Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 08/26/1985 s — • NOTE: THERE WILL BE A CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS PERSONNEL, LABOR NEGOTIATIONS AND LITIGATION MATTERS IN THE CLUB ROOM (4TH FLOOR AT 6 :30 P.M. AGENDA - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting August 26, 1985 ATASCADERO ADMINISTRATION BUILDING A. CONSENT CALENDAR NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Item A, Consent Calendar, are considered to be routine, and will be enacted by one motion in the form listed below. There will be no separate discussion of these items. If discussion is required, that item will be removed from the Consent Calendar and will be considered separately. Vote may be by roll call. 1. Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of August 12, 1985 (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) • 2. Treasurers Report - July 1 - 31, 1985 (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) 3. Finance Director ' s Report - July 1 - 31, 1985_ (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) 4. Authorization for Mayor to Enter into Agreement with California Mens Colony (CMC) for Unskilled Labor 5. Tentative Parcel Map 18-85 - 10655 San Marcos/10670 Realito Miller/Kennaly Engineering (Division of 5. 32 Acs into 2 lots of 2.66 Acs. each) 6. Tentative Parcel Map 17-85 - 4.650 Portola Road - Parsons/ Kennaly Engineering (Division of 6 .28 acs into 4 lots of 1. 57 acs. each) 7. Tentative Parcel Map 19-85 - 3600 E1 Camino Real - Sevcik and Thomas/Twin Cities Engineering (Property Line Revision to Create 2 lots from 3 existing lots) 8. Tentative Parcel Map AT 830311: 1 - 3100/3150 Ardilla Road Davis/Twin Cities Engineering (Time Extension to Complete Conditions of the Tentative Map) • 9. Lot Line Adjustment 3-85 - 12650 San Cayetano (Lot 29, Block 57) , Charnley/Twin Cities Engineering (Property Line Adjustment to Allow for Additional Building Site) 1 • 10. Lot Line Adjustment 7-85 - 6505 Santa Cruz and 1335 Garcia (Lot 18, Block 48) - DeWelt/Stewart (Property Line Adjustment to Allow for Better Building Sites) 11. Lot Line Adjustment 8-85 - 6295 and 6305 Flores - Staver/Kennaly Engineering (Lot Line Adjustment to Allow Existing Structures to be on One Lot) 12. Authorization for Mayor to Enter into Lease/Purchase Agreement for IBM Model 60 Copier 13. Proposed Resolution 82-85 - Approving Memorandum of Understanding Between the City of Atascadero and Service Employees International Clerical Bargaining Unit 14. Proposed Resolution 87-85 - Approving Memorandum of Understanding Between the City of Atascadero and Service Employees International General Services Bargaining Unit 15. Proposed Resolution 88-85 - Approving Memorandum of Understanding Between the City of Atascadero and the Atascadero Fire Captains Bargaining Unit 16. Proposed Resolution 89-85 - Approving Unrepresented Employees Change in Benefits • 17 . Proclamation of Appreciation to Georgene Kreinberg for Outstanding Services 18. Proposed Resolution 83-85 - Opposing Delay and/or Elimination of Highway Projects within San Luis Obispo County Currently Approved in the State T ansportation Improvement Program. B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES AND REPORTS 1. General Plan Amendment 2F-85 - 2300 Ramona - Gaughan - Revision of Zoning from Suburban Single Family Residential to Commercial Retail (PUBLIC HEARING) (Proposed Resolution 74-85 - Denying General Plan Amend- ment 2A-85) 2. Community Development Block Grant - Review of Grantee Performance Report, FY 1984/85 and Consideration of Time Extension and Agreement Amendment C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. A. Ordinance 111 - Adoption of City Development Impact Mitigation Tax on New Construction (SECOND READING) 2 • B. Proposed Resolution 64-85 - Implementing Development Mitigation Tax Pursuant to Ordinance No. 111 2. Proposed Ordinance 112 - Establishment of Traffic Committee (FIRST READING) D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Traffic Committee Recommendations for "No Parking" Sign Installation: A. Proposed Resolution 84-85 - Prohibiting Parking on the east side of El Camino Real, from Solano to Casada B. Proposed Resolution 85-85 - Prohibiting Parking on the west side of El Camino Real, from the corner of Santa Rosa extending 1000 feet north 2. City Attorney Response on Conflict of Interest (Verbal) 3. Council Discussion Regarding Development Standards (Requested By Mayor Nelson) • E. ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT (Council will recess and convene as the Atascadero County Sanitation District Board of Directors) 1. Proposed Annexation of Portions of Marchant Way into the Atascadero County Sanitation District: A. Proposed Resolution 86-85 - Establishing Assessment District Boundaries (Lots 73-87) B. Appointment of Engineer for Sewer Design (The Board of Directors will adjourn and reconvene as the City Council) F. COMMUNITY FORUM G. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION • 1. City Council 2. City Attorney 3. City Clerk 4. City Treasurer 3 • 5. City Manager ADJOURN COUNCIL MEETING TO BUDGET STUDY SESSION ON SEPTEMBER 3, 1985 AT 7: 30 P.M. AND SEPTEMBER 7, 1985 AT 8 :00 A.M. 4 JA MINUTES ATASCADERO AY COUNCIL Regular Meeting August 12 , 1985 , 7 : 30 p.m. • Atascadero Administration Building The Regular Meeting of the Atascadero City Council was called to order at 7 : 30 p.m. by Mayor Nelson, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. The in- vocation was given by Rev. Bob Kenagy, Berean Baptist Church. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmen Molina and Handshy, Councilwomen Mackey and Norris And Mayor Nelson. Absent: NONE STAFF Mike Shelton, City Manager; Grigger Jones , City Clerk/Int. City Attorney; Sgt. Bill Watton, Police Dept. ; Mike Hicks , Fire Chief; Henry Engen, Plan- ning Director; Paul Sensibaugh, Public Works Director; Georgene Kreinberg, Admin. Personnel Analyst; Cindy Wilkins , Deputy City Clerk. STAFF COMMENT David Morton, new Maintenance Worker II , was introduced by Mike Shelton, City Mgr. , and Paul Sensibaugh, Public Works Director. Mike Shelton noted the new Council/Planning Commission podium at, which the • Councilmembers are seated tonight, and he expressed recognition for David Crouch, Sr. Building Maintenance Worker , who ' s responsible for its con- struction. A Certificate of Appreciation has been prepared for David; as he wasn't present, Mayor Nelson read the certificate aloud and the audience acknowledged with applause. COUNCIL COMMENT Councilwoman Mackey announced that there will be a Save Our Trees gathering tomorrow night at the Historical House, Atascadero Historical Society. A. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of July 22 , 1985 (RECOM- MEND APPROVAL) 2. Minutes of a Special Study Session (Development Tax) of June 26 , 1985 (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) 3. Ordinance No. 109 - Approving Zone Change 4-85 by H.L.S . Proper- ties, Ltd. (Associated Professions) to Amend Zoning Map from Residential Suburban to Commercial Neighborhood at 1875 El Camino Real (Lot 31 , Block 49) (Cont ' d from 7/22/85) SECOND READING ADOPTING ORDINANCE 4. Community Transit Services Contract Renewal - 7/1/85-6/30/86 • (Dial-A-Ride Services) (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) COUNCIL MINUTES - 8/12085 PAGE THREE 1 . A. Proposed Ordinance 111 - Adoption of City Development Impact Mitigation Tax on New Construction (PUBLIC HEARING) B. Proposed Resolution 64-85 - Implementing Development Mitiga- tion Tax Pursuant to Ordinance No. 111 C. Proposed Resolution 81-85 - Pertaining to Fees for Interim School Facilities (revised to provide for collection prior to issuance of Building Permit instead of at time of appli- cation) Henry Engen, Planning Director , gave staff report. Public Comment Bunn Turnbow, Exec. Dir. , N. County Contractor ' s Assn. , spoke , on behalf of the Association' s 350 members , in opposition of Ord. 111 ; they don't feel as though it ' s a fair ordinance and discrim- inates against the construction industry. Whitey Thorpe , Atascadero resident for some 40 years, spoke in opposition of Ord. 111 , as well as against the fees for interim school facilities; he feels both are unfair taxes , and the City' s budget can be cut back to provide funds for necessary improve- ments. Mayor Nelson-and -city Manager, Mike Shelton, announced that a budget session hearing is scheduled for all day Sat. , Sept. 7 , 1985; anyone interested in what the City ' s finances are for the next fiscal year and in the use of its planned monies is encour- aged to attend. Ron Harvey, a 10-year Atascadero resident and member of the Con- tractor's Assn. , would like to see projects/needs earmarked and brought to the public as separate funding issues; he' s not in favor of construction fees going into the General Fund, believ- ing government will grow to absorb its budget. MOTION: By Councilman Molina to read Ord. 111 by title only , deleting exception "e" on page 4 of the ordinance, seconded by Council- woman Mackey; passed unanimously. Mayor Nelson read Ord. 111 by title only, stating the deletion of exception "e" . MOTION: By Councilman Molina that this constitutes the first reading of Ord. 111 , seconded by Councilman Handshy; passed unanimously. Res. 64-85 will be carried forward for 2 weeks to be further dis- cussed along with Ord. 111 at the Aug.. 26th Council Meeting. MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey to Approve Res. 81-85 , seconded by Coun- cilman Molina; passed 4 : 1 by roll-call vote , with Councilwoman Norris voting NO. COUNCIL MINUTES - 8/105 0 PAGE FOUR' 2. General Plan Amendment 2A-85 - 2300 Ramona - Gaughan - Revision of Zoning from Suburban Single Family Residential to Commercial Retail - (PUBLIC HEARING) (Proposed Resolution 74-85 Denying General Plan Amendment 2A-85) Henry Engen, Planning Director, gave staff report. Pat Gaughan, the applicant, requested a continuance on this item; due to an illness in the family, he has not had necessary time to complete his drawings for review at public hearing. MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey to continue Item B-2 (2300 Ramona) to the Aug. 26th Council Meeting, seconded by Councilwoman Norris; passed unanimously. 