HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 09/08/1998 *PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
AGENDA Please do not remove
from counter
ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
MEETING
TUESDAY,SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
City of Atascadero
6500 Palma Avenue,4"'floor
Atascadero, California
CLOSED SESSION 6:30 P.M.:
Personnel: Cily Manager(Govt. Code Sec. 54957.6)
REGULAR SESSIO 7:00 P.M.:
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Council Member Lerno
ROLL CALL: Mayor Carden
Mayor Pro Tem Johnson
Council Member Clay
Council Member Lerno
Council Member Luna
.APPROVAL OFAGENDA: Roll Call
COUNCIL ANNOU114CEMENTS AND REPORTS:
(On their own initiati e, Council Members may make a brief announcement or a brief report on
their own activities. Council Members may ask a question for clarification, make a referral to
staff or take action to have staff place a matter of business on a future agenda. No formal action
by the Council will be taken unless an item is identified on the Agenda.)
COMMUNITY FORUM:
(This portion of them eting 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 Co incil may take action to direct the staff to place a matter of business on a
future agenda.)
A. CONSENT CALENDAR: Roll Call
(All items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine and non-controversial by
City staff.and will be approved by one motion if no member of the Council or public
wishes to comment or ask questions. If comment or discussion is desired by anyone, the
item will be removed from the consent calendar and will be considered in the listed
sequence with an opportunity for any member of the public to address the Council
concerning the item before action is taken)
I. Amendment of Native Tree Ordinance-Fiscal Impact: None (Staff recommendation:
Council introduce for second reading, by title only, Ordinance No. 350, an ordinance of
the City of Atascadero amending Chapter 11 of Title 9 of the Atascadero Municipal Code
regarding native trees) [Paul Saldana]
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. General Plan Amendment#97009 and Zone Change#97008 7930 Santa Rosa Road
(Gearhart) - Fiscal Impact: None (Planning Commission recommendations: 1)
Council find the Negative Declaration prepared for this project to be adequate under the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and the State and local
guidelines for implementation of the Act; and 2) Council adopt Resolution No. 1998-036
approving General Plan Amendment#97009; and 3) Council adopt Ordinance No. 353,
approving Zone Change #97008, by introducing for first reading by title only) [Paul
SaldanaJ
2. General Plan Amendment#98004 and Zone Change#98005— 10801 El Camino Real
(AUSD) From"P" (Public)to "RMF-16" (High Density Multiple Family) - Fiscal
Impact: None (Planning Commission recommendations: 1) Council find the Negative
Declaration prepared for this project to be adequate under the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act and the State and local guidelines for
implementation of the Act; and 2) Council adopt Resolution No. 1998-033 approving
General Plan Amendment#98004; and 3) Council adopt Ordinance No. 352, approving
Zone Change #98005, by introducing for first reading by title only) [Paul Saldana]
C. MANAGEMENT REPORTS:
1. Proposition 9--Utility Rate Reduction and Reform Act—Fiscal Impact: An
unidentifiable reduction in franchise fee revenue from PG&E (Staff recommendation:
Council oppose Proposition 9— Utility Rate Reduction and Reform Act) [Wade
McKinney]
2. Designation of Voting_Dele agate—League of California Cities' Annual Conference—
Fiscal Impact: None (City Clerk recommendation: Council designate a voting
representative and an alternate who will be present at the Annual Business Meeting of
the League of California Cities'Annual Conference in October 1998 and direct the City
Clerk to inform the League of the designation) [Marcia Torgerson]
3. Information Bulletin
2
D. COMMITTE REPORTS
(The followin represent standing committees. Informative status reports will be given,
as felt necessa .):
I. S.L.O. Counci of Governments/S.L.O. Regional Transit Authority
2. Finance Comrrittee
3. Water Committees
A. SLO County Flood Control& Water Conservation District Water Resources
Advisoly Committee
B. Nacimi nto Water Purveyors' Contract Technical Advisory Committee
C. North County Water Task Force
4. Integrated Wale Management Authority
5. North County ouncil
6. Air Pollution Control District
7. County Mayors Round Table
8. Economic Vitality Corporation, Board of Directors
9. City/ Schools Committee
E. INDIVIDUAR DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION:
1. City'Council
2. City Attorney
3. City Clerk
4. City Treasurer
F. ADJOURNM NT:
THE COUNCIL WILL ADJOURN TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING
IMMEDIATELY FO LOWING THIS MEETING.
Please note: Should anyone challenge any proposed development entitlement listed on this
Agenda in court, that person may be limited to raising those issues addressed at the public
hearing described int is notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at or
prior to this public hei 7ring.
3
City of Atascadero
.WELCOME TO THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
GENERAL INFORMATION
The City Council meets in regular session on the second and fourth Tuesday of each month at 7:00 p.m.,
in the Council 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 lit
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: 09/08/98
MR 1 9
i
City Mana er's Agenda Report
Wade G. McKin ney
Amendment of Native Tree Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Ordinance Number 350, an"Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Atascadero
amending Chapter 11 of Title 9 and repealing Chapter 12 and 13 of the Atascadero Municipal
Code regarding nativc trees by introducing for second reading by title only.
DISCUSSION:
On August 25, 1998, the City Council conducted a public hearing to consider amendments to the
City's native tree ordinance. The Council made changes to the proposed ordinance and
introduced Ordinance 350 for first reading.
The attached Ordinance 350 reflects the changes approved by the Council and is in final format
for adoption. The Ordinance will go into effect 31 days following its adoption.
RESPONSIBLEDEPARTMENT: Community Development
ATTACHMENTS':
A. Ordinance No 350
000001
ORDINANCE NO.350
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
AMENDING CHAPTER 11 OF TITLE 9 AND REPEALING CHAPTER 12 AND
CHAPTER 13 OF TITLE 9 OF THE ATASCADERO MUNICIPAL CODE
REGARDING NATIVE TREES
WHEREAS,the City Council of the City of Atascadero held a duly noticed public
hearing on August 25, 1998 to consider a recommendation from the City Planning
Commission to amend regulations governing the removal and protection of native trees in
the City; and
WHEREAS,the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to
enact these amendments to the Atascadero Municipal Code to provide for the continued
protection of native trees in the community;and
WHEREAS,the proposed amendments are categorically exempt from the requirements
of the California Environmental Quality Act as an"action taken by a public agency for
the protection of natural resources and the environment".
THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO DOES
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Chapter 12 and Chapter 13 of Title 9 of the Atascadero Municipal Code are
hereby repealed.
Section 2. Chapter 11 of Title 9 of the Atascadero Municipal Code is amended in its
entirety to read as indicated on the attached Exhibit A, incorporated herein and made a
part thereof by this reference.
Section 3. If any section, subsection,paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this
ordinance is held to be unconstitutional or invalid in whole or in part by any court, such a
decision shall not affect the validity of effectiveness of the remaining portions of this
ordinance, or any part thereof. If the application of any provision of this ordinance or any
person,property, or circumstance is found to be unconstitutional or invalid in whole or in
part by any Court, such decision shall be limited to the person,property or circumstance
immediately involved in the controversy, and the application of such provision to other
persons,property and circumstances shall not be affected.
Section 4. The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be published once within thirty
(30)days after its passage in the Atascadero News, a newspaper of general circulation,
printed,published and circulated in the City in accordance with Section 36933 of the
Government Code; shall certify the adopting and posting of this ordinance;and shall
cause this ordinance and this certification together with proof of posting to be entered
into the Book of Ordinances of the City.
000002
i
Section 5. This o dinance shall go into effect and be in full force and effect on the 31
day after its passage.
On the motion by and seconded by the foregoing
ordinance is approved by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
DATE ADOPTED:
HAROLD L. CARDEN, IIL Mayor
City of Atascadero, California
ATTEST:
Marcia Torgerso , City Clerk
APPROVED ASTO FORM:
Roy A. Hanley, C' y Attorney
APPROVED AS ro CONTENT:
Paul M. Saldana
Community Dev opment Director
000003
Chapter 11
Native Tree Regulations
11.01 Purpose and Intent
Preservation of natural flora and fauna is a basic community goal of the Atascadero
General Plan and native trees are valued community assets. The purpose of this
ordinance is to establish regulations for the installation, maintenance, planting,
preservation, protection and selected removal of native trees within the City limits.
In establishing these regulations,it is the City's intent to encourage the preservation,
maintenance and regeneration of a healthy urban forest. This enhances other values
that Atascadero holds for its community including clean air and water, soil
conservation, aesthetics, property values and an ecological diversity that will ensure
that Atascadero will continue to be a healthy and desirable place to live.
11.02 APplic�.
The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all native trees, as defined by this
Chapter, two inches (2'D dbh or greater for deciduous native oaks, California
Sycamore (Plantanus racemosa Nutt) and madrones (Arbutus Menziesii) and four
inches (4') dbh or greater for all other protected native trees, as defined in this
Chapter. It shall be illegal to intentionally harm, damage and/or cause the death or
decline of a native tree or remove a native tree without a City-issued Tree Removal
Permit,where such a permit is required by this Chapter.
The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all public and private property and
protected native trees within the City of Atascadero, and to any person, firm,
corporation and public or private utility company doing work within the City limits.
11.03 Adoption of Standards & Guidelines
The "Tree Standards and Guidelines" (the "Guidelines') set forth the procedures,
guidelines and standards that shall be used to implement this Chapter. They shall be
used to provide details about preservation, maintenance, installation, protection,
regeneration and selected removal of trees. They shall be adopted and amended by
resolution of the City Council and have the force of law.
Native Tree Regulations - 1- Ordinance Number 350
11.04 Definitions.
ArborigAt A person certified by the International Society of Arboroculture or.other
recognized professional organization of Arborists that provide professional advice
and lictnsed professionals to do physical work on trees in the City.
D : Any intentional action or gross negligence,which causes injury, death or
disfigutement of a tree. Actions include, but are not limited to cutting, girdling,
poisoning, overwatering, soil compaction,unauthorized relocation or transportation
of a tree or trenching, excavating,altering the grade or paving within the dripline of
a tree.
Dbh: Means "diameter at breast height", specifically four feet six inches (4'6'D
above natural grade.
Dri lin : The outermost line of the tree's canopy projected straight down to
the gro und surface.
Hazardous: Presenting an immediate danger to people or existing structures.
Removal: The physical destruction, displacement or removal of a tree, or portions
of a tree caused by poisoning, cutting, burning, relocation for transplanting,
bulldo ' g or other mechanical,chemical or physical means.
NativeTree: A tree species as listed below:
Ai)utuszitaii Pursh. Madrone
ffiteromeles arbutifolia Lindl. Toyon,California Holly
s hinds ii Jeps. California Black Walnut
Plantanus racemosNutt. California Sycamore
amfolia Eastw. Coast Live Oak
al rd` a Nee Blue Oak x Desert Oak
Qgrcus dumos Jeps. Scrub Oak
Qt ercus d Jeps. Leather Oak
ercus doupla ii H&A Blue Oak
Qi rcus 1 bats Nee Valley Oak
ercus turbinella Desert Oak
Ur 1bg1lularia califiam—i-r-aNutt. California Bay Laurel
Native ree Association: Refers to the Atascadero Native Tree Association or other
success or organization recognized by the City Council to cooperate with the City in
educational programs and provide advice to the City on matters related to native
trees.
Native Tree Regulations -2- Ordinance Number 350
(111nnnt
Site Planner. Licensed professionals,such as Architects,Engineers,who are hired by
applicants to prepare site plans including tree protection plans.
Tree Protection Plan: A plan that shows how specific trees shall be protected during
development and related work, including any required mitigation measures and
ensure viability of tree after construction.
Tree Pruning The cutting, detachment or separation of any limb branch or roots
from a native tree.
11.05 Tree Removal
A. Permit Required
Except as set forth in (B) below, a Tree Removal Permit shall be required
for the removal of any deciduous native tree two inches (2') dbh or greater
and four inches (4') dbh or greater for all other protected native trees, and
for pruning of more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the live canopy in
native trees. Any private or public entity doing regular maintenance in the
City of Atascadero may seek a "blanket pruning permit" that may be
renewed on a yearly basis.
B. Exemptions
The following are exempt from the permit requirements of this Chapter.
1. Emergency situations which cause hazardous or dangerous conditions
that have serious potential to cause immediate damage to persons or
improvements on real property. Such situations must be reported to the
City within 48 hours.
2. Trees planted,grown and maintained as part of a licensed nursery or tree
farm business.
3. Tree pruning that effects less than twenty-five percent (25%) of a tree's
Eve canopy within one year's time. The pruning shall be done according
to current tree pruning standards as adopted by the International Society
of Arboroculture.
4. Trees removed as part of an approved "Tree Management Plan"
5. Single family residences in single family zoning districts where a
permanent dwelling exists and building or grading permits are not being
sought.
Native Tree Regulations -3- Ordinance Number 350
00000
C. Application for Tree Removal
1. Early Consultation: All applicants are encouraged to consult with the
Community Development Department before site development that
may involve any tree removal. Early consultation shall be a factor used
in determining whether proposed improvements can be reasonably
designed to avoid the need for tree removal.
2. Content. The content of the Tree Removal Application and Permit shall
be in a form as established by the Community Development Director.
The applicant must provide the factual data to make the required
finding(s) as required in this Chapter.
3. Fees. Application fees shall be established by resolution of the City
Council. Fees shall not be required for applications for the removal of
dead or diseased trees,as defined in Section D-2 (a).
4. Arborist Report. When applicable by this Chapter, the applicant is
required to submit a tree condition report prepared by an Arborist
selected and retained by the City. The applicant shall reimburse the City
for all costs related to the preparation of the report.
5. Posting. All native trees proposed for removal shall be identified by the
applicant for field inspection as set forth in the Guidelines. When a Tree
Removal Permit is issued,the City shall post a copy of the permit in City
Hall and the applicant will post a copy on-site for a public appeal period
of five (5) business days.
D. Review&Approval
1. Authority: The Planning Commission shall make decisions regarding all
tree removal application requests involving trees 24 inches dbh or larger.
All other tree removal application decisions will be made by the
Community Development Department.
2. Required Findings: At least one of the following findings must be made
in order to approve a Tree Removal Application:
(a) The tree is dead, diseased or injured beyond reclamation, as
certified by a tree condition report from an Arborist.
Native Tree Regulations -4- Ordinance Number 350
00000'7
(b) The tree is crowded by other healthier native trees thinning
(removal) would promote healthier growth in the trees to
remain, as certified by a tree condition report from an
Arborist.
(c) The tree is interfering with existing utilities and/or structures,
as certified by a report from the Site Planner.
(d) The tree is inhibiting sunlight needed for existing and/or
proposed active or passive solar heating or cooling, as
certified by a report from the Site Planner
(e) The tree is obstructing proposed improvements that cannot
be reasonably designed to avoid the need for tree removal,as
certified by a report from the Site Planner and determined by
the Community Development Department based on the
following factors:
• Early consultation with the City;
• Consideration of practical design alternatives;
• Provision of cost comparisons (from applicant) for
practical design alternatives;
• If saving tree eliminates all reasonable use of the
property,or
• If saving the tree requires the removal of more desirable
trees.
3. Evaluative Criteria for Tree Removal. The following criteria will be
considered when evaluating each Tree Removal Application:
(a) The potential effect that tree removal could have on
topography, knowing that hilltops, ravines, streambeds and
other natural watercourses are more environmentally
sensitive than flat or gentle sloping lands.
(b) The potential effect that tree removal could have on soil
retention and erosion from increased flow of surface waters.
(c) The potential effect that tree removal could have on the
ambient and future noise level.
(d) The potential effect that tree removal could have on the
ability of existing vegetation to reduce air movement and
wind velocity.
Native Tree Regulations -5- Ordinance Number 350
000008
potential effect(e) The po t that tree removal could have on
significantly reducing available wildlife habitat or result;in the
displacement of desirable species.
(f) Aesthetics
(g) The number,size, species, condition and location of trees to
be removed.
(h) The special need to protect existing blue and valley oaks
because of regeneration problems. `
(i) The cumulative environmental effects of tree removal.
4. Conditions of Approval
Tree Removal Permits shall be conditioned by one or more of the
following methods:
(a) Depending on the characteristics of the site the applicant
may plant replacement trees on site. This method shall
include payment in advance for three (3) site, inspections
during a four (4) year establishment period.
(b) Payment of fee to the Tree Replacement Fund
(c) Establishment of conservation easements,which will restrict
removal of any tree within a designated area of the property.
11.06 Tree Protection Plans.
A. Plan Required
Tree Protection Plans shall be required if any listed activity occurs within twenty
fee (20) of the dripline of any native tree. Activities include but are not limited
to the following. remodeling or new construction, grading, road building, utility
trer chin&etc. A Tree Protection Plan shall be included as part of the submittal
for a road plan, plot plan, precise plan, building permit and/or conditional use
pe t.
B. Consultation
Early Consultation with the Community Development Staff is strongly
enc unaged prior to the submittal of plans.
Native Tree Regulati 3ns -6- Ordinance Number 350
000009
•
C. Review and Approval
The Protection Plan shall be in place and verified before an applicant receives
any ICity permits to begin work,with the exception of tree protection measures
proposed during construction. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the
Community Development Department concurrent with the review of any
construction or building permit.
D. Surety Requirements.
In large projects involving valuable trees, the City may require a surety prior to
issuance of entitlement. Determination for use of the surety will be based on
the complexity of the project and number of trees being impacted. The type of
surety must be approved in writing by the City Attorney.
E. Tree Protection Plans for Private/Public Utilities.
. Utility companies doing regular maintenance and construction are not required
to submit Tree Protection Plans for each individual project, but shall meet the
tree protection requirements set forth in this Ordinance and the Guidelines
through conditions placed in a revocable pruning, trenching and encroachment
permit that may be issued on a yearly basis.
11.07 Tree Replacement and Regeneration.
For each residential building permit issued, the planting of one five-gallon native
tree shall be required, based on the rate of one native tree per residential dwelling
unit.
11.08 Tree Abatement: Nuisances, Pests and Disease -- (RESERVED)
11.09 Tree Management Plans.
A. Tree Management Plans.
Tree Management Plans allow for the management of trees as a resource for the
benefit of both the landowner and the community. Tree Management Plans will
allow for comprehensive woodlot management practices as an alternative to the
submission of individual Tree Removal Applications. Tree Management Plans
may be permitted on the following types of property-
1.
roperty1. Minimum area of site of 5.0 acres or larger in single, contiguous ownership;
and
Native Tree Regulations -7- Ordinance Number 350
000010
2. Parcels where the existing zoning is single-family residential or agriculture;
and
3. Canopy cover of site is equal to or greater than 50%;and
4. The woodlot will be managed for personal use only.
B. Stg ndards for Tree Removal.
Ihe standards for tree removal and contents of the Tree Management Plan shall
beset forth in the Guidelines.
1L10 Proc dures for Public Projects.
A. De ffialtion.
Public projects are any construction project that may impact native trees
initiated by any department of the City of Atascadero.
B. Binding City to Tree Ordinance.
Public initiated projects will comply with the Tree Ordinance unless explicitly
exempted by City Council. The City shall consult with an Arborist during the
planning and inspection of all construction projects impacting native trees.
C. Exemptions.
Applicant from the City shall submit a written statement to City Council
describing project and reason that an exemption should be granted.
11.11 Lan ark Trees
A. Deigned.
Landmark Tree means any native or non-native tree recognized by City Council
res lution for its age,size,location,historical,and/or cultural significance.
B. IAu tdmark Tree Protection.
Anv tree (native or non-native) may receive protection by City Council
resolution for its age, size, location, historical, and/or cultural significance.
Lar dmark trees receive the same protection and are subject to all conditions set
forih in this Chapter regarding native trees. They may not be removed without
City Council approval.
Native Tree Regula ' ns -8- Ordinance Number 350
0
11.12 Street Trees - (RESERVED)
11.13 Repeat Applications.
A
When any application made pursuant to Title 9 or Title 11 has been denied,no new
application that is substantially the same shall be filed within one year of the date of
the previous denial unless the physical facts upon which the decision-making body
based the denial have changed. The Community Development Director shall
determine whether physical facts have changed or when an application is
substantially the same as the previous application.
1L14 Enforcement.
A. Authority
It shall be the responsibility of the Community Development Director, or
individuals designated by the Director, for the implementation and enforcement
of all provisions of this Chapter. For the purposes of this Chapter, the Director
may consult with and employ an Arborist, certified by the International Society
of Arboricultural or other recognized professional organization of Arborists, on
technical matters related to the implementation of this Chapter, including, but
not limited to the review and approval of tree removal applications, tree
protection plans. It shall be the role of the Community Development
Department, in conjunction with the Native Tree Association, to develop
educational materials and provide information to all applicants requesting
permits from the Department, including, but not limited to, building permits,
land use permits and other permits issued by the Department.
B. Penalties.
Violations of this Chapter are specifically declared misdemeanors, and upon
conviction may be punished as set forth in Chapter 3 of Title 1 of the
Atascadero Municipal Code.
C. Restitution.
In addition to any penalties provided by (b) above, any person who damages a
tree in violation of the terms of this Chapter is responsible for proper restitution
and/or conditions as described in Section 5 of this Chapter. The City may bring
a civil action for restitution to enforce this section.
Native Tree Regulations -9- Ordinance Number 350
000012
D. Stop Work.
In cases of nonconformance with this Chapter, the inspecting official shall
immediately issue a Stop Work Order until all requirements have been met.
Should unauthorized work or nonconformance lead to tree removal or damage
(as efined),the inspecting official shall also issue a Stop Work Order.
E. Coj iditions and Signed Agreements.
Shc uld unauthorized work or nonconformance lead to tree removal or damage
(asdefined), the Community Development Director may also require additional
cot ditions as penalty and as described in this Chapter.
Native Tree Regulations - 10- Ordinance Number 350
000013
ITEM NUMBER: B - 1
DATE: 09/08/98
■
sin RM
1918 1 19
City Manager's Agenda Report
Wade G. McKinney
General 'Plan Amendment #97009 and Zone Change #97008
(7930 Santa Rosa Road: Gearhart)
RECOMMENDA IONS:
The Planning Commis ion recommends:
1. That the Council find the Negative Declaration prepared for this project to be adequate
under the requ rements of the California Environmental Quality Act and the State and
local guideline for implementation of the Act; and
2. That the Coun it adopt Resolution No. 1998-036 approving General Plan Amendment
#97009; and
3. That the Coun it adopt by Title only, waiving first reading, Ordinance 353 approving
Zone Change 07008.
DISCUSSION:
Back round: The sub ect site is located on the west side of Santa Rosa Road, approximately
500 feet south of its ju ction with Morro Road. The site is one of four parcels on the southwest
corner of Morro Roadand Santa Rosa Road, which are currently designated for Public use. One
of those lots is a PG&H substation,two are churches and the subject site is vacant. Attachments
A&B show the curre t General Plan and zoning pattern in the area.
The reason the subject site was included in the area zoned "Public' in 1992 was to allow for the
orderly expansion of tlie public uses existing at that time. The site was recently listed for sale,
giving the adjoining churches a chance to purchase the property. Instead, the applicant
purchased the property
The applicant previous.y sought to change the General Plan and zoning of the site to a residential
zone that would allow or the construction of two (2) single family residences, each on parcels of
at least one-half acre i tet (RSF-X). After subtracting the public right-of-way along Santa Rosa
Road and a private access easement along the northerly side property line, however, it was
discovered that the net area of the site is less than a full acre. Such a subdivision would therefore
000014
ITEM NUMBER: B - 1
DATE: 09/08/98
not be possible. The applicant also pursued a conditional use permit approval to build a single
family residence on the site, since single family use is listed as a conditionally allowed use under
the existing Public zoning. This application also could not be approved because the Public zone
requires that residential.uses in the Public zone be on a parcel of at least 2.5-acres.
The preferred method of allowing single family residential use on the site, from a planning
standpoint, would be to expand the residential zoning that exists immediately adjacent to the site
to include the subject property. As shown by Attachments A & B, a high-density residential
zone lies across the street and a low-density residential zone lies next door(to the south).
Environmental Review: An Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the proposed
General Plan and Zoning Ordinance amendments was conducted. Based on the results of that
analysis, a determination was made that the amendments would not have significant adverse
impacts on the environment. A draft Negative Declaration has therefore been prepared and
posted for public review and comment. There has been no public comments received, nor have
any new issues been identified, since the August 18, 1998 Planning Commission hearing.
Conclusions: Expanding the high-density residential zoning from across the street to allow for a
subdivision of the site, as previously proposed, is not feasible unless minimum lot size
requirements in that zone are modified. Modifying the minimum lot size requirements in the
high-density single family zone would have citywide ramifications and is not something the
applicant wishes to pursue. Constructing a single-family residence on the site under the existing
Public zoning also cannot be approved because of minimum lot size requirements. The changes
now being recommended avoid minimum lot size issues and the possibility that future use of the
subject property would be inconsistent with neighboring properties, and would seem to benefit
all involved.
ALTERNATIVES:
As an alternative to the recommended changes in the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, the
Council could take no action. This alternative would result in the site being developed with a use
allowable in the Public zone. That use may not be compatible, or desirous, to adjoining
residential uses.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT: Community Development
000015
ITEM NUMBER: B - 1
DATE: 09/08/98
ATTACHMENT .
Attachment A Draft Negative Declaration
Attachment B -Location Maps (General Plan and zoning)
Attachment C -Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 1998-024
Attachment D - Planning Commission Minute Excerpts
Attachment E - Resolution No. 1998 036
Attachment F - Ordinance No. 353
0000?G
ATTACHMENT A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GPA #97009/ZC
497008
CITY OF ATASCADERO
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero,CA 93422 805.461.5035
APPLICANT: Kelly Gearhart
6205 Alcantara Avenue _
Atascadero, CA 93422
PROJECT TITLE: General Plan Amendment#97009 and Zone Change#97008
PROJECT LOCATION: 7930 Santa Rosa Road
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes General Plan and Zoning
amendments to change the Land Use and Zoning designations of the site from Public to Low
Density Single Family (RSF-Z). If approved, the applicant would be allowed to construct a single
family residence on the site. The site is vacant and lies contiguous with other single family
residences, in single family residential zones, to the south and east.
FINDINGS:
1. Th •
e project does not have the potential to degrade the environment.
2. The project will not achieve short-term to the disadvantage of long-term
environmental goals.
3. The project does not have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable.
4. The project will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly
or indirectly.
DETERMINATION:
Based on the above findings, and the information contained in the initial study(made a part hereof
by reference and on file in the Community Development Department), it has been determined that
the above project will not have an adverse impact on the environment.
PREPARED BY: Gary Kaiser, Associate Planner
DATE POSTED: August 6, 1998
DATE ADOPTED:
00001'7
;►fig .:.
IRA
!„ ma _
�. 'Wittlots
R
e .
2 r
�. ii�l� �,,� icy. .� 11�4I�'�f
I. - j� . !� �I i� VIII
ATTACHMENT C
PC RESOLUTION 1998--024
GPA 497009/ZC 497008
RESOLUTION NO. PC 1998-24
A RESOLUT ON OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ATASCADER0 RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE
GPA 97009 AND Z 97008 THEREBY AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE
AND ZONING MAPS FROM"PUBLIC" TO "LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY" ON
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7930 SANTA ROSA ROAD
(Kelly Gearhart)
WHEREAS,tie Planning Commission of the City of Atascadero, at its regularly
scheduled meeting onAugust 18, 1998, studied and considered General Plan Amendment 97009
and Zone Change 97008 to change the land use and zoning designations of certain real property
from Public to Low Density Single Family; and
WHEREAS, t e Planning Commission has determined that it is in the best interest of the
City to enact these amendments to the General Plan Land Use Map and the Zoning Ordinance
map to protect the heath, safety and welfare of its citizens by applying orderly development of the
City; and
WHEREAS, t laws and regulations relating to the preparation and public notice of
environmental documents, as set forth in the State and local guidelines for implementation of the
California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)have been adhered to; and
WHEREAS, based on the environmental record as it exists to date, the Negative
Declaration prepared for the project satisfies the requirements of CEQA and is adequate; and
WHEREAS, a timely and properly noticed public hearing upon General Plan Amendment
97009 and Zone Chane 97008 was held by the Planning Commission of the City of Atascadero
at which hearing evidence, oral and documentary, was admitted on behalf of said General Plan
and Zoning Ordinanceamendments; and
WHEREAS, another public hearing will be held on the subject General Plan and Zoning
amendments before the City Council during which the Council will be presented the Resolution
and any new information added to the record after this date;
000020
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of
Atascadero, in a regular session assembled on August 18, 1998, resolved to recommend that the
City Council:
(a) Approve General Plan Amendment 97009 amending the Land Use Map as shown on
Exhibit A; and
(b) Approve Zone Change 97008 amending the Zoning Map as shown on Exhibit B; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this Resolution be delivered forthwith by the
Planning Commission Secretary to the City Council of the City of Atascadero.
PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 18h DAY OF AUGUST, 1998.
On motion by Commissioner_Sauter , and seconded by Commissioner Fonzi_the foregoing
resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Zimmerman, Eddings, Hageman, Sauter, Arrambide and
Fonzi
NOES: Commissioners: none
ABSENT: Commissioners: Clark
ADOPTED: August 18, 1998
CITY OF ATASCADERO, CA
Micha 1 Sauter, Vie airm
Attest:
Paul M. Saldana
000021
NNW
Ell
ot
d
i6
i �Milli
i
M ••.
g ���rgF���g�� ���iRsem►"
rI�- 1 g
• • DENSITY
FAMI LY"
1
11t `
RESOLUTION NO. PC 1998-24 EXHIBIT B
Page_of_
,.. Rig TO //''►►TT
• ���,yE � �yE�t1 FJ
l 1! p �
�`. `; A EA0 Cr
Cr
AVE
= P P
4
p r
J o A 4
0%- `� i i �7 _ 10-W _ 4L A? t
C N
1
``
IV
• ' LC
K
S
11 i R F• a
SITE
_......_...
FROM: CPQ
T0:
ttRSF—Z"
/ \0,
K�
New Zone="ABC'
Old Zone=(XYZ)
All Overlay Zones to remain unchanged
000023
ATTACHMENT D
PC MINUTE EXCERPTS
GPA 097009/ZC #97008
Planning Commissio a Meeting-August 18,2998
Page Two of
firman Zimmerm recognized Rush Kolmaine whom asked if there was mitigation requir
for th ee removal. a was informed that the applicant would he paying in to the Tre
Replaceme ural
ACTION: Appro Consent Calendar item No. A.2
Motion: Eddings
Second: Fonzi
AYES: Eddin s, Fonzi, Hageman, S e , ambide,Zimmerman
NOES: None
ABSENT: Clark
MOTION SSED: 6:0
SUBJECT: B. HEARINGS,APPEARANCES AND REPORTS
1. General Plan Amendment 97007/Zone Change 97008 - 7930 Santa Rosa Road
(Kelly Gearh )
Proposed General Plan and Zoning Map amendments which would change the land use
designation and zoning of the subject site from Public(P)to Low Density Single Family
(RSF-Z). (Sta recommendation: (1) That the Negative Declaration prepared for the
proposed General Plan and Zoning amendments satisfies the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)and is adequate. (2) Adopt Resolution
PC 1998-024, erehy recommending that the City Council approve General Plan
Amendment#07009 and Zone Change #97008).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: (Gary Kaiser)
The Planning Commis ion should make the following recommendations to the City Council:
1. That the Negative Declaration prepared for the proposed General Plan and Zoning
amendments satisfies the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and is adequate; and
2. That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PC 1998-024,thereby recommending
that the City Council approve General Plan Amendments#97009 and Zone Change
#97008.
000024
Planning Commission Meeting-August 18, 1998
Page Three of
Gary provided the staff report and responded to questions from the Commission.
Commissioner Hageman-wondered at what point road improvements and an offer of dedication
would be required and asked if zone changes could be conditioned. Gary stated that John Neil,
Assistant City Engineer, said that the applicant will have to meet the sight distance standards but
road improvements will not be required. Gary continued, saying single family residences usually
don't have to make an offer of dedication and conditioning the zone change and requiring that the
applicant locate the house in a specific location would be treating this property differently than
other properties zoned the same. Commissioner Hageman asked if we can act on this zone
change at this time even though the public review period has not expired. After discussion,it was
decided that the language in Resolution PC 1998-024 would be amended by adding two (2)
additional paragraphs:
WHEREAS, based on the environmental record as it exists to date,the Negative
Declaration prepared for the project satisfies the requirements of CEQA and is
adequate; and
WHEREAS, another public hearing will be held on the subject General Plan and
Zoning amendments before the City Council during which the Council will be
presented the Resolution and any new information added to the record after this
date;
Discussion continued regarding requiring the applicant to place the proposed house so it faces
Santa Rosa.
TESTIMONY:
Mary, Higkey—7950 Santa Rosa Road—Read a prepared statement herein attached as
Exhibit"A"
. . . . . . . .closed to public testimony. . . . . . .
The Commission asked the applicant,Kelly Gearhart, if he would have a problem making the
house compatible with the neighborhood by having it face Santa Rosa. Kelly responded that
turning the house would cause considerable grading and the removal of one tree. Mr. Gearhart
was asked if he could have the wall facing the street look like a front elevation. Kelly said he had
no idea what kind of house would be built on this property once it was sold and he resisted having
the Commission put conditions on what kind of house he can build; he was"just looking for a
zone change".
000025
Planning Commissio i Meeting-August 18, 1998
Page Four of
The Commission aske I that any house built on this property be as compatible with the neighbor-
hood as possible:
ACTION: That the Negative Declaration prepared for the proposed General Plan and
Zoning amendments satisfies the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act.
Motion: Eddings
Second: Sauter
AYES: Edding , Sauter, Hageman, Arrambide, Fonzi, Zimmerman
NOES: None
ABSENT: . Clark
MOTION PASSED: 6:0
ACTION: That thD Planning Commission adopt Resolution PC 1998-024, as amended,
thereby recommending that the City Council approve General Plan Amendments
#97009 and Zone Change#97008.
Motion: Sauter
Second: Fonzi
AYES: Sauter, Fonzi, Hageman, Arrambide,Fonzi, Zimmerman
NOES: None
ABSENT: Clark
MOTION PASSED: :0
neral Plan imendment 98004/Zone Chan a 98005- 10801 E no Real
(Atasca e d School District (Anthony L. Brid
Request to ami ad the Land U p and the Zoning Ordinance Map
designations fr m Public(P)t e lti le Family(RMF-16). (Staff
recommendation: t the Negative Declaration p or this project to be
ad e ar the provisions of the California Environmental Qua r A)
000026
EXHIBIT "A"
Good Evening Ladies and Gentlemen:
I want to help end this thing. This property is zoned where, within this city, there is no
appropriate compatible zone, without a variance or spotzone... and many other costly
factors keep bringing it back to the table. Let's get it done tonight and make everybody
win.
I'd like to start with two quotes from myself -February 10, 1998 - "I've received several
unsavory suggested possibilities if I don't go along with the proposed zone change which
were offered to me as a result of informal discussion ... which destroys the peaceful rural
character of this neighborhood....I would, however,like to see this property be rezoned to
RSF-Z and take away the nervousness I feel that has been part of the tactics involving
threats of a number of horrible scenarios that may go upon that lot if I simply am against a
single proposal to spotzone and rezone my property which I can get no benefit from, and
in fact, and again, I will be crowded by substandard lot sizing."
Tuesday January 20, 1998 - "Several months ago, when the lot next door had a posted sign
of intent to build, I called the city and was informed that one single family, 2,400 square
foot residential home, a spec house, is scheduled. I don't think anybody would have a
problem with a nice single family home going in there; one that followed the pattern of our
neighborhood."
Now, it sounds like I'm getting everything I want. But the footprint of the house has
changed, and the uneasiness I feel when asking for this home to be built in conformance
with the neighborhood, because of other undesirable things that might surface on the
property continues.
A change of zoning is a privilege.
Per Gary Kaiser, the developer cannot build at the present "public" designation because of
the 2 1/2 acre minimum lot size. The denied RSF-X and RSF-Y designations are
spotzones. At RSF-Z the developer needs to have 11/1 -2 1/2 acres ie:l 1/2 acres
minimum. He has only 1.08 acres. Per Gary's Staff report, I agree that the best used for
this property, in this neighborhood and the City of Atascadero is to have one home put on
this property and that it be zoned RSF-Z...maybe a variance is in order here but let's
continue. I'd like to request you put some conditions on it, as you did when considering
the privilege of RSF-X.
At the "Public" Zone, the developer would be required to make major street alterations
including moving a fire hydrant. This cost in the tens of thousands of dollars. I'm
opposed to the widening of Santa Rosa Rd. at this location because of the limited sight
distance, which is excluded from this staff report, and the illusion that widening the road
000027
would create at this ocation, ie: excessive speed, then the road narrows! I asked the
planners to reconsider as it would save the developer money - tens of thousands of dollars
and be more beneficial to this city.
In exchange for this savings and this privilege, I'd like to see the foot print of the house be
in line with the neigliborhood and the home be single story and setback in line with the
neighborhood - my house is set back approximated 84 feet from the center line of Santa .
Rosa Road. There is an existing plot plan for this property which shows the house being
crowded into the northern corner of the property- 1/4 of the lot. This concerns me. It is
inconsistent with the neighborhood, having only a 30 foot setback. That's offensive, and I
envision future out-buildings on this site, possibly animals which I live down wind from.
Please remember, I bought a home next to "church" owned property, not residential.
In addition I'd like to see the property be fenced. If you recall,Mr. Marty Young from the
Christian Church of Atascadero, he was concerned about the small size home(s), which by
the way have been advertised since fathers day, and that this sized home might indicate
starter families and Arnall children. He was concerned about the churches' liability on their
easement. Please cc nsider that, along with the limited sight distance, which is excluded
from the staff report and the safety of our city's future and our children.
The set back is fair because the footprint excluded from the staff report and attached to
this page is offensive in that the backyard is in my front yard. This is different than the
original plot plan as quoted in the beginning of this letter.
Everybody wins. I Win, protecting my investment. The Neighborhood wins, no
subdivision or incon 5istent situating of the home. The future residents and their children
win, safety, limited sight distance. The Churches win, liability on easement. The
developer wins, repositioning house in lieu of road and hydrant change and a huge cash
savings. The westein entrance to Atascadero is preserved. The General Plan is respected,
and as these request are all in order it will seem that the staff and council will truly have
made a good decisi n and wise compromise.
I would like to th you for letting me speak before you this evening.
Mary Florence Stew art Hickey
Timothy J. Hickey
7950 Santa Rosa R ad
Atascadero, Cafforria 93422
(805)466-7161
000028
CHECK LIST
-Fence for children
-limited sight distance
-church liability
-already has sign posted
-no plot plan in this staff report
-original plot plan 1997
-reposition house setback
-save developer $
-minimum acreage - public zone
-minimum acreage- 1 1/2 -2 1/2 acres RSF-Z
Spotzone RSF-Y
-Spotzone RS - denied
-Our family wants to be protected/undesirable alternative uses/expected church
-horse stable
-privilege
-conditions at RSF-X
000029
ATTACHMENT E
RESOLUTION NO. 1998-036
A RESOLUT ON OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
APPROVING AN A MENDMIENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT
BY AMI NDING THE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION FROM
PUBLIC TO LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT
7930 SANTA ROSA ROAD
(GPA 97009; Gearhart)
WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero has grown considerably since incorporation; and
WHEREAS, the City's General Plan Land Use Element, which was adopted in 1992 to
guide the City's general growth, needs to be revised with respect to the subject property; and
WHEREAS;the Planning Commission of the City of Atascadero conducted a public
hearing on the proposed General Plan amendment on August 18, 1998; and
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65356 provides that a General Plan be amended
by the adoption of a reE olution; and
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Atascadero finds as follows:
1. The pro osed General Plan amendment recommended by the Planning
Commis 3ion is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan.
2. The pro osed General Plan amendment will not have a significant affect on the
enviro ent. The Negative Declaration prepared for the project is adequate.
THEREFORE, he Council of the City of Atascadero does resolve to approve General
Plan Amendment WWI 1 as shown on the attached Exhibit A.
000030
Resolution No. 1998-036
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
HAROLD L. CARDEN III, Mayor
ATTEST:
MARCIA TORGERSON, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROY A. HANLEY, City Attorney
000031
Ii
. - ®let
WOR E
a; ,Z. w�
dak
Ali u;• �'
• ( .,£ !.
•
• DENSITY
MI LY"
�lmIII
iiil'
ATTACHMENT F
ORDINANCE NO. 353
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ATASCADERO AMENDING MAP 22 OF THE OFFICIAL ZONING
MAPS BY REZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 7930 SANTA ROSA ROAD FROM PUBLIC (P)TO
RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY WITH A
MINIMUM LOT SIZE RANGING FROM 1.5 TO 2.5 ACRES (RSF-Z)
(ZC 97008; Gearhart)
WHEREAS, the proposed zoning map amendment is consistent with the General Plan as
required by Section 65860 of the California Government Code; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment is in conformance with Section 65800 et seq. of the
California Government Code concerning zoning regulations; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment will not have a significant adverse impact upon the
environment; the Negative Declaration prepared for the project is adequate; and
WHEREAS, the Atascadero Planning Commission held aublic hearing August 18
p g on g ,
1998 and has recommended approval of Zone Change 97008.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does ordain as follows:
Section 1. Council Findings,
1. The proposal is compatible with the surrounding land use and zoning.
2. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element and other
elements contained in the General Plan.
3. The proposal will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts. The
Negative Declaration prepared for the project is adequate.
Section 2. Zoning Map.
Map number 22 of the Official Zoning Maps of the City of Atascadero on file in the City
Community Development Department is hereby amended as shown on the attached Exhibit A
which is hereby made a part of this ordinance by reference.
0
000033
Section 3.- Pub ication.
The City Clerk hall cause this ordinance to be published once within fifteen(15) days
after its passage in the tascadero News, a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published,
and circulated in the Cily in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code; the Clerk
shall also certify the adopting and posting of this ordinance and shall cause this ordinance and this
certification together w th proof of posting to be entered into the Book of Ordinances of the City.
Section 4. EffectiveDate.
This ordinance hall go into effect and be in full force and effect at 12:01 a.m. on the 31 st
day after its passage.
On motion by and seconded by
the foregoing Ordinance is approved by the following role call
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
DATE ADOPTED:
By:
HAROLD L. CARDEN III, Mayor
ATTEST:
MARCIA TORGERSO , City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROY A. HANLEY, Cit,r Attorney
000034
EXHIBIT A
Ordinance No. 353
&4 CT
�•V E•a /J ! / l 1 �GR N L�
Q \
� Ecc
� ♦ •►VE�
= p P CK
t
r • d'a /
�• J p A 4 ar --
�
OL 1 7f N
IVE
K
I
N
11 i R F'
FROM: CPQ
T0: 1TRSF-Z11
Knc:
New Zone="ABC'
Old Zone=(XYZ)
All Overlay Zones to remain unchanged
000035
ITEM NUMBER: B - 2
DATE: 09/08/98
n
iaia , 1979
CAD
City Man! er's Agenda Report
Wade G. McKinney
Genera 1 Plan Amendment 98004 and Zone Change 98005
(10801 El Camino Real; AUSD)
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Planning Commission recommends that:
1. The Council find he Negative Declaration prepared for this project to be adequate under the
provisions of the Califoriiia Environmental Quality Act and the State and local guidelines for
the impiementation of that Act.
2. The Council adop Resolution 1998-035 approving.General Plan Amendment 98004.
3. The Council adopt by Title only, waiving first reading, Ordinance 352 approving Zone
Change 98005.
DISCUSSION:
Background: General Plan Amendment 98004 and Zone Change 98005 were submitted on July
22, 1998 and are being considered as a special cycle of general plan amendments as authorized
by the City Council on August 11, 1998.
At the conclusion of their public hearing on this item held on August 18, 1998, the Planning
Commission adopted Resolution #PC 1998-023 recommending Council approval of these
General Plan and Zoning Ordinance amendments.
Anal General Plan Amendment 98004 would change the land use designation of one (1)
parcel located at 10801 El Camino Real from"Public"to "High Density Multiple Family". Zone
Change 98005 would concurrently amend the zoning on the parcel from "P" (Public) to "RMF-
16" (Residential Multiple Family -High Density).
The Atascadero Unified School District originally purchased the subject property in May of
1991. The District's intention at that time was to construct an elementary school on the site to
serve residents of th southern portion of the City. The City's General Plan and Zoning
000036
ITEM NUMBER: B - 2
DATE: 09/08/98
Ordinance maps were amended in 1992 in order to recognize and accommodate the District's
acquisition and future plans for the site. The prior land use designation for high density multiple
family development was amended to facilitate the District's planned school.
The school district has now abandoned its plans to construct a school facility on the subject
property. Because of this, the District has requested that the City's General Plan Land Use and
Zoning Ordinance Maps be amended to restore the previous multiple family designations.
T located to the north south and west of the subject parcel is designated and zoned
The property � p g
P p Y
for High Density Multiple Family development. Of the four parcels located immediately to the
north of this site, one contains an older single family home while the remainder are vacant. One
of the two parcels located to the south of this site is developed as a mobile home park and the
other is a skilled nursing facility (Danish Convalescent Care). The properties to the west (across
El Camino Real) are being developed as a series of small-lot, single family residential planned
developments. These projects are at densities approaching high density multiple family
standards. The property to the east of this site is within San Luis Obispo County jurisdiction and
ownership and is part of the Heilman Regional Park.
As indicated, the school district's property was designated for multiple family residential
development prior to its acquisition by the district for a school site. With the District's
abandonment of its plans for a new elementary school at this site, there appears to be no
overriding reason not to allow the property to revert to its previous designation. There appear to
be no viable"public"uses for this property if it is not to be utilized for a school site.
Environmental Review: Based on the information contained in the Initial Study, a determination
was made that the proposed action would not have a significant impact on the environment. A
Negative Declaration was therefore prepared and posted for public review and comment on
August 3, 1998. There were no comments received regarding the content or adequacy of this
environmental document during the public review period.
Conclusion: Amending the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance to allow for multiple family
development on the subject property does not present any significant planning issues. Indeed,
the current "Public" designation for the property was implemented only to accommodate the
school district's planning for an elementary school at that location. Absent any plans for a new
school, reversion of the land use designation to "Multiple Family" appears most appropriate.
This designation is consistent with surrounding land use designations and is consistent with the
other elements of the General Plan. Finally, this proposed General Plan amendment will provide
for additional housing opportunities in an area already dedicated to such uses, and well suited to
accommodate additional growth.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
00003'7
ITEM NUMBER: B - 2
DATE: 09/08/98
ALTERNATIVES:
As an alternative tote recommended changes in the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, the
City Council could determine that the current"Public' designation should not be amended. This
alternative would result in the maintenance of approximately eight (8) acres of property
designated for public and quasi-public uses and a concurrent loss of opportunity for the location
of multiple family or other residential uses.
RESPONSIBLEDEPARTMENT: Community Development
ATTACHMENTS: A-Draft Negative Declaration
B - Location Map
C -Planning Commission Resolution#PC 1998-023
D -Planning Commission Minute Excerpts
E - Resolution No. 1998-035
F - Ordinance#352
000038
ATTACHMENT A
~i i p Ib
19 CITY OF ATASCADERO
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero,CA 93422 805.461.5035
APPLICANT: Atascadero Unified School District
5601 West Mall
Atascadero, CA 93422
(805)462-4204
PROJECT TITLE: GPA 98004/ZC 98005
PROJECT LOCATION: AP#45-032-003
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to amend the
land use designation of the 8.13 acre parcel from"P" (Public)to"RMF-16" (High Density
Multiple Family).
FINDINGS:
1, The project does not have the potential to degrade the environment.
2. The project will not achieve short-term to the disadvantage of long-term
environmental goals.
3. The project does not have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable.
4. The project will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly
or indirectly.
Y
DETERMINATION:
Based on the above findings, and the information contained in the initial study(made a part hereof
by reference and on file in the Community Development Department), it has been determined that
the above project will not have an adverse impact on the environment.
PREPARED BY: Steven L. DeCamp, City Planner
DATE POSTED: August 3, 1998
DATE ADOPTED:
000039
ATTACHMENT B
Location Map
General Plan Amendment#98004
10801 El Camino Real(AVSD)
� o
r � 1
°
SITE
e � /
e
VIEJO %
�6 4 MiN
C4M,NO o
Rf4C
ti
• �4K� a
a
t
.10
m
Cc
►a-
�o
4�
000040
ATTACHMENT C
RESOLUTION NO. PC 1998-23
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ATASCADERO RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE
GPA 98004 AND ZC 98005 THEREBY AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE
AND ZONING MAPS FROM "PUBLIC"TO "HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY"
ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10801 EL CAMINO REAL
(Atascadero Unified School District)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Atascadero, at its regularly
scheduled meeting on August 18, 1998, studied and considered General Plan Amendment 98004
and Zone Change 98005 to change the land use and zoning designations of certain real property
from Public to High Density Multiple Family; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that it is in the best interest of the
City to enact these amendments to the General Plan Land Use Map and the Zoning Ordinance
map to protect the health, safety and welfare of its citizens by applying orderly development of the
City; and
WHEREAS, the laws and regulations relating to the preparation and public notice of
environmental documents, as set forth in the State and local guidelines for implementation of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)have been adhered to; and
WHEREAS, based on the environmental record as it exists to date, the Negative
Declaration prepared for the project satisfies the requirements of CEQA and is adequate; and
WHEREAS, a timely and properly noticed public hearing upon General Plan Amendment
98004 and Zone Change 98005 was held by the Planning Commission of the City of Atascadero
at which hearing evidence, oral and documentary,was admitted on behalf of said General Plan
and Zoning Ordinance amendments; and
WHEREAS, another public hearing will be held on the subject Genereral Plan and Zoning
amendments before the City Council during which the council will be presented the Resolution
and any new information added to the record after this date;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of
Atascadero, in a regular session assembled on August 18, 1998, resolved to recommend that the
City Council:
(a) Approve General Plan Amendment 98004 amending the Land Use Map as shown on
000041
Exhibit A; and
(b) Approve Zone Change 98005 amending the Zoning Map as shown on Exhibit B; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this Resolution be delivered forthwith by the
Planning Commission Secretary to the City Council of the City of Atascadero.
PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 18'DAY OF AUGUST, 1998.
On motion by Commissi ner Eddings, and seconded by Commissioner Sauter the foregoing
resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commiss oners: Eddings, Sauter, Hageman, Fonzi, and Zimmerman
NOES: Commiss oners: None
ABSENT: Commiss oners: Clark
ABSTAIN: Commissioners: Arrambide
ADOPTED: August 1 , 1998
CITY OF ATASCADERO, CA
Midhael Sauter, Vico-Chairman
Attest:
Paul M. Saldana
Community Developme Director
000042
EXHIBIT A'
General Plan Map
Resolution PC 1998-023
General Plan Amendment#98004
10801 El Camino Real(AUSD)
/
CT
= i
o
VIED° /
o �p
At
N
E N. li
EXISTING DESIGNATION: Pub „c
NEW DESIGNATION: "High Density Multiple Family'
0000L13
EXHIBIT B
Zoning Ordinance Map
Resolution PC 1998-23
Zoning Ordinanceendment#98005
10801 El Camino al(AVSD)
f6
MiNo
4 /NO R
\ E4C
EXISTING DESIGNA ON: Public(P)
NEW DESIGNATION: Residential Multiple Family(RMF-16)
000044
ATTACHMENT D
MINUTES EXCERPTS
Planning Commission Meeting-August 18, 1998
Page Four of
e Commission asked that any house built on this property be as compatible with the neighbo
ho o as possible.
ACTION: That the Negative Declaration prepared for the proposed General PI and
oning amendments satisfies the requirements of the California E ' onmental
Q 'ty Act.
Motion: dings
Second: San r
AYES: Eddings, Sauter, eman, Arrambide,Fonzi,Z' erman
NOES: None
ABSENT: . Clark
MOTION PASSED: 6:0
ACTION: That the Planning Commi ion adopt Re ution PC 1998-024, as amended,
thereby recommendin at the City Counc pprove General Plan Amendments
#97009 and Zone C ge#97008.
Motion: Sauter
Second: Fo
AYES: Sauter onzi,Hageman, Arrambide,Fonzi,Zimmerman
NOES: ne
ABSENT- Clark
MO ON PASSED: 6:0
2. General Plan Amendment 98004/Zone Change 98005- 10801 El Camino Real
(Atascadero Unified School District(Anthony L. Bridges)
Request to amend the General Plan Land Use Map and the Zoning Ordinance Map
designations from Public(P)to High Density Multiple Family(RMF-16). (Staff
recommendation: (1) That the Negative Declaration prepared for this project to be .
adequate under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)
000045
Planning Commissio i Meeting-August 18, 1998
Page Five of
and the State c rnd local guidelines for the implementation of the Act if no appeals are
received within the public comment period (2)Adopt Resolution PC 1998-023
recommending,that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment 98004 and Zone
Change 98005).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: (Steven Decamp)
Staff recommends thal the Commission:
1. The Commission recommends that the City Council find the Negative Declaration
prepared for t 's project to be adequate under the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State and local guidelines for the
implementation of the Act if no appeals are received within the public comment period.
1. The Commissi n adopts Resolution#PC 1998-023 recommending that the City Council
approve General Plan Amendment 98004 and Zone Change 98005.
Commissioner Arraml Pide stepped down for this item only
Steve provided the st report suggesting that Resolution#PC 1998-023 be amended to include
public notice appeal period language.
Commissioner Zimme an-explained that the City Council voted to accept this General Plan
Amendment in to this General Plan cycle, otherwise it would have had to wait until the October
1st cycle.
Chairman Zimmerman wondered if the school district has enough property for expansion if they
give up this piece of property. He said he was disappointed that the school district had not sent a
representative to this meeting.
TESTIMONY:
Mike Arrambide, 7243 Del Rio Road -informed the Commission that when the school district
purchased this particular piece of property for future school construction, there was a tremendous
outcry from the public because it was too close to the State Hospital.
Rush Kolmaine. P.O. ox 1990- asked what the City's requirement was for introducing General
Plan Amendments oriE inating outside the City. Steve explained that under State law, there are
four(4) opportunities luring the year to initiate changes in the General Plan. The City Council
has decided that they N vould reserve two of those opportunities for themselves; allowing two (2)
000046
Planning Commission Meeting-August 18, 1998
Page Six of
opportunities-the April cycle and the October cycle for members of the public to request changes
to the General Plan. Council utilized one of their opportunities to add this particular General Plan
Amendment for staff's consideration.
Chairman Zimmerman-asked if this was an unusual procedure? Steve answered that it's not
unheard of for a General Plan Amendment to be initiated outside of the April l and October 1
cycles but it is uncommon. Chairman Zimmerman inquired whether this amendment was included
retroactively into the April ld cycle.
Paul Saldana-commented that the recommendation before the City Council was to initiate a
"Special General Plan Cycle"for this particular request.
Mr. Kolmaine felt that the school district was asking for special treatment that would not
necessarily be available to the general public.
. . . . . . . .closed to public comment. . . . . . . . .
Commissioner Fonzi- recommended continuance of this item as she would like to ask the school
district some questions.
It was the consensus of the Commission that if the school district is requesting a zone change,
they probably do not intend to build on this property.
ACTION: The Commission recommends that the City Council find the Negative
Declaration prepared for this project to be adequate under the provisions of
the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) and the State and local
guidelines for the implementation of the Act if no appeals are received within the
public comment period.
Motion: Eddings
Second: Sauter
AYES: Eddings, Sauter Fonzi, Hageman,Zimmerman
NOES: None
ABSENT: Clark
MOTION PASSED: 5:0
00004'7
Planning Commissio i Meeting-August 18, 1998
Page Seven of
ACTION: The Commission adopts Resolution#PC 1998-023, as amended, recommending
that th City Council approve General Plan Amendment 98004 and Zone Change
98005.
Motion: Eddings
Second: Sauter
AYES: Edding , Sauter,Fonzi, Hageman,Zimmerman
NOES: None
ABSENT: Clark
MOTION PASSED: :0
. . . . . .Commissioner, rrambide rejoined the Commission. . . . . .
0000AR
ATTACHMENT E
RESOLUTION NO. 1998-035
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT
BY AMENDING THE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION FROM
PUBLIC TO MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT
10801 EL CAMINO REAL
(GPA 98004; AUSD)
WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero has grown considerably since incorporation; and
WHEREAS, the City's General Plan Land Use Element, which was adopted in 1992 to
guide the City's general growth, needs to be revised with respect to the subject property; and
WHEREAS; the Planning Commission of the City of Atascadero conducted a public
hearing on the proposed General Plan amendment on August 18, 1998; and
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65356 provides that a General Plan be amended
by the adoption of a resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Atascadero finds as follows:
1. The proposed General Plan amendment recommended by the Planning
Commission is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan.
2. The proposed General Plan amendment will not have a significant affect on the
environment. The Negative Declaration prepared for the project is adequate.
THEREFORE,the Council of the City of Atascadero does resolve to approve General
Plan Amendment 98004 as shown on the attached Exhibit A.
00001-49
4
• �i
Ii
�i
li
Resolution No. 1998-035
Page 2
I'
i?.
On motion by and seconded by
the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety by the
following roll call vote: .
i
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ADOPTED:
CITY OF ATASCADERO, CA
r
I
HAROLD L. CARDEN III, Mayor
i
ATTEST:
MARCIA TORGERSOW, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO F RM:
ROY A. HANLEY, Ci Attorney
I
000050
14 1
r.t. �_`..n����"J111,f .,�••�;uf`�-` 3�t,f fh.N,Ajjf
,Y.,� a..'�►•�, , �
�t�•11'�I �'� � s�.�' .c� :mak ia�� .. �
..�, �'�i1� Vii'` �i'��n;%��. �� � .j�.'�■�■ ._� �,��
�.A
� 1
■
ATTACHMENT F
ORDINANCE NO. 352
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ATASCAIE ERO AMENDING MAP 23 OF THE OFFICIAL ZONING
MAPS B REZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 10801 EL CAMINO REAL FROM PUBLIC TO
RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE FAMILY
(ZC 98005; AVSD)
WHEREAS, the proposed zoning map amendment is consistent with the General Plan as
required by Section 65 360 of the California Government Code; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment is in conformance with Section 65800 et seq. of the
California Government Code concerning zoning regulations; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment will not have a significant adverse impact upon the
environment. The Negative Declaration prepared for the project is adequate; and
WHEREAS, th Atascadero Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 18,
1998 and has recomme aded approval of Zone Change 98005.
NOW, THERE FORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does ordain as follows:
Section 1. Council Findin s.
1. The proposal is compatible with the surrounding land use and zoning.
2. The pro'
osal is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element and other
element contained in the General Plan.
3. The proposal will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts. The
Negativ Declaration prepared for the project is adequate.
Section 2. Zor iniz Mo.
Map number 23 of the Official Zoning Maps of the City of Atascadero on file in the City
Community Development Department is hereby amended as shown on the attached Exhibit A
which is hereby made a part of this ordinance by reference.
Section 3. Pub 'cation.
The City Clerk hall cause this ordinance to be published once within fifteen(15) days
after its passage in the tascadero News, a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published,
and circulated in the Ci in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code; shall certify
the adopting and postin 3,of this ordinance and shall cause this ordinance and this certification
together with proof of I iosting to be entered into the Book of Ordinances of the City.
i
000052
Section 4. Effective Date.
This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and effect at 12:01 a.m. on the 31st
day after its passage.
On motion by and seconded by
the foregoing Ordinance is approved by the following role call
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
DATE ADOPTED:
By:
HAROLD L. CARDEN III, Mayor
ATTEST:
MARCIA TORGERSON, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROY A. HANLEY, City Attorney
000053
EXHIBIT A-
Zoning Ordinanc( Map
Ordinance 352
Zoning Ordinance Amendment#98005
10801 El Camino Real (AUSD)
'4T SITE
T
J
ME-10 )(PD7wlY
d
cr VIEJp - \
7 O 4 MNO
` P(FH
Zi
O,J
�,o R
\ a
a
I Z
\y 4s
�r CO O
EXISTING DESIGNA ON: Public(P)
NEW DESIGNATION: Residential Multiple Family(RMF-16)
ITEM NUMBER: C - 1
DATE: 09/08/98
iais ie e
CA]
•
City Manager's Agenda Report
Wade G. McKinney
Propo ition 9—Utility Rate Reduction and Reform Act
RECOMMENDA ION:
City staff recommends City Council oppose Proposition 9 —Utility Rate Reduction and Reform
Act.
DISCUSSION:
Background: In 199 Governor Wilson signed AB 1890, which set into motion a system to
restructure California's electric services industry. In 1997, the Governor also signed SB 477,
which made several important changes to AB 1890, especially in the area of consumer
protection. In the ne ly restructured electricity services system, users may continue to purchase
their electricity from existing investor-owned utilities (i.e. PG&E or Southern California Edison)
or may purchase their electricity from an Energy Services Provider. The existing IOUs continue
to provide and maintain the distribution and transmission system.
The Utility Rate Redtion and Reform Act, Proposition 9 on the November 1998 ballot, would
make a number of changes to AB 1890. The following summarizes several key elements of the
initiative, as they relat to AB 1890.
Key Elements of AB 890:
1. Stranded Costs —AB 1890 permits the investor-owned utilities (and municipal utilities)to
recover their ".stranded" capital costs over through March 31, 2002. In general, these are
costs approved previously by the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) and previously
included in the rate base. That is, they are costs that electricity customers were already
paying in theit bills prior to January 1, 1998, based on criteria established by the PUC.
The PUC will review the utilities' requests for a Competition Transition Charge (CTC)
based upon iteria included in the bill. The CTC authorized by AB .1890 is
nonbypassable with a few specific exceptions. That is, all customers must pay the
charge. Municipal utilities were authorized in AB 1890 to collect their version of the
CTC if they meet specified criteria.
000055
ITEM NUMBER: C - 1
DATE: 09/08/98
2. Rate Reductions - AB 1890 froze all electricity rates at their June 1996 levels until
January 1, 1998. At that time, residential and small commercial customers received a 10
percent rate reduction. It is expected that residential and small commercial customers
will receive an additional 10 percent reduction in 2002. The first 10 percent rate
reduction has been achieved by financing a portion of the residential and small
commercial customer's share of the CTC paid to the investor-owned utilities through
$6billion in so-called rate reduction bonds issued by the State Infrastructure and
Economic Development Bank to be repaid over ten years. Thus, the residential and small
commercial customers' share of the CTC will be spread over a longer period of time (ten
years)than the CTC paid by other users.
Key Elements of Proposition 9:
1. Transition Cost Recovery - The initiative would eliminate costs for nuclear generating
plants (other than reasonable costs for decommissioning) from the CTC. For non-nuclear
generation sources, the IOU could not receive CTC unless it demonstrated to the PUC
that these costs could not be recovered in the competitive market (with a fair rate of
return).
2. Rate Reduction — The measure would require at least a 20 percent rate reduction for
residential and small commercial customers effective January 1, 1999, with no time limit
on the reduction.
3. Bonds — The measure would not permit IOUs to pass on the costs to repay reduction
bonds through charges to customers.
Local Government Impacts:
It is difficult to clearly identify and quantify specific local government impacts. The Legislative
Analyst's discussion identifies various fiscal impacts from changes in the CTC and bond
repayment. The direct impacts include loss of franchise fee and utility users tax revenue, as,a
result of lower electricity prices. However, to the extent that cities have electricity accounts that
would be eligible to receive the additional price reductions, they could save money, as could
their residents and small businesses.
Indirect impacts would result from the uncertainty the initiative would have on the new
electricity services market, the potential disruption the new system would experience, as well as
the indirect impact on the bond markets and municipal bonds. This latter impact could be
significant.
League of California Cities Opposition:
The League opposes Proposition 9 because of the negative fiscal impacts it would have on cities,
the uncertainty that would result in the municipal bond market as a result of questions about
repayment of the $6 billion in rate reduction bonds, and the unsettling effects Proposition 9
would have on the newly restructured electricity services market.
000056
ITEM NUMBER:-C - 1
DATE: 09/08/98
Coalition Opposition:
A coalition has devel ped called the Californians for Affordable and Reliable Electric Service
(CARES). This coalition opposed to Proposition 9 includes a, broad-base of organizations
including the Califorria Chamber of Commerce, the League of California Cities and various
taxpayer organizations Information regarding the coalition is attached to this staff report.
FISCAL IMPACT:
An unidentifiable redu tion in franchise fee revenue from PG&E.
ALTERNATIVE
1. The City Coun it could support Proposition 9. This alternative was not recommended as
Proposition 9 would have a negative financial impact on the City.
2. The City Cou cil could remain neutral on the Proposition. This alternative was not
recommendedas Proposition 9 would have a negative financial impact on the City.
RESPONSIBLE ]DEPARTMENT: City Manager
ATTACHMENTS: PG&E letter, dated August 6, 1998 with enclosures
00005'7
Pacific Gas and Electric Company 406 Higuera Street
P.O.Box 8592
San Luis Obispo,CA 93406-8592
August 6, 1998 RECEIVED
t
Mr.wade McKinney OSCADER0CITY MANAGER
City Manager
6500 Palma Avenue Rm.207
Atascadero,CA 93422
Dear Mr.McKinney
Thank you for your consideration in becoming a member of Californians for Affordable and Reliable
Electric Service(CARES),a broadbased coalition formed to oppose the 1998 Electric Utility Proposition
(Proposition 9)expected to appear on the November ballot. Enclosed,please find some background
information regarding CARES and Proposition 9.
CARES is opposed to Proposition 9 because it threatens the foundation of electric deregulation,
eliminatipg customer choice and competitive electric rates. This poorly written initiative would lead to
more bureaucracy,red tape and lawsuits and could cost taxpayers billions of dollars. While the initiative
claims to require utility companies to reduce their rates,it would actually destroy California's emerging
competitive electric system and result in higher rates. In addition,the proposed initiative threatens the
state's economic recovery by creating uncertainty for California-based companies,as well as those
considering locating here.
According to the State Legislative Analyst's Office and the State Department of Finance Proposition 9
could create a$6 billion hole in the state budget and result in reductions in funding for key services such as
education, op tice and fire—and a potentially huge tax increase.
Please review the enclosed information and fax or mail the enclosed`Member Form' as soon as possible.
Thank you again for your consideration in joining with business,labor,consumer,local government and
environmental groups in opposing Proposition 9. If you have any questions,contact me at 595-6324.
Sincerely,
J4 141
Stephen Spratt
Account Representative
SVS:nms
Enclosure
000058
Californians For Affordable and Reliable Electric Services
-----------
Organization Member Form
Our organization opp ses the 1998 Electric Utility Proposition, a measure that
will appear on the November 3 statewide ballot. You may list our organization
publicly as a member of the official coalition being organized to oppose passage of
this measure.
Name of organization
Mailing address
Clty State Zip County
Name of officer signing lease print) Title of person signing**
Signature of officer Date signed
Number of members in your organization Approximate number of jobs your
members provide in California
Contact person to call at our organization Daytime phone number of contact person
Daytime fax number of ntact person
** Titles and affiliations are for identification purposes only and will be indicated as such on any published lists.
Please check the appliable boxes below:
DYES! Our organization is willing to help in other ways. Call the contact person designated above to let
know what we can do to Help oppose this proposition. us
OYES! In addition to listing our organization as a member,please add my name(i.e.,the signing offi
cer)to the
list of individual member .
Please mail this completed form to:
Calif rnians For Affordable and Reliable Electric Services
1121 L Street,Suite 401
Sacramento,CA 95814
Or fax to: (916)341-1081
000059
Revised 6/26/98 _
ABOUT SIGNING THE MEMBER FORM
Thank you for signing this form to show that you oppose the 1998 Electric
Utility Proposition. It's one of the most important ways you can help our
campaign. Here's some information you may want to know.
1. Signing the form simply confirms that you may be listed publicly on
lists of people, businesses and organizations who are members of the
official coalition being formed to oppose passage of the 1998 Electric
Utility Proposition. This is the only position and the only, issue with
which your name will be associated.
2. Lists of members may be used in association with materials such as
fact sheets, brochures, letterheads and possibly in advertisements about
the measure. All statements in such materials will be based on
verifiable facts and information, and all publications and activities of
the official coalition will be conducted in strict compliance with all
relevant state laws and regulations.
3. All lists of members will note that titles and affiliations are for
identification purposes only.
4: Signing the-opposition form does not obligate you to contribute time or
money to our campaign, or attend any meetings or make any public
statements. Members are welcome to become more actively involved in
the campaign. However, any further involvement beyond being listed
as an opposer is entirely voluntary.
WA012898
000060
Revised
THE 1998 ]ELECTRIC UTIL- ITY
PROPOSITION, ,
Proponents of the 1998ic Utility Proposition may not have intended to
draft an initiative t&7
Force taxpayers o a for 6 i .
pay � b lhon m bonds already sold,
C�T
Result in a huge tax increase and significant reductions in key public
services -- such as education, police and fire;
Derail our emerfring competitive electricity market by eliminating
customer choice and any prospect for lower electricity rates;
Harm the interes s of utility workers and our environment; and
Ll Result inears o lits ation.
Y g
Unfortunately, a careful End literal reading of the 1998 Electric Utility Proposition on the
November ballot demons rates that proponents have done just that.
This measure attempts to invalidate certain aspects of current law, while leaving others
intact. However, the law that created California's competitive electricity market (AB'
1890) is an integrated package. All of its parts are needed if it is to work for the benefit
of all consumers. A careftil and literal reading of this law and the proposition reveals
that sloppy drafting has resulted in several unintended consequences. Specifically,
passage of the 1998 Electric Utility Proposition could:
Force taxpayers to pay bondholders for 6 billion in bonds already sold
As part of the transition to a competitive electricity market, the State of California ordered
utilities to refinance a ortion of capital costs incurred during a monopoly marketplace in order
to provide consumers,vith more than a billion dollars in immediately realized savings. To
accomplish these savi gs—as well as provide for an immediate 10%rate reduction for
residential and small b isiness customers—the state's Infrastructure Bank authorized the issuance
of more than$6 billiori in bonds. These bonds have already been sold.
-more- 000061
Although these bonds are not"State"bonds in the literal sense(backed by the"full faith and
credit"of the State),the State did affirmatively pledge through legislation and contract that
authorized them to "take no action to impair the bonds unless it made adequate provision for the
bondholders"(section 841(c)AB 1890). Passage of the initiative is a"state"action impairing
the bonds, and the initiative offers no remedy or provision to ensure that bondholders get paid.
This impairment of the bonds, however, will result in massive lawsuits between bondholders,
bond sellers, investor-owned utilities,taxpayers and the State of California. The State of
California—and taxpayers—will ultimately be liable to repay$6 billion to bondholders.
Utilities will not be required—under any scenario=to repay these bonds.
Raise taxes and result in significant reductions in keypublic services such has
education, police and fire
Because the State of California is likely liable for the$6 billion in previously sold bonds,the
State Director of Finance has concluded that"planning for a budget contingency of potentially $7
billion could directly affect every program in the state budget and would require a major budget
adjustment.effort..." No program dependent on revenues from California's general fund would
be immune from cuts—including education,police, fire and other important services. That is
why the California School Boards Association and many other organizations oppose the
initiative. In addition to significant cuts in important services,passage of the initiative would
also result in a huge tax increase to cover this budget shortfall,which is why the California
Taxpayers' Association also vigorously opposes the measure.
Eliminate customer choice and competitive electric rates
The law that created California's emerging competitive electric market conditioned customers'
freedom to choose who they buy their electricity from on investor-owned utilities' ability to
recover capital costs incurred in the monopoly market(section 370,AB 1890). By now
prohibiting utilities from recovering a portion of these certain capital investments,the
proposition is "inconsistent"with current law and therefore would derail the competitive market
including the elimination of customer choice.
In drafting AB 1890, California's legislature and dozens of diverse interest groups believed that a
failure to allow investor-owned utilities the opportunity to recover costs incurred in the
monopoly marketplace would prevent the hopes for a smooth transition to a competitive electric
market and doom any chance for lower electric rates. Legal precedent has long established the
utilities' right to ask for and recover the costs they incurred which were required by law in a
regulated market. In fact, in several other states which have failed to provide utilities the
opportunity to recover these costs, competition—and more importantly lower rates—have been
delayed by legal action.
-more-
000062
To avoid a years long counter-productive legal battle, current California law gives utilities only
a limited period to recover past capital investments incurred in the monopoly marketplace. After
2001, the price for ele tricity will be set in the competitive marketplace and electric rates are
expected to drop at least 20% to 30%. Because the initiative retroactively prevents utilities from
recovering these costs (already approved by regulators),passage of the proposition will prevent
the transition to a competitive market and customers will not benefit from lower electric rates.
Harm the interest of utilitv workers and the environment
While proponents presumably had no intention of negatively impacting the interests of utility
workers,poor drafting has jeopardized the funding for employee transition costs which were
embedded in the legisl ition authorizing a competitive electric market. The initiative disallows
recovery of certain trwisition costs, including those listed in sections 367-376 of the Public
Utilities Code. This di allowance includes the section of law that expressly authorizes recovery
of employee transition costs caused by electric restructuring, including specific funding for
"severance, retraining, early retirement, outplacement and related expenses for the employees."
(section 375, AB 1890
In a similar drafting en or, while proponents claim their initiative protects funding for
environmentally-sensitive alternative energy(wind, solar, etc.), in fact, it does just the opposite.
It eliminates the provis on in current law(section 367(a), AB 1890)that guarantees continuation
of the full-term of these alternative energy contracts.
Result in ears of liti ration
The initiative's nullification of previously sold bonds is an unconstitutional "impairment of
contracts,"which alone will result in years of litigation. Similarly, the initiative states that"if
any provision of this initiative conflicts directly or indirectly with any other provisions of law. . .
or any other statute previously enacted by the Legislature, it is the intent of the voters (through
the initiative)that those other provisions shall be null and void to the extent that they are
inconsistent with this initiative and are hereby re ealed."
Because the initiative is in fact, inconsistent with many`provisions of current law, as noted
above,numerous lawsu is will, out of necessity, be filed and the measure will be tied up in the
courts for years to come' . Taxpayers will lose,ratepayers will lose, California schools and other
programs will lose—ani I only the lawyers will win. California's competitive market will be
derailed and any opportnity for lower electric rates diminished.
Sometimes the Best Intentions Result in the Worst Consequences
Vote NO im the 1998 Electric Utility Proposition
###
000063
: ..
. . ..
:::.::..:::.::::::.::........................:.::.::.:.::.:::.:::..::................. : :.:: :, :. :.:.. :.:::::::::...........::::::::.::.:::.
The lawyers who created Prop 103 and promised a 20% reduction in car insurance, but
never delivered, are at it again. Their most recent initiative scheme is not only full of false
promises, but also could create a $6 billion hole in the state budget and would result in
reduced funding for local government and key services at a time when Californians should
be enjoying the benefits of an improved economy.
Local Government should be particularly concerned about the proposed utility initiative for
the following reasons:
.
ANG.:
M
U.
E ::::................;.:
States throughout the country are currently moving to deregulate their electric industry in
order to create competition and reduce electric rates. In 1996, California became one of the
first, when.our legislature passed a landmark law developed with input and support from
consumer advocates, large and small businesses, local government, labor, energy experts,
environmentalists and energy providers.
Numerous local governments are exploring opportunities to benefit from this new
competitive marketplace. By repealing major provisions of the new law, the proposed
initiative threatens the very foundation of electric deregulation and would create an
uncertain climate for local governments that have signed contracts and those still exploring
their options. Similarly, it is possible the proposed initiative would establish a precedent on
cost-recovery that would prevent municipalities and their taxpayers from having the
opportunity to recover costs for past investments in power.
IoNii
EGET : :: >::: . :::><>::>:<::<
WIN 0"
....................................:....::..:::....:. ...:.......................:<:;:n::;:;:;.:;;:.;::.:;.:;:
According to the State Legislative Analyst and Department of Finance, "The net impact of
the measure on state government revenues would be annual revenue reductions potentially
in the range of$100 million per year from 1998-1999 through 2001-02, in turn resulting in
decline in the minimum funding guarantee under Proposition 98 for K-14 education by
about $50 million after 2001-02. The state would be required to offset a portion of local
school district losses in property taxes, resulting from downward assessments of nuclear
facilities. Potential state liability for debt service on $7 billion in bonds previously issued
Revised 6/22/98 000064
may result from judicial interpretation of applicabilityo measure to
.f those bonds.
Additional workload mT1 increase state administrative,judicial and legal costs of probably
less than $S million anm wily. The net impact on local governments would be revenue
reduction, potentially in he tens of millions of dollars annually from 1998-99 through 2001-
02. " (Actual text from the official fiscal impact summary for the.initiative, prepared
by the Legislative Analyst and Department of Finance.)
........ .. ::......:.:......:.::.:.::.::.::.
�
California's new electric industry restructuring law was passed in 1996. Since then,
millions of California electric customers have benefited from lower electric rates. And,
many important decisiow have been made and implemented under the new law in good faith
by California utilities, municipalities, and energy companies, small and large businesses,
and individual consumers
The proposed initiative would undo the foundations of this new law, immediately
threatening the economic health of many businesses and employers throughout the state,
hundreds of communities and millions of electric customers. Thus, among other things, our
state would face years of costly lawsuits, court hearings and regulatory proceedings if the
initiative were passed—and these costs would also be borne by taxpayers.
In the meantime, passage of the initiative would derail the continued implementation of
California's carefully developed plan to deregulate the state's electric industry. And, as
other states move forward to reduce local electric rates by opening their electricity markets
to competition, consumer and businesses in California would be put at a serious economic
disadvantage.
Californians for Affordable an J Reliable Electric Service (CARES) is a coalition comprised of the
California Chamber of Commerce, the California Taxpayers Association,the California Small Business
Association, the California Bu iness Roundtable, the California Retailers Association, the Los Angeles
County Federation of Labor, t ie California Manufacturers Association,American Association of
Business Persons with Disabi.ities, Americans for Competitive Telecommunications, Consumers
Coalition of California, Consumers First and the state's investor-owned utilities.
Revised 6/22/98 000065
a
:f#.;':{ri3##::#fY� ?`tff##t<'#t#'tif`t;r;tt;�35=•:tffitS;rt{i•:tttri:'•ri.:+>at.:;;. a.:?•:;;;a=;.r:;.r:;�:a;;::::.t......i.
, ?f:..... - , }::..,,•:r::iitf":irt}#.:;ttrit:i�...:...r.r.......s:...••:.}}}y},•..:trt�;:-t;-a:;tt.:i�:�:---' :....................
:;:�}Tr� Y„•,:.,rz?:,•.,•.,�,}?.:,:Y?s.??•.t>.x•:::..r•.;:tzY{.:�:::+}�t:+:......_.:,..ts5:::.5]:=::::.}...#............,v:.?..... .-t:{-iT..r.t ...}r,.:.. .,;
,•i{{{£;;...{:,. ?t,; i.- .rs.:..ty<,.. tr..{..r.?:.r..3r:::#2:r:r:
.Y
_: :+T.:..?{?Y`#•TrSx?S?]{?k?kx:Y?+?,:•y;.5}]$+}TY5{]FFF�33i}F::.:=, � -.,,- ;t{�,{ :�s :::?#. ;E�•
2 3
?
:s
}t#
+r
,
.,:v. .:}:�.;.{.,Y•#kYx]t},}{YS•n,.5:}?].}?SSS'^:•}]}:Sa;:{;r!.,?{{::{:}.:.,{{%i?:nu::.:,::r=.v:r::,:•S:•.v: }. .....F�ia.,.�.,,n }x2.:,...............:...::?:?...::•.vv::...vv...r::r:w.::,.:.::.....:.:::t:
S 5.# `?`:•, =;.z„a.a.! .F'•F]5]:•;+.+}}r:..}#<=3:r: .
`F}T}:::::,,,:.. ;tit• =ii•t:#t{,z t ...k.:
-.t,........:.?.;.=.+.:t;r.:;=t ii!;?;r::::::_.. .........................................,•::::i t,.:.:.>5:::::::S:;S:::::::;•:.:�:....
r..:.$.{.. ,?.?:::r?.h!.:YY,......,:::::+:,s{{=:.:•:::,.;:.;..S{...::z-.:::tt;t:.+ 2. .. : ......{..,:?;a:?...,, .;...-
:....r:.r.rr.r}r::r::.:.:.:.......t r:......5.:.. ,,..;t«tt ip.t.t„t,=?;?5:::]}]}T}}r:-55:.rrir}}:-T:}]]:.:,:rr55}Y-::.:::..:::.+;::::.::::::..::.::•::..,.::•
..:.,;. ...5=..>.#:........... ...,.... :. .-,. :_ , s}5•]:.5:Y5FSSSSFS'•FiFiii$tii:i;;;ii.:........::.::::.::::F::{Y:
.....,,.:.•=r:.:::::•a;;.:t•• : ']r::::.r... t........ .: :. ..: ... ..,. ; :. - :.. -•. .:F::}SFr::,...:
... ,:.:::::........... .. ..::., 1..� .:=:-:ik}?:::--5•,,:::..-,.�.iii::::.:::.:::.::iiii;i:::::::::.}]S]Sr:::,•:;;:;:iy:Fiit{:.
..S?.n5...:-,Yt:?•;?r;,.:=:}:}l:.#^S:•Y+]}::n55:^y]}..++:{i{L:i?;;t•::::tit{;t4:i.:{riS{:is;;::: .........................r.'..'...........:.i-.}.�5:}}. ........ ............................
:.::::::::n..n..n:rr::r.,..: :..+ .. .:.:...........................• ........;.;:.... ........n....v... ..r........-.r....=::r.......,;.-{.....n.:::::v:::.:............ ....;........
....v..... i:n...... ..........:++,:•::.::v5):-i::;:?:::rr5}r}]T:ti:•i;•:S;r{.:i?r...:?:t.:r..
=.r.nn.:r....xr:xrx}Tr':.:.__}:=::}:5:u:::::::::: :. ;,,}SS::S::}FiF$�i$]]}}:n}{ytyYiiiS:ny,FF$tki•:{Si^:S vx•.:..r:r:5]]..:_:-:::m}::::v................................................:::::.....:::n:v::....:......::
_:::::..:S:a};e..• ..........5$.:....].}.x:r::::r:]:::.}.v:':.]:::.x::.yi:;r_:;::.:_.:•:;.::;r:S;::nx::__:Sa?F$SFFFFF::..'...'...:..::.v:::;::;::.:.•:'
California Chamber of Commerce
California School Boards Association
California Labor Federation,AFL-CIO
California Democratic Party
California Republican Assembly
California Organization of Police and Sheriffs
League of California Cities
California Black Chamber of Commerce
California Municipal Utilities Association
California School Employees Association
Peace Officers Research Association of California
California Small Business Association
California Taxpayers' Association
Planning and Conservation League
California Healthcare Association
California Teachers Association
American Association of Business Persons with Disabilities
Monterey County Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
Association for California Tort Reform
California Large Energy Consumers Association
California Business Roundtable
Enron
California Retailers Association
California Farm Bureau Federation
Americans for Competitive Telecommunications
Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors of California
Simi Valley Chamber of Commerce
--Continued--
Black Chamber of Orange County
Revised 7/28/98 000066
Antelope Valley Board of Trade
California Business Properties Association
Orange County Taxpayers Association
Los Angeles County Federation of Labor
Consumers First
Environmental Defense Fund
Consumers Coalition of California
Santa Clara County Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
Oak Valley Union School District
Kern County Taxpayers Association
Cali ornia City Economic Development Corporation
California League of Food Processors
Hanford Chamber of Commerce
California Industrial Users
Victor Valley African American Chamber of Commerce
California's Investor-Owned Utilities
City of California City
Eureka Chamber of Commerce
Monterey County Business Council
Latino Chamber of Commerce of Santa Cruz County
Jefferson Union High School District
Parris Valley Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
New Energy Ventures
South Bay Association Chambers`of Commerce
California Restaurant Association
acramento Black Chamber of Commerce
California Manufacturers Association
Natural Resources Defense Council
Iri dependent Energy Producers Association
Revised 7/28/98 00000
ITEM NUMBER: C - 2
DATE: 09/08/98
lois 1979
CADF,1��
City Clerk's Agenda Report
Marcia M. Torg rson
Designation of Voting Delegate -
Le igue of California Cities' Annual Conference
RECOMMENDA ION:
City Clerk recommends Council designate a voting representative and an alternate who will be
present at the Annual Business Meeting of the League of California Cities' Annual Conference in
October 1998 and dire,-t the City Clerk to inform the League of the designation.
DISCUSSION:
This year's League of California Cities' Annual Conference is scheduled for Friday, October 2,
• through Sunday, October 4, 1998 in Long Beach. One very important aspect of the Annual
Conference is the Ann aal Business Meeting when the membership takes action on conference
resolutions. Annual C nference resolutions guide cities and the League in their efforts to
improve the quality,responsiveness and vitality of local government in California.
To expedite the condu t of business at this policy-making meeting, each City Council is asked to
designate a voting repi esentative and an alternate who will be present at the Annual Business
Meeting. League bylaws provide that each city is entitled to one vote in matters affecting
municipal or League p licy.
FISCAL IMPAC None
RESPONSIBLEDEPARTMENT:, City Clerk
•
000068
ITEM NUMBER: C - 3-
a" vim j DATE: 09/08/98
iais ®
1979
City Mana ers Agenda Report
Wade G. McKir, ney
Information Bulletin
A. TERRY'S BAR& GRILL—LETTERS OF PROTEST
Terry's Bar and Grill has submitted a building permit to renovate 6795 Morro Road to relocate
from their existing b ilding.on El Camino Real and Traffic Way. They have applied to the
Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control for relocation of their alcohol license. A letter of
necessity from the City is not required by ABC, as there is no over concentration of liquor
establishments and no crime statistics in the area. The zoning allows for this type of use and the
project has been determined to meet all building and zoning codes, and City permits are
approved and ready for issuance. However, residents of Los Arboles Circle have filed "protest"
Tetters with ABC over the location of the business. The residents are concerned about the close
proximity of the establishment to residential uses.
B. K-9 PROG M -POLICY AND PROCEDURE
Mayor Carden asked Police Chief Hegwood at the 08/25/98 Council meeting to present to the
Council a policy that would allow a K-9 handler to have first choice of ownership of a retiring
canine. Pursuant tot at request,please find the attached K-9 Program Handler Agreement which
will negate any conftision relative to ownership of the canine. Also attached is a Canine
Procedures Manual for your review.
C. EMPLOYEE UPDATE
Rick Prancevic Police Officer Resigned 08/19/98
Stephanie Austin P/Time Recreation Leader Resigned 08/21/98
Elena Newton P/Time Scorekeeper Resigned 08/19/98
Mike Vaughn P/Time Fire Reserve Hired 08/21/98
000069
ATASCADERO POLICE DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
To:
From: Chief of Police
Subject: Assignment to K-9 Program—Handler Agreement
Date:
Effective this date you are hereby assigned to the Field Services Division. Your specific assignment
within the division will be working with a Police Service Dog while assigned to patrol.
Asa reminder, assignments such as these shall have a duration of three (3)years with a possibility of a
one (1) year extension depending upon performance, service demands and department needs. After the
first term,the officer may reapply for an additional three year term. There are no provisions for
additional compensation beyond that which is provided by the current M.O.U.
The Police Service Dog is the property of the City of Atascadero and will be controlled by the City.
Upon the end of this contract,you will turn over the canine to the City. The option of the handler
purchasing the canine will remain with the City of Atascadero. If the handler purchases the canine, the
price will be set by the fair market value at the time of retirement.
Upon the retirement of the Police Service Dog, either due to injury or old age, the handler may
purchase the canine for one dollar($1.00). If there have been multiple handlers, the last handler will
have the first right to purchase the dog. If he does not want to purchase the dog, the option will be
given to the previous handler.
Officer Date
Chief of Police Date
0000'70
CA NE PROCEDURES MANUAL DRAFT
I. POLICY
A. The intent of this policy is to establish specific guidelines for the ac
tivation and control of the
Canine (K-9)Unit and the perimeters in which it will operate.
Il. COMPOSITION
A. The Canine Unit c nsists of individual K-9 team(s)
B. Each K-9 team consists of a trained handler and a police service canine.
C. Handler selection
1. The handler m st be willing to sign a_general agreement to stay in the K-9 program for a minimum
term of three ( ) years.
2. Officers must recognize that because of the special assignment they are more subject to call-out
for assistance uring the assignment period.
3. Applicants must have a minimum of two years law enforcement experience prior to appointment
as the K-9 handler.
4. Applicants must have finished their probationary period with the Atascadero Police Department,
prior to appoir tment.
5. Applicants must own, be buying their own home or have a written authorization from the landlord
allowing the City to build a kennel on the property.
6. Applicants must also have approval of their immediate neighbors adjacent to their residence.
7. Because of the potential for call-out, the applicant must reside within 20 minutes of the station.
8. In view of the nature of the training, the handler may find that his assigned dog will not be
compatible with other dogs or animals in the household. Should this problem develop, the handler
must be prepa ed to make satisfactory disposition of other family pets to avoid dangerous conflicts
between theanimals which could result in serious injury to the handler,members of his/her family
or the dog.
D. K-9 Specificatio s
1. Department wned dogs
a. Male Ge an Shepherd dogs
(1) Age to 4 years
b. Certified as a working police canine and capable of successfully passing internationally
recognized requirements of obedience, man work, tracking, searches, and temperament.
(Schutzh nd I or equivalent).
1
0000'7 ,
c. Certified as free from hip dysphasia and possessing a hip rated"A" or"OFA". X-rays of
each dogs hips and elbows,taken no more than 90 days before delivery, shall be submitted to
the department for examination by our Veterinarian before the animal will be accepted. A
health statement signed by a licensed California Veterinarian shall be submitted with the
rays and state that the animal has been given a fecal examination, CBC, and Heart Worm
examination and the results show the animal to be "normal".This series of examinations
shall have been performed within 60 days prior to delivery.
d. Dogs shall be current on all shots at the time of delivery(Rabies, SHLP, and Parvo).
e. Each dog shall have conformation and appearance in accordance with the breed standard and
image of a police service dog.
f. The dogs will be hand picked for their correct instincts to perform police work.
g. Each dog shall be capable of being registered with the S.V. or the A.K.C.
h. Each dog will be guaranteed to our satisfaction,for a specified period any dog that does not
perform to our expectations will be replaced without charge to the City of Atascadero. Any
dog that fails structurally will be replaced without charge to the City.
E. K-9 Transportation
1. A standard police sedan will be utilized and shall display highly visible K-9 Unit markings on both
sides of the vehicle. The vehicle will be equipped with all standard equipment except the prisoner
transportation cage. A mesh screen shall be placed over the exterior of the rear windows to allow
for ventilation while maintaining the integrity of the unit.The rear seat will be modified by
removing the bottom and back cushion and replacing it with a platform which will accommodate
the canine.
2. K-9 patrol unit(s) are to be kept in good condition and the interior shall be clean and disinfected.
3. All regulations pertaining to the use of department vehicles and equipment shall apply to the
vehicles assigned to the K-9 Unit.
a. If a handler wishes to use the assigned unit for any reason other than normal patrol,
authorization must be obtained from the designated Patrol Sergeant or on-duty Watch
Commander. Authorized reasons may include transporting a canine to the kennels, to the
veterinarian, or conducting independent training off duty.
b. The K-9 patrol units are not to be used for any personal business or transportation.
III CHAIN OF COMMAND
A. The K-9 unit shall be under the command of the designated Patrol Sergeant.
B. In matters regarding the training,utilization or reporting of the K-9 unit,the designated Patrol
Sergeant shall report directly to the Operations Lieutenant.
C. Operationally,the K-9 team(s)is under the direct control of the on-duty Watch Commander.
IV DEPLOYMENT
A. Shift hours:
1. The K-9 team(s) will be primarily assigned on a rotational basis.
2
0000'72
B. The K-9 team sha 1 also be available on an on-call basis.
C. The K-9 team is s bject to shift change to meet the demands of the department. This would include
crime trends and pecial incidents.
D. Vacation and corrip time will be scheduled in such a way that manpower needs are the first
consideration.
1. The handler is encouraged to take the canine with him/her on his/her vacation,if practical. If it is
not practical appropriate, the officer shall forward a memorandum to the Operations
Lieutenant, advising of the effective dates of the vacation and the dates the canine will need to be
boarded. Arrangements will then be made for the care of the K-9.
V. OPERATIONS
A. OPERATIONAL HANDLING
1. The decision o apply the police dog to an operation shall remain with the dog handler and he/she
shall appraise the field supervisor of his decision immediately.
2. Before releas ng the dog for a specific purpose of locating a suspect concealed in a building, the
handler is to call a warning to the effect that "a police dog will be released if the person does not
make himself visible and come forward".
3. In using a police dog in the apprehension of a fleeing suspect, or in using the dog as an actual
means of force, the handler must give proper consideration to the limits on using force to effect
the arrest as stated in the Department Operations Directives and California Penal Code.
4. Police dogs will not be used to search for animals.
5. In instances i volving flight or resistance, the K-9 may be used when alternate less forceful
methods have failed or are impractical. 1A
6. Crowd Control:
a. The police dog shall not be used for basic crown control.
b. The.K-9 t am(s) shall remain behind the front line of officers, to be used as a psychological
advantage.
c. In those instances of applying a police dog in riot conditions,the K-9 team(s)will advance to
the front line.The rioters will be warned of the intended application of police dogs.
d. In all situations the police dog will be worked on leash in riot conditions.
7. Searches
a. Buildings
(1) Prior to sending the K-9 into any building for the purpose of searching for a suspect,the
handler will announce the intention of the use of the K-9. NOTE: This warning will not
be given in those situations when the handler feels such a warning would endanger the
safety of others, i.e., there is reasonable cause to believe that the subject is armed.
3
0000'73
(2) When the K-9 is to be used for a building search, the dog will be the first to enter the
building, so not to confuse the scent.
(3) When practical, all exits of the building should be covered.
b. Field Searches
(1) In open field searches the handler must take all precautions to clear unauthorized persons
from the area to be searched.
(2) The decision to search on or off leash will be left to the handler, and dependent on the
existing external conditions.
8. Public Places
a. The K-9(s)will not be taken into crowded public places, i.e.: bars, theaters, or restaurants.
b. In cases where the K-9 must be used in a public place, the handler will make every effort to
clear the location.
c. In all instances,the K-9 will be kept on leash in crowded public places, except when being
used for a specific purpose for which they have been trained off-leash.
B. SUPPORT
1. The K-9 team(s) mission is to supplement and support the Department in such actions as may
require a canine.
2. Police dogs properly trained can be used in:
a. •Building and area searches.
b. Alarm situations, burglaries, and robberies.
c. The apprehension of suspects on foot after a crime has been committed.
d. Evidence searching.
e. Locating lost persons or articles.
f. Security checks.
g. Back up of patrol officers.
h. High crime areas
(1) Molestation's and purse snatches.
(2) Prowler-peepers, serious sex crimes.
i. Overtaking and capturing a barricaded person or fugitive.
j. Tracking
(1) Criminal and non-criminal.
k. Crime scene investigation
(1) Search and retrieve evidence.
(2) Escape routes.
1. Disaster scenes
(1) Locating victims.
m. Drug searches
4. The K-9 handler should make himself and his dog available in every possible situation.
a. The handler must constantly strive to keep a good relationship with other members of the
Department.
5. To be most effective in his patrol, a K-9 handler must study and analyze crime patterns.
6. The handler should take full advantage of the psychological effect of the dog.
4
000074
a. Arrive q ickly.
b. Do not s ay after the necessity for the K-9's presence has passed.
C. REQUESTS FOR ASSISTANCE
1. Outside Agencies
a. All reque is for K-9 assistance will be cleared with the on duty Watch Commander.
b. The K-9 I eam(s)will not be summoned for outside details when off-duty unless authorized
by the designated Watch Commander,Patrol Sergeant, Operations Lieutenant or Chief of
Police.
c. Formal rc quests will be screened by the on-duty Watch Commander and the Department's
needs ev luated prior to acceptance.
d. Under ordinary circumstances, a Department K-9 will not be handled by anyone other than
the handler assigned to that dog.
D. RADIO CALL NUMBERS
1. The call sign "48-K-9 (Adam#)" shall be used by the Atascadero K-9 team(s).
VI POLICIES
A. APPLICATION
1. Any member of the Department may request the use of the K-9, however, the decision for final
application resi s solely with the individual handler. When requested to apply his dog in any
situation,the handler will first appraise the situation to determine the technical feasibility of the
application of the K-9. In those cases where the decision is made not to use the dog,the handler
will give the reasons and stand-by if requested to give other assistance as may be required.
2. The following is a list of incidents where the K-9 capability will not be applied:
a. Basic crow i control when there is no resistance.
b. To effect tf e arrest of a person under the influence of alcohol or other intoxicants.
c. Persons known to be suffering from mental disorders.
d. Any situation wherein application of the K-9s would bring discredit to the Department.
e. To effect tf e arrest of a person charged with an infraction or misdemeanor who do not pose a
threat to the safety of the public or officer.
3. Expectations
a. The canine may be used in any situation so ordered by the Chief of Police or Operations
Lieutenant.
b. In any situation where the danger is so great that failure to use the K-9 would result in serious
harm to off icers or innocent by-standers. In those instances, a complete statement of facts will
be include in routine reports.
B. DOG CARE
1. It shall be the sponsibility of the handler to keep his dog in such physical condition that the dog is
able to perform the duties expected of a police service dog.
5
0000'75
2. Any indication that the dog is not in good condition shall be immediately reported to the
designated Patrol Sergeant. 0
3. Police dogs shall be fed their daily meal at the completion of their tour of duty,or in the event this
is impractical, the handler shall feed at a time which will allow the maximum period possible
proceeding their tour of duty.
4.. Water shall be kept available to the K-9 when off duty; and routine breaks during duty hours will
include the opportunity for the canine to drink and move about as needed.
5. Police dogs shall be groomed daily.
6. Police dogs are to be thoroughly examined daily by their handlers.
a. Such examinations will include eyes, ears,mouth, nostrils,feet, and general body condition.
7. All veterinary attention not of an emergency nature shall be coordinated by the handler.
8. In the event emergency medical services are required for the K-9,the handler will submit a report
to the designated Patrol Sergeant at the first opportunity following the emergency.
9. Department dogs will not be used as "stud" or servicing during the dog's career, without the
express permission of the Chief of Police.
C. HOME KENNELING
1. The dog shall be kept at the home of the handler. A kennel will be provided at the handler's home.
a. The kennel will be kept in a clean and sanitary condition at all times.
2. Police dogs will be securely kenneled or under the direct control of the handler while off duty.
a. When kenneled the door shall be padlocked shut.
3. The dog handler is not to involve himself in any off-duty activities with his dog which may tend to
discredit the Department. A
4. Care and handling of the dog is to meet approved standards.
a. The handler and his/her family must realize that the police dog placed in their care is a twenty-
four hour responsibility, seven days a week. The dog must be an important part of the family
life.
(1) The dog must not be able to roam at will.
(2) The dog should be allowed to"socialize"or be in the family home, under the direct
supervision of the handler.
D. GENERAL HANDLING
1. The K-9 will be kept on leash in areas to which the public has access,unless being actually used fo
lb
a specific police purpose off-leash for which he has been trained.
6
000076
2. The police dog i hall not be left unattended in a manner in which he may have contact with the
public.
3. The handler wil not involve himself in any outside activities with his dog unless previously
authorized by th Chief of Police, in writing.
4. While on patrol the dog will remain in the rear of the K-9 Patrol Unit.
5. Under no circunistances will the dog be allowed or encouraged to jump up or on the exterior of the
K-9 Patrol Unit.
6. When the K-9 pit is to be left unattended, it will be locked, with the front windows up.
a. Rear windo s, with security screens, may be left down at the handler's discretion.
7. Under normal conditions,no one except the handler shall feed or attempt to give commands to the
K-9.
8. The canine shall have the appropriate license(s).
9. At no time, either on duty or off duty, shall the handler utilize the K-9 for the purpose of
threatening or ir timidating any person without just cause and actual police necessity.
E. TRANSPORTATION OF PRISONERS
1. Due to the modi ication of the K-9 patrol unit,prisoners shall not routinely be transported in the K-9
unit.
2. In the event that a prisoner could be transported by a K-9 unit, the handler will evaluate the situation
and determine if the prisoner could be safely transported. (Must be approved by the Watch
Commander.)
3. When transporting, the handler shall advise the prisoner about his/her conduct in the unit.
4. The K-9 will be muzzled, to avoid an accidental bite.
5. The K-9 unit sh 1 not transport any violent, intoxicated, or mentally ill prisoners.
6. When a K-9 han ler makes an arrest he shall advise the transporting officer of all information
required to com ete the booking form. Whenever possible, the handler shall complete the booking
process (forms and fingerprinting)themselves.
F. INJURIES TO THE HANDLER
1. In the event that he K-9 handler is injured while on duty and unable to maintain control of his
animal, the provisions of the Training Bulletin should be followed.
G. CONDUCT OF PERSONNEL
1. Canine handler, ith his dog.
7
0000,7°7
a. The K-9 handler will conduct himself in an orderly manner and discourage"horseplay" among
himself and/or other officers. Whenever the handler is in the Department the handler will keep
the K-9 on the short lead or under his direct control.
2. Conduct for nonhandler personnel.
a. All personnel must realize that special conduct is necessary while working near the handler and
K-9.The K-9 is a friendly animal,but is trained to protect his handler and the Patrol Unit.The
K-9 only recognizes its handler, therefore,officers shall govern themselves in such a manner
that their conduct will not be constructed as a threat toward either the handler of the K-9.
Officers of the Atascadero Police Department shall adhere to the policies set forth in the
training bulletin.
H. CANINE BITES
1. In the event the K-9 bites any person or animal,the handler shall:
a. Notify the on-duty Watch Commander as soon as possible.
b. Ensure medical treatment is provided, when necessary and possible.
c. Have photographs taken of the injury sustained.
d. Document the incident on a K-9 Incident Report and forward a copy to the Chief of Police.
VII PUBLIC RELATIONS
A. REQUESTS FROM THE PUBLIC
1. All requests must be screened and approved by the Operations Lieutenant.
2. Assignments for talks, demonstrations, or public exhibitions will be made by the Designated Patrol
Sergeant or Operations Lieutenant.
a. Department coverage and manpower needs will be the first consideration.
3. All information and statistics on the canine performance for public use will be cleared or approved
by the Designated Patrol Sergeant.
B. DUTIES
1. The K-9 handler,when assigned public relations duties, shall prepare himself, his dog, and all K-9
equipment in such a manner as to present a professional image to the audience.
2. Uniform apparel shall be the uniform of the day, unless otherwise approved by the Designated
Patrol Sergeant.
3. A Department jumpsuit maybe worn for use in training or on call outs.
4. Under no circumstances will any"protection" work be shown or photographed unless authorized by
the Designated Patrol Sergeant.
VIII REPORTINT PROCEDURES
A. CANINE LOGS
000078 8
1. Training
a. The handler and his canine will train a minimum of three hours each week.
b. The location and type of training will be coordinated with the Designated Patrol Sergeant.
c. The handler shall maintain a log indicating the time and type of training.
2. On-Duty Training.
a. Whenever possible,the handler is encouraged to train on-duty with his dog, after coordinating
with his irmnediate supervisor.
b. On-duty tra ning shall also be recorded in the handler's training log.
B. REPORTS
1. All reports resul ing from completed incidents shall be completed per department regulations.
2. All incidents wh re a police dog was i}tilized, shall be recorded on-the"Use of K-9"report form.
It is the responsibility of the handler to complete this form prior to going off-duty on the day of the
incident.
3. All veterinary care received by the K-9 will be documented in the K-9's medical log and by
entering a copy of the treatment statement in the canine file.
IX EQUIPMENT
A. INSPECTIONS
1. The Designated Patrol Sergeant shall periodically inspect all canine personnel and equipment to
ensure their proper care.
2. All necessary training and grooming equipment will be purchased through approved channels.
B. RESPONSIBI11 T
1. The dog handl is responsible for the care and condition of all equipment issued to him/her for the
training and control of the K-9.
2. Equipment shall be inspected daily and kept in good working order.
3. The canine vehicle is to be kept in good operating condition,interior clean and disinfected.
4. All other regulations pertaining to Department vehicles shall apply to the K-9 vehicle.
5. Hander will be compensated for care and grooming pursuant to M.O.U. provisions.
9
0®00'79