenstien, Cannon Associates, representing Mr. Mackey, stated he feels they complied with all City requirements. Speaking for Mr. Mackey, he said that he waives all rights to have the City Council consider this item. Mr. Mackey would be willing to have the Planning Commission reconsider the item. Mary Pellett, stated that it was reported that Mr. Mackey had been working on the project since 1998, however, Mr. Mackey did not purchase the property until April 29, 1999. CC 11/09/99 000002 Page 2 Mayor Johnson closed the Public Comment period. Mayor Pro Tem Arrambide made a motion to rescind, thereby denying the Council action known as General Plan Amendment#98003, past August 10, 1999. This motion was seconded by Council Member Luna. City Attorney Roy Hanley stated, before the vote, that he has a draft Resolution for the Council to review as they might want to include it in their motion. Citizen Mary Pellett asked to speak. He stated that it was reported that Mr. Mackey had been working on the project since 1998, however, Mr. Mackey did not purchase the property until April 29, 1999. Mayor Johnson asked for audience cooperation to speak during the Public Comment periods only. Mr. Hanley explained that the Resolution he handed out as drafted is pretty close to the Council's motion. He commented that both the motion and the Resolution do not include any direction that the project be revisited. Mayor Pro Tem Arrambide responded saying that Mr. Hanley's comment was correct. Council Member Luna stated that the motion made is equivalent of the last statement made on the draft resolution presented by Mr. Hanley. MOTION: By Mayor Pro Tem Arrambide and seconded by Council Member Luna to adopt Draft Resolution 1999-x (next in order, Resolution No. 1999-069), rescinding approval of General Plan Amendment 98003 (see Attachment B). Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. 2. Atascadero State Hospital Ex ansion—Consideration of reviewing options. p p g p At the October 26, 1999 City Council meeting, the Council voted to have staff write a letter from the Council to the State Department of Mental Health expressing interest in consideration for expansion of the Hospital. The Council Members in favor would then sign the letter. Following independent evaluation, individual Council Members elected not to sign the letter of interest to the State. There were no questions of staff from the Council. Mel Hunter, California Department of Mental Health, stated that the Department is considering several sites for a facility. He asked the Council to reconsider being included in the study for potential sites. Council Member Luna stated that he did not sign the letter because of the amount of public comment he received concerning the facts of the project, and feels the Council should have been educated on the details of this issue before being asked to decide if they want Atascadero to be included in the study. He asked Mr. Hunter to educate the Council. CC 11/09/99 000003 Page 3 Mr. Hunter explained that the Atascadero State Hospital (ASH) originally opened in 1954 and specialized in the treatment of sexual offenders. He reported that on January of 1996, the State passed a law which designated ASH as the treatment facility for repeat sexual offenders, and since that time AHS has treated, and is still treating, 270 patients. Mr. Hunter estimated that approximately six new patients are received per month and they are anticipating a need for additional beds. He informed the Council that patients are post-sentence inmates. Mr. Hunter stressed the fact that when inmates are released, they are released to the County in which they were committed. He stated that in the three and one-half years that the program has been in progress, only two families have followed their family member to Atascadero. Council Member Clay asked if the patients are directly paroled from ASH or if they go back to corrections. Mr. Hunter answered that the patients that have completed their correction time are released. He commented that none of the patients have yet completed the program. Mr. Hunter continued, saying that the program is not a time-based program, but an achievement program in which the courts must first be convinced that the patient will not be a threat to a community. Council Member Clay asked about the parole procedure. Mr. Hunter stated that parole can be renewed indefinitely. Council Member Clay asked if they can apply for a waiver that would allow the patient to be released in our community. Mr. Hunter replied that with this program, the patient would be returned to the county of commitment. Council Member Clay asked how many former patients live in San Luis Obispo County. Mr. Hunter responded saying there were none. Council Member Clay asked how the pay rate compares with other correctional facilities. Mr. Hunter stated that it is quite similar. Council Member Clay asked about the psychiatric technician positions at ASH. Mr. Hunter stated that there is a certification program at Cuesta College. Council Member Clay asked where the expansion would occur. Mr. Hunter replied that it would not be visible from El Camino Real and a possible direction of expansion is north of the existing facility. Council Member Clay asked if they would be willing to conduct an independent survey among the citizens to determine if a facility expansion is wanted, and he asked for clarification on the necessity of the State gaining the approval of the Council for this project. Mr. Hunter replied that he did not know if it would be possible for the State to build without community and Council approval. He stated that the City of Soledad voted not to participate and today they are not participating. He requested that a decision not be made until the community and Council has been better informed. He stated that he was unsure if the State would be able to conduct a community survey. Council Member Luna asked if the treatment population was different from that of the past. Mr. Hunter responded saying that from 1954 to 1982 ASH treated mentally disordered sexual offenders. He stated that the law was changed in 1982, requiring mentally disordered sexual offenders to be sentenced to prison, rather than being given the option of treatment. Council Member Luna asked what the re-offense number is for SVPs. Mr. Hunter replied that for AHS it is zero because no patients have yet been released. Council Member Luna asked for a clarification on the types of release used at ASH. Mr. Hunter stated that the judge may find the patient unqualified for commitment and release the individual to parole, unless they have completed parole, in which case they would be released to the community. Council Member Luna asked if it was possible for a patient, released in another county, to return to Atascadero. Mr. Hunter replied that it is possible. Mayor Johnson asked if a patient is released but under the conditions of the program, the individual would be breaking the conditions of the program by leaving the community in which he was released. Mr. Hunter confirmed the statement to be true, adding that if the individual did fail to meet the conditions, he would be returned to ASH for further treatment. CC 11/09/99 00000"t Page 4 Council Member Luna asked if the current program is temporary until a facility can be built. Mr. Hunter stated that the facility is the only one in the state and would probably be considered permanent for now. Council Member Luna responded with a quote from the State's website which stated that ASH is to be used to house sexually violent predators "only until the permanent housing and treatment facility is made available." Council Member Clay received confirmation from Mr. Hunter that these patients have more conditions placed on them than that of regular parolees. He also asked Police Lieutenant, Bill Watton, for the number of sexual predators currently living in Atascadero. Mr. Watton stated the numbers obtained from the Megan's Law list include predators who are living in correction or treatment facilities, however, we have approximately 1.5 predators per 1,000 citizens. Council Member Scalise asked if with the expansion of the facility, would maximum security be all-encompassing. Mr. Hunter replied that regardless of the expansion the security of the facility will be upgraded. Council Member Clay asked if pre-training could be given to citizens of Atascadero interested in employment at the new facility. Mr. Hunter stated that they can do some testing on-site and views the training as a great opportunity. PUBLIC COMMENT Virginia Powers, 7505 Carmelita, stated that she was pleased to hear Council Member Luna's and Council Member Clay's questions. She read a prepared statement expressing her opposition to the expansion of the Atascadero State Hospital. Ms. Powers stated that there was little, if any, public information provided by the supervisors from ASH. Joseph Curtis, 5170 Fresno Ave., stated he worked at the Atascadero State Hospital from 1970 to 1972. He suggested that the Hospital be replaced by a park or college. Mr. Curtis stated he is opposed to expanding the Hospital as he feels it is a very dangerous facility. Jerry Long, Portola Road, stated the he believes the State Hospital is a clean, environmentally friendly employer and urged the Council to consider adopting the expansion. Ann Ketcherside, thanked KSBY for informing the community that this item is on the agenda. She stated she is opposed to the expansion of the State Hospital. Ms. Ketcherside stated various incidences and examples to support her belief. Bob Powers, 7505 Carmelita, stated he is concerned what effect this expansion would have on the image of Atascadero. He expressed concern that it would have a negative impact on businesses. Ann Harrington, 6 Quail Ridge Drive, stated she is opposed to expanding the State Hospital. She asked Mr. Hunter why the law was done away with in 1982. Ms. Harrington stated that she believed it was because sexual predators cannot be cured. Fred Frank, 3615 Ardilla, urged the Council to oppose the consideration of being included in this study. He stated that the benefits do not outweigh the negative points. Mr. Frank expressed concern for the effect on our water supply, traffic, and safety. CC 11/09/99 000005 Page 5 Morro Bay resident, teaches at Cuesta College. She stated to even include Atascadero in the study for this expansion, means there will be inherent risks. Elaine McKellents, 10205 El Camino Real, stated she is opposed to the expansion. She reported S to have found that three out of four sexual offenders re-offend. Linda Mello, 9980 Santa Clara, said that she is opposed to the expansion of the Hospital. She expressed concern for the homes surrounding the facility. Al Veraguter, 6650 San Anselmo, worked for the Department of Mental Health at its inception. He worked for the Hospital for many years and is proud of his work there. But, he stated he is opposed to the expansion of the Hospital as the expansion would allow for extremely dangerous patients. Dorothy McNeil, 8765 Sierra Vista, in a prepared statement she commented that the Paso Robles City Council turned down a proposal for a private prison because of community opposition. She urged the Council to listen to the community and oppose this request for expansion of the Hospital. Ms. McNeil expressed concern for the safety of the children in our community (see Attachment Q. Daphne Fashing, 5105 Llano Road, stated that the Council has heard from the community tonight. She urged the Council to say thanks, but no thanks. Ms. Fashing stated that she was amazed that the Council would even consider it. Raymond Jansen, 6655 County Club Drive, urged the Council, in a prepared statement read by City Clerk Marcia McClure Torgerson, to determine to build quality in our personal lives and in our community by not allowing the Hospital to expand (see Attachment D). City Clerk Marcia McClure Torgerson reported to the Council that she received twenty-five phone calls from citizens who opposed the expansion. Mayor Johnson closest the Public Comment periost. Mayor Johnson stated that the rumor regarding the possibility of the new 1,500 patients replacing the current patients needs to be addressed. He commented that he was appalled to see letters from citizens of our community who trashed the ASH employees. Council Member Scalise thanked the citizens present for attending tonight. She commented that several times this evening she heard "we know nothing," and she added that the statement is true. She stated for the record that"if I heard Mr. Hunter correctly, the allowance for the Atascadero residents and residents of San Luis Obispo County would have an opportunity to highly scrutinize anything that is proposed for this town." Council Member Scalise stated that she understands that nobody would like to have the facility in their backyard, however, we do have a responsibility of being part of the solution and not part of the problem because "these" people do need to be kept incarcerated. She also stated that the current security level will be upgraded, which is needed. She went on to say that she feels we need to be informed before we make a decision. Council Member Scalise stated, for the record: "I believe that the Hospital we have currently has been a good community member and participant, and I would be interested in getting a little further information and letting all of the citizens of Atascadero look at this and participate. We've had a good show tonight, but it certainly is a small minority compared to the CC 11/09/99 000006 Page 6 entire city. So, I would like to see us be in the informational loop and also be a very highly scrutinized group to look at the project when the information comes forth." Mayor Pro Tem Arrambide thanked the community for coming to this meeting. He stated that he has received many calls in opposition to this issue. He reported that he received a call from Ann Bergstresser, whose husband was killed by a patient at the Hospital, in which she asked him to have an open mind and allow the process of consideration. Mayor Pro Tem Arrambide expressed concern for the number of citizens who do not even wish to hear the information because they have made their decision. He stated that it is his obligation to hear the information before he makes a decision. He wanted to go on record for"being for openness and information." He stated that as of tonight, he has not yet joined the opposition, he may at the end, but first he would like to go through the process. Council Member Luna presented some information he obtained from the Department of Mental Health's website. He stated that he will keep an open mind, but he wants more information without asking to be included in the process. He also stated that he would like to see how open the department will be before he asks to be included in the process. Mayor Johnson stated he is not sure whether he will be in favor of this expansion. He stated he would like to have more information first. Mayor Johnson expressed concern for the fact that there is misinformation or wrong information being given. He stated, "Let's hear the information," and urged the State to get broad community input. City Manager Wade McKinney stated that the letter could be modified to read, "Request the California Department of Mental Health to provide the Community and City Council relative to the programs intended to be housed, the physical design of the property, and other information germane to such a decision. That the City Council refrains from at this point of taking any position relative to the Hospital, but feels the Community should be adequately informed." Council Member Clay stated he would not mind if this issue ended tonight. He expressed concern for the word "request," and the possibility of the department running an EIR without educating the public and hearing from the public. He stated that he would like to see a survey. Council Member Clay reported that the calls he received were split on the issue. Mayor Johnson stated that this issue came up when a request was received asking if we would be willing to consider the information. He also stated that the project was not generated by the City staff or Council. MOTION: By Mayor Pro Tem Arrambide and seconded by Council Member Scalise to ask the State of California to consider Atascadero as a site for the expansion of this treatment facility, that the process be for information gathering and environmental determination, and that this decision, a community decision, be reserved for the end of the process. Motion passed 3:2 by a roll-call vote. (Clay & Luna opposed) Mayor Johnson stressed that the Council is not advocating the project, rather inviting information. CC 11/09/99 000007 Page 7 Council Member Luna asked how this motion differs from the first letter. Mayor Pro Tem Arrambide replied that he does not believe it is different, only that now the Council is not looking for unanimity. Mayor Johnson asked Council Member Luna how he would word it. Council Member Luna stated he liked what the City Manager said about specifically requesting information and encouraging the State Hospital to convince the citizens. Mayor Pro Tem Arrambide responded saying that he was aware of the comments and made his motion having understood what had been said. Council Member Clay asked if the entire Council would sign the letter again. Mayor Pro Tem Arrambide stated that he would not suggest that they all sign the letter if the Council does not agree with it. Council Member Clay asked if the Mayor would sign the letter. Mayor Johnson replied that either the City Manager or the Mayor would. Mayor Johnson commented that it would be fine of the City Manager to sign the letter. He stressed that this vote is not a commitment. Mayor Johnson called a ten minute recess at 8:55 p.m.. Mayor Johnson called the meeting to order at 9:05 p.m. A. CONSENT CALENDAR: Roll Call 1. City Council Minutes—October 13, 1999 ■ City Clerk recommendation: Council approve the City Council minutes of October 13, 1999 [Marcia McClure Torgerson] 2. City Council Minutes—October 26, 1999 ■ City Clerk recommendation: Council approve the City Council minutes of October 26, 1999 [Marcia McClure Torgerson] 3. Business Licensing Software—Agreement with Progressive Solutions ■ FiscalImpact.• 510,500 currently budgeted ■ Staff recommendation: Council authorize the Mayor to execute an agreement with Progressive Solutions for providing Business Licensing Software [Administrative Services Department] 4. Acceptance of Final Lot Line Adjustment Map 999004—ATAL 99-042, 6250 San Gabriel Road (Harry B. Larsen Family Trust/ Wilson Land Surveys) ■ Fiscallmpact: None ■ Staff recommendations: Council: L Accept the Final Lot Line Adjustment Map 499004. 2. Reject without prejudice, the offer of road dedication. 3. Accept a 6-foot wide Public Utility Easement along the frontage of the new San Gabriel Road right-of-way. [Community Development Department] 5. Deferred Improvement A reement—United Methodist Church of Atascadero ■ Fiscal Impact: None CC 11/09/99 � Page 8 000 0 8 ■ Staff recommendation: Council authorize the Mayor to execute an agreement with The United Methodist Church ofAtascadero to defer construction of the public improvements required by the conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit No. ' 98014 [Community Services Department] 6. Bicycle Transportation Plan-Agreement with RRM Design Group ■ Fiscal Impact: $15,000 ($5,000 Urban State Highway Account Funds, $10,000 Regional State Highway Account Funds) ■ Staff recommendation: Council authorize the Mayor to execute an agreement with RRM Design Group to prepare a city-wide Bicycle Transportation Plan [Community Services Department] 7. Census Complete Count Prom ■ Fiscal Impact: S7,900 ■ Staff recommendation: Council participate in the Census Complete Count Program and appropriate $7,900 for City's commitment from reserves. [City Manager's Office] City Clerk Marcia McClure Toraerson pulled Item#A-2 for corrections and stated she would bring it back to the Council at their next meeting. MOTION: By Council Member Luna and seconded by Council Member Clay to approve Items #A-1,3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. B. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Davis Property: General Plan Amendment#98002, Zone Change 498004, Tentative Tract Map #98013 -Mixed Use Cluster Residential Subdivision-(3900 Traffic Way / Shores) ■ Fiscal Impact: Increase to City revenues would be nominal ■ Planning Commission recommendations: Council: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 1999-065, certifying the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2. Adopt Resolution No. 1999-066, approving General Plan Amendment 98002. 3. Introduce for first reading by title only Ordinance No. 367, adding a Planned Development Overlay District-15 (PD-15) to the City Zoning Ordinance. 4. Introduce for first reading by title only Ordinance No. 368, rezoning the project site from RS (Residential Suburban) to RSF-X(PD-15), L (PD-I5) (Recreation), and I(Industrial). 5. Adopt Resolution No. 1999-067, approving Tentative Tract Map 98013 as amended and subject to the Conditions of Approval. [Community Development Department] Community and Economic Development Director Paul Saldana gave the staff report and answered questions of Council. Council Member Clay asked for the vote of the Planning Commission. Mr. Saldana replied that the vote was unanimous. Council Member Clay asked about the sewer flow. Mr. Cherry stated that the gravity flow there will probably enable the City to eliminate a pump station. Council Member Clay suggested that the road expansion be done on the west side, if possible. He also CC 11/09/99 ��®�©9 Page 9 expressed that he would like to see the improvement of the road from Dolores to San Benito and tree mitigation. Mayor Johnson asked for staff comment on the road improvement. Principal Planner.Warren Frace explained that this project will be responsible for the dedication and widening of Traffic Way along the project area. Mayor Pro Tem Arrambide asked if there were vertical sight distance issues that would not be addressed by the widening of the road. Mr. McKinney stated that Assistant City Engineer John Neil reported that the only issues would be horizontal and those would be addressed. He also stated that the dedication is for sixty feet and it may be possible to crowd the road to one side, depending on tree impacts. Council Member Luna asked what the City would have to do with the archeology property that is in the Recreation Dedication. Mr. Saldana responded that a phase two archeology study, which would require boring and mitigation, would be necessary give the recommendations. Council Member Luna asked that if the site was determined to be sensitive would it become open space. Mr. Saldana affirmed that it may. Council Member Luna asked about the Industrial area. Mr. Saldana stated that it is available for development and mitigation would be necessary for development. Council Member Luna stated that with projects such at this and the Lakes, negative declarations are being given, and in this case, mitigated negative declarations. He asked if there is a traffic study for this project. Mr. Saldana responded saying that they estimated the number of trips in the area and found that the number would not warrant any additional traffic analysis. Council Member Luna commented that the Lakes project will also be going in, and asked if an accumulated traffic study would need to be done. Principal Planner Warren Frace stated that a formal traffic study was not conducted. He reported that the General Plan accounts,for twelve to thirteen units on this parcel which would account for approximately 120 or 130 trips per day. He stated that with this project, there would be the equivalent of 36 units, or 360 trips per day, which did not warrant any changes other than those previously discussed. In reference to the Lakes project, Mr. Frace reported that an EIR had been conducted for that project and mitigation measures had been proscribed. Council Member Luna asked if there was a specific price value for these homes. Mr. Saldana replied that there is nothing specific proposed. Council Member Luna asked if any thought had been given to a density bonus, for affordable housing. Mr. Saldana stated that it was not pursued, nor did the applicant propose it. Council Member Scalise asked for a confirmation that traffic would not be backing out onto Traffic Way. Mr. Saldana confirmed that there would not be traffic backing out onto Traffic Way. Council Member Scalise also asked if the traffic circulation count included the industrial zone. Mr. Saldana reported that the count had included the industrial area and that Mr. Neil had found the number of trips to be below what was analyzed for that area. PUBLIC COMMENT Jim Shores, 5420 Allemonde, representative of the applicant group. Mr. Shores explained the proposed project in detail. He reported that he has met with some of the concerned neighbors and they feel they can support the project. Gaylene Tupen, 1422 Monterey Street, Suite C200, San Luis Obispo, biologist, explained the area of wetlands in this project and how it affects the lots proposed. She stated that the boundaries are preliminary and in order to get precise boundaries, a formal delineation is required, which Mr. Shores has scheduled. She reported that a soil study will also need to be CC 11/09/99 Page 10 ,, 000010 done. She recommended that the studies be reviewed prior to the elimination of any lots to find the actual development constraints in the area. Council Member Luna asked if there was any condition of approval that would address the "wetlands" issue. Mr. Frace replied that there were a couple of conditions that came out of the recommendations of the initial study for mitigation of the project. He stated that the first would be to eliminate the three lots affected by the wetlands; secondly,the wetland delineation would be approved by the Corps. of Engineers, which would set the exact perimeters. Mayor Johnson asked if they would be able to add any lots back into the project if it was found in the final study that the lots were not impacted. Mr. Frace replied that tonight a master plan development would determine the number of lots that would be allowed, and if the study proved otherwise, the project could be brought back for amendments. He explained that it would be possible to continue to show the second lot on the tentative map, and depending on the wetlands delineation, adjust the final map which may result in the elimination of a lot. Council Member Clay asked if it would be possible to increase the number of lots from 36 (staff recommendation) to 39 (proposed, three lots possibly being in the"wetlands" area) and later possibly eliminate the three if necessary after the final study. Mr. Frace responded saying that the Council could made that motion, however, it is staffs recommendation that the two lower lots not be added back onto the tentative map. Council Member Clay asked if there are lots in Atascadero that have individual sewer pump stations. Mr. Neil state that there are, but it is not the preferred option. Jim Shores asked the Council to consider including the three lots until the soils study which might eliminate them from the project. He requested a phase final on the industrial buildings. He stated that the park will be for public use and not just for softball. He addressed:some safety concerns he had. He urged the Council to keep the three lots, three, four, and five in the project, at least until the soil and wetlands study is complete. Council Member Clay asked if Mr. Shores would be willing to improve the road on the west side rather than both sides. Mr. Shores responded saying it would be possible. Council Member Clay asked if the applicant would be responsible for maintaining the sewer line. Community Services Director Brady Cherry stated that the applicant would not be responsible. Council Member Clay asked if the two lower lots were included, how would sewage be handled. Mr. Shores replied that they would probably pump them up to the cul-de-sac. Ed Farrell, supported this project in a prepared statement read by Linda Buss, 8025 Carmelita. He stated that Atascadero is in need of sport fields with the growth of the programs at the High School, Recreation Division, and with ASA leagues. Bob & Veronica Borba, expressed support for this project in a prepared statement read by Linda Buss, 8025 Carmelita. They stated that there is a shortage on fields and that this project would benefit our youth and our future. Atascadero Girls Softball Association, expressed their support for this project in a prepared statement read by Linda Buss, 8025 Carmelita. The Association stated that they believed the City would greatly benefit from this project. - Judy Tarr, partner in this project, stated she feels this is a good project as it includes open space, a park, and industrial area. She also asked the Council to allow them to begin the industrial buildings now. She thanked the Council for their consideration. CC 11/09/99 000011 Page 11 John Goers, 5200 Dolores, stated he feels this project should not be as down-zoned or split as it is. He suggested that the number of lots be 12-13 as they were originally. Lon Allan, 6850 Santa Lucia, President of Atascadero Historical Society, asked if the Estrada Adobe is going to be protected. Mayor Johnson stated the adobe is in the portion of the project that is not being developed. Council Member Clay suggested there should be a monument placed there. Richard Shannon, 5070 San Benito Road, stated that he is a neighbor of this project. He is also a realtor. Mr. Shannon reassured the Council that Mr. Shores and the Tarr's are reputable people and will do an excellent job of developing this site. He stated that Mr. Tarr's has had several successful projects in the north county. Mayor Johnson closed the Public Comment period. Council Member Luna asked about the phasing of the industrial project. Mr. Saldana stated that modifications have been made to allow for a phased final map. Council Member Luna asked if it would be possible to write the condition so that staff would recommend the one lot. Mr. Saldana replied that Condition 20 [on tape of meeting Condition 19 was referred to in error] could be modified to provide for"lot 3." He stated that deletion of the reference to "lot 3" in the - paragraph which mentions "...lots 3, 4, 5... "and add "lot 3" to the last portion of Condition 20. Council Member Luna stated that he could support it. Mayor Johnson stated that he could also support it. Council Member Clay expressed that he would like to see all three lots built on.if possible. Mayor Johnson suggested that the road policy be looked at in the near future, outside of the proj ect. Mayor Pro Tem Arrambide stated that logically, the acceptance of the roads would follow the acceptance of the sewer. Mr. McKinney stated that currently that isnot the City's policy. He also stated that some of these issues will be addressed at the Roads meeting on November 30, 1999. Mayor Johnson clarified that the industrial phase is included in the proposal tonight. Council Member Clay asked to specify that the road be improved on the west side of the road. Mr. McKinney replied that they would attempt to kept it to the west side and maintain the horizontal sight distances. Council Member Clay asked if it would need to be in the condition. Mr. McKinney stated that if would probably not be necessary. Council Member Scalise asked about some of the traffic issues presented by Mr. Shores. Mayor Johnson stated that those issues could probably be addressed in the future. Council Member Clay expressed support for building on all three lots,if possible. Mayor Pro Tem Arrambide commended the applicant's efforts for this project. CC 11/09/99 000012 Page 12 MOTION: By Mayor Pro Tem Arrambide and seconded by Council Member Clay to adopt Resolution No. 1999-065, certifying the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. MOTION: By Mayor Pro Tem Arrambide and seconded by Council Member Clay to adopt Resolution No. 1999-066, approving General Plan Amendment 98002. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. MOTION: By Mayor Pro Tem Arrambide and seconded by Council Member Clay to introduce on first reading by title only Ordinance No. 367, adding a Planned Development Overlay District-15 (PD-15) to the City Zoning Ordinance. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. MOTION: By Mayor Pro Tem Arrambide and seconded by Council Member Clay to introduce on first reading by title only Ordinance No. 368, rezoning the project site from RS (Residential Suburban) to RSF-X (PD-15), L (PD-15) (Recreation), and I (Industrial). Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. MOTION: By Mayor Pro Tem Arrambide and seconded by Council Member Luna to adopt Resolution No. 199-067, approving Tentative Tract Map 98013 as amended and subject to the Conditions of Approval, as amended: Condition 20, Pag e 166 of agenda, deletin g " to read " ...lots 4 and 5..." and adding "lot 3" on the proposed Tentative Tract Map. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. Mayor Johnson noted for the record, "This is the first developer in my time on the City Council that got a 5:0 vote." C. MANAGEMENT REPORTS: 1. General Plan Amendment Request—Traffic Way (Between San Benito Road and San Anselmo Road) ■ Fiscal Impact: None ■ Planning Commission recommendation: Council accept the neighborhood petition as an application for a General Plan Amendment and authorize staff to process the application as an exception to the General Plan Moratorium [Community Development Department] Community and Economic Developmentm ent Director Paul Saldana gave the staff report and answered questions of Council. Council Member Luna asked the City Attorney if the fact that the Planning Commission took action on an item that was not listed on their agenda has any effect on the Planning Commission's recommendation. City Attorney Roy Hanley clarified for Council Member Luna CC 11/09/99 Page 13 �U�� " that any potential defect in the Planning Commission's recommendation, should not have an effect on the action of the Council. Mayor Johnson asked if this would have an impact on the update of the General Plan. Mr. Saldana stated that this would be included in the process. PUBLIC COMMENT Robert Lilley, representing neighbors involved in this issue. Mr. Lilley explained why he feels his clients have a reasonable request as they were misled by staff and missed the deadline. He submitted a petition from his clients asking to be included in the next available General Plan Amendment cycle (see Attachment E). City Manager Wade McKinney explained to the Council that there are many potential applicants who were planning on submitting requests before the October deadline before the Council voted on the moratorium. They all have been offered to be included as exceptions to the General Plan Moratorium process. Council Member Luna asked when these citizens offered to pay part of the General Plan fees for the Shore's project. Mr. McKinney stated that he is unsure whether an offer has been made, although implications have been made. MOTION: By Council Member Luna and seconded by Council Member Clay to continue the meeting past 11:00 p.m. f Motion passed 5:0 by a voice vote. Mr. Lilley stated that the petition was signed and no application was filed on the advice of Planning staff. Mike Wasley, 3000 and 306 Traffic Way, stated the neighbors submitted a petition and not an application as a response to advice from staff. He also stated that he was not informed that they were not included at the meeting on October 19, 1999. Henry Skibo, 3650 Traffic Way, agreed with Mr. Wasley that they were misled by staff as to what was required of them to be considered for the General Plan Amendment process. He expressed concern for the number of cars and homes that are in the area. Marvin Pellett, 4320 Del Rio Road, stated he is opposed to granting this request as it will be �� creating '/2 acre lots between l+ acre lots. He urged the Council not to vote on something they do not fully understand. Gerald Johnson, 3300 Traffic Way, stated that he would like to be included in this process as '/z acre lots are plenty big. Henry Skibo, 3650 Traffic Way, stated that Mr. Pellett has quite a bit of property in the area and has even built a house recently on less than one acre. Marvin Pellett, 4320 Del Rio Road, stated that the house he built is on 2.88 acres.cc �� Page 000014 14 Mayor Johnson closed the Public Comment period. Mayor Johnson asked the City Attorney for his opinion. Mr. Hanley stated that he does not feel the City has an application for a General Plan Amendment. He also stated that if they had filed an application it would have been after the April 1"deadline and would therefore have been cycled over to the October deadline. Mr. Hanley expressed that in his opinion the City is not liable for the misunderstanding. Mayor Johnson asked for a clarification that if the petition had been submitted on April 25, 1999, it would have been rolled over to the October update because of the timing. Mr. Hanley affirmed the Mayor's statement. He also informed the Council of the direction they could take. Mayor Johnson asked what the timing difference was. Mr. McKinney stated that from a staff perspective, it would be the same, approximately ten months. MOTION: By Council Member Luna and seconded by Council Member Clay to direct staff to incorporate the neighborhood's petition into the General Plan Update process and not allow an application for General Plan Amendment to be filed. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. 2. Information Bulletin D. ATTORNEY REPORTS: 1. City Manager's Evaluation ■ Fiscal Impact: The amount of any raise or bonus approved together with the marginally increased employer contributions required by law. ■ City Attorney recommendation: There is no recommended action from the City Attorney. This report is for informational purposes only. Mayor Pro Tem Arrambide stated that he had requested that rather than a bonus, the money be an adjustment to salary. He reported that as the second largest city in the County however, Mr. McKinney's salary is only the third highest. PUBLIC COMMENT John McGoff, 9192 Maple St., asked for clarification of the City Manager's contract with the City. Mayor Pro Tem Arrambide stated that it did not need to be amended because it allowed for a bonus and/or merit increase. Mayor Johnson closed the Public Comment period MOTION: By Mayor Pro Tem Arrambide and seconded by Council Member Clay to move from a S4,000 bonus to a merit increase, as part of salary. Motion passed 4:1 by a roll-call vote. (Luna opposed) CC 11/09/99 000015 Page 15 Council Member Clay asked if there are merit increases for other City staff also. Mr. McKinney replied that there are. E. COMMITTEE REPORTS: S.L.O. Council of Governments/S.L.O. Regional Transit Authoritv Mayor Johnson announced that they met last week and are starting a new round of funding of which we hope to receive allocated monies being one of two who do receive allocations. Finance Committee Council Member Luna reported that the Committee met last week to review the Investment Policy and take suggestions from the City Treasurer. The Investment Policy will come back to the Council on November 23, 1999. Water Committees Council Member Clay announced that the North County Water Group gave a show at the last meeting on the water quality and lower Salinas sediment problems. Integrated Waste Management Authority Council Member Luna stated that they will meet on Wednesday. Air Pollution Control District Mayor Pro Tem Arrambide stated that he would be meeting with the CEO of the District this week to talk about back-yard burning. Economic Vitality Corporation, Board of Directors Mayor Johnson announced that they would met next week. City / Schools Committee Mayor Pro Tem Arrambide reported that he attended a three-day meeting put on by the School District for strategic planning. F. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION City Council Mayor Johnson stated that he was pleased with last night's meeting (Main Street Program). G. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Johnson adjourned the meeting at 11:38 p.m. to the next regular session scheduled on November 23, 1999, at 7:00 p.m. cc 11/09/99 00001 Page 16 MEETING RECORDED AND PREPARED BY: Marcia McClure Torgerson, City Clerk Melanie Whaley, Deputy City Clerk ATTACHMENTS: A- Prepared statement written by Derek Westen on behalf of Ken Lerno, November 9, 1999. B- Draft Resolution No. 1999-x C- Prepared statement written by Dorothy McNeil, November 9, 1999. D- Prepared statement written by Raymond Jansen, November 8, 1999. E- Petition by property owners of north Traffic Way, Atascadero, for the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change, November 4, 1999. CC 11/09/99 0000x'7 Page 17 Da-ek A.Jvesten,Esq 17 805.963-7131 MD 11/9199 66:02 PM D213 Aent: :A Atascadeio City Council ; DEREK A . W E S T E N Meeting Date: 11-09-99 ATTORNEY AT LAW 1800.:euwoA DRIVE a FACSIMILE (805)963 -7131 SANTA SARBARA,CALIFORNIA 93108 TELEPHONE: (805)983-71300 November 9, 1999 BY Hand Delivery of Facsimile: Honorable Mayor grid Illerribers�.If the City Council C:i ty of Atascadero 6500 Palma Atascadero,CA 93422) Re: General Pl:ul Amendment No. 98003; Mackey Project De<u- ,\i ayor:uld ,L�lrntbe rs of the City Council: This letter is written on behalf of Keo Lerno,fortuer City Council Member,whom I represent. I received today, mid reviewed, the City Attorney Report dated November 9, 1999, regarding Elie captioned matter. It appears to me rhat the factual matters recited therein are accurate. Based upon the information in the report, we concur that the vote cast by Council :Member Ken Lerno on August 10, 1999, was—unbeknownst to him—subject to a disqualifyng conflict of interest. %We concur chat the vote should be set aside. Council Member Lerno categorically denies that on August 10. 1999, he had any knowledge whatsoever that Kelly Gearhart had purchased property close to the Mackey project. Prior to Lite August 10, 1999 hearing before the Atascadero City Council, Ken Lerno contacted me to ask whether California's conflict of interesr rules precluded him from participating in consideration of the Mackey project. He told me that as an elected Council Member he felt he had an obligation to cast a vote with respect ro any project as to which he did not have a conflict of interest,and ghat he had a comparable obligation to abstain if he did have a conflict. I advised -Ir. Lerno that. I am not an expert in that very technical aspect of California law, and that for an authoritative opinion on which he could rely, he should consult Pillsbury, Madison &. Sutro in Sacramento, one of the leading lacy firms in California. I advised him that it was his responsibiliry as a Council Member, and that he personally would need to incur the expense of obtaining authoritative advice. I assisted Council Member Lerno in summarizing the facts and coordinating with Pillsbury, Madison tic Sutro. Based upon the facts we provided,on —, Pillsbury, Madison & Sttrro provided a formal,written opinion to Council Member Lerno advising him that under clear California law, he did not have a conflict of interest which would preclude him from voting. I 000018 Derek A.Westen,Esq. iY b05 963 7131 ME.11/9/99 6:04 PM D,3,3 DEREK A. WESTEN ATTORNEY AT LAW Honorable Mavor and Members of Elie City Council -2- November 9, 1999 attach a copy of that letter. That opinion letter was the basis of the decision by Council Member Lerno that lie had an obligation to vote, and he did so. Based upon the information available to Council Member Lerno,the vote was appropriate and necessary. Subsequent to that date, Council Member Lerno has learned that Mr. Gearhart did purchase property close ro the Mackey project. That purchase renders Mr. Lerno's further participation inappropriate. He correctly withdrew his vote on the second reading. The information which rendered his vote inappropriate was unknown to him on August 10, 1999. Former Council Member Ken Leruo has livcd in Atascadero almost all his life. He felt honored to be elected to the City Council. He cares deeply for the Cityand its residents. That is why he ran for City Council. In fact, he thought—and thinks today—that the :Mackey project was good for the City of Arascadero. He believed that he had an obligation to vote if it was appropriate, just as he felr he should not yore if it was inappropriate. After consulradon wirh me,he expended over$5 000 of his own money o l 4 t obtain an authoritative -wricten opinion from the most experienced law firm in California so that he could do what was right and best for the City of Atascadero and its residents. Although subsequent information has shown that the facts before him,which were the basis for his decision,apparently were not correct, his conduct was honorable,appropriate,and necessary. Council Member Lemo believes lie fulfilled his highest obligations to the City of Atascadero and its residents and is proud )fhis service to the City, Sincerely, Derek A. Westen Attorney at Law CC. Ken Lerno 00©01 11-09-1999 6: 17PM FROM DEREK: A WESTEN ESO 805 963 7131 P. 1 "RCN PM (WE") B. 4' 99 1":1 AF. 15:05/N0. 4862588129 P 2 PilLbnry ATTUMMYS AT taw 480 CAMOLUM-1,sunt 1100 SACRAMMiTOXALDO1w1A 9S2/1-M19 TELEmN6:(9t6)M-A?00 PAX(910)441-3:43 h.mrneC pilttbrryfar.mr 11'�tdisOs dr 3utm LLP wrifde dkoot dw nNobrr t email: (916)3244719 m,as bw4pi1Wbutyt9w.oa" August 4,1999 VIA IEA—Q1M1LF, Mr.Ken Letno 7340 Morro Road Atascadero,CA 93422 Re: Conflict of Interest Issues Dear Mr.Lerno: As we discussed„this letter addresses whether or not you may participate In a pending decision of the City Council in the City of Atascadero{currently scheduled for August 10, 1999) concerning a development on the so-called"Mackey property"and whether there are any restrictions on your ability to participate in or attempt to influence City decisions about development of the so-called"Rochelle property," 1. Factual Situation. You are currently a member of the City Council of the City of Atascadero(the"City"). Presently scheduled to come before the City Council on August 10, 1999 is a recommendation of the City's Planning Commission for approval of development of approximately 30 low to moderately priced homes on a five acre parcel,the so-called"Mackey property:' Approval of the Mackey property project would result in extension of the sewer line along Traffic Way in the City to the Mackey property. On April 1, 1998,Mr.Kelly Ocarhart submitted an application with the City for development of the Mackey property for a bus bam for the local school district. After filing,Mr. Gearhart determined that he would not be able to obtain the requisite govetnmcntel approvals and did not pursue the application,although technically it retrained pending. Mr.Gearhart then suggested to his friend,Mr.I)an Mackey,that he might wish to develop this parcel for a residential project. Mr.Mackey hired Cannon Associates to represent him and purchased the land$orn Union Pacific Railroad on April 29, 1999. To avoid delay arising from general plan amendment"windows,"wbieh would have resulted from filing a new application,Mr.Mackey SKRALUW U IASANGZM t+tl;wY<VM N0XrW-4VIRW'u ORANMCOUNTY SANDMW S y.RANCISM 91UCQdVN.LEV WASH GTOt'NDC 70Ig0 1074Vt GO0©10 1 '- 9-1999 6: 18PM FROM DEREK A WESTEN ESQ 805 963 7131 P. 2 r -� P�OV PM&S ;WED; 8. 4' 99 15:11/ST. 15:05!10, 4862588129 P 3 August 4, 1999 Page 2 amended the Gearhart application by substituting his own application for a housing project. Although personally supportive of Mr.Mackey's plans,Mr. Gearhart has no financial relationship whatsoever-%ith Mr.Mackey or his plans for development of the parcel in question. Moreover,Mr.Gearhart has no ownership or profit interest and VdIl not be building the Mackey project,if approved Mr.Gearhart and Mr.Mackey have both specifically confirmed these facts to you. Mr.Gearhart,you and your sister are each one-third co-owners of a parcel of property known as the"Rochelle property." The Rochelle property is located approximately 8,000 fact north of the Mackey property,also on Traffic Way. The Rochelle property is approximately 80 acres in size,although the owners arc in escrow to sell a 27 acre piece of the parcel to the Westar Associates,Inc.which intends to develop the site for commercial purposes,including location of a shopping center anchored by a Home Depot store. The owners of the Rochelle property have previously obtained all of the approvals necessary for the proposed commercial project. However,as a condition for those approvals,a public sower line must be extended from the current system boundary to serve the Rochelle property. As I understand it,the approval of the actual route of the sewer line,of which there are at least two alternatives,is a decision that will be made by City staff without ratification by the City Council. Mr_Gearhart also owns a 2-acre parcel,also along Traffic Way,which he is currently in the process of developing as residential property for a single family home. This parcel is Aacent to the Rochelle property,but some 7,000 feet from the Mackey property. One of the proposed sewer routes for the Rochelle property would run through Mr. Gearhart's residential lot under development. Although the route could be argued to be beneficial to the City's long term dcvclopment interests,Mr. Crearhart has declared that he will not allow his residential property to be modified to accommodate a sewer connection to the Rochelle property. It is not presently foreseeable that the City would exercise rights of eminent domain to compel acquisition of I-&. Gearhart's residential property to provide for a sewer mute to connect to the Rochelle property. Mr.Gearhart has asserted that there would be no inercasc or decrease in the value of his residential lot if the Mackey property is developed. Morrovcr,it is your belief that development of the Mackey property would not have any financial effect on the value of eithor the Rochelle property or the small residential property owned by Mr.Gearhart. 1 The proposed sewer connection along Traffic Way adjacent to the Rochelle Property is estimated at a cost of$800,000 to g1 million,according to an engineering firm study. One of the alternative sewer routes tv connect the City grid to the Rochelle property would proceed along 191 Camino and would cost approximately S280,000. 1074Vi 00002A 11-29-1999 6: 19PM FROM DEREK A VESTEN ESO 805 963 7131 P. 3 FRU Mks (WED) E. 4' 99 15:12/ET. t5:05/N0. 4.862588129 P 4 August 4, 1999 0 Page 3 II. Legal Analysis. A. Mackey property. You have asked us to address whether or not you may participate in the decision concerning approval of the Mackey property at the forthcoming August 10, 1999 Atascadero City Caumd meeting. The conflict of interest provisions of the Political Reform Act of 1974,as amended(the "Act")help to ensure that public officials perform their duties impartially,free from bias attributable to their o%m financial interests or those ofpersons who have supported them,See Gov't Code§ Section 81001(b). Specifically,Section 87100 prohibits any public official from making,participating in making,or otherwise using his or her official position to influence a governmental decision in which the official has a financial interest. A public official has a "financial interest"in a governmental decision,within the meaning of the Act,if it is reasonably foreseeable that the decision will have a material financial effect on one or more of the public official's economic interests. Gov't Code §8X03;2 Cal.Code Reqs. § 18700(a);see also Downey Advice Letter,No.A-99-069. Recently,the Fair Political Practices Commission(the"FPPC)has revised its conflict of interest regulations in order to simplify the analysis required to determine whether a disqualifying conflict of interest is present. The first step is to determine whether you are a "Public official." As an Atascadero City Councilmember,you are a public official under the Act. Gov't Code§ M8. The second step in the analysis is detrrmine whether you will be participating in a governmental decision. The pending vote on the Mackey property constitutes such participation. See 2 Cal.Codc Regs. §§ 18702.1, 18702.2,and 18702.3. The third step in the analysis is to evaluate whether your economic interests could result in a conflict of interest. The FPPC has brokcan these down into six categories: • A public official has an economic interest in a business entity in which he or she has a direct or indirect investment of S 1,000 or more. Gov't Code§ Section 87103(a);2 Cal,Code Begs. § 18703.1(a); • A public official has an economic interest in a business entity in which he or she is a director,officer,partner,trustee,employee,or holds any position of management. Gov't Code §Section 87103(d);2 Cal.Code Regs. § 18703.1(h)); • A pubfic official has an economic intcrest in real property in which he or she has a diml or indirect interest of$1,000 or more. Govt Code§Section 87103(b);2 Cal.Code Rego. § 18703.2; 1074V! 0000`, 1 ;-09-1999 6:20PM FROM OEREI< A WESTEN ESO 805 963 7131 P. 4 (WED) 8. 4' 99 15:12AT. 15:05/N0. 4862588129 F 5 August 4, 1999 Page 4 • An official has an economic interest in any source of income,including promised income, totaling$250 or more within 12 months prior to the decision. Gov't Code§ Section 87103(c);2 Cal.Code Regs. § 18703.3; • A public official has an economic interest in any source of gifts to him or her if the gifts total 5300 or more within 12 months prior to the decision. Gov't Code§Section 87103(e);2 Cal.Code Reqs. § 18703.4; • A public official has an economic interest in his or her personal expenses,income,assets.,or liabilities,as well as those of his or her immediate family--this is known as the"personal financial effects"rule. Gov't Code§Section 87103;2 Cal.Code Reqs. § 18703.5. Due to your cc-ownership of the Rochelle property,you have an economic interest in real property under the Act. Moreover,it is likely that the FFPC would consider your co-ownership of the property with Mr.Gearhart and your sister to be a partnership,and therefore a`businma entity"within the meaning of the Act. See Gov't Code§ 82005;Sawyer Advice Letter,No. 1-99- 085.If Mr.Gearhart's ownership interest in the Rochelle property were 50%or more, you also would have an economic interest in W. Gearhart. In re Nord,8 FPPC Ops. 6, 13,fn. 16(1983); Sawyer Advice Letter,Jupra. Since Mr.Gearhart's ownership interest is less than 50°x6,you have no"economic interest'in I.W.Gearhart. Thus,the conflict of interest analysis is limited to the foreseeable effects on the Rochelle property and/or the`partnership"that owns that property. It is not necessary to consider whether there would be any financial effects on Mr.Gearhatt's resideatial properry,or whether his public expression of support for the development of the Mackey property would creat a a conflict of interest.2 Tho fourth stop in the analysis is to doternino whether your economic interests are directly or indirectly involved in the governmental decision concerning the Mackey property. Real property is dueetiy involved in a decision if the decision concerns,among other things,altering the use of the property. Such decisions would include rezoning,annexing,selling, purchasing,leasing,assessing,redeveloping or authorizing a specific use of the property. See generally 2 Cal.Code Regs. § 18704.2. If real property is not directly involved in a decision,it is indirxtly involved for purposes of applying the materiality regulations. 2 Cal.Code Regs. § 18704.2(b). Since the governmental decisions concerning the Mackey properly would not alter the specific use of the Rochelle property,the Rochelle property is not directly involved is decisions concerning the Mackey property.; Therefore,the Rochelle property is considered 2 The FPPC has advised that public support for a governmental decision by a source of income to a public official is not,by itself,a disqualifying interest. Lucas Advice Letter,No,A- 96-248. 3 Although Mr.Gearhart technically"initiated"the proceeding concerning the Mackey property,this fact does not afi'ect the analysis since Mr.Gearhart's one-third interest in the Rochelle property is insufficient to make him a source of income to you. ,See/n re Nord.supra. 1074v1 00002 1 '-29-1999 6:22PM FROM DEREK A WESTEM ESO 805 963 7131 P. 5 .rte ii0M PY&S OEI', S. 4' 99 i 5:13il,T. 15:05 1N0. 4862588129 P 6 August 4, 1999 Page 5 indirectly involved in tha decisions concerning the Mackey property- Step five of the analysis concerns whether it;s reasonably foreseeable that the decision will have the required material financial effect on your financial interests. In this case,any effects on-the "partnership"and the Rochelle property ate indistinguishable since the only asset offt"partnership"is the Rochelle property. N4 tth respect to the Rochelle property,since is is more than 2,500 feet from the Mackey property,the"reasonably foreseeable cffact of a decision is not material"unless: • There are specific circumstances regarding*,e decision,its effect,and the nature of the real property in which the official has an interest,which makes it reasonably foreseeable that the fair market value of the property wrill be affected by$10,000 or more(or the rental value by 51,000 or more per 12 month period);or e The effect will not be substantially the same as the effect upon at least 25%of the all the properties within a 2,500 foot radius of the official's property or there are not at least 10 properties under separate o-wucrship within a 2,500 foot radius of the official's property. 2 Cal.Code Regs. § 18705-2(b)(2)(A)and(B). You have indicated at coin thdevel ent of the Mackey property will have no financial effect on the Rochelle property. Although extension of the sewer line is necessary for development of both the Mackey property and the Rochelle property,the facts provided'vindicate that the decisions concerning sewer service to ft two properties are not interrelated. This moans that,consistent with thy test in the FPPC regulation outlined above,there are no specific cirew stwces about the decision,its effect,and the mature of the Rochelle property which male it reasonably foreseeabler that the requisite financial effect is present. Moreover,it also appears that the effect on nearby properties will be the same as that of the Rochelle property and that there are at least 10 properties within a2,500 radius under separate ownership. Accordingly,the financial effect on the Rochelle property is not material under the Act or FPPC regulations.' Since under the analysis approved by the FPPC,the forthcoming decision concerning the Mackey property will not have a material financial effect on your economic interests,then you may participate in the decision concernin;dovsloprnent of the Mackey property. "Reasonably foreseeable"is defined as being"substantially likely." 2 Cal-Code Regs. § 18706. s Although we believe it is not necessary to separately analyze whether there will ba a material financial effect on the"parmership''that owns the Rochelle property,we also would conclude that there is no material financial effect on the"partnership.- The materiality thresholds are sot forth in 2 Cal.Code Regs. § 18705,1(b)(7),and, for the same reasota that there is no material financial effect on the Rochelle property,there would be no material financial effect on the partnership• to7av i 00002"1 11 -09-1999 6:23PM FROM DEREK A wESTEN ESO 805 963 7131 P. E ^ AW*4 FROM FMCS (PIED) 8. 4' 99 15:13%S7. 15:05/N0. 4852583129 P 7 August 4, 1999 Page 6 B. Sewer connection to the Rochelle property. As we discussed on the telephone,any future decision conceming a sewer connection to the Rochelle property must be analyzed separately from your participation in the decisions concerning the Mackey property. In short,as a Rochelle property co-owner,participating in a decision concerning sewer connections to that property will be deemed material to your financial interests. See 2 Cal.Code Regs. § 18705.2(bxl)(B). Accordingly,you must recuse yourself from any such decisions that may come before you while you retain your interest in the Rochelle property. For example,you may not participate in any way in the public meetings of the City Council or Planning Commission during consideration of sewer service for the Rochelle property. In addition,you must not meet with or otherwise attempt to influence the decisions of City staffwith respect to the development of the Rochelle property. III. Conclusion. Based on the facts as summarized above,you may participate i,-i the forthcoming decision concerning the Mackey property. However,you must recuse yourself from any decisions concerning the Rochelle property while you retain your ownership interest.a Should you have any questions concerning the femSoing,please do not hesitate to contact me. Vtruly ours - r an W.Maas CC: Derek A. WestM Esq. Ms.K.E.Donovan 6 If you sall your interest in the Rochelle property,the new owner will be a source of income to you for at least one year and disqualification may continue to be necessary for a longer period if the new owner owes you money from the purchase. See 2 Cal.Code Regs. § 18703.3(a). 1074v 1 00002; Attachment: B Atascadero City Council Meeting Date: 11-09-99 DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 1999-x A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO RESCINDING APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 98003 (3055 TRAFFIC WAY: Mackey) WHEREAS, Dan Mackey, 188 Cedar Street,Ventura,CA 93001 (Applicant)requested a general plan amendment, a zoning change, and a tentative tract map to divide an approximately 4.47-acre site into 29 residential lots; and, WHEREAS, the site is located in the Suburban Single Family (SSF) land use designation of the General Plan which would be changed to High Density Multi-Family,which would allow the type and density of development proposed; and, WHEREAS, the site is located in the Residential Suburban (RS) zoning district which would be changed to the Low Density Multi Family zone with a Planned Development overlay (RMF-10 (PD7)), which would allow the type and density of development proposed; and, WHEREAS; the City Council conducted a public hearing on the proposed General Plan and Zoning Map amendments and tentative map on August 10, 1999, and considered testimony and reports from staff, the applicants, and the public, following which the project was approved; and, WHEREAS; the City Council failed to pass the rezoning ordinance at the second reading on September 14, 1999; and, WHEREAS; the City Council determined on November 9, 1999 that a deciding vote for approval of the General Plan Amendment was likely conflicted; and, NOW,THEREFORE,be it resolved that the City Council does hereby rescind approval of Resolution 1999-037 thereby causing denial of GPA 98003. 000026 Resolution 1999-x Page 2 On motion by and seconded by , the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED: CITY OF ATASCADERO, CA Ray Johnson, Mayor ATTEST: Marcia M. Torgerson, City Clerk Approved as to form: Roy A. Hanley, City Attorney 000027 Attachment: C Atascadero City Council November 91 1999 Meeting Date: 11-09-99 rn to Atascadero City Council From Dorothy F. McNeil Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers: Recently an outcry from citizens of Paso Robles caused the City Council to turn down the proposal for a privately-run prison. We sincerely hope this Council will reject this far more serious proposal to build a maximum security facility for 1 ,500 sexually violent predators at the Atascadero State Hospital. The Hospital is now under the Department of Mental Health and is considered a maximum security place for Patients, not Inmates which the 1 ,500 "ould be. These are criminals with multiple offenses of the worst I ind who prey lamely on children. , hen they have served their time , the state may judge them too dangerous to release and can hold them for an additional two years. Our Hospital now has about 200 of these Predators on hold. Technically they are not considered mentally ill . T .ey may be a local store manager, your Uncle Sid or some other respected citizen. The SVP cannot be rehabilitated. _to one knows how many SVP' s remain in the community where they have been incarcerated. The state has never tracked them after they are released. The only responsibility the State Hospital has is to get them a bus ticket to the county where they were arrested and sen- anced. If they wish to return here they can buy a return ticket .,,nrtime and join the family or girlfriend who understandably may :-ave moved here during their incarceration. currently the decision as to whether the state can hold them after expiration of their sentence is in the hands of the courts because some of them have sued to be released. if we reject this 1,500 inmate expansion, rumor has it that -the state may send our 800 tiatients elsewhere and send us only SVP i�._nates. How the state expects to staff such a facility raises a �eriou.s question. The Hospital is now down over 100 level of care staff, and many psychiatrists have left as a result of having to deal with the current 200 SVP',s. Such a decision by the state would be highly irresponsible . Certainly no community wants to be saddled .,4th these predators . Our county has more than its share of prisoners :�itYl California Men' s Colony, our Hospital and the Paso Robles Boys ' School . We offer enough of "good-paying jobs" with these facilities . That argument is a poor one for taking such a risk. Additionally, I wonder how this project would affect tourism we so often seek. Who wants to vacation in an area which may not be safe for children: I would not want to be one of you who votes "yes" if any child here became another Polly Klass or had her arms and legs cut off after being molested. It would be too heavy a burden to carry. 10 8765 Sierra Vista Rd. 1 "'�.tascadero, CA 93422 000028 -AWcadexo pw Grbutici )( R 1999Date I D599s CITY OF A.ASCADERO CITY CLERK'S OFFICE t f �r L 1� V �v r �.J.0 000029 Attachment: E Atascadero City Council Meeting Dater 11-09-99 To : The Atascadero City Council From : Property Owners of North Traffic Way,Atascadero Subject : General Plan Amendment and Zone Change Date : 11/04/99 Per recommendation of the Atascadero Planning Commission on the 19th of October 1999, We, the undersigned property owners, herby request approval by the City Council of Atascadero for a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change from RS (residential suburban) to RSF-X (residential single family). We ask this be considered during the next available General Plan amendment cycle. We have been working with the Planning Staff since April of this year, attempting to have our neighborhood included in the process with the adjoining developments in the immediate area and thereby should not be impacted by the recently adopted moratorium: SIGNATURE NAME PRINTED ADDRESS ASSESSOR PARCEL # C��tLs,T �6 D TMJ o , o l , o t`t 33 00 1 F'`c 4 a 11, o� 2. El rz E oo r,q W'R C>L49 ,01{ 0 Z rn Vi 14 t. ,f N3300 p -,e 0L4"k, 0"1(1 0l Z. �tiy,o31 1 ooh Q.cc 3i 3o Ts a o4`t, oZl ,ot't '� r'+ewl 0311 DOS , 33 Z5- o a-1z , 005 1,631 00� a� K S; Z �4. 3�l v tiZs3�rk.,c,JA� a�mac»t,Ul � copies: Ray Johnson, Mayor Wade McKinney, City Manager Mike Arrambide,Mayor Pro Tem Paul Saldano, Community Development Director 000030 IINe,o •��� ���� Lk,QN 116. ME '40moo. jIN i��� �►�c' �� ���♦�6���i� MIT upwo move MA AM MW 40..� tit• ==. . _�• Na i 00 . _ z � o ...aPON .r err■. go .•ice•+• •••- � . t ITEM NUMBER: A-2 DATE: 12/14/99 „llMin' MINUTES iiia A ® 117e' \ moo ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 1999 7:00 P.M. REGULAR SESSION, 7:00 P.M.: Mayor Johnson called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. and Council Member Clay led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: Present: Council Members Arrambide, Clay, Luna, Scalise and Mayor Johnson Absent: None Others Present: City Clerk Marcia McClure Torgerson and City Treasurer David Graham Staff Present: City Manager Wade McKinney,Police Chief Dennis Hegwood, Fire Chief Mike McCain, Community Services Director Brady Cherry, Administrative Services Director Rachelle Rickard, Principal Planner Warren Frace, Assistant City Engineer John Neil and City Attorney Roy Hanley. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: MOTION: Council Member Luna and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Arrambide to approve the agenda. Motion pressed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. COMMUNITY FORUM: Daphne Fahsing, 5105 Llano Road, stated in a prepared statement that the Council has received numerous calls and letters opposing the expansion of the Atascadero State Hospital, yet the 000032 majority of the Council voted in favor. She expressed concern that the Council is not listening to the majority of Atascadero citizens and feels she cannot trust several of the Council.Members. (see Attachment A) Mayor Johnson clarified that the decision about the State Hospital is a State decision. He stated that the Council has only requested input. John McGoff, 9192 Maple St., expressed in a prepared statement his disappointment with the Council for ignoring the public, staff and Planning Commission on land use issues. He cited several examples such as the Lakes and Mackey projects to support his statements. (see Attachment B) Eric Greening, 6600 Lewis Ave., stated that he felt Ms. Fahsing's commentary summed up his own concern for the fact that a motion was made which specified that the City would like to be considered as a site, not just receive more information. Mayor Johnson closed the Community Forum period. COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENT AND REPORTS: Council Member Luna explained that bow hunting is legal within the City limits. However, he asked for consensus to have staff bring the issue back to Council to consider outlawing bow hunting within the City limits. There was Council consensus to direct staff to bring the issue of bow hunting within the City limits back to the City Council for review. Council Member Clay stated, in regard to Ms. Fahsing's comment, that he was at the Highway 41 meeting and the public comments were not three to one, rather they were about fifty-fifty. He also explained, in regard to Mr. McGoff s comments, that Atascadero is growing and these projects were needed. A. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. City_ Council Minutes—October 26, 1999 ■ City Clerk recommendation: Council approve the City Council minutes of October 26, 1999 [Marcia McClure Torgerson] 2. City Council Minutes—November 09, 1999 ■ City Clerk recommendation: Council approve the City Council minutes of November 09, 1999 [Marcia McClure Torgerson] CC 11/23/99 000033 Page 2 3. Acceptance of Final Parcel Map #99012 —AT 99-164 (905 El Camino Real) (Greenberg Farrow/ Gearhart/Kregger) ■ Fiscal Impact: None ■ Staff recommendation: Council: 1. Accept the Final Map 499012; and 2. Reject the offer of dedication for the El Camino Real right-of-way north of the San Ramon Road intersection [Community Development Department] 4. Davis Property: Zone Change #98004—Establishment of Planned Development 15 Overlay District - (3 900 Traffic Way/ Shores) ■ Fiscal Impact: None ■ Staff recommends: Council introduce for second reading by title only Ordinance No. 367, adding a Planned Development Overlay District-15 (PD-15) to the City Zoning Ordinance. [Community Development Department] 5. Davis Property: Zone Change 498004 - Mixed Use Cluster Residential Subdivision— (3 900 Traffic Way / Shores) ■ Fiscal Impact: None ■ Staff recommendation: Council introduce for second reading by title only Ordinance No. 368, rezoning the project site from RS (Residential Suburban) to RSF-X(PD-15), L (PD-15) (Recreation), and I(Industrial) [Community Development Department] 6. Atascadero Mall Overlav Proiect(#99-01)—Accept completed public improvements ■ Fiscal Impact: $11,563.62 in Urban State Highway Account and Sidewalk Trust Funds (Fund 500) ■ Staffrecommendation: Council acceptpublic improvements as complete and authorize release of the project retention in the amount of 511,563.62 to A.J. Diani Construction Company[Community Services Department] 7. Garcia Road Storm Damage Repairs—Bid No. 99-03 ■ Fiscal Impact: S39,882 ■ Staff recommendation: Council authorize the Mayor to execute an agreement with YVhitaker Engineering Contractors, Inc. [Community Services Department] 8. San Benito Elementary School Road Improvements—Bid No. 99-07 ■ Fiscal Impact: S26,517.96 ■ Staff recommendation: Council authorize the Mayor to execute an agreement with Souza Engineering Contracting, Inc. to construct the route to school improvements at the San Benito School. [Community Services Department] 9. Garcia Road Bridge Replacement Proiect ■ Fiscal Impact: 512,450 (S9,960 HBRR, S2,490 Fund 705) ■ Staff recommendation: Council authorize the Mayor to execute a Consultant Services Agreement with Tarvin &Associates for the services required to prepare appraisals and right-of-way maps for the acquisition of slope easements and rights-of-entry 0 required to replace the Garcia Road bridge. [Community Services Department] CC 11/23/99 000031 Page 3 10. Request to Serve Alcohol at a Private Function in the City Administration Building ■ Fiscal Impact: 5200.00 in rental income ■ Staff recommendation: Council approve the request to serve alcohol at a private function in the City Administration Building. [Community Services Department] 11. Lighting Plan for Atascadero Lake Park—Request by the Atascadero Rotary Club to modify plan ■ Fiscal Impact: None ■ Staff recommendation: Council approve a request by the Atascadero Rotary Club to modify the Lighting Plan for Atascadero Lake Park by installing one additional decorative lamppost in the approximate location of a recently removed PG&E power- pole with a streetlight fixture. [Community Services Department] 12. Annual Investment Policy Review—Finance Committee review of Investment Policy with recommended changes and additions. ■ Fiscal Impact: None ■ City Treasurer recommendation: Council approve the attached revised Investment Policy with the changes and additions as recommended by the City Finance Committee. [City Treasurer] The City Clerk pulled Item 4A-2 for corrections, Rush Kolemaine pulled Item #A-3, Eric Greening pulled Item 4A-4, Council Member Luna pulled Item#A-10, John McGoff pulled Item #A-12. MOTION: By Council Member Clay and seconded by Council Member Scalise to approve Items #A-I, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 11. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. RE: Item 9A-3: Rush Kolemaine, P.O. Box 1990, asked the Council to review the traffic situation before approving this item. Principal Planner Warren Frace confirmed that the submitted parcel map is that which was approved by the Planning Commission. He stated that the El Camino Real improvements are consistent with the General Plan. Mr. Kolemaine explained that he has concern for the circulation element with regard to direct access between Traffic Way and El Camino Real. Council Member Luna asked if we would lose anything by accepting the offer and if the developers would be responsible for the road. Mr. Frace responded that it would be fully improved to City standards by the developers and they would be responsible for the road. MOTION: By Council Member Clay and seconded by Council Member Scalise to approve Item #A-3. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. RE: Item #A-4: Eric Greening, 6600 Lewis Ave., asked that a Phase II survey be done before plans are drawn. He requested that a monument or plaque be placed at the De Anza campsite in cooperation with Meredith Capland. Council Member Clay stated, in regards to the adobe found CC 11/23/99 0000,115) Page 4 near the Davis project, he would like to see a plaque placed there. He commented that the installation of fields would not be as big of a problem. MOTION: By Council Member Luna and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Arrambide to approve Item #A-4. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. RE: Item #A-10: Council Member Luna asked if there will be security during this event. Community Services Director Brady Cherry responded that private security would be required. Council Member Luna expressed concern that this event would take place within a drug-free zone. Mayor Johnson stated that this event is probably in the gray area and recommended a close watch be kept on the events in the City Administration Building. PUBLIC COMMENT Rush Kolemaine, P.O. Box 1990, stated that he believed the amendment made to the policy for the allowance of alcoholic beverages in the City Administration Building would be limited to three events per year providing that the party was non-profit or a body of the City, excluding private parties. He asked for the date, time, and expected attendance for the event. Mr. Cherry responded that reservations were made for December 11, 1999, from 5:30—8:00 p.m., with approximately 60 persons in attendance. John McGoff, 9192 Maple St., expressed his opposition to allowing alcohol use on City property. Mayor Johnson closed the Public Comment period. No motion was made by the Council, thus denying the request. RE: Item #A-12: John McGoff, 9192 Maple St., asked if he correctly understood that the Health and Safety Code requires Redevelopment Agency funds to be separately banked and budgeted. Administrative Services Director Rachelle Rickard responded that the funds are in separate accounts, tracked separately, etc. She stated that it is part of the same checking account; however, the City and Redevelopment Agency funds are not interspersed. Mr. McGoff asked if it is City policy to invest in real estate. City Treasurer David Graham responded that investments in real estate are forbidden by the State Code. He stated that we can, however, invest in mortgage backed securities. MOTION: By Council Member Luna and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Arrambide to approve Item #A-12. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. CC 11/23/99 0000,016 Page 5 B. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Atascadero State Hospital / Chalk Mountain Golf Course Annexation—Conducting Authority Hearing of Annexation. ■ Fiscal Impact: Positive ■ Staff recommends Council, acting as the Conducting Authority: 1. Summaries the LAFCo resolution of determination on the reorganization. 2. Open the Public Hearing and allow anyone wishing to protest the annexation to make statements and submit or withdraw written protests to the Clerk. 3. Close the Public Hearing and recess the meeting to allow the Clerk to determine the value of written protests filed and not withdrawn. 1. Reconvene the meeting and have the Clerk report the value of the written protests that have been filed. 5. Adoption of Resolution 1999-068 making a finding regarding the value of the written protests filed. [Community Development Department] Principal Planner Warren Frace gave the staff report and answered questions of Council. Council Member Luna asked how notification was given. Mr. Frace stated that all voters have been notified by mail. Council Member Luna asked what document was sent out. Mr. Frace responded that a legal notice, outlining the project and the process for filing a protest, was sent with a map to all registered voters within the boundary. Mayor Johnson read a summary of the LAFCo resolution passed November 18, 1999. Mayor Johnson opened the Public Hearing to allow anyone wishing to protest the annexation to make statements and submit or withdraw written protests to the Clerk. PUBLIC COMMENT: None Mayor Johnson asked the City Clerk to report on the written protests filed. Ms. Torgerson reported to the Council that she has received one valid written protest (see Attachment D). She explained that as a result, the Council may adopt the proposed Resolution, deleting #2 and #3 under Section 1, Finding and deleting #2 and#3 under Section 2. Determination. MOTION: By Council Member Luna and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Arrambide to adopt Resolution No. 1999-068 accepting Finding 1, deleting 2 and 3, and accepting Determination 1, deleting 2 and 3. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. CC 11/23/99 000037 Page 6 C. MANAGEMENT REPORTS: 1. General Plan Update Strategy ■ Fiscal Impact: S60,000 increased appropriations for FY 1999-2000 ■ Staff recommendation: Council approve strategy for General Plan update, authorize the City Manager to enter into contract with Crawford Multari Clark& Mohr for consulting services, and appropriate City Manager Wade McKinney gave the staff report and answered questions of Council. Council Member Luna thanked Mr. McKinney and suggested that his report be placed on the web site. He stated he is one of those citizens who are nervous about this process. He asked how Atascadero is going to grow and how staff intends to deal with the issue of growth. Mr. McKinney responded that staff believes that a strengthening of the General Plan and pro-active approach to designing areas of housing opportunities will be necessary. Mr. McKinney mentioned that mixed-use development is a good idea and our downtown would be a good area to implement that process. He explained that Atascadero won't be able to deal the numbers of people that come in the future. We don't really have control over a population cap. He stated that we have many people living in illegal second units that we are unable to include in our population total. He stated that now is the time to allow development in the areas we want development and prohibit development in the areas we do not want development. Mayor Johnson asked in regards to build-out, if the current measure is a good measure to use. Principal Planner Warren Frace stated that the population number is a theoretical number for highest build-out and will probably never be achieved. Council Member Clay commended Mr. McKinney on his report. He stated that when he hears the word "growth" he visualizes growth of parks and industry, not necessarily homes. He expressed that he would be realistic about our community. Council Member Scalise stated that she was pleased to hear that some of the General Plan will still be used. She expressed concern for the future of our community, with water at the top of the list. She stated that she feels the General Plan lacks a balance of jobs and housing. Mayor Pro Tem Arrambide expressed appreciation for Mr. McKinney's presentation. He stated he would like to see a CPM or date sensitive analysis attached to the tasks. Council Member Luna stated those that know the past and understand the present can grasp the future. He commented that when he views the past he see things such as the Mackey project; when looking at the present he sees things such as SOAR and smart growth. He asked if density is increased, how would the General Plan goal of preserving residential neighborhoods be kept in areas such as Traffic Way where there are large residential lots. Mr. McKinney stated they anticipate discussing alternatives with the neighborhoods and presenting them to the City Council. He suggested that the neighborhood mentioned by Council CC 11/23/99 000038 Page 7 Member Luna may have the capacity to carry more density. He stated that the role of staff would be to explore the alternatives with the neighborhood and the community. Mayor Johnson stated that"we don't want sprawl." He commented that he would like to get community involvement. Council Member Luna asked if they would see an itemized budget for the $120,000 spent. Mr. McKinney stated that they could provide an early estimate and later an update. Council Member Luna replied that he would like to see an itemized budget. Council Member Clay expressed that he does have a concern for the architecture. PUBLIC COMMENT Rush Kolemaine, P.O. Box 1990, thanked the City Manager for his thorough report on this item. He asked for clarification of the details of the proposed contract. John McGoff, 9192 Maple St., read into the record a fax he sent to the Mayor and City Manager regarding his concern about the City's process for requesting proposals for consulting services. (see Attachment D) Mayor Johnson asked the City Attorney to respond to Mr. McGoff s concerns. Mr. Hanley stated that the State law provides the process for the City to be able to contract and it is not necessary for a City to have a Municipal Code specifying the legalities of entering into a contract. He also stated that everything Mr. McKinney has contracted for are administrative matters in compliance with State law. He commented that staff has sought and brought forward additional information beyond what was necessary. Mr. McGoff asked about sole source. Mr. Hanley responded that there is no code section that says you cannot sole source. He stated that sole source of these types of services is legal, although it is not the case of Public Works contracts. Donald Funk, representing Wes O'Reilly and John Hegerdy, who have submitted General Plan Amendments, asked if they will be included in the update process. Mr. Frace explained that the applications have been recommended to be folded in to the overall update process for consideration. Rush Kolemaine, P.O. Box 1990, again asked for clarification of the details of the proposed contract. Mr. McKinney replied that the project will be conducted by staff, however,the firm will be used as needed and as specified in the contract. John McGoff, 9192 Maple St., also asked for clarification of the proposed contract with regards to it being open-ended. Mr. McKinney stated that the City will contract for individual elements and will not be open-ended. Mayor Johnson closed the Public Comment period. CC 11/23/99 000039 Page 8 Council Member Clay stated that he appreciates the fact that Mr. McKinney has done an excellent job preparing for this process and it is clear he is working to keep the costs down. Mr. McKinney stated that there will be a maximum of$60,000 spent. Mayor Johnson expressed that he is not interested in moving away from the goals of the General Plan. He stated that he would like to see community involvement. Council Member Luna stated that SOAR does not put any in-fill pressures on the cities. He expressed support for pro-active and smart growth principals. However, he stated that in-fill pressures should not force us to rewrite our General Plan. He expressed his fear for what has happened in the past with pressure from developers, such as in 1992 when Bob Nimmo received a letter at the last minute and changed portions of the General Plan on the basis of that one neighbor. He suggested that the community members organize, be part of the process and not rely on government. Robert Nimmo, Bella Vista, asked to speak since his name has been mentioned several times tonight. He stated he is not a developer and he does not own a lot of property in Atascadero. He and his wife have gifted the majority of his holdings to their children. Mr. Nimmo expressed his support for the update of the General Plan. He stated that growth is inevitable, and we already have multiple families living on single family parcels—a growing problem that needs to be addressed. MOTION: By Council Member Clay and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Arrambide to approve strategy for General Plan update, authorizing the City Manager to enter into contract with Crawford Multari Clark &. Mohr for consulting services, and appropriate $60,000 for allocation reserves for the update process. Motion passed 4:1 by a roll-call vote. (Luna opposed) 2. Information Bulletin D. COMMITTEE REPORTS: S.L.O. Council of Governments/S.L.O. Regional Transit Authority Mayor Johnson stated that they would be meeting next week. Air Pollution Control District Mayor Pro Tem Arrambide announced that they met this week with regards to the back-yard burning issue. He stated that we are still without a plan in Atascadero. He commented that we have a problem with our urban forests in terms of waste management, and the Federal CC 11/23/99 0000-1110 Page 9 government is requiring cities to come up with an alternate plan for back-yard burning. He expressed disappointment for the lack of public involvement. Council Member Scalise commented that she would be willing to create some type of ad hoc committee. Mayor Johnson stated that he would like to see this move forward, and if an ad hoc committee is needed, he could support it. County Mayor's Round Table Mayor Pro Tem Arrambide reported that there was a great presentation by the Economic Vitality Corporation. He stated that they discussed job opportunities/businesses for the Central Coast. City / Schools Committee Mr. McKinney announced that a tentative all-day mediation meeting is set for December 21, 1999. SCA-3 Steering Committee Council Member Scalise reported that they do have a consultant that they will meet with in conjunction with the SLOCOG meeting on December 8, 1999. She stated an estimated $12 million dollars, annually, would result for Atascadero. She commented that she had a good time at the Mayor's Hospice luncheon, and stated that they thanked Atascadero for their efforts regarding the'lighting of the "Tree of Life." Mayor Johnson announced that the Sunken Gardens Holiday Lighting Ceremony will take place on November 27, 1999. E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION: City Council Council Member Clay stated he would like to review with the public what he learned at the Smart Growth Conference. Council Member Luna asked if any of the conference was televised. Mr. McKinney replied that they were video taped, however they did not offer videos for purchase. He stated that he did obtain audio tapes of the sessions. F. ADJOURNMENT: Mayor Johnson adjourned the meeting at 9:22 p.m. to the Special Road Meeting on November, 30, 1999, at 6:30p.m. CC 11/23/99 0000,41 Page 10 MEETING RECORDED AND PREPARED BY: Marcia McClure Torgerson, City Clerk Melanie Whaley, Deputy City Clerk ATTCHMENTS: A- Prepared statement by Daphne Fahsing, 5105 Llano Road, November 23, 1999. B- Prepared statement by John McGoff, 9192 Maple Street, November 23, 1999. C- Protest against proposal to reorganize (annex) approximately 884 acres, by R. R. Olvera, November 16, 1999. D- Prepared statement by John McGoff, 9192 Maple Street, November 22, 1999. 0000.12 CC 11/23/99 Page 11 Attachment: A Atascadero City Council Meeting Date: 11-23-99 Daphne Fahsing, 5105 Llano Rd . City Council, Tuesday, November 23,1999 I just want to refresh your memory back to your last meeting, November 9, on the subject of the state hospital expansion. At least 12 people stood up here and said we don ' t need any more sexually violent predators in our city; Marcia read more letters and told you she had received 25 phone calls . I think all of you said you had received calls and letters, more than on any other recent subject. One person was for the prison. Mrs . Scalise called that a "small minority. " I see it as a very large majority. Legislators know that one letter, or call , from one constituent speaks for another 1, 000. Every time we hear from a public official we are told "We want your input . We will listen to you. " Every time we take you at your word, tell you what we want and what we do not want, only to find the majority of your . council hasn' t really heard a word. Or is there something going on behind the scenes that determines what your decision will be? I prefer not to think so . .It kind of reminds me of the Highway 41 realignment meetings, when Mr. Nimmo was mayor. That final meeting on a cold, windy, rainy . night , an overflow crowd , and at least three times as many people who opposed any realignment, the sensible route being to Paso Robles and Hwy-46 . It didn ' t mean a thing to Mr . Nimmo. He ignored the majority. He wanted it, and he got it . And look what a mess it is ! The same thing is happening now. You didn ' t only ask for information. You asked that Atascadero "be considered . " In other words , yes , we 'd love to become the sexual predator capital of California . I thank Mr. Luna and Mr. Clay for their independent thinking.. The rest of you, we have to wonder : When will you begin to listen? When can we begin to trust you? 000013 Attachment: B Atascadero City Council Meeting Date: 11-23-99 Community Forum - Tuesday, November 23, 1999 Mayor Johnson, Council Members John McGoff 9192 Maple Street Atascadero During the last council meeting, Bob Lilley, used the analogy of a train when characterizing the actions of this council majority and certain staff regarding land use decisions. Mr. Lilley was representing a number of citizens who wanted a taste of the General Plan and Zoning Changes that have approved and that add substantial value to the land of special interests in this community. I can share the anger and frustration of these people in demanding equity, and as they realize that this council majority holds the quality of life in this City hostage with four little words, one uttered by each of the majority, YES, YES, YES AND AYE. Time after time since that last election, we have attended too many meetings where you have ignored the planning staff, the neighbors and the community at- large. You have consistently added 10's of thousands, often 100's of thousands of dollars of value to parcels for individuals, company's and corporations whom you affectionately call "your constituents". These range in value from the Banana Republic you approved for Mr. Jones at 5190 Aguila Ave. Mr. Jones, with great candor, explained that he wanted the lot split for the money. That he was not satisfied with the appreciation in value of his 5 plus acre parcel over the past 28 years, the council majority effectively engaged in estate planning for the applicant. Regarding "The Lakes" project. The increase in density allowed was so large as to permit Denis Moresco to gratuitously offer $250K, 1/4 of a million dollars, to the City for youth activities. Was this a noble gesture, or to assure a swing vote, if necessary. Our development fees are kept below market, not even indexed for inflation since 1992, because the council majority thinks it is TOO EXPENSIVE for developers to build here. Obviously, this pencilled out rather 0000111 nice for Mr. Moresco. Thanks to you, the "lakes" will be the nearest thing we have to tract housing in this City I hope you have noticed the increasing frequency of Letters to the Editors of local newspapers questioning your ideologically driven decisions. When I say your votes are holding this city hostage, I mean just that. The land use decisions are affecting the appearance of this City and, most egregiously, the quality of life for years to come. You name it, traffic, pollution,erosion of infrastructure, you can and have done it with as few as two votes when other councilmen have had to step down for conflict of interest. The increase in the height of netting at Eagle Creek is just one example. You packed the Planning Commission to divert some of the heat from the Council. However, no matter how zealous Mr. Carden is in carrying the water for the developers, maybe Dan Mackey perhaps Kelly G, it took the neighborhood to prove a conflict of interest and questioning the efficacy of 29 homes on land suitable only for a rifle range. Tonite you hold the hammer again if you try to impose your will on the Citizens who have not asked for, much less want, not legally mandated, a comprehensive, special interest and consultant driven General Plan Update. Are we to assume that you use a tactic such as placing this on the agenda as a management report. Surely,a contract which may require multi-year funding and additional appropriations is as important as annexing ASH> When I mentioned earlier Bob Lilley's analogy of the train, I would like to broaden that to characterize council majority actions as running a railroad. Your railroad has a conductor, a couple of porters, but strangely, no brakeman or identifiable or accountable engineer. It does have an engineer, the only evidence I can find of an agenda including gerry-mandering of the General Plans and Zoning. Here's a copy of Bob Nimmo's beliefs he expressed when he ran for election to this council. The agenda hasn't changed, only the faces. 0000,15 Attachment: C Atascadero City Counci 045451-2, Unit 6 Meeting Date: 11-23-99 Atascadero State Hospital 10333 E1 Camino Real P.O. Box 7001 Atascadero, CA 93423-7001 Tuesday, November 16, 1999 Marcia M. Torgerson, City Clerk NUI 18 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, CA 93422 CITY OF ATASCADERO CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Subject: PROTEST AGAINST PROPOSAL TO REORGANIZE (ANNEX) 884+ ACRES Dear Marcia M. Torgerson: This is to inform the City Council of the City of Atascadero of my personal feelings regarding their proposed reorganization plan to annex 884+ acres known as the Atascadero State Hospital and Chalk Mountain Golf Course Annexation Area No. 5. According to the NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING, dated November 4, 1999, one of the reasons given as a justification for the reorganization of the above territory in question is that "The territory is already built- out to its highest and best use as a State Hospital Facility.. ." I strongly disagree with your perception that the territory in ques- tion is already built-out to its highest and best use. While it's certainly true that a state hospital--Atascadero State Hospital, to be exact, is located within this territory, to say that this hospital constitutes the highest and best use of the territory is arguable. Atascadero State Hospital, in my opinion, does not constitute good, let alone best .usage of the land upon which it stands. Surely it would be far better if the hospital was vacated, demolished and the land be put to productive/positive use. Atascadero State Hospital, which is a hospital in name only, is a dis- graceful, notoriously corrupt, chamber of unspeakable horrors unworthy of public support--political, financial, or otherwise! This so-called hospital should have been named Atascadero State Hell. This way it would at least be justified in its horrendous practices of abuse, tor- ture, deceit, corruption and other human rights violations. The citizens of Atascadero have a right to know, and the City Council has a legal responsibility to investigate the facts, before consider- ing to reorganize the territory in question. If you or any other city official would like to discuss any of the issues presented in this letter, with me, I shall welcome the opportunity to do so. In the meantime, I strongly urge the City of Atascadero not to lend its support, in any form, to Atascadero State Hospital. If the land was presently being occupied by a genuine, real hospital or school, col- lege, university, community center, etc. , then I would gladly support your proposal. After all I too am a responsible citizen that supports positive growth, change and development. 000046 n- — 1 I - Ci nrarcl NOV-22-99 11 : 17 AM JOHN MC GOFF 1 805 461 0477 P. 02 Attachment: D Ray 1, City Clerk, 10.57 AM 11/22/99, Contracting for Consultant Ser Atascadero City Council ieeung Late- 1.1-23-99 To: Ray 1, City Clerk From: John I McGoff <jjmcgoff@calinet.com> Subject: Contracting for Consultant Services Cc: Wade, George Home, City Atny ecc: Attached: C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\My Documents\Agenda, 23 Nov-Procurement.doc; Ray: Attached Is addressed to you via e-mail because of the urgency of this matter. You have been put on notice of the public's concern regarding any "comprehensive" tinkering with the publics plan and zoning ordinances, yet, to and behold, we are within but a heartbeat of awarding a contract? I will deliver a signed copy for Marcia to receipt. Also copies for other council members without e- mail addresses. Contrary to what the City Attorney has written, there are people out here who know enough about contracting to question both the city's motives and methods. With the ever-increasing reliance of the city (McKinney) on consultants, you had better get the city's act together, procurement-wise. I would bet that if you asked the Finance Director for a summary of the cost of consulting contracts awarded since October of 1997, you would be amazed. If, as reported in this mornings Tribune, the City manager proposes to roll the Main Street 0 contract and the GP update contract into one, he is compounding your problems. How does he propose to do that? Main Street was awarded using CRA Funds. The GP update will be using General Funds. Co- mingling of funds is a dangerous, if not illegal action. Look at Paso's on-going problems in trying to launder money thru their CRA. This contract appears on the face to be a multi-year procurement. It is being split to avoid a finanacial limitation. You do not have FY 01 funds to encumber. A case could be made that the Main Street contract becomes a split procurement If you attempt to roll it into another contract. Even though the City ASSUMES competent authority to contract for consultant services, based SOLELY on the citys Procurement&Purchasing Manual, contracts for services have never been formally bid although the Council has established limits and procedures in the Code. Your public policy does not suggest public notification, it mandates it when the proposed contract exceeds those limits. There are exceptions to formal bidding, however the methods currently employed are not authorized exceptions. Formal bidding has been deliberately circumvented by utilization of "Requests for Proposals". Although these are a form of procurement, they do not obviate the requirement for public notice. Formal bidding, public notice of the proposed encumberance of public funds, is simply an Printail fnr 7nhn 7 urcnff tii—nnfftAlral"st.re" t 000047 NOV-22-99 11 : 17 AM JOHN MC GOFF 1 805 461 0477 P. 03 Ray 3, City Clerk, 1057 AM 11/22/99, Contracting for Consultant Ser implementation of the publics right to know HOW, WHEN, WHY, and WITH WHOM you are spending our tax dollars. Public notice Is not only for Joe Taxpayer, it also assures full, fair and open competition for the citys business. Provides an opportunity for contractor protest of awards, and a myriad of other protections. These actions require publication in a newspaper soliciting bids/proposals. Posting prominently on City bulleting boards, public library, etc. Receipt, recording and safeguarding bids/proposals by the City Clerk. Public opening and reading of the bids/proposals at the time certain as shown in the solicitation. Public posting of the notice of award, prior to such award. None of these policies have been followed. The methods currently practiced are contrary to the public interest. In point of fad, they not only give the appearance of impropriety, they encourage it by concealing from the public acts, which by law, they have a right to know. Most egregiously, they hide the fads until the contract is presented to the council as a "done deal" with public co- opted from the process until the last five minutes before you vote. As evidenced by Councilman Arrambidie's cavalier attitude when HE decided to raise McKinney's pay, which the majority rubber-stamped. Well, that made a majority of four. What about the other 23,000 tax payers in this city?This and other council/city manager actions tells the public that the majority feels that they are only accountable every two years. An increasing number others In this city do not subscribe to that self-serving attitude. They are just beginning to express their concerns at council meetings and in the local FREE press. Expect to be held accountable whenever your judgement or treatment of the public is found wanting, every other Tuesday, if necessary. Yours for good government. John McGoff PrintM fnr 7nhn 7 uct-..nff eii~nnfF4hra1inabt-r^m- 7 00001,18 ITEM NUMBER: A-3 DATE: 12/14/99 F9 n 04 MINUTES 1918 k a 19 9 ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 1999, 6:30 P.M. L CALL STUDY SESSION TO ORDER Mayor Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council Member Scalise led the Pledge of Allegiance. III. C ROLL ALL O Present: Council Members Arrambide, Clay, Luna, Scalise and Mayor Johnson Absent: None Others Present: City Clerk Marcia Torgerson Staff Present: City Manager Wade McKinney, Community Services Director Brady Cherry, Assistant City Engineer John Neil and City Attorney Roy Hanley. ATASCADERO ROADS IV. PURPOSE AND INTRODUCTIONS City Manager Wade McKinney welcomed everyone to this Study Session and gave a summary of how the Session would proceed. He introduced Community Services Director Brady Cherry