3. General Plan Amendment 2F-85 - 5655 Ardilla - Rehbock - Revision of Zoning from Low Density Single Family Residential to High Den- sity Multiple Family (PUBLIC HEARING) (Proposed Resolution 46-85 Approving General Plan Amendment 2F-85) Henry Engen gave staff report, followed by Council discussion. Public Comment Jayne Sacks , 7-year Atascadero resident , residing on Ardilla, __.. spoke in opposition of the proposed GPA 2F-85 , mainly because of the already dangerous traffic condition of the corner intersec- tion. at Traffic Way and Ardilla. Andrea Schulte , who resides on San Gregorio Rd. , agreed with Mrs. Sacks ' s comments about the extremely bad and dangerous traffic conditions in the area of the proposed GPA, suggesting that Coun- cilmembers drive by that area during peak traffic hours to observe. Debra Kankiewicz , who resides on Viejo Camino , expressed her op- position to the proposed GPA based on traffic safety concerns , such as the previous two speakers. Caroline Rehbock, applicant and residing on Ardilla, responded to Council comment that reducing from 16 to 10 per acre would be suit- able. MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey to approve GPA 2F-85 (5655 Ardilla) , with change in zoning to Low Density Multiple Family - 10 per acre, seconded by Councilwoman Norris; passed 5 : 0 by roll-call vote. 4. General Plan Amendment 2G-85 - 8205 Coromar Road - Lopus Revision of Zoning from Moderate Density Single Family Residen- tial to High Density Single Family Residential (PUBLIC HEARING) (Proposed Resolution 75-85 - Approving General Plan Amendment 2G-85) Henry Engen gave staff report, emphasizing that this issue took ale considerable amount of time before the Planning Commission before COUNCIL MINUTES - 8/1#5 PAGE FIVE coming to Council, and he referred Council to the extensive back- ground materials included in the agenda packet. Planning staff recommended against the change , and it was recommended for approval on a 4 : 3 vote. Council conferred with Mr. Engen on the Planning Commission's recommendations and their suggested alternatives. Mr. Engen men- tioned that a new set of material has been submitted, which will have to be reviewed before the Planning Commission, proposing the creation of a subdivision on the Iverson property. Public Comment John Kennaly, the applicants ' engineer , indicated they are in support of the Planning Commission' s review of the new informa- tion and would be willing to supply any sewer information that the Council feels might help them in making a decision. John Lopus , the applicant, spoke in favor of the GPA so they can go ahead with their original plans at the time of purchasing the property in the 1970 ' s , which was then zoned for `2- acre minimums. Dorothy Lopus , co-applicant, spoke in favor of the Planning Com- mission' s decision and urged Council support; they've been waiting seven years to add an additional building to accommodate their own family members. Roy Moss , who resides on Coromar Ave. , questioned why this excep- tion for the General Plan is being done , to which Mr. Engen responded that the Lopus single lot request lead to expanding the area for consideration to the total street frontage. Jack Stinchfield, representing Clark Iverson, who owns 3 parcels in the area under consideration, spoke of his support for z acre zoning. Celia Moss , 8040 Coromar, expressed opposition of the GPA. Herb LaPrade, 6480 Santa Ynez , representing Bill Mullens , who is in a hospital in Santa Barbara, expressed his support of the GPA. Mr. Mullens owns 4. 8 acres on Coromar. Vince Sullivan, owner of 8730 Coromar , spoke in favor of the GPA. Bob Stoner, 8635 Coromar , spoke in support of the GPA. Phoebe Watson, owner of 8055 Coromar since 1955 , spoke in support of the GPA. Debbie Sullivan, owner of 8730 Coromar , spoke in support of GPA. Terry Hood, who lives on Cascabel in Atascadero , inquired as to the locations of the (34) non-conforming vs. (22) conforming lots in the area under consideration for GPA, to which Mr. Engen res- ponded. She also inquired as to which lots are and are not yet developed. COUNCIL MINUTES - 8/105 PAGE SIX ' Dorothy Lopus , co-applicant, responded to some of the comments of earlier speakers. Discussion came back to Council. MOTION: By Councilman Molina to include the five-acre lots in the 2 acre study area all the way to Atascadero Ave. , seconded by Council- woman Norris; motion failed by 3:2 roll-call vote , with Council members Mackey, Handshy and Nelson voting NO. MOTION: By Councilman Handshy to send item back to the Planning Commis- sion to consider the new data proposing a street connection from Coromar to Atascadero Ave. and to get staff response on the sew- er impact situation; seconded by Councilwoman Mackey. Motion passed unanimously. 5. General Plan Amendment 2H-85 - 8760 Curbaril - Hohenstein - Revision of Zoning from Moderate Density Single Family Residen- tial to High Density Multiple Family Residential (PUBLIC HEARING) (Proposed Resolution 47-85 - Approving General Plan Amendment 2H-85) Henry Engen gave staff report. Hank Hohenstein, applicant, spoke in support of the proposed GPA, citing the density would be consistent with that of the property across the street from his , and he regards to divide densities atle rear property lines - rather than down the middle of the street to be good planning principles; he added other reasons why he urges Council support Pat Glakeler, owner of 8780 , which is the adjacent property, in- dicated she fully supports the proposed GPA to high density. Cecile King, resident and owner of 8830 Curbaril for 15 years, spoke in opposition of the proposed GPA, based on the existent heavy traffic congestion on Curbaril. Mayor Nelson urged Curbaril residents to lobby State to follow through with their commitment to construct a bridge over the Salinas River and run Hwy. 41 through, which has been delayed several times. Terry Hood, Cascabel resident , spoke of her concern about the approval of changes in zoning from SF to MF densities, which she believes will, ultimately, change the character of Atascadero ' s population. Discussion came back to Council. MOTION: By Councilman Molina to adopt Res. 47-85 and approve GPA 2H-85 , changing it to concur with the Planning Commission' s recommenda tion that property be zoned Low Density Multiple Family, second* by Councilwoman Norris; passed unanimously by roll-call vote. COUNCIL MINUTES - 8/105 PAGE SEVEN 6. General Plan Amendment 2I-85 - Atascadero Unified School District - Revision of General Plan Map and Text to Set Standards and Provide Direction for New School Facilities (PUBLIC HEARING) (Proposed Res- olution 44-85 - Approving General Plan Amendment 2I-85) Henry Engen gave staff report. No public comment MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey to approve Res. 44-85 , seconded by Council- man Handshy; passed unanimously by roll-call vote. 7 . General Plan Amendment 2J-85 - Atascadero City Planning Commission Revision of General Plan Text to Allow for a 10 ,000 Square Foot Lot Designation (PUBLIC HEARING) (Proposed Resolution 45-85 - Approving General Plan Amendment 2J-85) 8. Zone Change 5-85 Atascadero City Planning Commission - Revision of the Zoning Ordinance Text to Allow a 10 ,000 Square Foot Desig- nation (no specific area proposed) (PUBLIC HEARING) (Proposed Or- dinance 110 - First Reading) Henry Engen gave staff report . Public Comment George Highland, 7275 Carmelta, encouraged Council and staff to consider an environmental impact study and report before this GPA or the Zoning Ordinance is acted upon. Andrea Schulte , San Gregorio Rd. resident , read from a prepared statement regarding an alleged conflict of interest vote by Plan- ning Commissioner Eric Michielssen at the June 17 Commission meet- ing on the subject of the GPA to allow 10 ,000 sq. ft. lots ; she indicated she hopes the City Council will not vote on 2J-85 to- night nor until clarification by the City Atty. is received. Shirley Summers , 8120 Azucena, stated her belief that to consider the reduction of 20 ,000 sq. ft. to 10 ,000 sq. ft. lots is to see the first of a series of reauests to increase density; what the majority of Atascadero ' s citizens desire should- be considered. Discussion came back to Council. MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey to continue Items B-7&8 to the October cycle in order to evaluate maps showing proposed 10 ,000 'sq. ft. lot areas , seconded by Councilman Handshy; passed unanimously. 9. Appeal of Planning Commission Signage Conditions by Santa Lucia Bank at 7480 El Camino Real (Proposed Resolution 76-85 Denying Appeal and Proposed Resolution 77-85 Approving Appeal and Condi- tional Use Permit 14-85) COUNCIL MINUTES - 8/14P5 . PAGE EIGHT Henry Engen gave staff report recommending denial of the appeal. At the request of Councilman Molina, who divulged he has purchase stock in Santa Lucia Natl. Bank, Int. City Atty. , Grigger Jones, clarified that if, in fact , two or more (3) Councilmembers stepped down from voting on this item because they own stock in Santa Lu- cia Bank, there would not be a quorum to vote. Mr. Jones added that , in his opinion, there is no direct financial benefit to any of the Councilmembers who own stock, at this point :in time; there- fore , it is his opinion that a conflict of interest does not exist. Public Comment Joe Elkins , Architect representing Santa Lucia Natl. