Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 09/22/1998 PUBLIC REVIEW COPY AGENDA ATASCADERO LIBRARY ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1998 City of Atascadero 6500 Palma Avenue,4'floor Atascadero,California REGULAR SESSIO ,7:00 P.M.: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Council Member Luna ROLL CALL: Mayor Carden Mayor Pro Tem Johnson Council Member Clay Council Member Lerno Council Member Luna APPROVAL OFA NDA: Roll Call COUNCIL ANNOU14CEMENTS AND REPORTS: (On their own initiative, Council Members may make a brief announcement or a brief report on their own activities. ouncil Members may ask a question for clarification, make a referral to staff or take action to ave staff place a matter of business on a future agenda. No formal action by the Council will be taken unless an item is identified on the Agenda.) PRESENTATIONS: A. Fire Preventio i Week—October 4-10, 1998 B. Atascadero C lony Days 25'Anniversary- October 1998 C. Constitution Week—September 17-23, 1998 COMMUNITY FO UM: (This portion of the m 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. Pleases tate your name and address for the record before making your presentation. The Co ncil 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 opportunityfor any member of the public to address the Council concerning the item before action is taken) I. City Council Minutes-August 25, 1998-(City Clerk recommendation: Approve) [Marcia Torgerson] 2. City Council Minutes—September 8, 1998-(City Clerk recommendation: Approve) [Marcia Torgerson] 3. Zone Change#97008—7930 Santa Rosa Road(Gearhart) - Fiscal Impact: None (Planning Commission recommendation: Council adopt Ordinance No. 353, approving Zone Change #97008, by introducing for second reading by title only) [Paul Saldana] 4. FEMA Storm Damage Repair Projects—Fiscal Impact: $2,060.07 previously budgeted FEMA funds— (Staff recommendation: Council accept the storm damage repair improvements as complete and authorize release of the project retention) [Brady Cherry] 5. Annual Street Striping Project—Approval of Contract—Fiscal Impact: $28,325.36 (funds available in FY 1998-99 budget) (Staff recommendation: Council award the contract for the annual street striping project to Safety Striping Services, Inc) [Brady Cherry] 6. 1997 Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Program—Police Department Request to purchase specialized police equipment—Fiscal Impact: None (Staff recommendation: Council authorize the Police Department to purchase specialized police supplies and equipment allocated under the 1997 LocalLawEnforcement Block Grants Program) [Dennis Hegwood] B. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. General Plan Amendment#98004— 10801 El Camino Real (AUSD) - From'7' (Public)to "RMF-16" (High Density Multiple Family) - Fiscal Impact: None (Planning Commission recommendations: I) 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] 2 C. MANAGEMENT REPORTS: 1. Falcon Cable Franchise A reement—Request to extend Franchise Agreement—Fiscal Impact: Positi e effect on the City's S%franchise fee (Staff recommendation: Council authorize the City Manager to send a letter to Falcon Cable indicating that the City will extend the Fra chise Agreement if the cable television system is upgraded to a Hybrid Fiber, Coax, 7 0 MHz system with a minimum of 72 channels) [Wade McKinney] 2. Wil-Mar Disposal Request for Approval of Stock Merger with U.S.A. Waste Management Fiscal Impact: None (Staff recommendation: Council approve request by Wil-Mar Disposal for approval of stock merger with U.S.A. Waste Management) [Wade McKim ey] 3. Information Bulletin D. COMMITTEE REPORTS (The followin represent standing committees. Informative status reports will be given, as felt necessa .): 1. S.L.O. Council of Governments/S.L.O. Regional Transit Authority 2. Finance Committee 3. Water Commil tees A. SLO County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Water Resources Advisory Committee B. Nacimi nto Water Purveyors' Contract Technical Advisory Committee C. North C ounty Water Task Force 4. Integrated Waste Management Authority 5. North County ouncil 6. Air Pollution ontrol 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. ADJOURNMENT: THE COUNCIL WILL ADJOURN TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THIS MEETING. 3 Please note: Should anyone challenge any proposed development entitlement listed on this Agenda in court, that person may be limited to raising those issues addressed at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at or prior to this public hearing. i i 4 City of Atascadero WEL OME TO THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL MEETING GENERAL INFORMATION The City Council meets in regular session on the second and fourth Tuesday of each month at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber of City Hall. Matters are considered by the Council in the order of the printed Agenda. Copies of the staff repo s 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 mericans with Disabilities Act,if you need special assistance to participate in a City meeting or othe services offered by this City,please contact the City Manager's Office,(805) 461-5010, or the City C erk's Office,(805)461-5074. Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting or time when services a e needed will assist the City staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide acc ssibility to the meeting or service. TO SPEAK 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 rep rt,and the Council will ask questions of staff. The Mayor will announce when the public comment per od 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 a)proach the podium and be recognized by the Mayor • Give your n Etme and address • Make yourstatement • All commet is should be made to the Mayor and Council • All comme is 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 announ a 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 na ure 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 ppear 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. "FIRE PREVENTION WEEK" October 4-10, 1998 WHEREAS, The week of October 4-10, 1998, has been designated as Fire Prevention Week nationwide; and WHEREAS, Fire Prevention Week is held in commemoration of the anniversary of the "Great Chicago Fire"; and WHE EAS, The Atascadero City Fire Department and firefighters nationwide symbolize Fire Prevention Week as a time to stress the importance of fire prevention and education to the public; NOW, THEREFORE, I Harold L. Carden III, Mayor of the City ofAtasceidero, do hereby proclaim the week of October 4-10, 1998, as "Fit e Prevention Week". HAROLD L. CARDEN III, Mayor City of Atascadero, CA • Dated: September 22, 1998 000001 Atascadero, Colony Days 25th Anniversary October 1998 WHEREAS, Atascadero Colony Days celebrates the historical, cultural, artistic and family oriented blessings of our community; and WHEREAS, n 1973 the Colony Days Committee, a non-profit organization, was founded by Maggie A ice Vandergon for the purpose of providing Atascadero with an annual celebration commemo ating the founding of Atascadero by E.G. Lewis. The Colony Days event is dedicated to honoring the early colony history and the pioneer residents; and WHEREAS, The Colony Days Committee is comprised of tireless volunteers who work year-round to organize the event festivities for our community; and WHEREAS, Ihe Colony Days Committee has successfully planned and conducted 25 years of Colony Day festivities which brings Atascadero together to annually celebrate our Colony heritage; and WHEREAS, 7 he City Council and staff sincerely and greatly appreciate the outstanding and worthwhile volun eer efforts of the Colony Days Committee; NOW, THER FORE, I, HAROLD L. CARDEN III, Mayor of the City of Atascadero, do hereby proclaim the month of October, 1998, to be "Atascadero Colony Days 25th Anniversary Month"in the City ofAtascadero. HAROLD L. CARDEN III,Mayor City of Atascadero, California September 22, 1998 000002 i "CONSTITUTION WEEK" September 17- 22, 1998 WHEREAS, September 17, 1998 marks the two hundred eleventh anniversary of the drafting o the Constitution of the United States of America by the Constitutional Con ention, and WHEREAS, it is fitting and proper to accord official recognition to the magnificent docum nt and its memorable anniversary, and its patriotic celebrations which will commem rate the occasion, and WHEREAS, Public Law 915 guarantees the issuing of a proclamation each year by the Pres idei it of the United States of America designating September 17-23 as Constitution Week, NOW, THEREFORE I, Harold L. Carden, III, by virtue of the authority vested in me as Major of the City of Atascadero, in the State of California, do hereby proclaim the week September 17`h through 23rd as CONSTITUTION WEEK and ask the citizens o reaffirm the ideals the framers of the constitution had in 1787 by vigilantly protec 'ng the freedoms guaranteed to us through this guardian of our liberties, remembering that lost rights may never be regained. In witness whereof, have here unto set my hand and caused the seal of the City to be affixed this 22 day of September of the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-eight. Harold L. Carden, III Mayor City of Atascadero 000003 ITEM NUMBER: A-i I DATE: 09/22/98 �l i MINUTES i 'i ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY,AUGUST 25, 1998 CLOSED SESSION,6:30 P.M.: 1) Conference with labor negotiator(Govt. Code Sec. 54957.6) Agent Negotiator: City Manager Employee organizations: Atascadero Fire Captains 2) Perso el: City Manager Mayor Carden adjourned the Closed Session at 7:05 p.m. and City Attorney Roy Hanley announced that there N ias no reportable action. REGULAR SESSIO , 7:00 P.M.: Mayor Carden called the Regular Session to order at 7:07 p.m. and Council Member Clay led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: Present: Council Members Clay, Johnson, Luna and Mayor Carden Absent: Council Member Lerno Others Present: City Clerk Marcia Torgerson Staff Present: City Manager Wade McKinney, Police Chief Dennis Hegwood, Fire Chief Mike McCain, Administrative Services Director Rachelle Rickard, Community and Economic Development Director Paul Saldana, Public Works Technician Valerie Humphrey and City Attorney Roy Hanley. APPROVAL OFAGENDA: MOTION: B Council Member Luna and seconded b Mayor Pro Tem Y Y Y Johnson to approve the agenda. Motion passed 4:0 by a roll-call vote. 000004 COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REPORTS: Mayor Pro Tem Johnson stated that the Council Members received a letter from American Stars. He explained that he checked into the issue and found that this was a marketing technique. The letter implies we have refused their business, however, Atascadero does not provide the services they suggest in their letter. Council Member Johnson announced that they have been put on the Atascadero Bid List. Mayor Pro Tem Johnson also wanted to announce that Atascadero is working on solving the lighting problem at Eagle Creek Golf Course. He felt that the newspaper article inferred that the City was not addressing the issue. Council Member Luna asked those in attendance to draw their attention to the general information section of the agenda. He stated that this information has been changed. It states that the public can only speak at Public Hearing items and Community Forum. Council Member Luna said that in the past, the Mayor would open every item on the agenda up to the public for comment. However,this information section reads that the public will only be allowed to speak during Public Hearing items and Community Forum. He asked the Mayor to clarify how this would be handled tonight and asked that the information section be changed back to the way it was before. City Manager Wade McKinney responded by explaining that it was not staff's intention to change the previous information section of the agenda. He agreed that the Council's previous practice has been to take public comment on all items. Mayor Carden announced that they would be continuing with the method the Council's been using up until now. Council Member Clay announced that the Atascadero Association of Realtors held their golf tournament Friday and the funds were to benefit the Fire Department and the REC program. COMMUNITY FORUM: George Molina, Atascadero, commended the Council for the excellent staff they have assembled. He also stated that it is unfortunate that a particular issue in the community has become a political one. Dave May, Board President of the Atascadero Education Foundation,noted that Mayor Carden has given some of his stipend that he receives as a Council Member to the Atascadero Education Foundation. Mr. May stated that as Mayor Carden is leaving office,he wanted to recognize his efforts by presenting him with a plaque of appreciation designating him as a benefactor. Mayor Carden thanked Mr. May and the Foundation and expressed the importance of supporting our youth. Robert Huot, 3850 Ardilla Road, said that he disagrees firmly with the first speaker that addressed the Council. Mayor Carden closed the Community Forum. CC 08/25/98 Page 2 of 16 000005 A. CONSENT CALENDAR: Roll Call 1. City Council Minutes—August 11, 1998— (City Clerk recommendation.:Approve) [Marcia Torge on] 2. June 1998 Accounts Pa able and Payroll—Fiscal Impact: $1,206,289.57(Staff recommendatio : Review and approve) [Rachelle Rickard] 3. Atascadero Transit Management Contract—Approval of execution of a contract with Laidlaw Transil Services for transit management and operations—Fiscal Impact: not to exceed$218,571 annually (Staff recommendation: Council approve Resolution No. 1998-033 which authorizes execution of a Transit Operations Agreement with Laidlaw Transit Service ) [Brady Cherry] Rush Kolemaine, a meber of the public, asked the Council to pull Item#A-3. MOTION: io3otion Mayor Pro Tem Johnson and seconded by Council Member Luna approve Items#A-1 & 2. passed 4:0 by a roll-call vote. RE: Item #A-3—Rush Kolemaine, P.O. Box 1990, asked two questions of the City Manager: 1) When will the City hire someone with experience in operating a fixed-route transit service, and 2) How will the annual unmet needs survey be conducted. City Manager Wade McKinney explained that Laidlaw has the experience and expertise with respect to management in operating a fixed-route transit sei vice. Atascadero can also network with other cities. The unmet needs survey hearing is conducted through SLOCOG on a county-wide regional basis. Mayor Carden stated, as being a SLO OG representative, clarified that the unmet needs survey is a public hearing process which does occur regularly. It is set up and directed by the State, and implemented by SLOC OG. MOTION: y Mayor Pro Tem Johnson and seconded by Council Member Clay To approve Item#A-3. otion passed 4:0 by a roll-call vote. B. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Consideration f Amendments to Native Tree Ordinance—Fiscal Impact: None (Staff recommendati ns: 1) Council introduce for first reading, by title only, Ordinance No. 350, an ordinaice of the City of Atascadero amending Chapter I1 of Title 9 of the Atascadero Municipal Code regarding native trees, and 2) Council adopt Resolution No. 1998-034, adopting Native Tree Guidelines and Standards) [Paul Saldana] Community and Econ mic Development Director Paul Saldana gave the staff report and answered questions of Council Tern Johnson asked for clarification on the portion of the Tree Ordinance that Mayor Pro Te exempts a property oA ner with a single-family residence from needing a tree removal permit. He asked if that policy would also pertain to trees planted as mitigation for tree removal during CC 08/25/98 Page 3 of 16 000006 the construction of the home. Mr. Saldana explained that the trees planted as part of a mitigation measure are protected by the Ordinance. They would not be allowed to be removed. Mayor Pro Tem Johnson asked that the language in the Ordinance needs to explain that more clearly. He stressed that we need good strong management of the Tree Ordinance. Council Member Luna stressed his support of having a Natural Resource Manager or an arborist on staff. He explained that since there is not money in the City's budget to hire such a person, it puts the responsibility of enforcement in the hands of the Planning Department. He went on to say that in the past there has been very lax enforcement. Council Member Luna said that this revised Ordinance is a better ordinance and easier to understand. He referred to the Atascadero Native Tree Association's (ANTA's)report that was submitted to the Council at the meeting (see Exhibit A) and stated that he supported their suggestions. He commended staff on all their work on this Ordinance. Council Member Clay said that there were many people who spoke at previous Council meetings that they liked the Ordinance as it was. He stated that he doesn't know why this Ordinance is being reviewed. Council Member Clay said that he feels Atascadero has more trees that ever before and he doesn't understand why Atascadero needs this Ordinance. He stated that he cannot support this Ordinance. Mayor Carden read into the record a letter from Council Member Lerno who could not attend the meeting (see Exhibit B). Council Member Lerno's letter expressed his opinion that the revised Tree Ordinance is an improvement but does not fully address all of the problems brought to the Council's attention. He stated he supports the revised Tree Ordinance. Mayor Carden asked if we are creating a Catch-22 situation requiring a tree permit before all other permits. Mr. Saldana responded, no, but stated that we could add language such as "except where a permit is required to implement the tree protection"to clarify that section. Mayor Pro Tem Johnson asked for clarification on the suggestion of ANTA's concerning the section pertaining to the pruning of roots. Mr. Saldana responded that ANTA's suggestion would require a permit just like a tree removal permit. Mayor Carden asked if we are covering emergencies with this Ordinance, such as a tree that falls into the street. Mr. Saldana responded that the language in the Ordinance concerning emergencies has not changed; emergency situations will still remain exempt. Council Member Luna clarified that there is no Colony Road exemption, there is no exemption for small lot subdivision and there is no exemption for residential lots under five acres. Mr. Saldana concurred. Council Member Luna stated that he would not support this Ordinance if it had any of those exemptions in it. Mayor Carden congratulated staff on the monumental effort that went into reviewing this Ordinance. PUBLIC COMMENT Carol DeHart, 4305 Lobos Ave., stated that she agrees with Council Member Luna. She read a prepared statement into the record. (See Exhibit C) Council Member Luna stated that yesterday CC 08/25/98 Page 4 of 16 000007 he had spoken with Ri h Little of the County Agriculture Department about Pine Pitch Canker. He told Council Member Luna that he had found no Pine Pitch Canker in Atascadero. However, Mr. Little did say that the pine trees in Atascadero are infested with the Bark Beetle which he attributes to the Highv ray 41 fire which stressed the trees and made them susceptible to the Bark Beetle. Cory Meyer, 7735 Na ajoa Road, President of ANTA, thanked staff and the Council for involving ANTA in this process. He expressed his view that the new Ordinance is more clear and user friendly. Mr. Meyer read into the record the ANTA report that was previously given to Council. (see Exhibit,k) Rick Mathews, 6950 avarette, expressed his concerns with some of the wording in the Ordinance. He stated Lhat concerning tree replacement, a contract that runs with the land is an important change to make to this Ordinance. Mr. Mathews also noted that ANTA recommends changing four inspections in a seven year period to three inspections in a four year period. He also stressed the impoitance of an Arborist on staff. Joy Greenberg, 11655 Cenegal Road, stated she supported a strong Tree Ordinance with an arborist on staff. (see EIxhibit D) John Goers, 5200 Delores Ave., commended staff on their work with this Ordinance and stated he supports ANTA's r commendations. Joan O'Keefe, 9985 Id Morro Road East, stated that she feels this issue is on the agenda tonight + as a result of the Ardil a Road project. She said that trees were removed before permits were issued and no one kne x how many trees had been removed. An arborist on staff would have avoided those problems. Ms. O'Keefe stated that she was pleased to hear Council Member Johnson suggest that die City do enforcement. That means that she will be able to stop doing it. She also explained the process of root pruning. Ms. O'Keefe also expressed her support of an arborist on staff. Craig Dingman, 6620 Atascadero Ave., (a prepared statement was read into the record by Jim Patterson which supported a strong Tree Ordinance). (see Exhibit E) Jim Patterson, 9312 No. Santa Margarita Road, expressed his appreciation to Mr. Saldana for including ANTA in th preparation of this proposed Ordinance. He stated that the major problems with the pre ious Tree Ordinance was in the implementation and enforcement of it. The revised Ordinance proposed tonight clarifies those issues. He also asked the Council to include ANTA's Sugg stions in the proposed Ordinance. Jody Olson& Jay Co irtney, Atascadero, (a prepared statement was read into the record by Nancy Rice, 4245 Arena which supports the proposed Ordinance). (see Exhibit F) Brian and Letha Musgrave, 7930 Santa Ysabel Ave., (a prepared statement was read into the record by Kim Deerin , 7155 San Gregorio,which supports the proposed Ordinance). (see Exhibit G) Fred Frank, 3615 Ard lla, commended staff on their review of this Ordinance. He also encouraged the Counit to consider retaining an arborist. CC 08/25/98 Page 5 of 16 000008 1 i Ray Jansen, 6655 Country Club Drive, expressed his support of the proposed Ordinance. He also stated that he felt that former employee Kelly Heffernon was an asset to the City concerning the preservation of trees and recycling. Marge Mackey, 5504 Tunitas, endorsed the need for an arborist. i Robert Nimmo, 7375 Bella Vista Road, stated that he has lived in Atascadero for 37 years. He stated that it is a myth that oak trees are endangered in Atascadero. He showed the Council a picture of Morro Road approximately 90 years ago. Mr. Nimmo explained that the picture shows us how many more trees there are in that area. He stated that when the Tree Ordinance was first adopted, Atascadero had a good number of self-appointed tree policemen that felt free to trespass on private property and spy on their neighbors. He said that he felt that Ordinance was grossly over restrictive. He went on to state that we need a tree ordinance that ensures that with any commercial development, trees are protected and trees are planted. He said that he hopes that this Tree Ordinance will rid us of the need for neighbor to spy upon neighbor. Geraldine Brasher, 3202 Monterey Road, stated that she agreed with Mr.Nimmo that we don't want neighbors to be spying on neighbors. However, she stated that she supports the recommendation of an arborist. Phil Ashley, 1586 La Cita Court, San Luis Obispo, stated he supports the hiring of an arborist. O.W. Smith, 11705 Atascadero Ave., stated that we need to keep government out of our lives. He stated that he feels we should give private property owners some credit. He said that the proposed Ordinance should be pared down. Lindsay Hampton, 8402 Alta Vista, stated that she agreed with Council Member Johnson that the biggest problem is the management of the Ordinance. That's why we need an arborist. Livia Kellerman, 5463 Honda, thanked staff for their efforts on this Ordinance. She also stated that there might be more trees downtown, but they're not native trees. Ms. Kellerman said that native trees will survive future droughts, non-natives will not. Ed Cabrera, 9050 Junipero, pointed out that if two people have similar sized lots but their tree density is different, and they want to remove the same number of trees, should they be held to the same standards? Council Member Luna stated that the person with the larger number of trees could provide an agreement to protect many of his trees under a conservation easement. Mayor Carden closed Public Comment period. i Mayor Pro Tem Johnson asked Jim Patterson to clarify the suggestions made by ANTA concerning tree root pruning. Mr. Patterson explained the process and stated that ANTA's main concern is the loss of root systems due to construction. Council Member Clay clarified his previous comments by saying that many times trees are scheduled to be removed because of construction, but if they were spared, they very well might survive even if, for example, a driveway is poured over its roots. I CC 08/25/98 Page 6 of 16 00009 Mayor Pro Tem Johnson asked if conditions placed on a property would remain with the property. Mr. Saldana responded, yes. Council Member Luna suggested that the Council review ANTA's written suggestions. Mayor Pro Tem Johnson and Council Member Clay said they had just received ANTA's suggestions tonight an I need time to review them. Lengthy Council discussion ensued. MOTION: 3y Council Member Luna and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Johnson o amend the proposed Native Tree Regulations (Exhibit A of rdinance No. 350) Chapter 11.05 D-4.a to read, "Depending on the haracteristics of the site, the applicant may plant replacement trees n site. This method shall include payment in advance for three (3) ite inspections during a four(4)year establishment period." Motion passed 3:1 by a roll-call vote. (Clay opposed) MOTION: By Mayor Pro Tem Johnson and seconded by Council Member Luna o amend the proposed Native Tree Regulations (Exhibit A of rdinance No. 350) Chapter 11.06 C. to read, "The Protection Plan hall be in place and verified before an applicant receives any City 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." Motion passed 4:0 by a roll-call vote. MOTION: By Mayor Pro Tem Johnson and seconded by Council Member Luna to introduce for first reading, by title only, Ordinance No. 350, an ordinance amending Chapter 11 of Title 9 of the Atascadero Municipal Code regarding native trees with the amendments as noted. Motion passed 3:1 by a roll-call vote. (Clay opposed) MOTION: By Mayor Pro Tem Johnson and seconded by Council Member Luna to adopt Resolution No. 1998-034 adopting Native Tree Guidelines and Standards with the amendments as noted. Motion passed 3:1 by a roll-call vote. (Clay opposed) Mayor Carden called for a 10-minute recess at 9:15 p.m. Mayor Carden called 1he Regular Session back to order at 9:25 p.m. He announced that he would be changing the order of the items to be reviewed by Council. The order would be: C-2, D-1, C-1 and C-3. CC 08/25/98 Page 7 of 16 000010 i C. MANAGEMENT REPORTS: 2. Atascadero Police K-9 Purchase—Fiscal Impact: None for purchase, S1,575 annually for maintenance (Staff recommendation: Council authorize the purchase of a full service K-9 using donated funds) [Dennis Hegwood] Sergeant Robert Eckrote gave the staff report and introduced Terry Davis of the Atascadero Quota Club who will give the Council information on the fundraising efforts that raised the money for this program. Terry Davis, President of the Atascadero Quota Club, which is an international service organization. She explained that they have raised over$11,000 towards the purchase and care of the Police K-9. Ms. Davis said that the Quota Club has decided to make"K-9 in the Park" an annual event to support and possibly obtain more dogs for the future. Chief of Police Dennis Hegwood apologized to the Council for a presentation which makes it hard for them to deny this request. He explained that this issue took on a life of its own; the contributions came in, and the department got mobilized. Chief Hegwood stated that the Council does have the option to either go with the K-9 that is narcotics trained with low liability versus a full-service protection police dog. He recommended that the Council choose the full-service _protection police dog. He complimented Sergeant Eckrote on his work with this program. Mayor Carden asked for a policy to allow the officer to have first choice to be given the dog Upon the dog's retirement. Chief Hegwood stated he has a policy that he will have the City Attorney review and will bring it to the Council next meeting. 40 Sergeant Eckrote answered questions of the Council. PUBLIC COMMENT—None MOTION: By Mayor Pro Tem Johnson and seconded by Council Member Luna to authorize the purchase of a full service K-9 using donated funds. Motion passed 4:0 by a roll-call vote. D. CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS 1. Zone Change#97012—Amending text of zoning ordinance relative to access requirements at the Eagle Creek Golf Course (9100 Santa Barbara Road: Gearhart)— Fiscal Impact: None (Staff recommendation: Council give final approval to Zone Change #97012 by adopting Ordinance No. 338 by title only on second reading) [Roy Hanley] City Attorney Roy Hanley gave the staff report. He explained that the Council already adopted this Ordinance, with an amendment to sub-section#e of the Municipal Code Section 9-3.652., on January 13, 1998. However, when the Ordinance came back to Council for second reading on January 27, 1998, the language in sub-section#e was different than what the Council had approved at the first reading. Mr. Hanley stated that this fact was not noticed and the Council approved the Ordinance. Since the Ordinance was not read at second reading exactly as voted on CC 08/25/98 Page 8 of 16 000011 at the first reading, Mr Hanley recommended to Council that they adopt Ordinance No. 338, as amended, by title only on second reading at this meeting. Mayor Carden asked Gity Manager Wade McKinney to review the issue of the driving range lights. Mr. McKinney gave a history of the development of this site. He explained that he has asked the owner to tur i off the lights until a solution to the problem can be found. Council Member Luna expressed his concerns about the way this project has been handled. With the use of overhead projections, he showed maps of the original project (see Exhibit H) and the current project (see Exhibit I) on the agenda. He stated that there was never any mention of a driving range for this project. Council Member Luna explained that this is a PD8, a Master Plan of Development. That means that the developer has to make the driving range consistent with the Master Plan of Del lelopment. He went on to explain that in the staff report to Council (see Exhibit J) it states, "Moreover,the change would improve the appearance of the site in that paved access and parking areas visible from public streets would be replaced with greenery associated with the golf course." Council Member Luna stated how was he to know they meant a driving range with ugly poles, netting and lights. He offered another example in the developer's statement to staff(see xhibit K) which states, "I think you will agree that the revised design of the golf course is cons derably better than the original version, due to the additional space created by eliminating the tern is club." Council Member Luna repeated the motion made by him on January 27, 1998 whica shows that he was only aware of a 9-hold golf course, not a driving range (see Exhibit L). He also read from the Atascadero Municipal Code concerning exterior lighting, "Light Direct,-d onto Lot. Light sources shall be designed and adjusted to direct light away from any road oi street and away from any dwelling outside the ownership of the applicant." (see Exhibit M) He stated that the lights at this golf course do not comply. He went on to read, "Minimizal ion of Light Intensity. No light or glare shall be transmitted or reflected in such concentration or ntensity as to be detrimental or harmful to persons or to interfere with the use of surrounding prcperties or streets." (see Exhibit M) He said that Highway 101 and San Antonio Road were t o examples where this site is not in compliance with our Code. Council Member Luna went or to state that the Master Plan of Development for this site does not include a bar or restaurant. Hc then showed an advertisement from the Atascadero News (see Exhibit N). In conclusion, Council Member Luna stated that to be consistent with the Master Plan of Development, this pro ect should have no driving range, no lights and no bar/restaurant(see Exhibit O). He asked he Council to attach conditions to make this project consistent with the Master Plan of Development. Mayor Pro Tem Johnson stated that netting was discussed in 1991 in connection with this project. He also stated that a driving range was discussed at the Planning Commission. He asked what the ruling i s on the inclusion of a driving range with a golf course. Mr. Saldana responded that the pro* ect as it has been built has eliminated much of the pavement area for parking,the ten lightedtennis courts,the 25 yards of swimming area and reduced the size of the club house from 8,000 sq. ft. to 2,000 sq. ft. He explained that from the planning staff's review at the time,they found that the proposal was in substantial conformance to the original Master Plan of Development. Council Member Clay stated that he is concerned that this has become a political issue. He said that he felt this was a good project. He agreed that the lights are a problem and stated that he felt this issue can be solve 1. Council Member Clay said that this project is an asset to Atascadero. CC 08/25/98 Page 9 of 16 000012 Mayor Pro Tem Johnson asked what type of liquor license was issued for this project. Mr. Saldana responded that they have a beer and wine license only. He also stated that the original proposal of 1991 did include a club house which housed a bar and snack bar. 40 Council Member Luna stated that the Council has abdicated its responsibility to the staff. He then read from the establishment of the Planned Development Overlay which stated, "In approving a Master Plan of Development for the site, the uses allowed shall be limited to: Single-family dwellings, residential accessory uses, crop production and grazing, farm,animal raising, home occupation,temporary dwelling, agricultural accessory use, outdoor recreation services limited to a golf course and/or a swim club or pipelines." Council Member Luna said he does not understand the comment from staff that a driving range was on the original Master Plan of Development as it is not listed. Council Member Clay stated that the problem of the lighting needs to be worked out between our competent staff, the property owner and the neighbors that are being impacted. Mayor Pro Tem Johnson asked Mr. Hanley if the original approval in 1991 was valid. Mr. Hanley responded that he and staff feel that the original approved use was in compliance with existing codes. Mr. Saldana stated that the PD Overlay provided the opportunity for the expansion of uses subject to the review and approval of a Master Plan. Between the Master Plan review and approval originally and the ability to allow for accessory uses, the snack bar and beer and wine establishment would have been approved. Council Member Luna stated in response to Mr. Saldana's comments that the Municipal Code reads, "A Master Plan of Development shall be approved prior to any development of the site. Said Master Plan shall be processed in the same manner as a Conditional Use Permit except the Master Plan may be submitted and processed in the same manner set forth for the processing of a Tentative Map." Council Member Luna said that this means that if you are going to change this, it is processed like a Conditional Use Permit and must go back to the Planning Commission, and it never did that. Council Member Clay said that he would have preferred that the driving range would have been on the original document where they approved the road. But, we are to this point now. The facility is there. He told those in attendance that they should go out to the golf course and see this project. There are a lot of people enjoying the facility. He stated that we need recreational facilities. We need to work out this lighting problem. We can do that. PUBLIC COMMENT O.W. Smith, 11705 Atascadero Ave., 500 yards west of this project. He stated that he was angry at himself for not following this project. But after hearing the discussion tonight, he realizes that the Council blinked, and the Council needs to correct it. He expressed his displeasure of the City's handling of this project. George Molina, Atascadero, stated that he commends the new staff. He also stated that he is concerned because Council Member Luna seems to not have confidence in the City's staff. Mr. Molina stated that he supports Mr. Gearhart as he has accomplished numerous projects that benefit the City and the youth. CC 08/25/98 Page 10 of 16 000013 Jay Miller, Atascadero congratulated Kelly Gearhart for a fine project. He welcomes the tax revenue and stated it's a fine asset to the community. John Falkenstien, 460 Viscano, stated he works for Cannon Associates and is the author of the letter Council Member Luna referred to earlier(see Exhibit K). He stated that the PD8 zoning has specific language that requires that the project take access from Santa Barbara Road. He said that he supports the project. Scott Young, Adminis rative Assistant to Mike Ryan, stated that his office has received several complaints from individuals in the unincorporated area near the golf course. He said that Mr. Ryan supports the prof ct but feels the lights need to be addressed. Tina Salter, San Antori io Road, stated that she is the one who invited Council Member Luna and Planning Commissioner Hageman to the neighborhood meeting because she knew them. She said that the lights are Intolerable. Ms. Salter read a prepared statement into the record (see Exhibit P). She also distributed to the Council information she acquired from the Internet about outdoor lighting (see Exhibits Q & R). Mary Froggatt, 9330 Santa Clara Road, stated she wanted the Council to address the problem of the lights. Robert Hewitt, 3850 Ardilla Road, thanked Council Member Luna for his presentation of many facts that he was unaware of. He stated that he doesn't understand why a driving range needs to lit at all. He asked the Council to have the lights removed. Mike Rake, 10850 Zapata Road, stated he supports the golf course and that he feels that Kelly Gearhart will solve the lighting problem. Jennifer Hageman, 8005 Santa Lucia,referred to the map shown earlier (see Exhibit I). She stated that on July 21, 1998 she was told by staff that they had, "determined that the lighting associated with the dri ing range would be less intrusive than the light proposed for the original tennis court development." This indicated to her that a lighting plan for the driving range had been submitted by the Applicant, reviewed and approved. Art Pinado, 14060 San Antonio Road, supports the golf course but agrees that the lighting problem needs to be addressed. Phil Ashley, 1586 La Cita Court, San Luis Obispo, stated he's a fish& wildlife biologist and he's concerned with t affect of these lights on wildlife. He said that he supports this kind of project, but feels the li hting needs to be addressed. Marsha Kerschen, 133 20 San Antonio Road, expressed her displeasure with the lights from the golf course. They affect his ability to sleep as the lights do not get turned off until anytime between 10:00 p.m. and 12:00 p.m. She asked the Council to address this problem. Henry Engen, 9575 Lake View Drive, stated he supported the original proposal in 1991 but not the current project. He said he felt the light should be turned off until a solution is found. He read a prepared statem nt into the record (see Exhibit S). CC 08/25/98 Page 11 of 16 000014 Pat Kerschen, 13320 San Antonio Road, stated that he supports the golf course but the lights are a problem that need to be addressed. Mayor Carden asked,since it is now 10:S5 p.m.,for a motion to extend beyond 11:00 p.m. MOTION: By Mayor Pro Tem Johnson and seconded by Council Member Clay to extend this Regular Session of the City Council past 11:00 p.m. Motion passed 4.0 by a voice vote. Noel Shutt, 9325 W. Santa Clara Road, said that the lights at the golf course are a problem that needs to be addressed. Mike Molina, 7165 Pinal, commended Kelly Gearhart for a good project. He stated that the golf course is good for the kids. We should be helping the situation, not trying to regulate it. Robert Nimmo, 7375 Bella Vista,stated that obviously there's a lighting problem. He supports the project and feels it's a good addition to Atascadero. It fills a need for younger and older people. He stated that he supports the City solving the lighting problem. Mary Chastain, stated that she has lived in this area since 1950. She said that lights were included in the original plan but no one seemed to be concerned. She stated she supports Kelly Gearhart and the project. Rick Chastain, Templeton, said that he supports the golf course and Kelly Gearhart. Nick Ruth, 9320 No. Santa Margarita Road, stated that the lights are a problem. The lights need to be turned off until the problem can be solved. Mike Murphy, 9320 Santa Clara Road, said that his house is lit up by these lights. He explained that he was the one who called the Telegram Tribune because he wasn't getting any satisfaction from the City. He is concerned with the attitude that now that the project is in, let's let it go. Mr. Murphy referred to a letter he submitted to Council (see Exhibit T). Robert Hewitt, 3850 Ardilla Road, stated that if some are suffering from these lights then we should be considerate of them. Barbara Schinike, 7505 Marchant, stated that she is upset by the praising of a developer who is not abiding by the City rules. Bill Bowman, 13105 Atascadero Ave., stated he lives right next to the driving range. He asked where do we go from here. We need to solve the problems created by this project. O.W. Smith, 11705 Atascadero Ave., apologized for his anger earlier. He is amazed that this project passed this Council as it is. He supported the project,but expected the Council to make sure the rules were followed. Mayor Carden closed the Public Comment period. 0 Mayor Pro Tem Johnson stated that the lighting problem should be top priority. CC 08/25/98 Page 12 of 16 000015 Council Member Clay stated that this golf course is good for the community. It attracts the youth, women and senior citizens. He agreed that we have a lighting problem that needs to be addressed. Council Member Luna stated that if the Council supports the driving range, the way to solve these problems is to include the language "lighted driving range" in the Ordinance and approve it. He said that he wo ld not support such wording. But, he stated,the Council still has a problem with making this consistent with the Master Plan of Development. Mayor Carden asked r clarification on the issue of setbacks. Mr. Saldana stated that the PD overlay showed no set acks along the driving range. Mayor Carden asked for clarification of the approval of the lightin 3r. Mr. Saldana stated that staff concluded that the lighting that was proposed was either equal to or less intensive as the lighting that was proposed for the tennis and pool facilities. Mayor Carden explained that he has driven the area in question around the golf course and he thought that the lights were shut off until he was right at the golf course. Mayor Carden stated that the issue of potential discrimination should be discussed. He explained that he drove past other lit areas and the lights at Paloma Creek Park were the same if not more intense than the golf course lights. Also, he stated that anyone who has driven Santa Lucia during a nighttime football gante at the High School has experienced a blinding situation. He went on to say that if we are goin to impose limitations to the golf course lighting, then we will also have to do the same to the Rake Park ball field, Paloma Creek Park and the Atascadero High School. He stated that he cann t support discriminating against one facility whose lights are less intense than other facilities al eady in existence. Mayor Pro Tem Johns:)n asked the City Attorney if the Council were to require new conditions would the property o er have a takings case. Mr. Hanley responded that he would have a very low comfort level with defending the City against a takings case. He also stated that the Council cannot take action on I he lighting issue as it was not on the agenda. Council Member Lund stated that if the Council approves the Ordinance as it is proposed tonight, there's a de facto appr val of the driving range. Mr. Hanley responded by saying that a de facto approval of the driving range already exists as far as a takings case would go. Council Member Luna asked Mr. Hanley if the deletion of the lights could be a condition of approval. Mr. Hanley stated that yes, that co Id be added, but it would have to come back for another reading. Mayor Pro Tem Johns n asked staff to clarify how they approve lighting on other projects. Mr. Saldana responded that lighting plans are usually submitted with the on-site improvements. He said that in this case, t e lighting plans were submitted with the golf course, pro shop and club house. The lighting p ans addressed the lighting for parking lot, driving range and other electrical portions oft e project. Mayor Pro Tem Johnson asked if the Planning Commission minutes are considered part of the record in regard to the mention of a driving range. Mr. Hanley responded, yes. Council Member Clay stressed the need to address the lighting problem and asked if there is a time the lights are to te off. Mr. Saldana stated that the business license indicates 10:00 p.m. Council Member Lun said that, based on the Mayor's previous comments if the Mayor knows that the City and the School District are in violation of our zoning ordinance, then he's got to make sure that it either gets fixed or he changes the ordinance. CC 08/25/98 Page 13 of 16 000016 MOTION: By Mayor Pro Tem Johnson and seconded by Council Member Clay to approve Zone Change#97012 by adopting Ordinance No. 338 by title only on second reading. Motion passed 3:1 by a roll-call vote. (Luna opposed) Mayor Carden directed Mr. McKinney to give the Council a report on the lighting within one week. i C. MANAGEMENT REPORTS: 1. Request for Funds from the Fire Impact Fees—To be allocated towards the Station One Hazard Reduction Proj ect—Fiscal Impact: $10,000 from the Fire Impact Fund (Staff recommendation: Council authorize the allocation of$10,000 from the Fire Impact Fees Fund towards the Station One Hazard Reduction Project) [Mike McCain] Fire Chief Mike McCain gave the staff report. PUBLIC COMMENT- None. MOTION: By Council Member Luna and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Johnson to authorize the allocation of$10,000 from the Fire Impact Fees Fund towards the Station One Hazard Reduction Project. Motion passed 4:0 by a roll-call vote. 3. Urgency Ordinance Prohibiting Medical Marijuana Clubs—Fiscal Impact: None (Staff recommendation: Council adopt an urgency ordinance prohibiting medical marijuana clubs by introducing Ordinance No. 351 for first reading, by title only.) [Dennis Hegwood/ Police Chief Dennis Hegwood gave the staff report and Mr. Hanley clarified the legal aspects of this item. Mayor Carden asked for clarification on the timing involved with this Ordinance. Mr. Hanley stated that if the Council adopts this Ordinance tonight, it will go into effect immediately. Within 45 days, he and Chief Hegwood will come back to Council with a report on how they plan on addressing the issue. This report will have to go through the Planning Commission. At that time, the Council can extend the life of the Ordinance for up to another 10 months. Council Member Clay asked if bringing this issue to the Council might be giving people ideas. Mr. Hanley stated that other cities in the area have already been approached by individuals interested in opening such establishments, so the timing is right. PUBLIC COMMENT—None. CC 08/25/98 Page 14 of 16 0U0017 MOTION: By Mayor Pro Tem Johnson and seconded by Council Member Clay o adopt an urgency ordinance prohibiting medical marijuana clubs y introducing Ordinance No. 351 by title only. otion passed 4:0 by a roll-call vote. 4. Information Bulletin Sgt. John Rodgers gav the staff report on the Community Oriented Policing Program. E. COMMITTE REPORTS S.L.O. Council of GoN ernments/S.L.O. Regional Transit Authorit Mayor Carden stated t at they will be meeting next Wednesday. County Mayor's Roun I Table Mayor Carden stated that they met last week and discussed their appointment process. They are going to lobby the League of California Cities to move their annual conference to April for legislative benefits and to move the annual conference to Sacramento. Cit / Schools Committee Mayor Carden said that the next meeting was moved to September 14". F. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION: City Council Council Member Clay stated that Council Member Lerno was misquoted tonight and he wasn't here to respond. He said that he didn't agree with that. G. ADJOURNM NT: Mayor Carden adjourr ed the Regular Session at 12:05 a.m. to the Redevelopment Agency Meeting immediately following this meeting. MINUTES RECO ED AND PREPARED BY: Marcia M. Torgerso , City Clerk ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A— Prepared Statement by Cory Meyer Exhibit B— Prepared Statement by Council Member Lerno Exhibit C— Prepared Statement by Carol DeHart Exhibit D— Prepared Statement by Joy Greenberg CC 08/25/98 Page 15 of 16 000018 Exhibit B— Prepared Statement by Council Member Lerno Exhibit C— Prepared Statement by Carol DeHart Exhibit D— Prepared Statement by Joy Greenberg Exhibit E— Prepared Statement by Craig Dingman Exhibit F— Prepared Statement by Jody Olson&Jay Courtney Exhibit G— Prepared Statement by Brian& Letha Musgrave Exhibit H— Tentative Tract Map 2049—Eagle Creek 1991 Exhibit I— Eagle Creek Golf Course Map— 1997 Exhibit J- Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes Exhibit K— Letter from John Falkenstien, received 11/03/97 Exhibit L— Excerpt of City Council Minutes 01/27/98 �. Exhibit M— Excerpt of AMC, Sec. 9-4.137 j. Exhibit N— Newspaper advertisement of Eagle Creek Exhibit O - Overhead projection statement—Councilman Luna Exhibit P - Prepared Statement by Tina Salter Exhibit Q - Information on lighting from Tina Salter Exhibit R- Information on lighting from Tina Salter Exhibit S - Prepared Statement by Henry Engen Exhibit T- Handout of Mr. Mike Murphy, dated 8/25/98 CC 08/25/98 Page 16 of 16 000019 A,T�1S.0 SRO NATI' ' E . TRE . SSOCIATIOIN Pedicatedto the pmeervation sof Atascadero's native forest, Exhibit: A August 24, 1998 Atascadero City Council Meeting Date: .8/25/98., Atascadero City Council Dear Mayor Carden and . uiipil Members: ANTA would like t0-thank tir involving members of the organization in the process of revising the City si,Nativotection Ordinance. We applaud the work that staff has put into this docum A4 and the 9P it cooperation thfat ' s been exhibited in eliciting input from ANTA'LIn-in yways, the Or i. arer d ore"use' friendly." Ma of the su es io- made b indi " f TA have.alread been pY .gg $ y Y incorporated:intg_;th du�nent. A co " e evye hhe mal draft and after considerable discussion and-com romis �came u i"t thr short taut very important list of three recommended Chan es.�T e-'�bye" ZtJchap es havet0 d7ati�n'monitoring.with ith(1) retention of a contract arborist, (2)prunin witliin)t oot zone, and(3)rp ti regard to on-site tree replacement. .%�-< (1) Arborist: ANT strongly recomme ds that languagy in thet.'ordinance reflect input and moniloring fFo aycity=i'eta't�ed arb `'ste uently,tree, r�tection glans are no more than sketches of the coristfuction 'f -' e s r p iss oCityArborist seems to ..�j + reflect the need',for ar�7onsr ss ex rt- e. . ow e�yth ngt{age"in fie ordinance is not as clear as:staff's disc ssion. Ther ef r� ' e C �nd t'e folwing changes and/or additions to the ordinance Page 3 Sec. 1.104 Ynthe=defiiuU a nnerd min udingiree protection plans" from job de cription. Architects and en ine rs o.. t avehe expertise.to"identify the health and species f`indiv:Dbal tree-A) �os �s,�eclf�t�e prot ct on•measures like root aeration, installatio of.tree webs,�etc:, tre\prbtect�inpTan-m t e more than`a graphic .� �- rendering of the site. � « Page 7. Sec. 1106. Tree Protecicon'Plaus. G 1te ter ud:A _proval..,Change Plans shall be reviewed nd approved,by mtuiit Dve�opgpgrtment to"Plans shall be reviewed by a c ty=retainedgr anc 'ap_1p ve t . e� omm�nv Development Department..." Ph nners and inspect `q are no 4q ali olute,or:deferd the quality of a tree protection plan. .. ,� .� ���' !'k.f_ �<` '• Pae 10. Sec. 1.14 Enforc met ` ., hir h e;f goh�purpbse'of this Page ral ' „ <� .chapter, the Direc y consul#�vi 1{ emp oyt t. t e�Director shall It with and a to an Arbo a,T consult P y )1 r (2) Pruning. Page 3. The definition of fee Pruning is, '7he c tt ng,detachmenf or separation of any limb, bran h or roots (emphasis added) from a native'`tree:" SeIe`.•'1.1.05 Tree Removal. A. Permit Required: A permit is required for pruning of more than twenty five percent (2 %) of the live canopy in native trees. ANTA recommends that be changed to"pruning of wore than twentyfive.per cent(25%) of the tine canopy and twen&five per cent 25% o e rootstem." This is consistent with the definition of pruning and recognizes thal root pruning impacts the vigor of trees'as much or more than canopy j 000O20 P.O. ox 1432 Atascadero, CA 93423 (805) 461-7610 TASC DERJ. � �.TI'V� T-R AssoCIATION Dedicated to the pre6ervation of.Atascadero'6 native forest, pruning. See attached document from the Department of Forestry;"OAK ROOT DISORDERS ASSOCIATED WITH INCOMPATIBLE LANDSCAPING." (3)Tree Replacement and Monitoring. Page 6. Sec. 11.05 Tree Remo*al. DA. Conditions of Approval (a). ANTAcrec grids the wording be changed as follows: "Depending on the characteristics of the si v ��' ant may plant replacement trees on site. .This method shall include payme?,�in a e ree (3)site inspections during a four-(4),year establishment period;" In the Native Tr-&Guidelines ;p. 3.t ree Replaceme>�Conditions of Approval A. 4.,we are recommendin g ttia "maintenance`` `` '/bee ani d to"maintenance contract." and add this sentence at tli end of that sect' e khat die during the first year may be replanted. If the tree r`s:not replanted, i ' l be p ent into the tree fiend. Subsgquent lossgsrjtube mitigated by pts o t e.treefund.•' These.recommended changes-are unporta�t for en*wring t},protection of Atascadero's Oak Forest but they do not.kep�?]Isent significant than .to''th- overall content and certainly the intent of the revised Ordinati)1 :-ANTA urgesyo to adopt hese,changes into the Tree Ordinance Sincerely, Cory Meyer, ANTA President { / \ t } A `C l ` 000021 P.O. Box 1432 Ata5cadero, CA 93423 . • (805) 461-7610 STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOI JRCES AGENCY PETE WILSON,Governor. *AR'TMENT OF FORESIRY AND FIRE PROTECTION �CC)AST-CASCADE REGION 135 Ridgway Avenue Santa Rosa, CA 95401 (707) 576-2936 OAK ROOT DISORDERS ASSOCIATED WITH INCOMPATIBLE LANDSCAPING Bruce W. Hagen The distinctive and nduring oak. trees need. Roots support and anchor the tree, scattered across the states valleys,woodlands absorb water and minerals, store energy and and .foothills. have c me to . symbolize produce chemicals that help to regulate California's native lands ape.,These trees are growth. They grow where oxygen, water and admired for their natural eauty, longevity and minerals are most abundant. However, when value to wildlife and the en.vironment.Pespite any of these factors are deficient or in excess, this'.admiration and concern for. preserving root function and, ultimately, tree health may oaks, developers .and homeowners 'often suffer. inadvertently damage tr as they build homes and install landscaping around them. Although The roots of mature oaks grow predominantly tough and resilient,oak tr can be decimated within the upper three feet of soil, Most of the I by construction-related in uries and by changes roots responsible for the uptake of water and C in soil aeration and moislure levels. minerals are concentrated within 12 inches of the surface.Few roots grow deeper than three The growing requiremen s and environmental feet, although some can be found growing tolerances of.California native oaks must be , much deeper in areas with deep medium to 1 , recognized to incorpora a existing oaks into coarse soils, and in fractured rock. Much of the landscape without jeopardizing their the root system is contained within the drip health. Favorable growing conditions must be line, although roots typically radiate well maintained through careful plant selection, beyond it (Figure 1). minimal disturbance, and judicious irrigation. A list of plants .,compatible, .;with the Oak roots, like those of most trees, are environmental requiremems of native oaks can extremely sensitive to environmental change be found in the Californa Oak Foundation's (soil compaction, raised soil grade, increased j publication Tompatible,, Plants Under and moisture,paving, etc.). These changes reduce Around Oaks'. the soil`oxygen, impair root function and create conditionsmore favorable to root OAK ROOTS To prope ly plant and manage pathogens (disease organisms). landscaping around tre s„ especially native " oaks, it is important to understand what tree OAKS AND SUMMER WATER Onde roots do, where they ow, and what they . established, native oaks seldom require 1 000022 Exhibit: B Atascadero City Council Meeting Date: 8/25/98 August 20, 1998 Council Members and Community Members Unfortunately I have personal commitments and am unable to attend tonight's meeting. The Tree Ordinance is important to me and to Atascadero so I want to pass on my comments. I asked that the Tree Ordinance be reviewed because it is difficult to understand and it is not protecting our tree assets. The Ordinance needed to be clarified so that we all understand the rules and they make sense. Many people have expressed concerns to me and want to insure that the Ordinance meets the needs of the entire community. While there has been much said about my "motives", I think it is clear from the discussions we have had that this Ordinance needs our attention. I want to insure that our urban forest deserves is protected and that individual families can enjoy their property in concert with the environment. While I don't think the proposed Ordinance fully deals with all of the problems brought to our attention, I do believe this Ordinance is an improvement over our existing code. As I have stated before, our urban forest is a valuable asset worth protecting. The proposed Ordinance more clearly sets forth the requirements and is easier to follow. I encourage my fellow Council Members to support the revised Ordinance and direct staff to continue to upgrading this and other City codes to insure that the community and environment compliment one another. i I 000023 Exhibit: C Atascadero City Council Meeting Date: 8/25/98 August 25, 1998 Carol DeHart 4305 Lobos Ave. Atascadero,CA. 93422 Council Members, C Ity of Atascadero 6500 Palma Ave. Atascadero,CA. 93 22 This letter is to express my continued strong support for the existing Native Tree Ordinance in Atascadero. I strongly oppose the elimination of references to a City Arborist,thereby pl ing responsibility on the community development department. Atascadero has recently been recognized as the best"tree city"in the United States, it is only appropriate to retain an arborist for our city. In light of the current devastation occurring with existing conifers in the entire state of California due to the pitch canker, now it is especially important.to be vigilant,and plan how to deal with the impending loss of many conifers. I spoke with my friend and colleague,Dr. Donald Dahlsten,Assoc. Dean of Students at U.C. Berkeley in the Dept. of Forestry,yesterday. He has been responsible for conducting biological control projects in Santa Margarita and San Miguel on the Elm Leaf Beetle for the County of San Luis Obispo in the recent past. Regarding the pitch canker which is affecting many of the conifers in the state and our county,he said, and I quote, `Begin active planning,plant other native trees. The prognosis is not good. There is no known solution for the pitch canker, therefore many pines will be lost. There are some resistant trees, so therapeutic pruning should take place. Plant no conifer that is susceptible, only native trees." We must have an experl to advise citizens about which native trees to plant that will survive. Now more than eve ,it is imperative that this city retain the integrity of the Tree Ordinance. We mu t allow the Atascadero Native Tree Association to oversee tree fund expenditures,and aintain the current fee schedule that developers are required to pay. Now more th ever, we must have an arborist who can advise us about the pitch canker and how to i nanage the replacement of affected conifers with native trees. We have lived here toolong for our quality of life to be diminished by an amendment that will weaken the Tree Ordinance at a time when it is most necessary. soSincerely, Carol DeHart 000024 Exhibit: D Atascadero City Council Meeting Date: 8/25/98 Joy Greenberg 11655 Cenegal Road Atascadero, CA 93422 August 25, 1998 Atascadero City Councll 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, CA 93422 Dear City Council Members, have lived in Atascadero eleven years. The most important reason my family chose to live here is the breathtaking natural beauty, specifically the plenitude of native oak trees. Before building here, we looked at property in Paso Robles and Templeton, commenting that they were nice, but wondering if there weren't someplace with more trees that would mesh with our idea of a "dream home." When a friend showed us Paradise Valley, it was love at first sight. We were thrilled when the tree ordinance was adopted because we believed that the city felt as we did regarding the importance of preserving this invaluable natural resource. Implementing and enforcing a tree ordinance is critical, I believe, for the continuing ability of Atascadero to attract potential home buyers and for maintaining property values. Without our spectacular oak forests,.there is nothing to separate us from any other suburban California area, i.e. no reason for anyone to select beautiful Atascadero over any other place. But just having a tree ordinance alone is not enough. There needs to be an impartial person responsible for overseeing its standards. That is why urge the Council to retain a professional arborist or someone with similar expertise in the field of tree conservation. We simply cannot afford to jeopardize the future of our greatest natural resource, our heritage oaks. Sincerely, 000025 Exhibit: E Atascadero City Council Meeting Date: 8/25/98 August 24, 1998 Dear Atascadero City Cou.ncil_ Kt&_aber3:. When I moved to town and purchased a home just a little over ten years ago, my Realtor told me that Atascadero was a city ! that protected its trees. This was a selling point, as far as I was concerned. It still is. It is possible to put an economic value on one mature tree. That is the cost of transplanting one. It has been done, and f it costs a lot to do it. If the value of all of our trees is the sum of the cost to transplant each one, then the value is astronomical. If the sum is greater than the total of the parts, as I believe it is, then the value is immeasurable. i In the decade that I have been here I have observed a struggle in the development of Atascadero. It is not a struggle between growth and no-growth, or between rapid growth and slow growth. It is a struggle between smart growth and growth as usual. I call it the struggle between progress and deterioration. Progress means growing in a way that preserves our greatest existing assets, one of which is surely our urban/suburban forest. Deterioration means continuing to allow the convenience of developers to weigh too heavily in the balance, which leads to growth out of character with what Atascadero has been and has stood for in the past. I have seen evidence of both the forces of deterioration and the forces of progress at work over the past ten years. Deterioration can be seen in the sprouting up of postage-stamp housing, shopping malls and fast-food establishments which increase the concentration of traffic and do little to distinguish Atascadero from many other towns. Progress can be seen in our development of community facilities and activities, public transportation and our pace setting waste reduction efforts. There are developers in this town who are commited to progress. Let them lead the way in growth. Reaffirm our committment to what Atascadero is, a lovely wooded community with a semi-rural sensibility. Let 's not try to make Atascadero into something it is not; it is not like any other town up and down the Coast. Let us maintain the spiritual, emotional and gigantic economic benefits of our trees. Vote for progress. Thank you for listening. Sincerely, Craig Dingman 6 6620 Atascadero Ave. . 466-4547 000026 Exhibit: F Atascadero City Council Meeting Date: 8/25/98 25 August 1998 Dear Councilmen, Atascadero is truely fortunate to be located within a beautiful oak woodland. These oaks provide residents with shade and beauty not to mention great tree house sites and increased property values. They also provide habitat and food for a diverse wildlife population. In short, they are what makes Atascadero unique from other communities throughout California. In turn it is our and, as our elected officials, your responsibility to protect them. We would be wise to learn from communities who having lost much of their urban forest are now burdened with both extreemly restrictive regulations and the high cost of tree replacement. With this in mind,we urge you to adopt the ANTA recomended revisions to our local tree ordinance. Let Atascadero be know for its forsight, not hindsight. Sincerely, Jody Olson& Jay Courtney(Atascadero residents and property owners for 15 years) 00002'7 Exhibit: G Atascadero City Council Meeting Date: 8/25/98 August 22,. 19S8 40 To: ATASCADE O CITY COUNCIL We are writinc this letter to request that you make every effort to preserve our trees. They make Atascadero uniquely beautiful amo g the cities of the beautiful Central Coast. Besides their aesthetic value, trees have practical functions as well. The improve air quality, reduce soil erosion, and provide living space for birds and other important wild life. Thus trees are vital to human wellbeing. In order to prevent their destruction by greedy, unappreciative or simply thoughtless people, it is necessary to have a strong ordinance against tree destruction. Loopholes and exceptions must be kept to an absolute minimum. We feel sure you appreciate the aesthetic and practical value of trees to our community and are counting on you to do all in your power to preserve them for us and for future generations. Respectfully yours, Brian and Letha Musgrave 7930 Santa Ys bel Ave. Atascadero, CA 93422 000028 Atascadero City Council Meeting Date: 8/25/98 N�oI ..CNV- • o WaR CKE N iI •�� _ s • CSN�—N��W dGA— s QQ= 0 f (( Nw }• l J \ lawYf • ..6 •-� •_ � aaaa • ` n8 sa :. s- , Cr r , 4, A n m . � VI Ir • + ` 1 o • r � !• t ` v��O�J �.n •� v11r • sl h k X N d C gal ` • u !�i� _ C�tit4ttttltttttttt(t sa :s 9.3 E�w : II=_ISSItIltilfi3ljlil 2 sasssss_sss_4: t; • : ;� ...s:ssnsresnast•sssa I _ 7sssssissmssssississ Baa►SSfl►fff\S1UfiS►f a ...................... �mmI rfj . ' 000029 Exhibit: I Atascadero City Council • J i. Meeting Date: 8/25/98 • r. ro La Jel (A / T4` . ♦ 1 1 j ate ��:` _ �` ri�1 V Sr . .y. _ ♦ L� t 1 Ool Oop ZZ w LLJ / -ff�', --_:'� -.;_••_. ,�� .� � 1`,: \ - Lia / � .-^• _ j i;It ►. i % P, It I 40 /' ,�` /= 1 '•, . � ` ., til ► / i _ i ♦ t: t /. :'�- /',/ .•/: ._,(� i�' /. ! Int •t .� / ! % /i/��i'� , / J "'.�`�•_ � ♦ moi/ //% � .` is ; r1 � •. - r //�•.,-. - f \ r ! \ ; t `��•••��t l `♦'�`-'`�\tet ♦♦ \ �\ i` •�.lAC� 1 . � i,_�V t:� prC•X�S e, \ t Vit` .�...i.��,r _ : I. �. 000030 - Exhibit: . J Atascadero City Council Meeting Date. 8/25%98 In";response to: the,current application North Coast Engineering has• reva.ewed .:the situation and agrees with the 'applicant':that'-.the number of .encroachments-. onto .Santa Barbara Road should be '`.. mzed inimi `:for safetYand 'for.'circulation iri general. CONCLUSIONS: L.r. The -Zoning Ordinance change requested by the applicant and . supported by North Coast Engineering. would improve traffic safety and circulation in general. Xoreover, the change would- improve the appearance of the site .h a .paved access . and parking areas visible from public streets would be replaced with greenery associated with the golf course. Although the change will increase commercial traffic on a 'local .residential street (Atascadero Road) , that increase will not be as great as. previously feared because of reductions in the planned number and intensity of commercial uses. Indeed, . it appears the benefits of the propoped change outweigh the costs and, upon approval .of ..change, , a .great project .for. the .community: can become even:be ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A - Original Access and Parking for Eagle Creek ' Project Attachment B - Revised Access and Parking for Eagle Creek Project Attachment C -- Applicant's sta•teinent ' Attachment D - Ordinance 338 000031 ' Exhibit: K Atascadero City.Council Meeting Date: $/25/98 MICHAEL f CANIvov,pe ANOREw G.MERRIAM.AIA,AICP amo DANIEL:t.HUTCHINSO!v;L$ 11 Sten DeCam AS50CVAT.ES . . . Direc tor of Community Development Cityof Atascadero. 6650 Palma Avenue Atas deco,CA 93422 ENGINEERS Subject: Zone Text Amendment,Eagle Creek Golf Course PLANNERS 9-3.652(e) Planned Development Overlay Zone No. 8 -SURVEYORS DearSteve: As you are aware,Mr. Gearhart has obtained a grading permit and has begun the earthwork operations at the Eagle Creek Golf Course. I think you will agree that the revised design of the golf course is considerably better than the original verst n, ue to e additional space created Uy eliminating the to is cl In accordance with these revisions,Mr. Gearhart is hereby requesting that the` Plann ng Commission reconsider the language established in Planned Devel apment Overlay Zone No. 8. More specifically,he requests that item"e"of 9-3.65 2,Establishment of Planned Development Overlay Zone No. 8,which requires access for non-residential use from Santa Barbara Road, be eliminated. It is readily dily apparent that a driveway from Santa Barbara Road would be detrirr ental to the enjoyment of the course by golfers. Access to the clubhouse via At ascadero, Road is a much safer entrance for the golf course than Santa Barbara Road. Vehicles stopped in Santa Barbara Road waiting to make left turns into the golf course present congestion and are a hazard to through traffic in both directions. In the riginal hearings for the golf course in 1991,there was discussion regarding the potential of residential traffic in the Eagle Ranch area conflicting with the users of the course. Though the agricultural preserve contract on the ranch has many ears remaining,when and if this area is developed,we believe that the owners of these lots will welcome the convenience of a recreational opportunity such a the Eagle Creek Golf Course. We be ieve that the Eagle Creek Golf Course will be a welcome attraction to the commi inity and a wonderful recreational benefit to young and old alike. Thank.' you fo your consideration. 364 PACInC STREET cer y, SAN lull 01115,10,CA 93401 cute mHG ohn F lkenstien LV 9707 netext 1 , I tf1!I f13 1997 ..,« 805•S44-7407 •• • �' FAx 805.544.3863 .waxn ct 0000321. Exhibit: L Ataseadero C, *'Council B. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Meeting Date• 8/25/98 1. Zn Chime #97012 (Text1 — 9100 Santa Barbara(Gearhart) Fiscal Impact: None site recommendation: 1)Find Negattve' Declaration adequate,-and 2)Adopt, _.No: 338, waiving the reading in full and i*r;o*e for f rsr reading by ts'tle only) Council Member Lerno stepped down on this item due to a conflict of interest.. Associate Planner Gary Kaiser gave the staff report. He explained the changes in the approved use that the new owner was proposing. Council Member Luna stated that he has no problem with this proposal, however, he would like staff reassurance that sedimentation and erosion control that is required by Atascadero`s ordinances is being fulfilled. Council discussed the issue of changing the access route. Assistant City Engineer John Neil stated that the greater distance between intersections the better they will function. There was also Council discussion concerning a swim club/tennis courts vs: only a golf course.' Mr. Kaiser suggested amending Section (e) to read: "Access is allowed from Atascadero Ave. for golf course use only. Any subsequent proposals to expand recreational uses shall require conditional use permit approval." --NO PUBLIC COMMENT— MOTION: By Council Member Luna and seceiided by Council Member Clay to fwd that the project would not have A riicant environmental effects and that the Negative Declaration prepared for the project is therefore adequate. Motion passed 3:0 by a roll-call vote. (Lerno abstained) MOTION: By Council Member Luna and seconded by Council Member Clay to approve Zone Change#97012 by adopting Ordinance No. 338, waiving the rearing in full and introducing for first reading by title only with the following amendment: Section (e) to read, "Any substantial expansion of recreational.uses be and a"ole olf course shall require preration of s traffic study. The result of that traffic study and recommendation shall appear on the Consent Calendar of the City Council. Motion passed 3:0 by a roll-call vote(Lerno abstained) 2. Sidewalk Mainte —Fiscal Impact: None (City Attorney recommendation: Adopt Ordinance No. 342, waiving the reading in full .. and introducing for first reading by title only.) City Attorney Roy Hanley gave the report. --No PUBLIC CONIIAENT cc 01127198 �: :000033. Exhibit: M Atascadero City Council Sec. 9=4.137 Exterior lightir g. Meeting Date: 8/25/98 The standards of this section are applicable to all outdoor night lighting sources installed after the effective date of this title, ex ept`for street lights located within public rights-ofway and all uses established m the.Agriculture zone.An ele trical'permit may be required by Title,8 (a)Illumination Only Outdoor lighting shall be used for the purpose of illumination:only and shall not be. designed for or used as an advertising display, except as provided by Sections 9-4.130 et seq. (b) Light D' ected onto Lot. Light sources shall be des ed and adjusted to direct light away from any road or street and away . from an dwell' outside the ownershi of the applicant. .(c) Minimization of Li t Intensity. No light. or glare shall be . , transmitted or re. ected in such concentration or intensity as to be detrimental or ho rmful to persons or to interfere with the use of surrounding properties or streets. (d) Light Sou ees to be Shielded. 1 Ground Illuminating Lights. Any light source used for ground area illumination except incandescent lamps of one hundred fifty(150)-:watts or less and light produced directly by the combustion of natural gas or other fuels, shall be shielded from above in such a manner that the edge of the shield is level with or below the lowest edge of the light source. Where any light source intended for ground illumination is located at a height greater than eight (8) feet. the re ired shielding is to extend below the lowest edge of the light source a distance su Ticient to block the light source from the view of any residential use within one housand (1000) feet of the light fixture. (2) Elevated Feature Illumination. Where lights are used for the purpose of illuminating or accenting building walls, signs, flags, architectural features, or landscaping, the light source is to be shielded so as not to be directly visible feom off-site: (e) Height of Light FiXtures. Freestanding outdoor lighting fixtures shall not exceed the allowed height of the tallest building _ on the site, pursuant to Section 94.111. (Ord. 68 § 94.137, 1983) 000034 Exhibit: N .. �. .��u `' C�•(/.�, VJ � masca oro i y Vouncq& _ J f Meet' : 8/25/9 EK ` UWA Wb 7 P.M. � . s �Cz Aug. 15 ' ailabte one week in advance < � only $10.00 for 9.holes 17.00 for 18 holes dust ONE HOURI ' championship golf course 'r`� or) ,a•�c>r. challenging golf oxporienco-featuring � � T.. EN - Hole #6 es available - you name N we can ckag Y , :'�:1�iL t:�7t:• icy.. :1, ,,x; 4u 2{7 R ` tYn1I balls under••the stars - It's awesomel r name of the game and our qualified sit to h 1 you loam to control both '- ra+ction�ifth any of your clubs: = : If club fitting by appointment; high-tech video analysis equipment. CS IL c r xza.v= �xurant open to the public. grast from 6 a.m. to 11 a.m. daily, <. z - 1 er 11 a.m. to 9 p.m. a W 3 p.m. to 6 p.m: daily � .�•:a; VHourM t Y se from X. on our 4,000 sq. ft. patio - overkooktng:the ` ;Lug i �c ^j,a" .•...t a cpurse • • nothing but the best! � a t #fir ►art service, great atmosphere at the start of .I;3000' ascadero Rd.<•x ad G"ff ` 12AAt�'�1' 500 0035 Exhibit: 0 Atascade Ohdii eeting � M ke the Eagle Creek pr ve t consistent with t e Master Plan of . Development • No Driving Ranke No Lights '. ;o Bar/Restaurant • 000036 Exhibit: P Atascadero City Council Meeting Date: 8/25/98 August 25, 1998 Hal Carden Atascadero City Councilman/Mayor Rotunda Building Atascadero CA 93422 Dear Mr. Carden As you no doubt knout by now, the lights at the Eagle Creek Golf Course driving range are causing several problems in the neighborhood. Foremost is the safely issue for those driving on San Antonio Road and/or Santa Clara Road. The lights are blinding as they are aimed directly at that area. Secondly, the fighting as presently set up-violates almost every one of your own Atascadero City ordinances regarding lighting. Thirdly, those whose houses are in the direct glare of the floodlights as presently set up are unable to enjoy their yards or even the insides of their houses due to this intolerable glare. Last, but definitely not lease, the beam lights up the trees and vegetation up to one half mile away which can cause great detriment to the life of animals and birds that depend on darkness for their life cycle. I find it hard to believe that you and your fellow City Councilmen have not already directed staff to have the owner of the lights turn them off until the problem is resolved. I also find it hard to believe that Kelly Gearhart would wish to continue to foul his own nest—the city of Atascadero and surrounding environs—by allowing this to continue. I understand that he will be hiring a lighting engineer to try to mitigate the situation but I see now reason why we citizens should have to suffer in the meantime. Not to mention the legal liability that Mr. Gearhart and the City of Atascadero are exposed to if an accident should occur due to the lights. and the rest of the neighborhood will await your decision regarding this matter but our patience is rapidly running out—one person's business should not be allowed to adversely affect an entire neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, ��/ 'Tit__ a Satter 14080 San Antonio Road Atascadero CA 93422 cc: Jerry Clay Ray Johnson Ken Lemo George Luna Kelly Gearhart City Clerk Atascadero News 0 000037 Good Neighbor outdoor Lighting httpJhvww.pat.orgt—ida/gnol.html Exhibit: Q Atascadero City Council Good Neighbor Meeting Date: 8/25/98 Outdoor Lighting A GUIDE ro SELECTING AND INSTALLING EFFICIENT, COST-EFFECTIVE, AND UN BTRUSIVE OUTDOOR LIGHTING FIXTURES Compiled by the New England Light Pollution Advisory Group(NELPAG) and the International Dark-Sky Association May 1995 Why is there outdoor lighting? Outdoor lighting is used to illuminate roadways, parking lots,yards, sidewalks,public meeting areas, signs,work sites, and buildings. It provides us with better visibility and a sense of security. • When well-designed and properly installed, outdoor lighting can be and is very useful in improving visibility nd safety and a sense of security, while at the same time minimizing energy use and operating co ts. Why should we be concerned? If outdoor lighting is not w 11-designed and properly installed, it can be costly,inefficient,glary,and harmful to the nighttime er vironment.These are the issues: • Glare:Poorly-design ed or poorly installed lighting can cause a great deal of glare that can 000038 1of13 8/25/98 9:01 AM Good Neighbor Outdoor Lighting httpJhvww.gnat.org/ida/gnoLhtnd severely hamper the vision of pedestrians,cyclists,and drivers,creating a hazard rather than increasing safety. Glare occurs when you can see light directly from the fixture(or bulb). • Light Trespass:Poor outdoor lighting shines onto neighborhood properties and into bedroom windows,reducing privacy,hindering sleep,and creating an unattractive look to the area. • Energy Waste:Much-of our outdoor lighting wastes energy because it is not well-designed. This waste results in high operating costs and increased environmental pollution from the extra power generation needs: We waste over'a billion dollars a year in the United States alone lighting up the sky at night. • Sky Glow:A large fraction of poor lighting shines directly upwards,creating the adverse sky glow above our cities that washes our view of the dark night sky,taking away an important natural resource. In addition to the cost savings,less sky glow will allow future generations to enjoy the beauty of the stars, and children will be inspired to learn and perhaps to enter fields of science. What is Good Lighting? Good lighting does its intended job well and with minimum adverse impact to the environment. Good lighting has four distinct characteristics: 1. It provides adequate light for the intended task,but never over-lights. Specifying sufficient light for a job is sometimes hard to do on paper. Remember that a full moon ' can make an area seem quite bright. Some modern lighting systems illuminate areas to a level 100 times as bright as does the full moon! Brighter is not always better,so try to choose lights that will meet your needs without illuminating the neighborhood. If you can't decide what to do, consulting a good lighting designer is usually your best bet. 2. It uses "fully-shielded" lighting fixtures,fixtures that control the light output in order to keep the light in the intended area. Such fixtures have minimum glare from the light-producing source. "Fully-shielded" means that no light is emitted above the horizontal. (High-angle light output from ill-designed fixtures is mostly wasted,doing no good in lighting the ground,but still capable of causing a great deal of glare. Of course, all the light going directly up is totally wasted.) Fully-shielded light fixtures are more effective and actually increase safety, since they have very little glare. Glare can dazzle and considerably reduce the effectiveness of the emitted light. 3. It has the lighting fixtures carefully installed to maximize their effectiveness on the targeted property and minimize their adverse impact beyond the property borders. Positioning of fixtures is very important.Even well-shielded fixtures placed on tall poles at a property boundary can cast a lot of light onto neighboring properties: This"light trespass" greatly reduces and invades privacy,and is difficulty to resolve after the installation is complete. Fixtures should be positioned to give adequate uniformity of the illuminated area. A few bright 000039 2 of 13 8/25198 9:01 AM Good Neighbor outdoor Lighting http://www.patorgl—idalgnolhtial fixtures(or ones tha are too low to the ground)can often create bright "hot spots" that make the less-lit areas in-between seem dark. This can create a safety problem. When lighting signs, position the lights above and in front of the sign,and keep the light restricted to the sign area; overlit signs are acti ially harder to read. Buildings ought to be similarly lit in a way to offer an attractive, safe envi onment without overkill. 4. It uses fixtures wit high-efficiency lamps,while still considering the color and quality as essential design criteria. High-efficiency used for lighting not only save energy-which is good for a cleaner environment-but reduce operating costs.-Most lamps last a long time,reducing costly maintenance. Highly-efficient fixtures usually cost more initially,but the payback time is very short,and such fixtures will save you lots of money in a short time. Balancing against gh-efficiency,ciency,though, is the quality of the light emitted. In some applications, the yellow light ca s by low-pressure(I,PS)or high-pressure(BPS) sodium lamps may not be as desirable as a less-e icient,but much whiter,compact-fluorescent,metal-halide,or even incandescent light s urce. In other applications,color is not of importance, and LPS or BPS lamps do a verygood job t very low cost. Well-designed shielded lights can usually be lower in wattage, saving even more energy and money. They will actually light an area better than unshielded lights of higher output,because they make use of all the light rather than wasting some (or much) of it. Why are these ch racteristics so important? How do they factor into a design? Good lighting means thative save energy and money, and we avoid hassles. A quality lighting job makes a"good neighbor."And w have a safer and more secure nighttime environment. Always remember that ligiting should benefit people. Controlled, effective, efficient lighting at a home or business will enhance tie beauty,while providing visibility, safety, and security.Poorly-installed, bright lighting is offensive and gives a very poor image. 000040 3 of 13 8/25/98 9:01 AM Good Neighbor Outdoor Lighting httpJhvww.gnaLorg/—ida/gnoLhbW EXAMPLES OF SOME COMMON LIGHTING FIXTURES ' POOR GOOD �.5z'a a�.:......,�s t 1 Graund-m wded Top-mounted Bi3lboarl Floodlights Billboard Floodlights j (carefullyfocused onto bilboasd) .v!•• , ,:�} TTom�^:}• r Y Post-s to Lamp a rPs tyle Lamp a (pore than U300 kzmrs) (gypasi� set,9paque top) 4 of 13 � J a'4- 000041 8/25/98 9:01 AM Good Neighbor Outdoor Lighting http:/hvww.gnatorgl idalpol.hbnl MODIFYING EXISTING FIXT S '.<. QUM 1 X11.18.... TO INN Aim DOWNWARDS '1. .\ F1.U{)13L$GHT <' 1 2 p Install VISOR WALLPACK ...........................................................................................................................................»............................................................. C3IAN 111'1115... ,r fU 1'11.1 ... '1'o TO ... �C S <Ir:1,GGT C31DI.ttUE REYE;1i.'JO 51:1t1Ef3t3 Some Thoughts on Cost: Money Talks! There are many cheap lighting fixtures available from most discount warehouse stores and from electrical suppliers.Are these good deals? • Most cheap fixtureE have poor control of the light output, and they produce a lot of glaze. It usually takes better and more-costly internal reflectors to get light out without glare and to give better light distribution. Modifying installed fixtures to reduce glare,or installing more fixtures to better coverage can be expensive. • Cheap fixtures oft e have inefficient lamps and short lamp life, so they use far more energy than needed. Paying for ore electricity than needed is expensive,as is the higher maintenance costs of these so-called" heap" fixtures. Some cost comparisons 000042 6 of 13 8/25/98 9:01 AM Good,Neighbor Outdoor Lighting httpJ/www-gntorg/ida/Snol.hbmi S YEAR OPERATING COST fi 3 FIQTUBE COST =5}0 g TOTAL Iz�¢ ; . TOTAL . a R, S160 , z$t : SAVED >s >:.>:<' z ae < . s• _ �:�,,'.&<i' - _ TOTALPC . . ys.. £ $304 - 4t}: SAVED 1115 a tic.:. #•t t:s.,., 3'^y" TOTAL "�t'tt%ate:':;t:. ... �v?#:flf:t�}'ti �:S'::i;': ��,�•.;£c:J: 300 WATT QUARTZ ' 28 WATT C OHPACT 173 WATT XMCURY 70'WATT HIGH PRSS_ HALOGEN FLUORESCENT VAPOR SOD111KCUT-OFF £ FLOODLIGHT FLOODLIGHT SECURMLIGHT SECURTTFLIGHT SIGN LIGHT AREA LIGHT Some Basic Considerations • Always remember that lighting should benefit people. Controlled,effective, efficient lighting at your home or business will enhance the surroundings and give a sense of safety and security. People don't appreciate poorly-installed,overly-bright lighting. • Check your site at night before installing lighting and note the existing light levels. If the area has low levels of lighting,then modest levels of light will work well for you and will fit more hospitably in the neighborhood- 0 eighborhood• Try to keep the lighting uniform and reduce glare as much as possible. Lights that make bright "hot spots" and ones that have glare make it hard to see well -especially for older people. Be aware that light fixtures can have different lighting patterns. (Some patterns are long and narrow light cones,while others are more symmetrical.)Some fixtures have internal adjustments that can change the lighting pattern to a modest extent. Pick the right pattern for your job. • Consider using lights that turn on by motion detection.Not only will you reap big savings in operating costs,but you will have a far more effective security light due to its "instant-on" characteristics. Note that these lights can also be turned on manually. These light fixtures are not expensive, and they use very little energy.Higher-priced motion-detection units will prove more reliable. 000043 7 of 13 8/25/98 9:01 AM Manufacturers and Suppliers A Selection of Manufacturers and Suppliers of Good Lighting Equipment • Any lamp-no matter how faint-can be annoying in certain circumstances, so it is encouraged that all outdoor ligh s be fully shielded. However, with fixtures that use dazzling lamps(typically all BPS,mercury vapor,and metal-halide lamps,and clear incandescent lamps of 150 watts or greater),the requirement for shielding is imperative. Here is a list of some good lighting fixtures, with manufacturers r suppliers names,product numbers,and addresses(with telephone numbers in parentheses). Please note that this is not a comprehensive list of all good lighting fixtures; these are a sample of those fixtures that h ve come to the attention of NELPAG as of the winter of 1995. As other r quality fixtures are brought to our attention,they will be included in future updates.Please do give us your sugges ions. ABOLITE: 10000 liance Road;Cincinnati,OH 45242 (513-793-8875) GENERAL ELEC Ci"Hendersonville,NC 28739 (800-626-2000) GUTH LIGHTIN : 2615 Washington Blvd.; St. Louis,MO 63103 (314-533-3200) HADCO: P.O. BoN 128;Littlestown,PA 17340 (717-359-7131) HUBBELL LIGH G: 2000 Electric Way; Christiansburg,VA 24073 (703-382-6111) KIM LIGHTING: P.O. Box 1275; City of Industry, CA-91749 (818-968-5666) LUMINAIRE TECHNOLOGIES,INC.: 212 West Main St.; Gibsonville,NC 27249 (910-449-6310) THOMAS&BET S LIGHTING DIV.: 1555 Lynnfield Rd.;Memphis,TN 38119 (901-682-7766) THOMAS OUTD OR LIGHTING(formerly McPhilben Outdoor Lighting): 2661 Alvarado St.; San Leandro, CA PEMCO LIGHTING PRODUCTS: 150 Pemco Way; Wilmington,DE 19804 (302-892-9003) RUUD LIGHTIN : 9201 Washington Ave.;Racine, WI 53406 (414-886-1900) SPERO LIGHT G: 1705 Noble Rd.; Cleveland,OH 44112 (216-851-3300) STONCO: P.O. Box 129;Union,NJ 07605 (908-964-7000) - VOIGHT LIGHTING: 135 Fort Lee Rd.;Leonia,NJ 07605 (201-461-2493) WESTERFIELD: 770 Gateway Center Dr.; San Diego,CA 92102-(619-263-6672) 0 8 of 13 8/25/98 9:01 AM 000044 Good Neighbor Outdoor Lighting httpJ/www.gnat.orgt—ida/giiol.huW In the diagrams,the following abbreviations are used: INC=incandescent;HPS= high-pressure sodium; CF=compact fluorescent;MH=metal-halide;MV=mercury vapor AREA LIGHTS-POLE or BUILDING MOUNTED THOMAS&BETTS KIM LIGHTING American Electric Lighting Series SAR Package "C (Cutoff) BPS MH MV (IFS,MV) High Cost Low Cost i PEMCO RUDD LIGHTING Model 8908X-211-CO. PR Series (BPS,MH,CF,INC) (BPS,MH, CF, INC) `Medium Cost Medium Cost t Opp t _ HUBBELL LIGHTING STONCO Model NPU-BI Series RLM3000 &RMS3000 NITE-TO-LITEtm (BPS, ) (BPS,MV) Medium Cost Low Cost 000045 9 of 13 8125/98 9:01 AM Good Neighbor Outdoor Lighting http://www.pat.orgt—ida/gnol.htird AREA LIGHTS-BUILDING MOUNTED ONLY GUTH 11GHTING SUNDOWNER Series B1870 (CF, ) - KIM LIGHTING Medi Cost Series WD14D WS,MH) High Cost { RUDD LIGHTING MCP BEN OUTDOOR E8 Series Series 1 0 1 & 102 (HPS,MH) (BPS, ) Low Cost High C st </ei.S.S"i t��► + ' VOIGT LIGHTING PRAGN ATIC Series 221 & 222 (BPS, ;MV;CF,INC) Low to I Aedium. Cost COST: i LOW COST: under$100 MEDIUM COST: $100-$200 HIGH COST: over$200 --------------------------------- 000046 10 of 13 8/25/98 9:01 AM Good,Neighbor Outdoor Lighting http://www.gnat.org/—ida/gnol.html SIGN-LIGHTS-FLOODLIGHTS ABOLITE HADCO Series RLM model DWB-1 Series HF4000 with MGS-311 shield (INC) (HPS,MV) Low Cost Medium Cost SPERO LIGHTING HUBBELL LIGHTING Model 705 reflectorl Series 308 bullet with 309-S shield (INC) (INC) Low Cost Low Cost `'STONCO WESTERFIELD Series 940 with 9455E shield Series 500 with Glare shield (INC) (CF) Low Cost Low Cost i 00004'7 11 of 13 8/25/98 9:01 AM Good neighbor Outdoor Lighting http://www.paLorgt--idalgaol.htrd z ROADWAYI,IGHTING GENERAL ELECTRIC Model M-25082 with CUTOFF OPTICS CROUSE HIND (HIPS;MV) Model RAL Seri s ' Medium Cost (HPS,MV) Medium Cost PEMCO LIGHTING HUBBELL LIG TING Model Admiral Hat Model RMC series (BPS,MR CF, INC) (EPS,MH) Medium Cost Medium Cost THOMAS &BETTS American Elect 'c Lighting Roadway Cuto Series 113 & 125 (EPS,MH,MV Medium Cost 000048 12 of 13 8/25/98 9:01 AM Good Ncighbor Outdoor Lighting htq)J/Www.gnat.org/—ida/gno1.htrn1 . . RETROFIT SHIELDS FOR."DUSK TO DAWN" - SECURITY LIGHT 3: HUBBELL LIGHTING LUMINAIRE TECHNOLOGIES Model NPU-BI Lite-Blocker'm NITE-TO-LITE'm SKYCAP >'Fits on all NEMA Head Luminaires Cutoff Optics ow Cost Fits on all NEMA Head Luminaires This pamphlet was produced by the New England Light Pollution Advisory Group(NELPAG), a volunteer'organization established in 1993 to address outdoor-lighting issues locally in the northeastern United States. The chief architect of this pamphlet is Peter Talmage,an engineer residing in Kennebunkport,Maine.Numerous revisions have occurred in the past year,with the main editing by Talmage,Daniel Green,David Crawford, Steve O'Meara,and Joy Hoskins. The NELPAG produces a Circular at irregular intervals, available either via postal mail-by sending self-addressed, stamped envelopes to Daniel Green (M.S. 18, Smithsonian Observatory, 60 Garden St. Cambridge,MA 02138)-or via computer e-mail (send your full name,postal address,and e-mailaddress to :NELPAG-REQUEST@harvee.billerica.ma.us via Internet). The NELPAG also meets occasionally in various locations in New England to discuss local lighting issues. The NELPAG(http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/cfa/ps/nelpag.html)supports the International Dark-Sky Association(http://www.darksky.org) and recommends that all individuals/groups who are interested in the problems of light pollution and obtrusive lighting should subscribe to the IDA .Newsletter(IDA membership costs$30.00 per year; send check to International Dark-Sky Association,3225 N. First Ave.,Tucson,AZ 85719). IDA also issues useful "Information Sheets" and slide sets for use in educational presentations. 0 000049 13 of 13 825/98 9:01 AM Information sheet 76(E&d on No.1,September 993) http://www.gLiat.orgt—ida/iiiio76.hbi Exterior Lighting: Glare And Light'�i'�e�� -- rt: R by i Lndrew S. &osiorek,Centerior energy,Cieveiand, IM%-' Meeting ascadero City Council Date: 8/25/98 information Sbeet itr,September inlyy0 Internation d Dark-Sky Association,3225 N.First Ave.,Tucson,AZ 85719 U.S.A. E-mail:ida(aarksky org -wwvv:http:iiwww.a6dky1org Tf T 1 1 1 llC t 1 UMuto i he increasing desires to i ght exterior areas for safety, security,amenities, commercial activities,ana sports Events makes the pr biem of iight trespass more frequent and compiex. the muititude of lighting products,very often misa Tied, badiy aimed, or poorly designed,results in many complaints. Ulare may be visibie from nearby or c istant areas. rrequentiy the lighting is not confined to the originating property. ;piii fight faitinf over property lines can illuminate adjacent grounds or buildings in an objectionabie manner. i hese are probably the most frequent dight trespass complaints. i he graauai increase or orainances indicate that communities feei that fight trespass is a problem that must be addressed. i his can and has resuited in the creation of iaws and penalties winch are often subjective ana even oven restrictive. i his tact may well hinder the process or getting afforaabie quality fighting installations in the regulated areas due to rear of liability anaior the time ana cost to research Me uesign oI an installation. i he iiiuminating hnginee ing Society of North America(=5NA, or itS)has estabiishea a committee to research the probiems of fight trespass,giare,and sky glow,and,hopefully, whi set guidelines that the iighting industry and communities can follow. As or 093,there is not yet a pubiishea report. 6everai other wS committees are aiso addressing the issues. Solutions tsecause iight spass and glare are quite subjective,they are airficuit to eiiminate, but they can be minimized throu - good design practices. in many cases;aii that is required is the proper placement of poles, seieclion of iuminaire optics, and shielding accessories. i he fact that light trespass is a concern can be reasonably stated in municipai codes. However, overiy rigid reguiations are just as unaesirabie as light trespass itself. i:odes must aiiow for design tiexibinty through a reasonable review Yi irii.aa. requirements should be tten using available measurable parameters. l erms such as "Ware;' "eye discomfort,"and "excessi a brightness," are subjective terms without-scientific backup or guidelines. uminaire optic restrictions should be derinea through mathematical criteria,not the generalized term l "cutoff." Mounting heigh and iighting ieveis shouid foiiow recognized industry practices,but they should have provisions to aiiow a review body to impose restrictions or aiiow exceptions for special circumstances. Recommended d Criteria or Exterior Lighting Ordinances: 000050 i of 3 ail5i9a 9:27 tuvi Information Sheet 76(Edition No. 1,September 1993) http://www.gnatorgt—ida/info76IWnl • Direct Glare:Direct glare is defined as the visual discomfort resulting from insufficiently shielded light sources in the field of view. One should"see the effect,not the light source." Use of the term'direct glare'is recommended in lieu of the word'glare`alone. The direct glare definition means if you can see an unshielded lamp,or the luminaire maximum candlepower zone,you may well have glare. However,-usually when you are near a luminaire,you will-see these parameters,of course. So a reasonable definition limiting the field of view is required. • Limitation of Observation of Direct Glare:Direct glare shall not be observable(outside the originating property limits)at an angle greater than 85 degrees from the nadir of the vertical axis of the light source. This definition is a reasonable one. In practice,it will result in limiting the distance from the light source that you see direct glare to less than ten times the mounting height of the light source. In many cases,it would be approximately six times the mounting height. There are many cutoff luminaire types that can meeting this requirement easily. Also many floodlight luminaires and other area luminaire types with proper installation and shielding can also meet this requirement. • Light Trespass:-Limit the exterior lighting originating on a property to a maximum of 0.5 horizontal foot candles(HFC)at a distance of 25 feet beyond the property lines. This specification will allow the controlled placement of lighting poles and luminaires adjacent to the property lines. With many outdoor luminaires,it is difficult to comply with low level foot candle requirements at the property line. And example A typical 250 watt high pressure(BPS) luminaire at the property line would have about a 5 HFC below the light fixture,but it could be shielded so that there is no more than 0.5 HFC at 25 feet from the property line. • Luminaire Mounting Height: A mounting height of 30 feet allows the use of a variety of luminaires in an energy efficient manner. There should be provisions in any code for needed exceptions, such as for sport lighting installations or other high mast designs. • Illumination Levels: Use the terms horizontal foot candle(HFC)or vertical foot candle(VFC)to define the type of illumination levels and measurements. Recommended illumination levels are published in various IES publications and many luminaire manufacturers. These levels should be followed unless there are adequate design reasons not to do so. Summary These recommendations are far from perfect. Indeed, it is probably impossible to produce an outdoor lighting ordinance that would be perfect for all applications and locales. However,'using-the combination of these lighting design factors will greatly alleviate many complaints and will certainly improve the quality and effectiveness of most all outdoor area lighting applications. Any lighting control code should contain provisions for a ruling body to grant essential exceptions to the code provisions if it .is clear that the intent of the code will still be met. One wants to maximize the creativity-of the designer to produce quality lighting,while at the same time limiting greatly the amount of poor lighting so commonly seen today. Sources: Various IESNA.lishtina industry,and IDA documents. Contact any of these for further information;.especially-note the various other IDA Information Sheets. This material is copyrighted(©)by the IDA,or others as noted. It may be reproduced for 51 Exhibit: S Atascadero City Council Meeting Date: 8/25/98 4 Agenda Item .1. Zone Change 97012: Eagle Creek (Ord. 338) Atascadero Ci Council Meeting August 25, 199 My name is Henry Engen and I live at 9575 Lake View Drive. In 1991 1 was t e City's Community Development Director and I strongly supported this project, which changed the land use designation of this property from I lighway Commercial to a Recreational/Residential Planned Development comprised of a cluster of single family homes and the golf course and to nis complex. Clearly, this was a project much more compatible witt the adjoining residential neighborhood and Eagle Ranch agricultural preserve. Between then and now, however, something has gone terribly awry. The housing looks pretty much as expected, as does the executive golf course. However, the c riving range is visually offensive during the day and a highway safety hazard at night. In reviewing the history of revisions to the project, it is cle ir that the actions of the City Council in passing Ordinance 338 orf first reac ing were dramatically altered in the consent agenda follow- up for second r3ading on February 10, 1998. As we know now, the driving range was then slipped into the project for the first time, leading to this evenings ahem t to repair the record. However, the action proposed is silent on the ke3 question of the legality of the driving range. Au cs.S�-j ea5anY6�. The site's Mast r Plan of Development limits recreational uses to " a golf course and/or lennis and Swim Club". Further, it requires that, "No uses shall be establi hed, or expanded, unless approved pursuant to a Master i�s I '' Plan, following public hearing." I would note at this point that I spoke with the project's on linal designer, Joe Boud, and he can't believe that the City would permit a iriving range on this site, let alone a night-lit one. And it's simply not true that the unplanned project that we have today emits the same amount of light as the tennis court would have. So what to do? If the City wants to legitimize this land use mistake, there has to be a amendment to the Master Plan, accompanied by environmental ieview, and a public hearing, which we don't have this evening. In the r eantime, the City Council should look out for the concerns of the neighbor ood by: 1. Turnin Off the Lights, This is a public safety imperative; there is no ne for a study. so 2. Reciuir:nq Submission of a Master Plan Amendment. That shows the dri ving range as a land use with appropriate environmental evaluation. 000052 Exhibit: T Atascadero City Council Meeting Date: 8/25/98 Date.: August 25, 1998 To: Atascadero city council From: Mike and Judy Murphy 9320 Santa Clara Road Atascadero, Ca 93401 Re: Problems with Eagle Creek Golf Course Project Dear councilmen: This is to inform you of current and potential problems with the Eagle Creek Golf development. These problems have already been outlined to the developments owner, city planning department, city manager, and other governmental agencies. They have had over three weeks to correct the problems. It is imperative that immediate action is taken to solve these problems. Current Problems: 1) Light from the driving range is trespassing onto my property. The light is so bright and intense on my property that I can read and write by the light. The light inundates my home , shines on the walls, furniture, doors, refrigerator, and cabinets throughout the house. As the lights stay on until 10: 00 - 12 : 00 PM each night we have been experiencing sleep deprivation. The intensity of the light shining through our windows is so bright my wife has suffered migraine headaches. 2) The ' light from the driving range is causing a public endangerment. The light is blinding motorists traveling on both San Antonio and Santa Clara roads . This intersection also has two driveways just to the north that are also blinded and further complicates the situation. The blinding light combined with no sidewalks also makes the situation extremely dangerous for pedestrians. This is a case of a fatal accident waiting tq happen 3) Driving range lighting is causing a public nuisance. The light shines intensely on several properties across the 101 highway from the project. The light is so intense it shines into mine and my neighbors windows. This lights up trees, bushes, pastures, yards, as well as, the interiors and exteriors of homes . 4) The lights are not in compliance with city lighting standards. After reviewing the cities lighting standards provided 0 to me by the city planning and building department it has become evident that the lights are not in compliance with any of the standard for outdoor non-sign lighting. This blatant disregard of 1 000053 the standards includes shining light on residences and roadways, insufficient shielding, visible light sources, and light standards in ex ess of building height, as well as other standards. 5) The project is in violation of the California Environmental Q ality Act (CEQA) . This .project was given a negative declaration by the city planning department yet the impact of the lighted driving range has been extreme on both human and wild life in the area. 6) The lig is shining on my property is causing devaluation and damage. Witi the lights so bright on my property and in my house my proper :y would bring significantly less on the open market, if it i5 saleable at all, in this condition. This condition constitutes monetary damages should the problem be allowed to continue. Potential problems: 1) The planning department is making negative declarations that are obviously false or incorrect. For example, the light is a major environmental impact. This leaves the question of what. other environmental impacts are falsely being given negative declarations. This brings the whole planning and review process into question as to its accuracy and honesty. 2) The public review process for the driving'range and driving range lights was completely skipped. Neither of these were brought before the city planning commission or city council for review and discussion. This leaves the question of what else has skipped these review processes and gone straight to the building phase. 3) The question is, has the impact on surrounding wells been adequately addressed? In light of the planning departments inaccuracies ad lack of review I question if the project is in compliance with the 1991 hydrologist report. This report outlines guidelines for mitigating the golf courses need for water through a grey water system and other systems. 4) Another- potential problem, has the drainage and fish and game impact been dealt with correctly. The creek running through the development, is a blue line. This means special care must be taken when dev loping the project especially during grading. This project was graded during the heavy rains of the 97-98 winter, while the cree was running. Also it is very obvious that native habitat has been removed and modified in and around the creek. 2 000054 ITEM NUMBER: . A — 2 DATE: 09/22/98 MINUTES I ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 1998 CLOSED SESSION, 6:30 P.M.: Personnel: City Manager(Govt. Code Sec. 54957.6) r Mayor Carden adjounLed the Closed Session at 6:55 p.m. and City Attorney Roy Hanley announced that there Nvas no action taken. REGULAR SESSION, 7:00 P.M.: Mayor Carden called the Regular Session to order at 7:02 p.m. and Council Member Lerno led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: Present: Council Members Clay, Johnson, Lerno, Luna and Mayor Carden Absent: None Others Present: City Clerk Marcia Torgerson Staff Present: City Manager Wade McKinney, Police Chief Dennis Hegwood, ommunity Services Director Brady Cherry, Administrative Services Director Rachelle Rickard, Community and Economic Development Director Paul Saldana and City Attorney Roy Hanley. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Roll Call MOTION: By Mayor Pro Tem Johnson and seconded by Council Member Luna o approve the agenda. otion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. COUNCIL ANNOU CEMENTS AND REPORTS: Council Member Lune asked for a report on the status of the Carlton Hotel as Mr. Andes has died. Mr. Hanley said he would have a report at the next Council meeting. Also, Council Member Luna stated that he received a call from a citizen on Graves Creek Road who was 000055 concerned about the restoration of gates and fences after the road improvements are completed. Mr. Cherry responded that it is in the contractor's contract that they are to restore all private property to its original condition. Council Member Clay announced that Mark McGuire hit his 62°d home run just before this meeting. Also, he asked Mr. Cherry if we can declare war on the Star Thistle. Council Member Luna stated that the Telegram Tribune had a good article about the Star Thistle. He agreed that we need to address the problem. I COMMUNITY FORUM: Paul Weems, 7982 Santa Rosa Road, stated that he came with an agenda but he is going to put that aside and speak about other issues. He asked the Police Chief to address the speeding on Santa Rosa Road. He also told the Council that he attended the Planning Commission meeting last week and was impressed with the Planning Department's presentation. Bill Bright, 11875 Santa Lucia Road, stated that he has noticed that there are a lot of artists in Atascadero. He suggested the City should set up an artist's tour and have the money go to charity. A. CONSENT CALENDAR: Roll Call 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] Council Member Clay pulled Item#A-1. He explained that he could not support the monitoring program included in this Ordinance. He stated that he does support the Tree Ordinance. PUBLIC COMMENT-None MOTION: By Council Member Luna and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Johnson to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion passed 4:1 by a roll-call vote. (Clay opposed) 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 th Saldana] CC 09/08/98 Page 2 of 6 000056 Council Member Lerno stepped down on this item due to a potential conflict of interest. SCommunity Development and Economic Director Paul Saldana gave the staff report. Council Member Luna asked about the possibility of conditioning this zone change. He stated that on page 25 of the Planning Commission minutes in the staff report, this same question was asked and staff responded that you cannot condition General Plan Amendments or zone changes. Mr. Saldana answered that there are provisions where you can condition this zone change which would only affect this roperty. He explained that it could be done by making amendments to the Resolution. Counc it Member Luna stated that he would like to see that happen. PUBLIC COMMENT Mary Hickey, 7950 Sa to Rosa Road, stated that she lives next door to this site. She explained that she is concerned tliat the proposed plan for the house on this site has it's backyard facing her front yard. She also stated her other concerns and said that the Planning Commission minutes has her complete com ents. Mayor Carden closed Public Comment period. Mayor Pro Tem Johnson asked if these proposed conditions would be different than any other lot in the area. Mr. Saldaiia responded, yes. Council Member Luna said he disagreed. He stated that on this particular property will have access off of an easem nt instead of Santa Rosa Road and the existing site plan has the house not facing Santa Rosa Road. Council Member Clay stated that he feels the use of the Church's easement makes sense rather than another driveway on Santa Rosa Road. Also, he said that he spoke with a gentleman who had been a Planning C mmissioner who told him that a lot of the Public-zoned properties were set up as a holding designation because they weren't sure what to do with them. Council Member Clay stated tl at he did not want to see conditions on this zone change. Mayor Pro Tem Johns n asked for clarification of the access issue. Mr. Saldana responded by saying that previously one of the concerns was another driveway on Santa Rosa Road. Mayor Pro Tem Johnson stated that he could not see requiring a driveway for this site so that the house can face Santa Rosa Road when it could create a dangerous intersection. MOTION: y Mayor Pro Tem Johnson and seconded by Council Member Clay 0 1) 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 he Act; and 2) Adopt Resolution No. 1998-036 approving General Plan Amendment#97009; and 3) Adopt Ordinance No. 353, approving Zone Change#97008, by introducing for first reading by title only. Motion passed 3:1. (Luna opposed) CC 09/08/98 Page 3 of 6 000057 2. General Plan Amendment#98004 and Zone Change#98005— 10841 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 40 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] Council Member Clay stepped down on this item due to a potential conflict of interest. Community and Economic Development Director Paul Saldana gave the staff report and answered questions of Council. Council Member Luna expressed a concern with the AUSD giving up potential school sites. Mayor Pro Tem Johnson asked if the State has reviewed the School District's request. Mr. Saldana responded, yes to the best of his knowledge. Council Member Lerno asked if the 5-acre parcel north of this site is also zoned MF-16. Mr. Saldana responded, yes. PUBLIC COMMENT Larry Finnigan, 505 Country Lane, San Luis Obispo, stated that he is the owner of the Villa Margarita Senior Mobile Home Park which is adjacent to this site. He said that he also owns the two apartment complexes south of the park. He explained that they have had problems with vandalism, arson, and burglaries as a result of the apartments being next to the senior park. If the Council allows high density north of the senior park, it will add to their problems. He asked the Council to reduce the density on this site. Bill Maxwell, 10840 Los Palos, stated that he lives in the Villa Margarita Park. He explained that the apartment building next door has caused problems for the park residents as a result of vandalism, etc. He asked the Council to reduce the density on this site. Joe,Didomenico, 10987 Las Casitas, said he lives in the Villa Margarita Park. He stated that he agrees with previous speakers. They have had problems with apartment building next door. He asked the Council to reduce the density on this site. Mayor Carden closed the Public Comment period. Council discussion ensued. Council Member Luna stated that he could support a lower density. The Council had questions for the School District concerning the density, however,there was no representative present. There was consensus of the Council to continue this stem to next meeting when a representative of the School District could be present. CC 09/08/98 Page 4 of 6 000058 C. MANAGEME T 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] Mayor Carden stepped down on this item due to"a potential conflict of interest and Mayor Pro Tem Johnson chaired t e meeting during this item. i' City Manager Wade McKinney gave the staff report and answered questions of Council. i Council Member Luna stated that he supports Proposition 9. PUBLIC COMMENT Fred Frank, 3615 Ardi la, stated that he supports Proposition 9 and feels that the Council should defer this matter until ey have had a chance to review all information available on this subject. Patricia Frank, 3615 A dilla, asked the Council to support Proposition 9. She explained that the information on this prc position is just now coming out and she asked the Council to defer their vote until they have reviewed all available information. Mayor Pro Tem John on closed the Public Comment period. There was consensus of the Council to defer this item until they are able to review all information on this subject. 2. Desi nation of Voting Delegate—League of California Cities' Annual Conference— Fiscal Impact: None (City Clerk recommendation: Council designate a voting representative nd 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 inforff, the League of the designation) [Marcia Torgerson] City Clerk Marcia Tor 3rerson gave the report. She explained that Mayor Pro Tem Johnson was the only Council Member attending the conference. Mayor Carden appo nted Mayor Pro Tem Johnson as the Council's voting representative at the Annual Business Meeting of the League of California Cities'Annual Conference in October 1998. 3. Information Bulletin CC 09/08/98 Page 5 of 6 000059 D. COMMITTEE REPORTS I Water Committees j Council Member Clay stated that San Luis Obispo County has agreed to pay the additional costs S for the expanded EIR on the Nacimiento Project. Integrated Waste Management Authority Council Member Luna said that they meet tomorrow. City/ Schools Committee Mayor Carden stated that they will be meeting September 14' E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION: City Council Mayor Pro Tem Johnson stated that he and Council Member Luna went to the Cuesta College briefing. Cuesta is looking for support from the communities. There was discussion of setting up distance learning facilities. City Attorney Mr. Hanley stated that he will be attending the League of California Cities' Conference and said that he will attend any meeting Council would like. Mayor Carden asked him to check into the super-vote. F. ADJOURNMENT: Mayor Carden adjourned the Regular Session at 8:00 p.m. to the Redevelopment Agency Meeting immediately following this meeting. MEETING RECORDED AND MINUTES PREPARED BY: Marcia M. Torgerson, City Clerk • CC 09/08/98 Page 6of6 000060 ITEM NUMBER: A - 3 DATE: 09/22/98 n sign 8', Iola 1 ,a City Mana r.'s Agenda Report Wade G. McKinney Gener 1 Plan Amendment #97009, Zone Change #97008 (7930 Santa Rosa Road: Gearhart) RECOMMENDA IONS: City Council adopt Or linance 353 , approving Zone Change#97008, by introducing for second reading by title only. DISCUSSION: Background: On September 8, 1998, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 1998-036 approving a General Plan Amendment designating the subject property Low Density Single Family, a change from the Public designation. The Council also introduced Ordinance 353 approving a change in zone from Public to Residential Single Family (RSF-Z). The issue of"conditio ial zoning" was raised during the Council meeting. Staff responded that it is allowable to apply onditions to a particular property that are not generally applicable to land similarly zoned. T e Planning Commission had also raised the same question. At the Commission meeting, staff reported that conditional zoning was not permitted. Conditional zoning has not been used in Atascadero and it is not specifically provided for in state planning law. Appeals courts have recognized the use of conditional zoning and have generally defined its use. The appeals courts have found that it is allowable to apply conditions to a particular property that are not generally applicable to land similarly zoned. The conditions must be based on several findings of the legislative body that the conditions are necessary to be consistent with the zoning district, implement the general plan and promote the public welfare. The applicant must agree to the conditions! It should also be noted that the court has determined that the conditions cannot require an automatic reversion of the land to its former zoning if the conditions are not met. The applicant for this project has indicated that he would not agree to conditions on the project. He will comply with the requirements of the zone like other surrounding properties. Therefore, the City would not be able to apply the conditional zoning as discussed by the Commission and (Scrutton v. County of Sacramento, 275 Cal.App. 2d 41Z417(1969)) 000061 ITEM NUMBER: A - 3 DATE: 09/22/98 Council. Although the Commission did discuss conditions of approval and were erroneously advised by staff, they would have been prevented from applying conditions by the applicant's unwillingness to accept the conditions. Staff believes that the Planning Commission may have desired in good faith to approve a project that was consistent with the neighborhood by considering conditions to be included with the zoning amendment. Had the Commission been provided with guidelines by which it could conditionally zone the property, it may have generated a recommendation different than the one that appeared on the September 8, 1998 staff report. However, given the Commission's approval without conditions and the applicants' reluctance to accept conditions, additional review would prove not productive. The General Plan Amendment has been approved. The zoning action brings the property in to conformance with the General Plan and provides for residential development of the property. ALTERNATIVES: The Council could refer the matter to the Planning Commission for review in light of the information regarding conditional zoning. Staff did not recommend this alternative because the applicant would not agree to conditions so the Commission would not be able to apply conditions even when they were appropriately advised. RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT: Community Development ATTACHMENTS: A. Ordinance No 353 (as introduced) 000062 ATTACHMENT A ORDINANCE NO. 353 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCA ERO AMENDING MAP 22 OF THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAPS B REZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7930 SANTA ROSA ROAD FROM PUBLIC (P) TO RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY WITH A MINIMU 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 6 860 of the California Government Code; and WHEREAS,the proposed amendment is in conformance with Section 65800 et seq. of the California Gove ent Code concerning zoning regulations; and WHEREAS,tlie proposed amendment will not have a significant adverse impact upon the environment; the Neg tive Declaration prepared for the project is adequate; and WHEREAS,t1le Atascadero Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 18, 1998 and has recomm nded approval of Zone Change 97008. NOW, THEREFORE,the Council of the City of Atascadero does ordain as follows: Section 1. Cc uncil Findin s. 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. Ze ningMap. Map number 2 2 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. 000063 City of Atascadero Ordinance No.353 Page 2 Section 3. Publication. The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published once within fifteen(15) 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; the Clerk shall also certify the adopting and posting of this ordinance and shall cause this ordinance and this certification together with proof of posting to be entered into the Book of Ordinances of the City. Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall 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 TORGERSON, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROY A. HANLEY, City Attorney 000064 ITEM NUMBER: A - 4 ' DATE: 09/22/98 Isis ® i9 e City Manager's Agenda Report Wade G. McKinney FEMA Storm Damage Repair Projects RECOMMENDA ION: Council accept the completed FEMA Storm Damage Repair improvements and authorize the Finance Department tc release the project retention in the amount of$2,060.07 to Nick E. Pokrajac, Inc. DISCUSSION: Resolution No. 1998-012 authorized the execution of an agreement with Nick E. Pokrajac, Inc. to construct the FEMA. Storm Damage Repair Projects. The project was completed on June 20, 1998. The work was and to be in substantial conformance with the plans approved by the City Engineer. FISCAL IMPACT.- The MPAC :The fiscal impact is $2,060.07, previously budgeted and funded with FEMA funds. RESPONSIBLEDEPARTMENT: Community Services Department ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A-Notice of Completion 000065 RECORDING REQUESTED BY: (and when recorded, mail to:) City Clerk CITY OF ATASCADERO 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, CA 93422 NOTICE OF COMPLETION NO TRANSFER OF PROPERTY Notice is hereby given pursuant to Civil Code Section 3093: 1. The undersigned is corporate officer for the City of Atascadero, owner of property hereinafter described. 2. The full name of the owner is the City of Atascadero. 3. The full address of the owner is: 6500 Palma Avenue, Atascadero, CA 93422 4. The nature of the interest.of the owner is in fee. 5. A work of improvement on the property hereinafter described was completed on June 20, 1998. 6. The work done was repair of storm damage at various locations throughout the City of Atascadero, 7. The name of the contractor who performed such work of improvement was Nick E. Pokrajac, Inc. The date contract was entered into was April 13, 1998. 8. The property on which said work of improvement was completed was in the City of Atascadero, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, and is described as follows: storm damage repair on Santa Cruz Road, Santa Ana Road, Los Altos Road, Ramona Road and Enchanto Road. 9. The street address of said property is: Not Applicable Dated: Wade G. McKinney, City Manager City of Atascadero VERIFICATION 1,the undersigned, say that I am the City Manager, declarant of the foregoing Notice of Completion; I have read said Notice of Completion and know the contents thereof;the same is true of my own knowledge. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on at the City of Atascadero, California. Wade G. McKinney, City Manager City of Atascadero 000066 ITEM NUMBER: A - 5 DATE: 09/22/98 oena e p Isis e 1979 City Manager's Agenda Report Wade G. McKinney Annual Street Striping Project RECOMMENDA r rION: Staff recommends that Council award the contract for the annual street striping project to Safety Striping Services, Inc. DISCUSSION: Each year the city cont acts for the repainting of centerlines, turn lanes and bike lanes. Safety Striping Services, Inc. ias previously been awarded this contract and provided a quality product. The street crew does additional painting such as crosswalks and stop bars. FISCAL IMPACT: The low bid for this project is $28,325.36. Funds are available in the 1998/99 budget for this purpose. RESPONSIBLEDEPARTMENT: Community Services ATTACHMENTS Contract Bid Summary Sheet 000067 City of Atascadero Request for Bid#98-11 Pavement Striping AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES OF CONTRACTOR This agreement is made upon the date of execution as set forth below,by and between Safety Striping Services,Inc.,hereinafter referred to as "Contractor", and the City of Atascadero, California, a Municipal Corporation,hereinafter referred to as "City". The parties hereto, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein,hereby agree to the following terms and conditions: 1.00 GENERAL PROVISIONS 1.01 TERM: This agreement will become effective on the date of execution set forth below, and will continue in effect until terminated as provided herein. 1.02 SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED BY CONTRACTOR: Contractor agrees to perform or provide the services specified in "Description of Services" attached hereto as "Exhibit A" hereby incorporated herein. Contractor shall determine the method, details and means of performing the above- referenced services. Contractor may, at Contractor's own expense, employ such assistants, as Contractor deems necessary to perform the services required of Contractor by this agreement. City may not control, direct or supervise Contractor's assistants or employees in the performance of those services. 1.03 COMPENSATION: In consideration for the services to be performed by Contractor, City agrees to pay Contractor the consideration set forth in the amounts and under the terms provided in "Exhibit B",hereby incorporated herein. 2.00 OBLIGATIONS OF CONTRACTOR 2.01 MINIMUM AMOUNT OF SERVICE BY CONTRACTOR: Contractor agrees to devote the hours necessary to perform the services set forth in this agreement in an efficient and effective manner. Contractor may represent,perform services for and be employed by additional individuals or entities, in Contractor's sole discretion, as long as the performance of these extra- contractual services does not interfere with or present a conflict with City's business. 2.02 TOOLS AND INSTRUMENTALITIES: Contractor shall provide all tools and instrumentalities to perform the services under this agreement. BID #98-11 STREET STRIPING 1 000068 2.03 WORKEIUS COMPENSATION AND OTHER EMPLOYEE BENEFITS: City and Contractor intend and agree that Contractor is an independent contractor of City and agrees that Contractor and Contractor's employees and agents have no right to worker's compensation and other employee benef ts. If any worker insurance protection is desired, Contractor agrees to provide worker's com ensation and other employee benefits, where required by law, for Contractor's employes and agents. Contractor agrees to provide worker's compensation and other employee bene ts, where required by law, for Contractor's employees and agents. Contractor agrees to I old harmless and indemnify City for any and all claims arising out of any claim for injury, disa ility, or death of any of Contractor and Contractor's employees or agents. 2.04 INDE IFICATION: Contractor hereby agrees to, and shall, hold City, its elective and appointive boards, officers, agents and employees, harmless and shall defend the same from any liability for dama e or claims for damage, or suits or actions at law or in equity which may allegedly arise fromContractor's or any of Contractor's employees' or agents' operations under this agreement, whether such operations be by Contractor or by any one or more persons directly or indirectly employe J by, or acting as agent for, Contractor; provided as follows: a. That the City does not, and shall not, waive any rights against Contractor which it may have by ieason of the aforesaid hold-harmless agreement,because of the acceptance by City, or the deposit with City by Contractor, of any of the insurance policies hereinafter de cribed. bg . That the a oresaid hold-harmless agreement by contractor shall apply to all damages and claims fo damages of every kind suffered, or alleged to have been suffered, by reason of any of the aforesaid operation of Contractor or any agent or employee of Contractor regardless of whether or not such insurance policies shall have been determined to be applicable to any of such damages or claims for damages. 2.05 INSU NCE: Contractor shall not commence work under this contract until she/he shall have obtained a 1 insurance required under this section and such insurance shall have been approved by City as I o form, amount and carrier: a. Liabil Av and PropeKly PropertyDamage Insurance. Contractor shall take out and maintain during the life of this contract such public liability and property damage insurance as shall protect City, its elective and appointive boards, officers, agents and employees, and Contractor and any agents and employees performing work covered by this contract from claims for damages for personal injury, including death, as well as from claims for property damage which may arise from Contract, whether such operations be by Contractor or by anyone directly or indirectly employed by Contracto , and the amounts of such insurance shall be as follows: BID #98-11 STREE STRIPING 2 000069 (1) Liability Insurance: In an amount not less than$1,000,000 for injuries, including, but not limited to death, to any one person, and subject to the same limit for each person, in an amount not less than $500,000 on account of any one occurrence; (2) Property Damage Insurance: In an amount of not less than$500,000 for damage to the property of each person on account of any one occurrence. (3) Automobile Liability: Bodily injury liability coverage of$500,000 for each person in any one accident and $1,000,000 for injuries sustained by two or more persons in any one accident. Property damage liability of$500,000 for each accident. (4) Worker's Compensation Insurance: In the amounts required by law as set forth in Section 2.03 above. a. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retention: Any deductible or self-insured retention must be declared to, and approved by, the City. The City may require that either the insure reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self- insured retention as respects the City, its elected or appointed officials, employees, agents or volunteers; or the contractor shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of all losses, and related investigation, claims administration and legal expenses b. Proof of Insurance: Contractor shall furnish City, concurrently with the execution hereof, with satisfactory proof of carriage of the insurance required, and adequate legal assurance that each carrier will give City at least thirty (30) days'prior notice of the cancellation of any policy during the effective period of this contract. The certificate of policy of liability insurance shall name City as an additional insured with the Contractor. 3.00 OBLIGATIONS OF CITY 3.01 COOPERATION: City agrees to comply with all reasonable requests of Contractor necessary to the performance of Contractor's duties under this agreement. 4.00 TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT 4.01 Termination on Notice: Notwithstanding any other provision of this agreement, any party hereto may terminate this agreement, at any time,without cause by giving at least 30 days prior written notice to the other parties to this agreement. 4.02 Termination on Occurrence of Stated Events: This agreement shall terminate automatically on the occurrence of any of the following events: • BID #98-11 STREET STRIPING 3 0000'70 (1) Bankruptcy or insolvency of any party; (2) Sale of the business of any party; (3) Death of any party; (4) The end of the thirty (30) days as set forth in Section 4.01; (5) End of the contract period for which Contractor's services were necessary; or (6) Assignment of this agreement by Contractor without the consent of the City. 4.03 Termin Lion by pLny PqEty for Default of Contract: Should any party default in the performance of this agreement or materially breach of any of its provisions, a nonbreaching party, at their option, may terminate this agreement, immediately,by giving written notice of termination to the breaching party. 4.04 Extension of Term: The City,with the agreement of Contractor, is authorized to extend the term of this Agreement beyond the termination date, as needed, under the same terms and conditions set foith in this Agreement. Any such extension shall be in writing and be an amendment to this Agreement. 5.00 SPECIAL PRO ISIONS: 5.01 Licensin : The Contractor shall possess a Class A General Engineering Contractor's license or a Class 32 icense at the time this contract is awarded. 5.02 Guarantees: The Contractor shall furnish two acceptable surety bonds; one for faithful performance and one for labor and materials. The faithful performance and labor/materials guarantees shall be 100 percent each, of the accepted bid. 5.03 Prevailing Wage Rate: Pursuant to Section 1770, et.seq. of the Labor Code of the State of California, the Director of Industrial Relations of the State of California has ascertained the general prevailing rate of hourly wages and rates for legal holidays and overtime work in the locality where this work is to be performed for each craft or type of worker or mechanic needed to execute the contra t which will be awarded to the successful bidder. The prevailing rates are on file in the City Cl rk's office, Room 208, in the City Administration Building, 6500 Palma Avenue, Atascadero, California, and are available to any interested party upon request. It shall be mandatory upon the contractor to whom the contract is awarded, and upon any subcontractor under the contractor, to pay not less than the said specified rates to all laborers,workers, and mechanics employed by them in the execution of the contract. 6.00 MISCELLANEOUS 6.00 Remedi s: The remedies set forth in this agreement shall not be exclusive but shall be cumulative with, nd in addition to, all remedies now or hereafter allowed by law or equity. 4 BID #98-11 STREE STRIPING 4 000071 6.01 No Waiver: The waiver of any breach by any party of any provision of this agreement shall not constitute a continuing waiver or a waiver of any subsequent breach of this agreement. 6.02 Assignment: This agreement is specifically not assignable by Contractor to any person or entity. Any assignment or attempt to assign by Contractor, whether it be voluntary or involuntary, by operation of law or otherwise, is void and is a material breach of this agreement giving rise to a right to terminate as set forth in Section 4.03. 6.03 Attorney Fees: In the event of any controversy, claim or dispute between the parties hereto, arising out of or relating to this agreement, or the breach thereof, the prevailing party shall be entitled, in addition to other such relief as may be granted,to a reasonable sum as and for attorney fees. 6.04 Time for Performance: Except as otherwise expressly provided for in this agreement, should the performance of any act required by this agreement to be performed by either party be prevented or delayed by reason by any act of God, strike, lockout, labor trouble inability to secure materials, or any other cause except financial inability not the fault of the party required to perform the act, the time for performance of the act will be extended for a period of time equivalent to the period of delay and performance of the act during the period of delay will be excused; provided, however, that nothing contained in this Section shall exclude the prompt payment by either party as required by this agreement or the performance of any act required by this agreement or the performance of any act rendered difficult or impossible solely because of the financial condition of the party required to perform the act. 6.05 Notices: Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, any and all notices or other communications required or permitted by this agreement or by law to be served on or given to any party to this agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed duly served and given when personally delivered or in lieu of such personal service when deposited in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid to the following address for each respective party: A. City of Atascadero Department of Community Services 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, CA 93422 B. Contractor: Safety Striping Service Inc. P.O. Box 669 Visalia, CA 93279 BID #98-11 STREET STRIPING 5 000072 6.06 Governin a Law: This agreement and all matters relating to this agreement shall be governed by the lawsof the State of California in force at the time any need for the interpretation of this agreement or any decision or holding concerning this agreement arises. 6.07 Bindin ffect: This agreement shall be binding on and shall insure to the benefit of the heirs, executors, administrators,successors and assignees of the parties hereto, but nothing in this Section shall be construed as a consent by City to any assignment of this agreement or any interest in this agreement. 6.08 Severabil t : Should any provision of this agreement be held by a court of competent j urisdictioi i or by a legislative or rulemaking act to be either invalid, void or unenforceable,the remaining provisions of this agreement shall remain in full force and effect, unimpaired by the holding, legislation or rule. 6.09 Sole and Entire Agreement: This agreement constitutes the sole and entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. This agreement correctly set forth the obligations of the parties hereto to each other as of the date of this agreement. All agreements or representations respecting the subject matter of this agreement not expressly set forth or referred to in this agreement are null and void. 6.10 Time: Time is expressly declared to be of the essence of this agreement. 6.11 Due Autl iorily: The parties hereby represent that the individuals executing this agreement are expressly authorized to do so on and in behalf of the parties. 6.12 Construc ion: The parties agree that each has had an opportunity to have their counsel review this agreement and that any rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved againsi the drafting shall not apply in the interpretation of this agreement or any amendments or exhibits thereto. The captions of the sections are for convenience and reference only, and are not inte ded to be construed to define or limit the provisions to which they relate. 6.13 Amend ents: Amendments to this agreement shall be in writing and shall be only with the mutual written consent of all of the parties to this agreement. 6.14 Additional Work: any additional work authorized by the City shall be performed at the unit price stated cn the bid. Executed on , 1998 , at Atascadero, California. BID #98-I1 STREE STRIPING 6 000073 Attest: CITY OF ATASCADERO By: MARCIA M. TORGERSON HAROLD L. CARDEN, III City Clerk Mayor Approved as to form: By: ROY A. HANLEY Contractor City Attorney (Please print or type name. of Contractor) Contractor's License Number i BID #98-I1 STREET STRIPING 7 0000'74 City of Atascadero Request for Bid#98-11 Pavement Striping EXHIBIT A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED BY CONTRACTOR Contractor shall paint approximately 373,890 linear feet pavement striping, using reflective paint to various City streets per bid specifications. (See attached Exhibit B) BID #98-11 STREE STRIPING 8 0000'75 City of Atascadero Request for Bid#98-11 Pavement Striping EXHIBIT B The agreed upon bid amount will be paid subject to the completion of services requested, inspection, and acceptance by the City Representative,within 30 days from the date of completion. No progress payments will be made. BID #98-11 STREET STRIPING 9 0000'76 City of Atascadero Request for Bid # 98-11 Pavement Striping ATTACHMENTS TO BID: _ Page 8 Signature page of Invitation to Bid. j i Page 9 Bid Response Sheet. Page 10 Contractor's Licensing Statement Form. (Attach copy of license.) Page 11 Worker's Compensation Insurance Certificate. Page 12 Bid Bond. (Or a certified check or cashier's check.) _ Pages 13-20 Agreement For Services. Above items, as a minimum, to be presented in triplicate in a sealed envelope to the attention of the City Clerk by 2:00 p.m., Friday,August 21th, 1998 Room 208, 6500 Palina Avenue,Atascadero, California 93422. BID#98-11 STREE7 STRIPING 10 0000'7'7 STREET STRIPING CONTRACTORS MAILING LIST. 7-98 Safety Striping Attn: Fred 1830 No. Kelsey Visalia, CA 93291 Safety Striping Svc., Inc. P.O. Box 6940 Ventura, CA 93006 Stan's Asphalt 5090 Bennett Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 State-Wide Striping Attn: Lois Perry 522 Inga Road Nipomo, CA 93444 Super Seal and Striping 1662 Lirio Ave. Ventura, CA 93004 Williams, Inc. 2728 W. McKinley Fresno, CA 93728 Works Striping & Marking 4270 Elton Baldwin Park, CA 91706 MORENO STRIPING SERVICE FRED S. MORENO, OWNER P.O. BOX 848 GOSHEN,CA 93227-0848 (209)636-0151 s BID #98-11 STREET STRIPING 11 0000'78 C * Z Y of A taseadero Office of the City Clerk BID SUMMARY TO: Brady Ch rry, Community Services Director FROM: Marcia M. Torgerson, City Clerk BID NO.: 98-11 OPENED : 08/21/98 2:00 p.m. PROJECT: Pavement Striping (3)bids were received and opened today, as follows: Bidder Total Bid Safety Striping Service,Inc. $28,325.36 P.O. Box 669 Visalia, CA 93279 Moreno Striping Service $30,603.36 P.O. Box 848 Goshen, CA 93227 Works Striping&Markffig Service, Inc. $51,688.90 4270 Elton St. Baldwin Park, CA 9170 Attachment: 3 bids 0000'79 ITEM NUMBER: A - 6 DATE: 09/22/98 _ rias iae i City Manager's Agenda Report Wade G. McKinney 1997 Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Program RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends a thorization for the Police Department to purchase specialized police supplies and equipn ent allocated under the 1997 Local Law Enforcement Block Grants (LLEBG) Program. DISCUSSION: Back rg ound: The B eau of Justice Assistance has awarded the City of Atascadero $21,733 under the 1997 Loca Law Enforcement Block Grants Program. The purpose of the LLEBG Program is to reducc crime and improve public safety. The funds can be used for procuring equipment, technolog and other material directly related to basic law enforcement functions. One of the grant rec uirements was to assemble an advisory board to approve the proposed purchases. The board was assembled on 7/23/98 and was comprised of representatives of the following: the local police department, prosecutor, court system, school system and a local non- profit community gr up. The advisory board concurred that specialized police equipment including bullet resist mt body armor, 2-way radios, time lapse surveillance equipment, video and audio recorders, cornputer software, crime scene investigation supplies, dispatch chair, and replacement shotguns for patrol were appropriate uses of these grant funds. FISCAL IMPAC,r: None. (The City's required 10% match of funds will be easily met through the ongoing r urchase of specialized police equipment.) RESPONSIBLEDEPARTMENT: Police Department 000080 ITEM NUMBER: B - 1 DATE: 09/22/98 is-M 1;e i CAIoi City Manager's Agenda Report Wade G. McKin my General Plan Amendment 98004 and Zone Change 98005 (10801 El Camino Real; AVSD) RECOMMENDA IONS: The Planning Commission recommends that: 1. The Council find 1he Negative Declaration prepared for this project to be adequate under the provisions of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act and the State and local guidelines for the implementation of that Act. 2. The Council adopt Resolution 1998-035 approving General Plan Amendment 98004. 3. The Council ado t by Title only, waiving first reading, Ordinance 352 approving Zone Change 98005. DISCUSSION: Back rg ound: Genera Plan Amendment 98004 and Zone Change 98005 were submitted on July 22, 1998 and are bein considered as a special cycle of general plan amendments as authorized by the City Council o August 11, 1998. At the conclusion of heir 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. Analysis: General Plm Amendment 98004 would change the land use designation of one (1) parcel located at 1080 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 Unif ed 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 000081 ITEM NUMBER: B - 1 DATE: 09/22/98 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. i i The property located to the north, south, and west of the subject parcel is designated and zoned 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 ITEM NUMBER: B - 1 DATE: 09/22/98 ALTERNATIVES: As an alternative to the 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 re ult 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 )ther residential uses. RESPONSIBLEDEPARTMENT: Community Development ATTACHMENT31: 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 000083 ATTACHMENT A .a CITY OF ATASCADER0 CAN] i0 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 i 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. w 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. DETERNIINATION: 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: -000084 ATTACHMENT B Location Map General Plan Amendment#98004 10801 El Camino Real(AUSD) 1.0 9 1 �\ SITE / JH �Q e l� � VIEJO Cq NO �o io qEq c , o� m � a 4P �O <` N 'o qV£ 000085 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 000086 Exhibit A; and i (b) Approve Zone C hange 98005 amending the Zoning Map as shown on Exhibit B; and BE IT FURTHER RES LVED 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 ADOPIED THIS 18h DAY OF AUGUST, 1998. On motion by Commissi oner Eddings, and seconded by Commissioner Sauter the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Eddings, Sauter, Hageman, Fonzi, and Zimmerman NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: Clark ABSTAIN: Commissioners: Arrambide ADOPTED: August 18, 1998 CITY OF ATASCADERO, CA ZY Nlidhael Sauter, Vice-'Chairman Attest: Paul M. Saldana Community Developme t Director 00008'7 EXHIBIT A General Plan Map Resolution PC 1998-023 General Plan Amendment#98004 10801 El Camino Real (AVSD) / 2 J� N �y 6° v r �6 .y VINO //I \� N 70 \OJT F( C4M/NO 'o Rf 4C N EXISTING DESIGNATION: "Public" NEW DESIGNATION: "High Density Multiple Family' 000088 EXHIBIT B Zoning Ordinance Map Resolution PC 1998-23 Zoning Ordinance Amendment#98005 10801 El Camino Real (AUSD) a -Al �w ry 6 vP / Od Al1'ejo �\ qM �o E� c q NO i� p AfgC ti 1. EXISTING DESIGNA ON: Public(P) NEW DESIGNATION: Residential Multiple Family(RMF-16) 000089 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 'ronmental Q ity Act. Motion: dings Second: San r AYES: Eddings, Sauter, ageman, Arrambide, Fonzi, Z' erman NOES: None ABSENT: Clark MOTION PASSED: 6:0 ACTION: That the Planning Commi ion adopt Res 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 Chance 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(R11OF-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) 000090 Planning Commission Meeting-August 18, 1998 Page Five of and the State 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 RECOMME ATION: (Steven DeCamp) Staff recommends that the Commission: 1. The Commissi n 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. 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 ide stepped down for this item only Steve provided the stai T report suggesting that Resolution#PC 1998-023 be amended to include public notice appeal period language. Commissioner Zimmerman- explained that the City Council voted to accept this General Plan Amendment in to this 13eneral 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. Box 1990- asked what the City's requirement was for introducing General Plan Amendments orig nating outside the City. Steve explained that under State law, there are four(4) opportunities 4 luring the year to initiate changes in the General Plan. The City Council has decided that they would reserve two of those opportunities for themselves; allowing two (2) 000091 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 1 and October 1 cycles but it is uncommon. Chairman Zimmerman inquired whether.this amendment was included retroactively into the April 1'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 000092 Planning Commissio Meeting-August 18, 1998 Page Seven of ACTION: The Commission adopts Resolution#PC 1998-023, as amended, recommending. that the 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 Irrambide rejoined the Commission. . . . . . 000093 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. 000094 Resolution No. 1998-)35 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 TORGERS N, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO ORM: ROY A. HANLEY City Attorney 00009,E IC a � 1 �jky r�� .rte �.,...:,,►.a:J� 1 .�..;• � ��5.1� �� - rrrr � 1 1 ter■■ ■ ORDINANCE NO. 352 ATTACHMENT F AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCA1 ERO AMENDING MAP 23 OF THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAPS B REZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED A r 10801 EL CAMINO REAL FROM PUBLIC TO RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE FAMILY (ZC 98005; AUSD) WHEREAS, the proposed zoning map amendment is consistent with the General Plan as required by Section 6516J0 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 Neg tive Declaration prepared for the project is adequate; and WHEREAS, the Atascadero Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 18, 1998 and has recomme ided approval of Zone Change 98005. NOW, THERE ORE, 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 pro osal is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element and other element contained in the General Plan. 3. The pro osal will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts. The Negativy,Declaration prepared for the project is adequate. Section 2. Zoning-Map. 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 Atascadero 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 postiql, 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. 00009' Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shalleffect sord an e s al go into 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 VU(1(%ytj EXHIBIT A Zoning Ordinance Map Ordinance 352 Zoning OrdinancePmendment#98005 10801 El Camino al (AUSD) SITE _err CSM/r � � Boy a� •10 MF )(PD7Y a c / J IFJO r e 0 P FH 4M�N0 �o fc \ C (Fl ) pp -R S F ' R S_ as �L -O r\ � EXISTING DESIGNA ON: Public(P) NEW DESIGNATION: Residential Multiple Family(RMF-16) 000099 .�� � � h CITY OF ATASCADERO a ..IMF iais 7a OFFICE of the CITY CLERK TO: All Citizens of Atascadero FROM: Marcia M. Torgerson, City Clerk SUBJECT: City Council Meeting September 22, 1998 Item #C-1 Falcon Cable Franchise Agreement DATE: eptember 21, 1998 i The attached copy of Atascadero Ordinance No.. 137 is Atascadero's franchise agreement with Falcon Cable. This Ordinance references Exhibits A, B and 'C which are already included in the staff report for this item. 6500 PALMA AVENUE ATASCADERO,CA 93422 • (805) 461-5074 - Y i �' • ORDINANCE NO. 137 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO MENDING CERTAIU SECTIONS OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY ORDINANCE NUMBER 1202 , ADOPTED DECEMBER 13 , 1971, AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF ATASCADERO JULY 2 , 1979 RELATING TO THE COMMUNITY ANTENNA TELE- VISION SYSTE11 FRANCHISE IN ATASCADERO. The ouncil of the City of Atascadero ordains as follows : SECT ON 1 . Section One of San Luis Obispo County Ordinance Number 1202 ad pted on December 13 , 1971 , is hereby amended to read as follows : Section 1 A non-exclusive franchise to construct , operate and maintain a CATV System within the incorporated City boundaries of Atascadero (hereinafter called the Area of Franchise) , is hereby • granted to Falcon Cable TV System Company (hereinafter referred to as Grantee) , for an additional period of ten years from the date of passage of this Ordinance until the year 2001 . The grant of non- exclusive franchise shall vest in Grantee all of the rights and privileges of, and shall. subject Grantee to each and all of the provisions of Chapter 6 . 48 of the San Luis Obispo County Code (Incor- porated by Ordinance of the City of Atascadero July 2 , 1979) , and of this document, and in the event of any conflict between the provisions of said Chapter 6 .48 and the provisions . of this document , then the provisions of this document shall prevail. SECTION 2. Section three of San Luis Obispo County Ordinance No. 1202 adopt d on December 13 , 1971 , is hereby amended to read as follows. • Section 3 All rates and charges for Cable TV Service e over which the City has jurisdiction now or hereafter under the rules -1- and regulations of the Federal Communications Commission, shall . be expressed by Resolution of the Council. Grantee shall provide CATV services to the City of Atascadero and public schools without costs as follows : (1) Grantee shall provide one free CATV outlet and one free monthly CATV subscriber service to each public school within the Area of Franchise, and one free CATV outlet and free monthly CATV subscriber service to the City of Atascadero. (2) Grantee shall provide for the use of all public school systems within the Area of Franchise and the City of Atascadero ex- clusive use of one channel to be used by the public schools and the City of Atascadero for informational purposes. Grantee shall broad- cast , at no expense to any of the said public schools in the City of Atascadero a teletex type system for public messages in an alpha . numeric format. As a condition of Grantee' s performance of the services required by this sub-paragraph (2) shall be that the said public school systems and the City of Atascadero make reasonable efforts to coordinate their use of Grantee' s equipment and personnel with Grantee to the end that Grantee' s business will not be sub- stantially impaired. It is the intent of this Section to allow for public access through the City of Atascadero and the public schools within the franchise boundary to all non-.profit organiza- tions and civic groups , including churches , without reservation as to content, subject only to the requirement of public information, the resources of the Grantee and the proposed teletex system. SECTION 3. Section Four of San Luis Obispo County Ordinance Number 1202 is hereby amended to read as follows : • Section 4. Grantee shall pay to the City of Atascadero on or -2- "-before April 1 , of ich year the following fr; hise fees ,. based upon gross revenues from whatever sources : 1986 37 1987 4% 1988 et seq. 5% Gross revenues shall mean any and all compensation and other consideration collected or received or in any manner gained or derived by Grantee from the operation of its CATV service within Area of Franchise under this Franchise Grant. SECTION 4 . Section 20 shall be added to Ordinance No. 1202 of the County of San Luis Obispo as follows : Section 20. Grantee shall extend a distribution line at no cost to anv subscriber than usual connection fees in all instances where there exists a single family residential or subscriber density as follows: (1) Forth or more single family residence connections • or subscribers per plant mile, as measured along the path or route most reasonable for extension of a distribution line. (2) If adjacent to an existing distribution line, eight or more single family residence connections or subscribers Der one thousand fifty six feet, as measured along the path or route most reasonable for extension of a distribution line. If the Grantee is not required to extend a distribution line at no cost to the subscribers pursuant to Subsection 1 and Subsection 2 of this Section, then Grantee shall extend a distribution line in accordance witLi the Agreement set forth in Exhibit "A" attached to this ordinance. Any person or persons. desiring CATV service within the Franchise Area not subject to Subsection 1 or Subsection 2 of this Section, 3hall enter into a written Reimbursement Agreement to subscribe t3 Grantee CATV service and pay to Grantee, in advance of construction of the said extension, a one time only premium installation charge in accordance with the formula set forth in Distribution Line Extension, Policy attached to the Agreement as Exhibit "B" . Pursuant to said Agreement , and this Franchise Agreement , Grantee shall pay all refunds within thirty days of the close of the years service to the subject distribution line extension. No refund shall be made to those parties subscribing after the close of the fifth year of service to the subject distribution line exten- sion. In no event shall the aggregate amount of the refunds payable hereunder exceed the premium installation chare paid by any sub- CD,scirber. SECTION S . The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be published once within fifteen days after its passage in the • Atascadero News , a newspaper of general circulation, printed, pub- lished, and circulated in this City in accordance with Government Code Section 36933; shall certify the adoption of this Ordinance; and shall cause this Ordinance and its certification to be entered in the Book of Ordinances of this City. SECTION 6 . This Ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and effect at 12:01 A.M. on the thirty-first (31st) day after its passage. The foregoing Ordinance was introduced on June 23 1986 , and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on July 14, 1986 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS HANDSITY, MOLINA AND MAYOR MACKEY i NOES : COUNCILWOMAN BORGESON ABSENT COUNCILWOMAN NORRIS -4- ITEM NUMBER: C - 1 DATE: 09/22/98 i ■'i i!® s iais ® is e \ CAI). City Mana A Fer's Agenda 'Report Wade G. McKinney Falcon Cable Franchise Agreement RECOMMENDATION: Council authorize the City Manager to send a letter to Falcon Cable indicating that the City will extend the Franchise Agreement if the cable television system is upgraded to a Hybrid Fiber, Coax, 750 MHz systc in with a minimum of 72 channels. DISCUSSION: The current cable television franchise agreement expires in 2001. Many community members have expressed dissa isfaction with the current system because of the number of channels and the quality of the picture Falcon has upgraded the system in the surrounding area improving both channel selection an system quality. This has further frustrated the City residents. Because the franchise agreement I las only three more years, Falcon has been reluctant to invest the necessary capital to upgrade the system. The City's franchise igreement is non-exclusive, meaning another operator could service the Atascadero market. However,the physical plant necessary to provide service, requires such a large investment that it is unlikely that another operator would enter the market. Atascadero's land use pattern posses unique problems to a competitive market. The lower densities enjoyed in Atascadero translate o fewer customers per mile for the cable television system. This means there is more equip nt required to service the Atascadero customer,translating into higher costs for service and potentially a lower return on investment. Other operators would not likely see Atascadero as an attractive market. City staff has negoti ted with Falcon Cable as directed by Council and has reached an agreement. The agreement is simply put; if Falcon upgrades its system the City would then extend the franchise for ten ye s. This guarantees the upgrade to City residents that they desire. It also provides the necessafy assurances to Falcon so that they make the investment. Is A separate but depe ent issue is PEG access. The City currently does not require PEG access in the franchise agreem nt. The issue arose nationally after the initial franchise agreements were in place. The City Attrney found in his research that the City cannot require PEG access as a condition of renewal or extension unless we conduct the renewal hearing process. The renewal 000100 ITEM NUMBER: C - 1 DATE: 09/22/98 hearing process is a lengthy two stage formal process that provides renewal of the franchise unless the City can make specified findings of inability to provide adequate service. Falcon Cable is voluntarily willing to discuss the inclusion of PEG channels as part of the extension. Consistent with the law, the City or ratepayers pay all costs of the PEG access. Cable subscribers in the County pay an additional $.21 per month for PEG. These funds are placed into a special account to pay to support the PEG system. PEG may be funded from the current franchise fee. However,the current franchise fee is an essential element to the already strapped General Fund. The franchise fee is designed to reimburse the City for the cost of having Falcon's equipment in the public right of way. This includes wear and tear on the streets, the shortened life due to street cuts and construction work, and the necessary administration costs to oversee the relationship. It would be a direct negative impact on the General Fund to divert dollars to the PEG program. Falcon Cable did conduct a survey at the request of the City to get general feedback regarding PEG. This is not a scientific survey and should not be used to extrapolate percentage approval/disapproval ratings across the customer base. The information is as follows: Question 1: As a Cable Customer, would you be interested in PEG programming in Atascadero? Yes Maybe No 78 58 286 Question 2: Would you be willing to pay for PEG with an additional $.21 per month? Yes No 87 335 Customer comments from the survey are attached. FISCAL IMPACT: Falcon expects an increase of 10%of revenues. This would have a positive effect on the City's 5%franchise fee. However,these expectations may be optimistic. Customers who have already moved away from Falcon would likely not come back as they have already made the necessary capital outlay to use an alternate system. It should reduce the number of customers leaving the Falcon system. If this scenario is true,there would likely be no increase in franchise fee as a result of this action. PEG would have a financial impact, either on the City or the ratepayers. Currently County subscribers pay an additional $.21. 000101 ITEM NUMBER: C - 1 DATE: 09/22/98 ALTERNATIVES: 1. The Council could initiate the formal renewal hearing process. This would be a complete review of the franc iise agreement. Staff does not have time budgeted for this project and would be unable to appropriately implement it unless other City priorities are altered. Most of the City priorities at this time cannot be avoided without future penalty. There are consultants that specifically work on these type of issues. Staff has found general costs for consultants in this ea to range from$3,000 to $20,000. Staff time would still be required. It appears that the I'kely outcome would be the system upgrade as is proposed in this report, therefore staff has not recommended this alternative. 2. The Council could require Falcon to provide for PEG access. The Council would need to determine the fund ng mechanism for PEG. There would be a negative financial impact by adding PEG therefore staff did not recommend this alternative. ATTACHMENTS: 1. PEG Access Surve for City of Atascadero 2. Falcon Cable Franchise Agreement 3. Summary of Rebuild Plan and 10-Year Franchise Extension Request 000102 S 0 N o a) to 0Cn CD n Cu E L E -c i Ca 0) 0) r r-- C) 0) to c U QO - M M LO ►n CO Co C'7 O N W N (�. O M E _ to -- N 3 C a) C L .. U Cu Q > N Q to a) O O c �. O O O N a) N - ' O C M Q O a) v O - ' r N O — >, (n O C E 0 c to `�- ca Cu C: Co C0 N -I N LO f- •a) CO O O c C Can i a 0 r N 00 N a)= O E a) to 0 Cm C O C C as } U X w m 0 -a E0 :E a) N = 0) N () a) .. Co 4- S, 4 O m Ca c CM O U v0- c Ca >, Cu o >, C � C - Z' a) L O O L c 0 7 O L to O N :_. O O Cu c � = //tw�o CU N cO a j O N 3 �V L U E *0 L � u O 3o �tSc00cLaC4 >, OEca W t3 L Q) N C `� O c O >,.c CY Q. E c L � -C 3 E— N U CO cn c . Y f o o v��i ai0 C Ca o `a c to 0 _ r-' c -0 E c 0- 0 Ca 0 n 'a =ocvma� cOmoa� o Q-- O a) -0 0 >, C ,L a .' C O - 0 (D3 to C �►- O Q«- a) N N a) L -NdL 3 O co ca (n Qicroa) � >, c � 20E .� 30 to Cu LO CU O O c () a) .. 0 a) O 3 � O C CD M M Nt 'CT ul Ce) LO � Co Q) N ZCm a) _ m a co a) c ., 3 `�° C v cNC Cu `nn0a L 0 coi a c 0 0 2 ate) � N c N v CU U = Cu E o) rn >, E w LO ao 'q Co (0 00 o m r Lf) _ a) Cu ami (7 c 'v c UE }Q O rn ma) 4) Z = 06 (L) c LY > o � '0 a) a } Cu Cu o m 0 E c _ m N `m c 0 Cu w � � -0 = c �p U Q > `� a) C Co o.- 0 a) a) � Cu 6 x C- IL) m (D _ � c � � co _ mtn � Ca Co LU i � QNU � � .. - v) E c .0 Cu Q aCa 0m o = c) c Aocc Cu 0 � v. CD � C) V N Co o O> C L to - 0 0 3 c N �U � � Q N ti O U c Amin ;= -0 to E m >, N o 0 o Co U) LL v•` � 0 (D -0 cca - Co - cu EQ o to O a) C� d � amiCn c � -0(D cc � � LX � = CY c z � � _ m o -0 0) m o (n � c mV Q� U J w a) -Z 0 � C) :3rn� cam .- y � c Q CL (D cz >, rnQ)� — to o c o > N mQw Cu U Cu m c •O o ca C O C 00 co 00 00 O n to -0 n - Co C c cfl is . c CO) ao rn rn rn 0) rn O U w a) w T � Q a) a) 0) � c to `�' a) � C °) M O r- — O 1-- 3 to LLI > � Q) L 0 -0 c`a N O m a C - C`O ` N N M c v- a 0 a) > °) Co L Cu c .0 c V p ' O a) N 00 00 w O >,d ` "� > c O 0 0 0 r, a) to -O U L V O O O O O O U to fa N a) U -c ca . O aa)) ate) 0) a)aa)) ate) (D t~ a) a) 0 �.3um) 0m0c � o0a' (D-- W m a) a) () m a) s � o Cu �dQF Z � HL 3 `n 000103 EXHIBIT "A" CABRE TELEVISION LINE EXTENSION AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the Applicant ha applied for and received preliminary approval of Cable Television extension, from Falcon Cable TV System Company and, WHEREAS , th Applicant desires to obtain said cable television line extension f om Falcon Cable TV System Company for performance of the requirements made a condition thereof, NOW, THEREFORE, THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this 14th day of JULY , 19 86, by and between of the City of A ascadero , State of California, hereinafter referred to as "Applicant' , and the Falcon Cable TV System Company , herein referred to as "Company"; WITNESSETH: In consideration of the mutual promises , agreements , covenants and conditions set forth herein, and in consideration of said cable television line extension, the parties hereto do hereby mutually covenant and agree as follows : 1 . The applicant shall make payment in advance to Company for the cost of construction of cable television line extension as out- lined in Distribution Line Extension Policy, Exhibit B, and as shown on the plans thereof as approved by the Company which are attached hereto marked "E hibit C", and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth, to-wit: 000104 Payment referred to hereinabove is the amount of $ itemized as follows : P = ( N -40 ) The stated charges do not include the specified monthly service charge . 2. The payment to the Company shall be the total of the cost estimate, as listed in Paragraph 1 above, to complete the cable television line extension, including, but not limited to, the cost of labor, materials , inspection, engineering, and administration. 3. Permission is hereby granted by Applicant to the Company, or its authorized agent, to enter upon the land which is the subject of cable television line extension for the purpose of inspection of any an/or all of said improvement work to be constructed or installed under this agreement. 4 . Upon completion of the cable television line extension, title to the cable television distribution line extension shall vest in the Company and shall constitute a portion of the Company' s overall distri- bution system. The applicant shall however be entitled to reimbursements in accordance with the following provision: a. The applicant, shall up to five (5) years from the date of signing the form agreement, be entitled to a refund for each connection later made to the main extension, based on the pro-rated cost as determined for each subscriber per the line extension formula. 5. Neither party to this Agreement shall assign or transfer this Agreement or any interest therein without the prior written consent of the other party. 6. Any waiver by Company of any failure by Applicant to comply with any term or condition of this Agreement shall not be construed as a waiver by Company of any similar or other failure by Applicant -2- 000105 to comply with any term and condition.of this Agreement. 7 . The following terms and conditions shall be met by Applicant prior to start of construction pursuant to this Agreement: a. That applicant shall clear a right-of-way for said cable television line extension to satisfac- tion of Company, to include acquisition of permits , if required. IN WITNESS XAEREOF the applicant and Company have executed this Agreement on the day and year first hereinabove set forth. APPLICANT COMPANY: FALCON CABLE TV SYSTEM COMPANY BY: 000106 EXHIBIT I'D" DISTRIBUTION LINE EXTENSION POLICY Grantee shall extend a Distribution Line at no cost to any subscriber in all instances where there exists a residential or subscriber density as follows : (1) Forty (40) subscribers per mile as measured along the path or route most reasonable to extension of a Distribution Line. (2) If adjacent to an existing Distribution Line, eight or more subscribers per One Thousand Fifty Six Feet (1056) , as measured along the path or route most reasonable for extension of a Distribution Line. If Grantee is not required to extend a Distribution Line at no cost to subscribers , then Grantee shall extend a Distribution Line in accordance with the formula set forth below, but in only those instances when each of the factors "P " "p IT lip "P It and "P 111 ' 2 ' 3 4 ' 5 are greater than zero. The person or persons desiring CATV service shall enter into written agreements to subscribe to Grantee' s CATV service and pay to Grantee, in advance of construction of the said extension, a one time only premium installation charge in accordance with the formula set forth below: DISTRIBUTION LINE EXTENSION FORMULA __ (A B) P 1 (N 4U) (A _ B) P2 (Nl 40) (A B) P3 - (N2-4- P4 (N3-4-9 (A B) P5- (R4-4-6) -1- 000107 Where: , P1 = premium installation charge per subscriber for all i parties subscribing prior to commencement of CATV servicE to the subject Distribution Zine Extension and fo the first twelve (12) months thereafter. P2 = premiUnL installation charge per subscriber for all parties who commence subscription for CATV service during the second year service is available on the subject, Distribution Line Extension, but never to exceed P1 . P3 = premium installation charge per subscriber for all parties who commence subscription for CATV service during the third year service is available on the subject Distribution Line Extension, but never to exceed P2. P4 = premitm installation charge per subscriber, for all parties who commence subscription for CATV service during the fourth year service is available on the subject Distribution Line Extension, but never to exceed P3. PS = premiun installation charge per subscriber for all parties who commence subscription for CATV service j during the fifth year service is available on the subject Distribution Line Extension, but never to i' exceed P4 . A = actual cost in labor and materials to construct Distri ution Line Extension. -2- 000108 B = $11 ,377. 00 per mile or an amount approved by the County Engineer as hereinafter provided. N = original number of parties agreeing to subscribe prior to the commencement of service to the subject Distribution Line Extension. N1= number of subscribers on the subject line extension on the last day of the first year of service to the Distribution Line Extension. N2= number of subscribers on the subject line extension on the last day of the second year of service to the Distribution Line Extension. N3= number of subscribers on the subject line extension on the last day of the third year of service to the Distribution Line Extension. N4= number of subscribers on the subject line extension on the last day of the fourth year of service to the Distribution Line Extension. Premium installation charges are in addition to the monthly service charges and installation charges established by the Resolution. No premium installation charge shall be made to any party who subscribes after the close of the fifth year of CATV service in the extended service area. No premium installation charge shall be made to a new subscriber where all previous subscribers have been totally reimbursed for the premium installation charges they have paid. At one year intervals for a period of three years after commencement of service in the extended service area, Grantee will review the numbe-0 of subscribers receiving: -Service from such Distribution Line Extension -3 000109 ` for which a premium installation fee has been charged and make refunds to those subscribers in the extended service area at the close of the pre ious year if there has been any increase in the number of subscribers . Said refunds shall be calculated in accordance with the followi g formulas : ( B) R1 = P1 - (I 1-40). R2 = (P2 - N -40) ( .8 ) 2 R3 = (P2 (A - B) ( .6) N3 40 R4 = (P2 - ( - B) ( .4) N 4 ' 40 R5 (P2 (N 4B ( '2) 5 , Where: R = first year' s refund is payable to •each subscriber on the subject Distribution Line Extension at the close of the first year' s service to the Distribution Line Extension. R2 second year' s refund is payable to each subscriber on the subject Distribution Line Extension at the close of the second year's service to the Distribution Line Extension. R3 third year' s refund is payable to each subscriber on the subject Distribution Line Extension at the close of the third year' s service to the Distribution Line Extension. R4 fourth year' s refund is payable to each subscriber 000110 on the subject Distribution Line Extension at the close of the fourth year' s service to the Distribution Line Extension. R5 = fifth year' s refund is payable to each subscriber on the subject, Distribution Line Extension at the close of the third year' s service to the Distribution Line Extension. P1 = initial and first year premium installation charge as calculated pursuant to the Distribution Line Extension Formula. P2 = second year premium installation charge as calculated pursuant to the Distribution Line Extension Formula. P3 = third year premium installation charge as calculated pursuant to the Distribution Line Extension Formula. P4 = fourth year premium installation charge as calculated pursuant to the Distribution Line Extensidn Formula. P5 = fifth year premium installation charge as calculated pursuant to the Distribution Line Extension Formula. A = actual cost in labor and materials to construct Distribution Line Extension. B = $11 ,377.00 per mile or an amount approved by the City Engineer as hereinafter provided. N1 = number of subscribers on the subject Distribution Line Extension on the last day of the first year of service to the Distribution Line Extension, not to exceed forty (40) . N2 = number of subscribers on the subject Distribution Line Extension on the last day of the second year of service to the Distribution Line Extension, not to exceed forty (40) . 000111 ' t N = J number of subscribers on the subject Distribution Line 3 Extens on on the last day of the third year of service to the Distribution Line extension, not to exceed forty (40) . N4 = number of subscribers on the subject Distribution Line Extension on the last day of the fourth year of service to the Distribution Line Extension, not to exceed forty (40) . N5 = number of subscribers on the subject Distribution Line Extension on the last day of the fifth year of service to the Distribution Line Extension, not to exceed forty (40) . Grantee shall be responsible for providing documentary evidence to the City Engi eer supporting any change in constant "B" in the formulas set forth above. The constant "B" shall not be changed without prior approval o the City Engineer. . In no event shall such change in constant "B" ffect any premium installation charge or reimbursement for Distribution Line Extensions which commenced or .completed construc- tion prior to the change in constant "B". In the even that Grantee includes equipment or facilities or capacity in or OIL the Distribution LinetExtension in excess of that needed to provide the type and level of :service prevailing in the franchise area w erein the extension is being accomplished, . then Grantee shall be,'EX the full cost of the same and no charge shall be made to any subscriber for such excess equipment, facilities , or capacity. At any time that the actual cost in labor and materials to construct a Distribution Line Extension (A) exceeds the constant "B" of $11 ,377 .00 per mile or an amount approved by the City Engineer, Grantee shall submit to the City Engineer documentary evidence 000112 supporting the said actual cost of construction. Grantee shall report to the City Engineer the particulars of the various charges , costs and expenses to subscribers on each line extension implemented hereunder. r _7_ 000113 EXHIBIT. "C'1 PROJECT NAME DISTRIBUTION LINE EXTENSION FORMULA End End End End End Original Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 TOTAL (A) Actual Cost A A A A A A (N) # of Subs N N1 N2 N3 N4 N5 � =11 - Install Cost (P) - sub. P P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 Install Cost - TOTAL Refund per (R) sub R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 Total Refund v Total Cost to Customer Total Cost to Co. ' DISTRIBUTION LINE E_ ENSIGN FORMULA REFUND FOR11ULA P = (A - B) R = P - (AB) B) 1 (N 40) 1 1 (Nl 40) P2 (N1 47-) R2 (P2 (N2 4-U A B ( .8) P = (A - B) A B 3 (N2 40) R3 = (P2 (N -40) ( .6) 3 P4 (N3-40) R4 - (P2 - (A B 40) S (N4_ ( '4) __ (A B) 4 P 40) A B RS = (P2 - (N 5-40) ( .2) 000114 FALCON CABLE TV SYSTEM COMPANY i LINE EXTENSION ESTIMATE Name of Project Boundaries of Project: Number of Passings : Underground Footage: Overhead Footage: Total Footage: Number of Poles: Number of Signed Agreements : N _ 11 377 = P Material Total (Includes tax and freight) Labor In house (Includes OH @ 100%) Contractor TOTAL Engineering In house (Includes OH @ 1007) Contractor Telephone Power Other (Explain) TOTAL TOTAL COST (A) 000115 SUMMARY OFR BUILD PLAN AND 10-YEAR FRANCHISE EXTENSION REQUEST Falcon Cable TV's existing franchise with the City of Atascadero will expire in 2001. The demand from the loc I consumers is for more cable television programming, and improved signal quality. This can be achieved by rebuilding the existing cable system in the City, however with only 3 lears left on the current franchise Falcon could not invest the estimated 4 million dollars for thiE project without the security of a longer term agreement. Falcon is asking the City to extend th current franchise agreement for 10 more years, and Falcon will rebuild the City's cable system to a state-of-art telecommunications system with a minimum of 72 channels of program ning. The planned completion date of the rebuild is December 1999. THE "EXISTING" SYSTEM The current cable system in the City is over 20 years old, with out-dated equipment, and out- dated technology. T is system has a capacity of 300 megahertz (MHz), which means it can only carry a maximuin of 36 analog television channels. It is designed and built with the old technology of the "Trunk-Tree" coaxial system, which utilizes a cascade, or series of amplifiers. These cascades of amplifiers are up to 32 in series, and are like links in a chain, if one fails every customer beyond that point is out of service. The amplifiers also produce noise and distortions that multiply in effect through the long cascades. THE "NEW"SYSTE The new system rebLjild will be an HFC (Hybrid Fiber, Coax), 750 MHz, two-way capable state-of-art telecommunications system. HFC systems utilize fiber optic cables to feed "nodes" (or hubs) within the ommunity that represent clusters of 500 homes. From these "nodes" coaxial cables distrit ute the signal to the homes, schools, and businesses. Amplifier cascades are kept to a miniML m of only 4. We will utilize stand-by power supplies at the "nodes" to keep the system operating during commercial power failures. The 750 MHz capacity will support 80 analog television channels, with additional capacity for over 500 "Digital" television signals, and two-way capability to provide future data and multi-media services. ECONOMIC AFFECT OF THE REBUILD We have estimated I he cost of the rebuild at 4.2 million dollars. Nearly half of this cost will be for Labor. The people working on this project will be a mix of outside professional contractors and locally hired personnel. Most of their income will be spent here in the City, during this project, on lodging, rent, food, gas, entertainment, etc. The other half of the costs will be in material, mainly fibe optic & coaxial cable, connectors, amplifiers, and electronics. During 1995 - 1996, Falcon rebuilt the cable system in San Luis Obispo County to an HFC, 750 Mhz system. Locally based contractors and vendors received over $600,000 in business directly related to the rebuild project. Some of these vendors were; Mc Namara Electric, Decou Lumber, Poo Richards Press, Best Western Colony Inn, B&H Communications, Thoma Electric, The Timber Smith, Kahler Construction, Vikimatic Sales, and Taylor Rentals. With the addition of new programming service packages and options, we expect an increase of nearly 10% in average revenue. This will also provide an increase in franchise fee revenue 01 to the City. Falcon pays the City 5% of its total gross revenue annually in franchise fees. 000116 ITEM NUMBER: C - 2 DATE: 09/22/98 1818 1979City Man aA Fer's Agenda Report Wade G. McKinney Request by Wil-Mar Disposal for Approval of Stock Merger with U.S.A. Waste Management RECOMMEND TION: Staff recommends Council approve request by Wil-Mar Disposal for approval of stock merger with U.S.A. Waste Management. DISCUSSION: Background: Atas adero has a franchise agreement for waste disposal with Wil-Mar. The agreement contemplates that the rights of the franchisee may be transferred. The City can refuse consent to the transfer only under reasonable circumstances. These circumstances are limited and include only those factors that objectively lead to the conclusion that the transferee will not be able to perform as re isonably well as the transferor. These factors include the financial stability of the parties, the a ility to do the work and the ability to provide adequate service. Only objective factors can a considered in making this determination. Wil-Mar Disposal is selling its business to USA Waste of California. USA Waste is a wholly owned subsidiary of Waste Management Industries. The stated intention is that the merger contemplates that the current key management personnel responsible for the operations of Wil- Mar will retain their positions and continue to supervise the operations. USA Waste promises that their greater resources and guidance will help the business operate profitably. Staff has reviewed the operati ns map for Waste Management Industries, their 1997 annual report, the required filings before the Securities and Exchange Commission and a certified copy of the financial report of the responsible transferee. The review indicates that the proposed transferee is experienced in the b siness, has a long history of supplying these services, and is in a stronger financial position than is Wil-Mar. There do not appear to be any legal grounds upon which the City could deny approval of the merger and consequent assignment of the franchise agreement. In the past, there has been concern regarding the solid waste facility that Wil-Mar uses for Atascadero Waste. They currently use the Chicago Grade Landfill that is the shortest haul. They have no plans to change where the waste is deposited. USA Waste of California operates the Paso Robles Landfill. The franchise agreement does not govern which landfill the hauler uses. Based upon staff rev' w the landfill issue would not prevent the assignment of the agreement. 00011'7 ITEM NUMBER: C - 2 DATE: 09/22/98 Conclusion: The available objective evidence supports the ability of the proposed transferee to perform and leads to the conclusion that the City could not successfully refuse permission for the assignment. FISCAL IMPACT: Staff feels the transfer will have no significant fiscal impact. We do not anticipate any increase in the franchise fee nor any decrease or other expenses to the general fund as a result of the proposed transfer. ALTERNATIVES: The City must respond in a reasonable time. The council could, at this time, table a decision on approval and direct staff to make further investigation. Staff does not recommend this alternative because the financial status of the proposed operator is so significantly better than the existing operator that staff time is not likely to develop any objective facts upon which a denial could withstand legal challenge. RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT: City Manager/City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: (1) Operations Map . :1 000118 �* K• • A � s • • �. W PM � z WV' C. ,c r F * • *• * _ CO • ** 1 • • 4 y10 T T 000120 ITEM NUMBER: C - 3 all ®s ,�� j - DATE: 09/22/98 iris ® i e CAD��j City Manager's Agenda Report Wade G. McKinney Information Bulletin A. EMPLOYEE UPDATE Linda Fredericks Office Assistant I Separated 09/11/98 Scott Shanks P/Time Recreation Leader Resigned 09/01/98 Jennifer Ryan P/Time Scorekeeper Hired 08/28/98 Andy Michaud P/Time Recreation Leader Hired 08/31/98 Jeffrey Wilshusen Police Officer Hired 09/98/98 000121