and Assistant City Engineer John Neil who will also be making presentations tonight. Mr. McKinney gave definitions of unfamiliar terms that would be used at this meeting. CC-Roads Study Session 000049 11/30/99 Pagel ITEM NUMBER: A-3 DATE: 12/14/99 V. SUMMARY OF FINANCIAL ISSUES Mr. McKinney reviewed amount of taxes we pay and how much Atascadero receives. He also compared the cities within SLO County concerning their tax revenues and expenditures. Council Member Luna asked what percentage of cities supplement their gas tax with the general fund monies. Mr. McKinney replied that the majority of cities in our county do not supplement with the exception Arroyo Grande and Paso Robles who contribute DLF. Council Member Clay asked for confirmation that most cities use only gas tax, not general funds, and we may need to use general funds because we have more roads. Mr. McKinney stated that other cities supplement their funds more than we do. Council Member Clay asked what role developers could play in road maintenance. Mr. McKinney replied that developer impact fees could not be used for maintenance. PUBLIC COMMENT Joan O'Keefe, Old Morro Road East, asked if the 8.6 million dollars of general fund revenue could fluctuate. Mr. McKinney responded, yes. Mayor Johnson closed the Public Comment period. VI. DESCRIPTION OF THE ATASCADERO ROAD SYSTEM Community Services Director Brady Cherry described the different categories of streets in Atascadero. He provided legal explanations for the current road situation. He explained that city maintained roads have been accepted by Council Resolution. Debbie Cardinale, 7355 Sonora,asked if there is a record of roads that are maintained. Mr. Hanley commented that the maintenance Mr. Cherry referred to is not an insolated incident, but rather roads that have been maintained since 1985 without there being a Council Resolution. Mr. Cherry responded, yes, there is a list. Ms. Cardinale asked what would qualify a road as "maintained." Mr. Cherry replied that it would require performed maintenance and the road would also have to be on the Public Works list. Ms. Cardinale asked if the maintenance would have to have occurred on a schedule or by citizen complaint. Mr. Cherry stated that since he has been with the City, it has been the department's practice to maintain only"city maintained" roads. Ms. Cardinale asked for a definition of the term"Colony Road." City Attorney Roy Hanley responded that when Atascadero roads were first being made there were not public roads rather property owners could buy entitlements which allowed them to travel on Colony Roads, thus allowing them to refuse whomever they wished. Council Member Luna asked what the estimated life of a newly accepted Colony Road would be. Mr. Cherry responded the expected life span of a new road or newly repaired road would be 20 years. Council Member Luna asked Mr. Hanley what the status of the Colony Road issue is. Mr. Hanley answered that the issue is yet to be resolved and commented that an attempt to CC-Roads Study Session 000050 11/30/99 Page 2 ITEM NUMBER: A-3 DATE: 12/14/99 resolve it may not advance the City's interest in fixing the road system. Mr. Hanley stated that the greatest problem would be the legal issue with Wells Fargo and maintaining the roads. Council Member Luna stated that he had hoped to hear a solution to the Colony Roads issue tonight. Mr. Hanley responded that the Colony Roads issue should be discussed in Closed Session so that the Council can discuss all the legal components. Council Member Clay asked for clarification of assessment districts. Mr. Cherry explained that after acceptance of an assessed road, the City would assume maintenance. Council Member Scalise asked if a neighborhood wanted to bring their road up to City standards and have the City accept it into its maintenance system, is there a list of requirements for them to follow? Mr. Cherry stated that there is and that information could be distributed. Council Member Arrambide stated that he is a"survivor" of an assessment district. He stated that their main concern was liability and believes it is still the major issue. He suggested that any road, built as a result of a development project, be up to City standards. PULBIC COMMENT Joan O'Keefe, Old Morro Road East, asked why the first list was created in 1985. Mr. Cherry replied that all the roads currently maintained, and the roads adopted by a Council Resolution, have been on the Public Works list since at least 1985, probably beginning in 1980. Barbara Reiter, 10150 San Marcos Road, stated that her street, San Marcos between Sierra Vista and Escondido, is not City maintained and is not on the list. Mr. Cherry stated that research could be done to determine whether or not that section of the road is City maintained. Pete Sotello, Seperado, asked for clarification of public right of way on non-city maintained roads. Mr. Cherry explained that the public has a prescriptive easement which provides the public with the right to travel the area. Mr. Sotello stated that Seperado is desperately in need of repair and asked when the City will step in. Mr. Cherry responded that the issue of emergency access is a problem and the City would not want the street to digress to the point that emergency vehicles could not gain access to homes. He stated that at the same time, the City does not want to adopt maintenance of the road. Howard Dolbeck, 7505 Cortina Ave., asked what the neighborhood would have to do to bring the road to City standards and under City maintenance. Mr. Cherry responded that he would address the issues later in the evening. Mr. Dolbeck commented that he had been told that even if the road was brought up to City standards, the City may not adopt the road. Mr. Cherry stated that his comment was true. Alice Bernick, asked why the City is not responsible to inform new home buyers of the status of the road adjacent to the property. Mr. Hanley stated that the City is not entitled to know when a home is in escrow and also it is not a legal duty of the City. He explained that the City attempted CC- Roads Study Session 0000��. 11/30/99 Page 3 ITEM NUMBER: A-3 DATE: 12/14/99 to place signs on those streets that are not City maintained, and the public resisted believing it would effect their property value. Laurie Grauss, Maleza, stated when she built her home City staff told her the road would be accepted by the City once all homes were built and the road completely paved. She also asked what happens with the subdivision roads. Mr. Cherry responded that they are privately maintained. Council Member Clay asked when the policy to not adopt roads was made. Mr. Hanley answered that he did not know the exact date but believed, originally, decisions were made ad hoc. He stated that staff would like to see the Council adopt a policy in the near future. Amy Woodard, asked if money is going to be poured into the Main Street Program, and if so, who will want to come to Main Street if the streets are not maintained. Mr. McKinney answered that the Main Street Program is financed with Redevelopment funds. Council Member Clay asked that if some of the Redevelopment funds were used for improvement of roads in the Redevelopment area, that could allow for increased funds in the roads account. Mr. McKinney stated that he was correct. Lon Allan, Santa Lucia, asked if a property owner will be able to put up a fence on a Colony Road. Mr. Hanley stated that it was possible but a Colony Lot landowner could also remove the fence by civil action. He expressed, in his opinion, if a barrier was placed on a Colony Road where it was unwanted by the City, it would probably have to be removed. Jennifer Hageman, Santa Lucia, asked if a subdivision is required to create roads at the City standard. Mr. McKinney replied that the City has required new roads to be up to City standards since the early 90s when the standards were adopted. Joan O'Keefe, Old Morro Road East, stated that some deviation has occurred as far as permitting the development of homes without first the development of a road, creating problems today. Mayor Johnson closed the Public Comment period Council Member Luna asked if the roads that currently make up the old Highway 41 will be brought into the City maintained list once the new Highway 41 is finished. Mr. Cherry responded, yes, the City negotiated with Cal Trans which provided the City with $315,000 to fix the road. Council Member Clay stated that the policy of not accepting roads is not an old policy. VII. REVIEW THE PAVEMENT CONDITION REPORT AND FINDINGS Assistant City Engineer John Neil explained the pavement condition rating system. CC- Roads Study Session 000052 11/30/99 Page 4 ITEM NUMBER: A-3 DATE: 12/14/99 Mayor Pro Tem Arrambide asked how we currently decide which roads to repair. Mr. Neil answered that most of the funds currently used to repair roads are from outside sources and staff has attempted to prioritize by traffic etc. Mayor Johnson asked about the bike lanes. Mr. Neil replied that the County provided the money for that project. Council Member Luna asked how Portola was chosen to be resurfaced. Mr. Neil answered that Portola was on the Five-Year CIP since 1990. He stated that he encourages the public to attend Council meetings and speak because it is there that the CIP is created. Council Member Luna asked if Redevelopment monies could be used to help with the streets. Mr. Hanley responded that, yes, but our Redevelopment plan is very restrictive. PUBLIC COMMENT Rush Kolemaine, P.O. Box 1990, asked where the City will get future funds to maintain our roads. Mr. Neil stated that it will come from Urban State Highway account monies and regional monies. John Daley, stated that he was opposed to the City's incorporation in 1979 because of several issues including the fact that the City would be unable to keep the roads in proper repair. He suggested that the Council place on the March 2000 ballot the option to dis-incorporate the City. Larry Kennedy, asked what would be done to fix this problem. Alice Bernick, asked if the residents are supposed to maintain the road. Mr. McKinney stated that the residents are responsible on non-City maintained roads. Larry and Janet Koznek, 7485 Cortina, stated, in a prepared statement read by Howard Dilbeck, the City should take all roads into the City's maintenance system. If not, the City should provide to citizens staff for consultation on these issues. Paul Gray, San Marcos Road, stated that he would like to see a third party determine who actually owns the roads. Barbara Reiter, 10150 San Marcos Road, expressed concern for heavy, public traffic on non-City maintained roads. She suggested a Bond issue to resolve this problem. Mr. McKinney thanked the public for their concerns. He briefly addressed the finance concerns. Henry Novak, asked if there has ever been a survey as to why the roads are in the condition they are in. He stated that the poor condition is due to roads being created incorrectly. Lee Scott, Pinal, stated he is in a maintenance district and he has had extreme tire problems. Mr. McKinney stated that Mr. Cherry will be speaking about the maintenance district shortly. He CC-Roads Study Session 00005311/30/99 �O� Page 5 ITEM NUMBER: A-3 DATE: 12/14/99 commented that the City only receives in property taxes, $140 worth of maintenance each year for surrounding home owners. Mayor Johnson closed the Public Comment period. VIII. REVIEW OF GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT Mr. McKinney explained the role of the General Plan and its relation to the layout of our roads. PUBLIC COMMENT: None IX. POTENTIAL STRATEGIES Mr. McKinney described the different funding methods that could be used: special taxes, new state funds, assessment districts, or the General Fund. Council Member Clay asked if we could add to our phone survey a question asking the public if they would be willing to pay a special tax to help repair our roads. Mr. McKinney stated that we could. Mayor Pro Tem Arrambide expressed concern for the home owners in assessment districts who have or will have to put out more money. He also asked if there was a new tax imposed, would those who are in an assessment district have to still pay the assessment fee. Mr. McKinney answered, yes. He stated a possible strategy would be opening an assessment district window to everyone at one time. Council Member Scalise suggested that an all-weather road be researched. Council Member Luna stated that we have to stop thinking of only how it affects me. We need a long-term plan to solve this issue. He also suggested a ten-year CIP, letting the voters decide at an election. Council Member Luna also stated he hopes the Council will be careful with the assessment districts and liability. Council Member Clay stated he would support reducing the width requirement of our roads to conserve both money and trees. PUBLIC COMMENT Howard Dolbeck, stated he is opposed to the special tax, in favor of the state funds, and in favor of the assessment district strategy. An Atascadero resident on Escarpa stated he supports a gas tax as those who use the roads pay for their maintenance. Mayor Johnson responded that the gas tax is in the State's jurisdiction. CC- Roads Study Session 00005111/30/99 Page 6 ITEM NUMBER: A-3 DATE: 12/14/99 Raymond Jansen, 6655 Country Club Drive, stated that he supports a tax because it allows the entire community to pay for improvements that all citizens will enjoy. Larry Kennedy, Sonora, stated he supports more narrow streets, all-weather surface streets, and a tax; however, it would have to benefit all roads in the City. Horace Cardinale, Sonora, asked if cold mix could be made available to the public to use for the improvement of pot holes. Council Member Luna asked the City Attorney his opinion on that suggestion. Mr. Hanley stated that it could increase the liability to the City, but he would have to review that issue. Ann Quinn, Atascadero Gazette, asked if the $750,000 - $1,200,000 per year would maintain all the streets or just current City maintained streets. Mr. McKinney stated that the pavement condition report was for the roads that are considered City maintained roads. He also stated that if a special tax is implemented it would be for all roads. Rush Kolemaine, P.O. Box 1990, asked for a financial clarification on property taxes. Brian Stiff, Tranquila, suggested that if a survey is conducted, ask citizens if they are aware if they are on a City maintained road or not. Bill Bright, 11875 Santa Lucia, suggested that economic development would increase our sales tax revenue. Mr. McKinney stated that they would add that to the list of strategies. Alice Bernick, expressed concern for the roads in Atascadero that are not safe. She encouraged the Council to look at improving those roads. Art Reider, 10 15 0 San Marcos, commented that the cost per head is $1,000. He stated that property values will benefit from improving the roads. Council Member Scalise thanked the staff and public for their efforts and participation. utilities be installed prior to final paving. Randy Kenny, suggested that all u p Mayor Johnson closer!the Public Comment period Mayor Johnson thanked everyone for their participation. He commented that Atascadero is not a unique or unusual case. Council Member Clay stated that he agreed with what Council Member Scalise said. X. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Johnson adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m. to the next scheduled regular meeting on Tuesday, December 14, 1999. CC- Roads Study Session 11/30/99 000055 Page 7 ITEM NUMBER: A-3 DATE: 12/14/99 MEETING RECORDED AND PREPARED BY: Marcia McClure Torgerson, City Clerk Melanie Whaley, Deputy City Clerk CC- Roads Study Session 00005;6 11/30/99 Page 8 ITEM NUMBER: A-4 Jima ®'a i DATE:- 12/14/99 i9is W t Atascadero City Council Staff Report - Community Development Department Request for Utility Easement on City Owned Parking Lot Property 5835 Traffic Way (Rentschler) RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends Council approve the request to grant a 2-foot wide utility easement along the southwest side of the City owned public parking lot on Traffic Way at parcel 029-341-020 for an amount of$100.00. DISCUSSION: Background: Staff received a request on October 6, 1999 from Jerry Whinery of Coldwell Banker, representing Ruth Rentschler to grant a utility easement across a City owned parcel for the benefit of her building located a 5835 Traffic Way. The building in question is an older commercial building that was built to the property line. It appears that when the building was constructed, the water lines and other utilities that serve the building were installed on the neighboring lot. The neighboring lot in question is currently a public parking lot owned by the City of Atascadero. This condition has existed for decades without issue for either property owner. Currently, Mrs. Rentschler is in the process of selling the property and the buyer has requested that the utility encroachment issue be addressed by way of the City granting a utility easement to her property. Analysis: City staff has reviewed the request and has identified no issues that granting a utility easement would create. The existing use of the property, as a parking lot, is not currently affected by the presence of the water lines. The City attorney has advised that an easement across public property cannot be given away and that a fair market value for the easement needs to be paid. Staff has consulted with a real estate appraiser and determined that a fair market value for the easement would be $100.00. The City Engineer has prepared and reviewed the easement deeds which are attached. Conclusion: Granting of a utility easement along the southwest side of the parking lot would clear-up a historic encroachment issue and not affect the City's use of the property. If the 000057 ITEM NUMBER: A-4 DATE: 12/14/99 easement is not granted, the sale of the building may be affected and the issue of the utility encroachment and possible prescriptive rights will remain unresolved. FISCAL IMPACT: The payment of$100 by the applicant would cover the fair market value of the easement. ALTERNATIVES: 1. The Council could decide not to grant the easement. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Attachment 1: Vicinity Map 2. Attachment 2: Site Detail I Attachment 3: Request Letter 4. Attachment 4: Easement Description • 000058 ITEM NUMBER: DATE: 12/14/99 Attachment 1: Vicinity Map Request for Easement on City Owned Parking Lot 5835 Traffic Way(Rentschler) i I W I O Y� OLMEDA AVENUE ii � � i t • W I I I I I I •'; I LEWIS AVENUE -- 7 •: ::::�:{ I, "I }: L7— PALMA AVENUE 77 V>> IV: WIT 5 Cl. CAMINp NEj,L 1 0000 9 ITEM NUMBER: DATE: 12/14/99 Attachment 2: Site Detail Request for Easement on City Owned Parking Lot 5835 Traffic Way(Rentschler) :O. NAIL TRA=IC WAY L�-W l5 AVENUE ( ,6.qY TM SST. 5Y 401- LS'W R-1, '501.41' 0-1 53'M 29j.65'R-2* ZZ3.S5'M •._F0.1h•I.P.'•NIPLUL•HO RECMD ::oS'R-1,M AC4EV ED AS N.rORNER OC BLOCK MF 4 R-2 OvCpl4ll yApl N TUE SUM OF TWE PARI �N I � s P i t4 o I � r N � �^ y .�G!•Z3�W A'/R•Z. 233.4/;P•% 23.�G5%P•L NG/'2>60 y Q i 75 X!IS IZR-Z.75 OW to /Sa->/'R•/, i.SB.S.d'R•Z n �sr,arrrocorRw•-:� 'V d • --' dccf X10 � vvV•V� I �� w N' N O N 7 ss �F d o r f1 P X.YaCO V!A•! y1 Y�"� � I L� O Q � .v moi- c ... »'.t•i � 1Q I .a N Z3 t c,T,f 7. _T O v Lu e 1?3 ` ` /r•zs 3s"w 7S./0 o I d 2,41I 3�'Ri,M P. �'n •�i i .�tGEPTGO �� A.C. 1 ooi =L •w n I 7 Nu•ld iJ'W ,� -- 4 ''Al 11 A t4 Al I _.M&LLt PD.MAIL VE0.R3•••. to ZS'4e. '0/77 'c �-!,M CAIRVc1 G 04TA FORETUKlt: 6.00' R'X.00• R-1,R•''.M O=9O'R-1.0.-2 90'02'46•M L= 15.71 R-2 IS.TZ• 'A LEGZN O SET MONUMGNT oS NOTED • FwKiD MONUMENT AS t- ' i'• � / r R-1 Boov. 4 x OG H%APZ iEE-rS 67 S 4 67 D _� f r Q-/ ML-Z BOOK 6 OF UCEMSED tPL-VLYJ PAGE 64 R-3 BooK 36 OF LtCZN7Ev +JUPIvEY5 m6E 5 000060 000& 0 Attachment 3: Request Letter Request for Easement on City Owned Parking Lot 4b 5835 Traffic Way(Rentschler) VISTA ASSOCIATES 1034 MILL ST. SAN LUIS OBISPO.CA 93401 Wednesday, October 06> 44 1999 ens.(805)5"-7884M 44-8M FAX(805)5 -8508 Mr. Warren Fraze 6500 Palma Ave. Atascadero CA 93422 Re: 5835 Traffic Way-Easement Dear Warren: Mrs. Rentschler and I would greatly appreciate your continued assistance. We are in a sale escrow and the potential buyer has required clarification and resolution regarding service utilities that appear to extend beyond the the property boundaries. Your help is needed to establish an easement appurtenant to 5835 Traffic Way. As you are aware, the City of Atascadero is owner of the property on all 4 sides of Mrs. Rentschler's parcel described as Lot 25 on Schedule C of the Title Report enclosed. Let me provide a bit of case history, as I understand it. Many years ago, prior to Mrs. Rentschler's purchase, there were installed various plumbing pipes and electrical lines/boxes that protrude from this building. Since the building appears to have a "footprint" that exactly matches the legal parcel, it must be assumed that the service facilities previously described encroach into the adjoining properties. Mrs. Rentschler informed me that she has discussed this issue with other City of Atascadero representatives over the past few years and was assured that it was not a matter that either party need be concerned.about. Now, in order to provide a new owner clear unencumbered title, it is essential to formally acknowledge the encroachment and its continued use by establishing a recorded easement on the two property boundaries affected. These are the Northeasze:iy and Southeasterly boundaries as depicted in green highlighter on the map enclosed. Please be assured of our prompt attention to any aspects of this issue. just iet me know of any participation you might need to resolve our buyer's concern within the next 30 days if possible. 2:;st regards erryb)fie:; 0 :r/Agent COLDWELL BANKER Vista Associates 1�0-4, nlnr Each Office Is Independently Owned And Operated. 000061 Recording Requested By And When Recorded, Return To: Attachment 4: Easement Grant Deed City of Atascadero Request for Easement on City Owned Parking Lot City Clerk 5835 Traffic Way (Rentschler) 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, CA 93422 MAIL TAX STATEMENTS TO: DOCUMENT TRANSFER $ -0- Computed on the consideration or value of property conveyed; OR O Computed on the consideration or value less liens or encumbrances remaining at time of sale. Signature of Declarant or Agent determining tax - Firm Name - APN 029-341-020 EASEMENT GRANT DEED FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, The City of Atascadero, A Municipal Corporation hereby GRANT(S) to Ruth I. Rentschler An easement to maintain and repair existing utility lines in, on, over, under, across, and along that certain real property more particularly described as follows: THE SOUTHERLY TWO (2) FEET OF LOT 24 OF BLOCK MF IN THE CITY OF ATASCADERO, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO AMENDMENT W TO THE MAP OF ATASCADERO, RECORDED AUGUST 7, 1929, IN BOOK_ 4 OF MAPS AT PAGE 67D IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY The City of Atascadero, A Municipal Corporation By: Wade G. McKinney, City Manager ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California ) ) SS County of San Luis Obispo ) On before me, Marcia M. Torgerson, personally appeared Wade G. McKinney, personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledge to me that he executed the same in his authorized capacity, and that by his signature on the instrument the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Marcia M. Torgerson, City Clerk December 2, 1999 I:\92143\Document\92143-242 Utility Easement.wpd 000062 ITEM NUMBER: A-5 DATE: 12/14/99 1979 \A�r�EROi/ Atascadero City Council Staff Report— Community Development Department Acceptance of Final Parcel Map # 98010 / AT 98-104 5190 Aguila Road (Jones / Cannon / Wilson) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council: 1. Accept the Final Map #98010 (AT 98-104); and 2. Accept a 6-foot wide Public Utility Easement along the frontage of Aguila Road. DISCUSSION: Tentative Parcel Map #98010 was approved by the Planning Commission on April 20, 1999. The decision was appealed to the City Council who upheld the Planning Commission approval on May 11, 1999. The approval allowed for the division of a 5.7 acre lot into three parcels. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 66440 each approving legislative body must approve the Final Map and accept, accept subject to improvement or reject, on behalf of the public, any real property offered for dedication for public use in conformity with the terms of the offer of dedication. A 6-foot wide Public Utility Easement is being offered on Final Map #98010 to fulfill a Condition of Approval issued by the City. All other Conditions of Approval imposed by the Planning Commission have now been satisfied and the only remaining requirement is that the City Council accept the offer of dedication for the Public Utility Easement. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A--Approved Tentative Parcel Map 09 00006;3 ATTACHMENT A Tentative Parcel Map TPM 98010(AT 98-104) 5190 Aguila Road Jones/Cannon/Wilson / �/' �/ '� ->�� � /,won,• i/' t \ /�� /// ,i In\\ \ \\ \\ •�\•\\\ \ �\ \ // 11 \tom \ \\ \ \ \ \\ �+.• ,fir`."i��%�•`"%•.' I ,1```\``c`,\ "�...` `::� � `,'— '�M•i T 00006,1 ITEM NUMBER: C- 1 ° DATE: 12/14/99 Min 010, i9is � is a \ cm Atascadero City Council Staff Report - Community Services Department Youth Center Options RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council direct staff to discontinue efforts to renovate the Atascadero Masonic Temple building as a Youth Center, initiate a fund-raising effort and develop plans for a Gymnasium to be built on a site to be determined. DISCUSSION: On Thursday, August 19, 1999, the Parks and Recreation Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council abandon efforts to renovate the Masonic Temple/Printery building and to direct staff to pursue efforts to find an alternative location for the construction of a gymnasium in close proximity to the current location of the Masonic Temple/ Printery building. The Parks and Recreation Commission also recommended that the City retain ownership of the Masonic Temple/Printery building. Prior to this Parks and Recreation Commission action, the City Council, on Tuesday, May 11, 1999 directed staff bring back a report providing alternatives for the construction of a Youth Center. This direction was precipitated by a request from the Atascadero Boxing Club to use a portion of the Masonic Temple Building/ Printery and the inability of the Atascadero Recreation Center Committee (ARCC) to secure funds from a recent California Youth Authority grant. In light of the fact that ARCC's grant application was denied, the Community Services Department staff prepared a list of options for the development of a Youth Center. These options are being presented so that the City may reassess the prolonged efforts to renovate the Masonic Temple/Printery building for use as a Youth Center. Currently, the Masonic Temple building is used the Atascadero Masons and the Atascadero Eastern Star organizations for their functions. Per the acquisition agreement, these two organizations have permanent use of the upstairs Lodge room, two storage rooms and first priority use of the downstairs dining room and kitchen. Under the terms of the agreement between the City and the Masons, the City is responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the building regardless of our use patterns. In addition to the Masons and Eastern Star, the Coats for Kids program uses two upstairs rooms for storage and three paying tenants utilize portions of the building. Kenyukan Karate, Getty Photography and the Friday. Variety Night Program all pay rent which helps cover some of the maintenance of the building. Approximately $13,500.00 in 000065 ITEM NUMBER: C- 1 DATE: 12/14/99 rental income is generated each year toward the $15,000 to $20,000.00 annual maintenance cost. • Efforts to renovate the Masonic Temple building have been slow going since the City acquired the building in 1994. The original cost estimate to retrofit the building to current earthquake standards and ADA accessibility were inaccurate. The projected building renovation costs of approximately $500,000.00, was increased to $975,000.00 (in 1996 dollars) by the project architect. Fund-raising by ARCC has generated enough money to assist the City in making some physical improvements, but is still far from their original goal of$500,000.00. The City has used CDBG funds to purchase seismic retrofit plans, asbestos removal and some electrical up-grades. Due to the slow progress at the current fund-raising efforts and the realization that fund-raising for the approximate total project cost of $975,000.00 will take many years, staff is recommending that the City Council re-evaluate whether any additional efforts should be put toward the renovation of the Masonic Temple building. Both the Atascadero Recreation Center Committee and the Atascadero Youth Task Force have recommended that the City abandon efforts to renovate the Masonic Temple/Printery building and to pursue efforts to find an alternative location for the construction of a gymnasium. Both groups recommended that the City choose a location for a new Gymnasium that is in close proximity to the current location of the Masonic Temple/Printery building. The recommendations resulted from the review of a list of six options listed below, which were prepared by staff, for the development of a Youth Center 1. Continue the current course. Using ARCC as the primary find-raising group, continue to seek grant funds and raise money locally to renovate the Masonic Temple building. Limit the use of the building to minimize exposure to risk. Advantages: The Masonic Temple building is a convenient location for potential users and is owned by the City of Atascadero. Additionally, the City has also already invested approximately $84,000.00 into this building for the following; purchase of seismic retro-fit plans, removal of a majority of the asbestos, upgrade of some electrical systems, and installation of new tile in the dining room. Disadvantages: Public support has waned for this option. The estimated one million-dollar retrofit cost will provide seismic reinforcements and improve ADA accessibility, but will not remodel the facility for more effective use. Essentially, after the retrofit and renovation, we will still have the same building layout, which is not ideal for the multi-purpose needs of the City Recreation Division. In the meantime, the City is subsidizing the cost of the building without directly benefiting from its use. Approximate Projected Building Costs: Building Renovation Costs- $975,000.00-$1,200,000.00 Approximate Projected Annual Net Building Maintenance & Operating Costs: Atascadero Youth Center(current use level)-$ 5,000.00- $10,000.00 Atascadero Youth Center(increase programming)- $40,000.00- $55,000.00 2. Abandon efforts to renovate the Masonic Temple building and select an alternative location for a Youth Center. Retain City ownership of the Masonic Temple building and continue to limit the use to minimize risks. 000066 ITEM NUMBER: C- 1 DATE: 12/14/99 Advantages: Potential reduced cost if the new facility is located on existing City-owned or donated property. (five potential sites, City owned and non-City owned, are currently under consideration.) New construction will allow for the design of a facility that meets our current needs. Retention of ownership of the Masonic Temple building allows the City continued use for special events and meetings. In addition, the George C. Beatie Skate Park is located on Masonic Temple building site. Funds may become available in the future for renovation of this historic building. Disadvantages: Alternative sites for a Youth Center/gymnasium may have specific disadvantages such as acquisition costs, limited space for parking, access, noise and other potential building/ zoning related issues. Retention of the Masonic Temple building will require the City to retain continued liability and maintenance costs associated with the operation, regardless of the amount of use. Some people feel that this option benefits the Masons more than the general public. The City will continue to subsidize the cost of the building without directly benefiting from its use. Approximate Projected Cost: Site Prep or Acquisition Costs- $150,000.00- $250,000.00 Building Construction Costs- $700,000.00- $900,000.00 Total Projected Costs- $850,000.00-$1,150,000.00 Approximate Projected Annual Net Building Maintenance & Operating Costs: Atascadero Youth Center (current use level)-$ 5,000.00- $10,000.00 Gymnasium- $50,000.00- $75,000.00 3. Abandon efforts to renovate the Masonic Temple building and select an alternative location for a Youth Center. Return ownership of the Masonic Temple building back to the Atascadero Masonic Temple Association. Advantages: Potential reduced cost if the new facility is located on existing City-owned or donated property. New construction will allow for the design of a facility that meets our current needs, such as a gymnasium. Returning ownership of the Masonic Temple building to the Atascadero Masonic Temple Association reduces the City's liability and costs associated with the maintenance and upkeep. Disadvantages: Alternative sites for a Youth Center/gymnasium may have specific disadvantages such as parking, access, noise and other potential building/ zoning related issues. Returning ownership of the Masonic Temple building to the Atascadero Masonic Temple Association may jeopardize the continued use of the George C. Beatie Skate Park and could potentially result in the demolition of the building, which may be considered by the Masons. Approximate Projected Cost: Site Prep or Acquisition Costs- $150,000.00-$200,000.00 Building Construction Costs- $700,000.00-$900,000.00 Total Projected Costs- $850,000.00-$1,100,000.00 0000 ;'7 ITEM NUMBER: C- 1 DATE: 12/14/99 Approximate Projected Annual Net Building Maintenance & Operating Costs: Gymnasium- $50,000.00- $75,000.00 4. Build a new Youth Center/ gymnasium on the site of the current Masonic Temple building/gymnasium. Retain ownership of the Masonic Temple building and wait for future funds to renovate the remainder of the building. Advantages: New construction will allow for the design of a facility that meets our current needs. The location of this site is convenient for potential users and the area is suitable for activities related to a Youth Center/ gymnasium. Retaining ownership of the Masonic Temple building allows the City continued use for special events and meetings. Preservation of this historic building. Funds may become available in the future for renovation. Disadvantages: Constructing a new building on this site will require demolition of the existing gymnasium. This demolition may increase the cost of the project as much as two hundred thousand dollars. In addition, the size of the new building will be limited because of the lot size and proximity of the adjacent Condominiums. Retention of the Masonic Temple building will require the City to maintain continued liability and maintenance costs associated with the operation, regardless of the amount of use. Requires creating additional parking in front of the building. The City will continue to subsidize the cost of the building without directly benefiting from its use. Approximate Projected Cost: Demolition/ Repair Costs- $200,000.00- $250,000.00 Building Construction Costs- $700,000.00- $900.000.00 Total Projected Costs- $900,000.00-$1,150,000.00 Approximate Projected Annual Net Building Maintenance & Operating Costs: Masonic Temple Building (current use level)- $ 5,000.00- $10,000.00 Gymnasium- $50,000.00- $75,000.00 5. Begin operating the Masonic Temple building now and wait for funds for necessary renovations. Make minor improvements "as we go." Advantages: A Youth Center may begin operation within a short period of time. The Masonic Temple building has an ideal location, is owned by the City and has been designated for future use as a Youth Center. Additionally, the City has already invested in this building by adding a Skate Park, removing asbestos, upgrading the electrical systems and preparing renovation plans. Funds may become available in the future for renovation of this historic building. Disadvantages: Staff believes that this option is an unacceptable risk. The potential loss of life resulting from a major earthquake far out-weighs the short-term need for a Youth Center. A significant earthquake may cause considerable damage to the building, and if occupied by children,have a major impact on the City itself. Earthquake Insurance is not available for an un-reinforced masonry building. Retention of the Masonic Temple building will require the City to maintain continued liability and maintenance costs associated with the 000066 ITEM NUMBER: C- 1 DATE: 12/14/99 operation, regardless of the amount of use. Funds are also not currently available to staff and operate a Youth Center program. Approximate Projected Building Costs: Building Renovation Costs- $975,000.00-$1,200,000.00 (when fiends available) Approximate Projected Annual Net Building Maintenance & Operating Costs: Atascadero Youth Center(increase programming) $40,000.00 $55,000.00 6. Pursue an agreement with the California National Guard to build an annex onto the Atascadero Armory. Abandon efforts to renovate the Masonic Temple building. Advantages: The administration of the California National Guard indicated a willingness to allow the City to build an annex onto the Atascadero Armory that may be used as a Youth Center. In addition, use of the Armory when not being used by the National Guard would be granted to the City. This option would be relatively inexpensive and provide a usable space for a centrally located Youth Center. In the long term, if the Armory were to be closed, the City would be in an advantageous position to secure the property. Disadvantages: Shared use of the Armory will limit the amount of time that the facility will be available for use as a Youth Center. The nature and types of activities may be limited or restricted by the National Guard. The size of the area available to build the annex facility is limited and will not allow for a gymnasium type facility, although limited access to the existing Armory would be allowed. Approximate Projected Building Costs: Building Renovation Costs- $200.00-$300,000.00 Approximate Projected Annual Net Building Maintenance & Operating Costs: Armory Annex Youth Center (drop-in teen program)- $25,000.00- $40,000.00 Staff is recommending that the City's efforts to build a Youth Center be focused on the construction of an 11,000 square foot, metal-framed Gymnasium on a new location. A gymnasium of this size, would be large enough to conduct two youth basketball or volleyball games simultaneously, and would provide tremendous benefit to the Community Services Department. Currently, we rent gymnasium space from the School District, only when available. This arrangement only permits us to run a limited Youth and Adult Sports program due to significant demands for gym time by School District sports teams. Currently, the City conducts Youth and Adult Basketball and Volleyball programs at School District facilities. A City owned and operated Gymnasium could house these programs and provide a location for a drop-in Youth Center. It is also staffs' opinion that there is more enthusiasm within the community for the construction of a gymnasium than the renovation of the Masonic Temple/Printery building. Fund-raising and the solicitation of volunteer assistance should be significantly more fruitful for the Gymnasium project. Any substantive change to the City's future use of the Masonic Temple building may alter the existing agreement between the Atascadero Masonic Temple Association and the City regarding the ownership of the Mason Temple building. The Masons have submitted a letter to the City O00069 ITEM NUMBER: C- 1 DATE: 12/14/99 expressing their support for the demolition of the old Printery building gymnasium and the construction of a new gymnasium in its place, only if the City is willing to make some improvements to the existing building first. A copy of this letter is attached. If the City Council does choose to retain ownership of the Masonic Temple building without plans to renovate the building as a Youth Center, renegotiations of the terms of the agreement with the Atascadero Masonic Temple Association may be necessary. FISCAL IMPACT Approval of this recommendation will not require any additional allocation of funds at this time. In the future, approval of specific construction plans for a Gymnasium would require the appropriation of the necessary funds. ALTERNATIVES: Alternatives listed above in the body of the staff report. ATTACHMENTS: - n for a New Gymnasium Attachment#1 List of Potential Locations o Attachment#2- Letter from the Atascadero Masonic Temple Association 000070 ITEM NUMBER: C- 1 DATE: 12/14/99 ATTACHMENT#I List of Potential Locations for a Gymnasium 1. Masonic Temple/Printery building- existing_gymnasium location Advantages: Centrally located to downtown. Near the Skate Park, Junior High and Senior High. Compatible with other uses on the site and would allow for expansion of programs into the main portion of the Masonic Temple building when funds become available to complete the seismic retrofit. Disadvantages. Increased cost to demolish the old gym and pool room. Limited parking exists on this site. 2. Atascadero Lake Park/ Adjacent to Alvord field Advantages: This site has ample room for a large gymnasium with additional space for exterior storage and improved parking. Minimal site demolition and preparation required. Disadvantages: Not centrally located. Potential parking conflicts with other uses at the Lake Park, particularly on weekends. This site may be better suited for other potential facilities and uses. 3. Paloma Creek Park Advantages: Minimal site demolition and preparation required. Disadvantages: Not centrally located. Potential parking conflicts with other uses at the Lake Park, particularly on weekends. This site may be better suited for other potential facilities and uses. Would require State Hospital permission. 4. Traffic Way Park/ Softball Field Advantages: Centrally located to downtown. In close proximity to the Skate Park, Junior High and Senior High. Other Site improvements and adequate parking already exist. Disadvantages. Would require the removal of one of the existing softball fields. 5. Traffic Way Park/ Corporation Yard Advantages: Centrally located to downtown. In close proximity to the Skate Park, Junior High and Senior High. This site has ample room for a large gymnasium with additional space for exterior storage and improved parking. Minimal site demolition and preparation required. Disadvantages: This site is currently being used by the Public Works staff for storage and other uses. These functions would need to be moved to another location. 6. Acquisition of Privately owned property Advantages: If available, suitable property may be purchased. Each individual site would have varying advantages or disadvantages, but the purchase of private property would not disrupt any current uses of existing City property. Disadvantages: Suitable sites may not be available for purchase. Acquisition of suitable property could be cost prohibitive. 0000 ATASCADERO TEMPLE ASSOCIATION .6351 Olmeda Ave. o Atascadero, Calif. 93422 October 1, 1999 Geoff English, Community Services Director 6500 Palma Ave. Atascadero, CA 93422 Dear Mr. English: Thank you for taking the time to review your staff report with me, regarding the future of the youth center. Our members are very concerned with the future of the building and understand that the fundraising to support the center has not been as successful as expected. After reviewing the list of options, our Board recommends proposal #4, along with the following modifications: Include within Advantages: less maintenance and earthquake retrofitting costs would most likely be cut in half. 1. In a timeframe of two years, install a handicap accessible chairl ft; 2. Before construction of new gym,finish upgrade of the electrical and repair the roof of the existing building; 3. Existing building would not be shared with youth until retrofitted for safety; and Su egg stion: relocate the Historical Society Museum to the Getty Photo space. If this proposal is not acceptable, the Temple Board will be open for discussion. However, if an agreement cannot be reached, the Board suggests negotiations begin as soon as possible to dissolve our current agreement. The Board would request the City to maintain the building as agreed until the Board liquidates the property with all funds going to the temple board. 0000 I would like to take this opportunity to thank you and Brady Cherry for your continued cooperation. Since our partnership began with the City, we feel as been successful and ince that for the most part rt h sincerely hope to maintain our agreement in the future. Respectfully, C Charles Lafitte President II' 0000 i .� I�', , . - s _:��. . ITEM NUMBER: C - 2 DATE: 12/14/99 iais 1979 \ATA��ERO,/ II Atascadero City Council Staff Report - City Manager's Office City Council 2000 Meeting Schedule RECOMMENDATION: � Staff recommends Council approve City Council meeting schedule for 2000. DISCUSSION: The City Council, pursuant to Chapter 2, Section 1.01 of the Atascadero Municipal Code, meets the second and fourth Tuesday of each month. Upon occasion, the Council will hold special study sessions and/or joint meetings with the Planning Commission on a fifth Tuesday. The Council has requested that regular joint meetings with the Planning Commission be scheduled and holidays be avoided. Staff has prepared the attached schedule for the year 2000 to help in the coordination of these meetings with personal schedules. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: City Council 2000 Meeting Schedule 0000"1 <%fis CITY OF ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Atascade000 Meeting Schedule MEETING DATE TYPE OF MEETING January 11 Regular January 25 Regular February 8 Regular February 22 Regular February 29 Joint City Council /Planning Commission (tentative) March14 Regular March 28 Regular • April 11 Regular April 25 Regular May 09 Regular May 23 Regular June 13 Regular June 27 Regular July 25 Regular August 22 Regular August 29 Joint City Council/ Planning Commission (tentative) September 12 Regular September 26 Regular October 10 Regular October 24 Regular November 14 Regular November 28 Regular December 12 Regular 0000'7b 6500 PALMA AVENUE • ATASCADERO,CALIFORNIA 93422 - (805)461-5086 FAX(805)461-0606 ITEM NUMBER: C-3 DATE: 12/14/99 Min e n �I i9is � is e Atascadero City Council City Manager's Office Information Bulletin A. Census Complete Count Program Jamie Heltsley of Community Development is our representative to the Complete Count Committee, she attended their meeting last week and provided an update. SLOCOG is doing a heavy media promotion in the form of commercials, newsletters, and flyers; press releases to target the local radio, TV, and newspapers; promotions in the schools, K-12, as well as programs at Cal Poly and Cuesta. They are putting a lot of money towards outreach projects targeting minority groups, seniors, illegal residents, and the homeless. SLOCOG inquired about special needs that needed to be addressed and staff told them that we need to have the enumerators pay close attention to secondary dwelling at one address. The Census only sends out one flyer per address, so everyone who lives in an "illegal rental" may not be counted. Staff has asked SLOCOG to contact the census and see if there are any programs they can recommend for outreach to this population. Upcoming programs: Atascadero will participate in the new construction and special places programs. The material should be received in December and January. The special places will be the program where we will incorporate the numbers from the State Hospital and adjust the annexation lines. B. Sales Tax, Relocations, Subsidies, Sharing Requirements AB-178 (Torlakson). Chapter 462, Statutes of 1999. This measure applies new rules to relocations of certain types of businesses from existing locations to new areas. If any subsidy is given by a city, county or redevelopment agency to an existing auto dealership or a "big box" retailer to relocate within the same market area, then the rules of this legislation apply. The losing jurisdiction will receive a set percentage of the sales tax proceeds with certain caveats for up to ten years. The winning jurisdiction is required to share sales tax proceeds, after deducting the cost of the subsidy, with the losing jurisdiction up to 50 percent of the sales tax received. The revenue transfer is further limited to no more than the amount they lost from that facility prior to the transfer. For example, City "A" lures a car dealership from City "B" with an infrastructure package worth $100,000 per year for ten years. City 'B" was getting $500,000 in sales tax from the facility prior to the move. In year one, City "A" generates $1 million in sales tax from the new improved location. City "A" is allowed to deduct the $100,000 in subsidy leaving $900,000 to be shared equally with City "B," $450,000 each. In year two, the new c000076 ITEM NUMBER: C-3 DATE: 12/14/99 location produces $1,100,000 in revenue. City "A" deducts the $100,000 leaving $1 million for sharing between "A" and "B." In year three, auto mall produces $2 million. City "A" deducts the $100,000 and shares $500,000 with City 'B," (its former total take from the car dealership) and pockets $1.4 million. The provision of this measure sunsets on January 1, 2005. C. Smart Growth In November Jerry Clay, Ray Johnson, George Luna and Wade McKinney attended the Smart Growth Conference sponsored by the Urban Land Institute, Local Government Commission, Smart Growth Network the Conservation Fund and US Environmental Protection Agency. The conference included a variety of Smart Growth topics. J. Ronald Terwillilger, the Chairman of the Urban Land Institute, said: "In the United States, we grow by 2.7 million people every year requiring an additional I.S million housing units — every year. It's not a question of whether we will grow— but where and how we will grow. While some advocates may encourage a no-growth posture, most of us view growth not only as inevitable but as positive if channeled properly. We define smart growth as growth that is economically sound, environmentally friendly, and supportive of community liability —growth that enhances our quality of life. Certainly, the sprawl that has resulted from our growing dependence on the automobile and our historic • commitment to single-use zoning has not resulted in smart growth. Although we believe that continued growth, at least in the short term, is inevitable, many of us realize that we need to find a new way to orchestrate this growth. To many of us, smart growth is what ULI has been doing for the last 63 years. Today, through our work on smart growth, we are realizing our mission of providing responsible leadership in the use of land to enhance the total environment. We know there is no one-size- fits-all solution. It's up to each of us to get involved and help shape the future of our communities, not to engage in a competition between central cities and suburbs, but to strengthen the competitive position of our regions in the worldwide economy. ULI will continue to provide forums where representatives of various stakeholder organizations can explore and debate smart growth issues. To advance these initiatives, ULI will conduct research, produce well-balanced information, and identify best practices on issues relevant to smart growth. Through community outreach, ULI supports local initiatives to develop and implement smart growth strategies. In doing so, ULI and its partners hope to support smart growth on a local, regional, national, and international basis." We will have a general discussion of our experience at tonight's Council meeting. D. Employee Update i Terry Willingham Registered Vet Tech. Hired 11/20/99 Brandi Johnston Office Asst. II Resigned 12/13/99 ITEM NUMBER: D- 1 ' DATE: 12/14/99 iris q 1979 Atascadero City Council City A ttorney Report Proposed Urgency Ordinance No. 369 Gambling Regulations RECOMMENDATION: Staff is not making a recommendation on whether or not to establish new gambling regulations. Staff does recommend that if the City Council, as a matter of policy, wishes to establish new gambling regulations that it does so by way of an urgency ordinance. This requires a 4\5 vote of the City Council. DISCUSSION: Background: This matter comes before the City Council because of a request from the owner of Outlaws. Outlaws has a provisional license from the State of California to run a card room at its location in Atascadero. If the City of Atascadero does not establish gambling regulations that meet the criteria for recently enacted State legislation, then Outlaws will not be able to obtain a permanent license, and no further gambling licenses will be available in Atascadero for at least two years. Staff wants to make it clear that there is no requirement that the City establish new gambling regulations. Rather, the law is that in the absence of gambling regulations, no gambling licenses can be issued by the State in the City limits of Atascadero. Staff does not allow members of the public to place items on the agenda. This particular issue does have one special feature. If the matter is not decided before December 31, 1999, then the issue can't be revisited for two years and the provisional licensee may be forever precluded from obtaining a license. Since the issue involved is one of fundamental policy, it should not be decided at the staff level without direction from the City Council. With the time frames involved, there is not enough time to just mention the issue during a future council meeting and ask for direction as to whether or not to bring the issue back. In order to give the City Council the opportunity to decide the policy issue, staff decided to place the item on this regular meeting agenda for your review. Issues: The first issue to be decided is whether or not this Council wants there to be legal gambling in the City of Atascadero. If the City Council wants to limit gambling as much as is legally possible, then the preferred alternative is to not establish new regulations. In the absence of new regulations, no licenses will be issued. Staff believes that there is one other license in town, that it is not currently active, but that it could properly become active again without further 00007 8 action of this Council. The current issue before this City Council therefore affects only one establishment in the City, Outlaws. This is the only establishment with a provisional license that staff is aware of. If the City Council wants to take steps to preserve the ability of Outlaws to run a card room, then the City Council must adopt new regulations. Those regulations would be able to restrict the number of card tables in the City so that the mere adoption of new regulations will not open a floodgate for the establishment of card rooms all over town. Staff has checked with the Police Department and can state that there have been no problems with the operation of the card room to date. Bars do present some enforcement issues, but the card room itself has not. FISCAL IMPACT: Marginal, we may be able to establish some few for the permit to operate. ALTERNATIVES: The City Council may act or not, as described above. There is no requirement that the City establish gambling regulations. In the absence of regulations, no new licenses will be issued by the State. RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT: City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: Urgency Ordinance 0000'79 Attachment: Atascadero City Council Meeting Date: 12-14-99 ORDINANCE NO. 369 URGENCY ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING GAMING REGULATIONS PREAMBLE: Purpose and Intent The City Council of the City of Atascadero has previously provided for the regulation of card tables within the City. The California Gambling Control Act provides that the California Gambling Control Commission shall deny a gambling license with respect to any gambling establishment that is located in a city that does not have an ordinance governing wagering limits and other specified items. The City's current regulations do not contain several of the specified sections. There are gaming establishments within the City whose licenses may be subject to revocation by the California Gambling Control Commission should the City not amend its card table ordinances, resulting in the loss of employment for the employees of such establishments, and the loss of revenues to the City from various sources; NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Atascadero does ordain that Section 3-5.403 of the Atascadero Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 3-5-403 Cardrooms 3-5.403(a) Card Table Defined: The term "card table" as used in this Chapter shall mean a card table within a business premises where there is carried on any card game for hire or for compensation, which game is not unlawful under the provision of California Penal Code section 330, or any other provision of law. 3-5.403(b) (1) Licenses. It is unlawful for any person, firm association, corporation or partnership to engage in or carry on the business of conduction or operating one or more card tables unless there is in effect a card table license covering each such card table, issued pursuant to the Atascadero Municipal Code and pursuant to applicable state law. (2) Standards for Issuance: No more than a total of five (5) card tables shall be licensed to operate within the City under the provisions of this chapter. No one permitee shall be authorized to operate more than a total of two card tables within the City. No more than two card tables shall be operated or maintained within any single business premises within the City. No card table license shall be transferable to another location or permittee. No card table license shall be issued to any person who has been convicted of any felony, 000080 nor to any association, partnership,or corporation of which any owner thereof has been convicted of a felony. In addition to any other restrictions provided by law, no card table license shall be issued to anyone who is disqualified from holding a State gambling license for any of the reasons specified in California Business and Profession Code section 9850. (3) Applications for Licenses: Any person desiring to obtain a card table license shall apply pursuant to Atascadero Municipal Code Section 3-5.102 et seq. Every application for a card room license shall be subject to objection by the Department of Justice, Division of Gambling Control. If the Division of Gambling Control objects to the issuance of a license, issuance shall be denied. Such a denial may be reviewed only in accordance with the Gambling Control Act. (4) Revocation of Licenses: The City Council shall have the right to revoke any card table license when the possessor thereof has violated, or permitted the violation of, any of the terms of this chapter, or state law, including but not limited to the Labor Code of the state of California. The City shall follow the procedures set forth in Atascadero Municipal Code section 3-5.315 in processing a revocation of a card table license. (5) Annual Fee: There shall be an annual fee in the amount of$500.00 for each card table licensed pursuant to the terms of this Code. (6) Access to Premises: The City Council finds that it is necessary and in the public interest that law enforcement officers have access to any premises in which a card table is being operated under the terms of this Chapter. Any premises for which a license has been issued under the provision of this Chapter shall be deemed to constitute a public place, and all police officers and peace officers shall at all times have access thereto during business hours. 3-5.403(c) Operating Restrictions: It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, association, corporation or partnership to operate, or permit the operation of a card table premises in violation of the following restricts and conditions of operation; (1) Permitted Locations: The playing of all games permitted under this section shall be confined to those designated areas of the cardroom premises as may be set forth in the cardroom permit, and no playing of any games shall be permitted at any other location within or upon the card room premises for which prior written approval from the City has not been obtained. Furthermore, No cardroom license shall be issued to carry on any card room activities where such business is inconsistent with the Zoning Ordinance of the City. The Community Development Department shall review all applications to very compliance with this Chapter. In determining whether to approve the location of a proposed cardroom, the City shall take into consideration the effect of the operation of a cardroom on other sensitive uses located in the vicinity of the proposed cardroom, including but not limited to schools, public parks or recreation areas, public buildings with programs for 'minors, and religious institutions. (2) Disorderly Conduct: All card table permittees, owners, operators, and managers are responsible for insuring that no disorderly conduct occurs on or around the cardroom premises, and that no other similar conduct occurs on or around the cardroom premises such that it constitutes a breach of the peace or that_is otherwise detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. (3) Hours of Operation: Unless the hours of operation for a cardroom are restricted in the cardroom permit, a cardroom may operate twenty-four (24) hours per day. Each permittee shall clearly post the hours of operation of the cardroom so as to provide law enforcement and cardroom patrons adequate notice of the hours of operation. (4) Bets or Wagers: No card table permittee, owner or employee shall allow any person playing in any game to make any single bet or wager in excess of five hundred dollars. 3-5.403(d) Severability If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason deemed or held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance. The City Council of the City of Atascadero hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases or other portions might subsequently be declared invalid or unconstitutional. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a meeting of the City Council held on , 1999 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: :. a0G,0 092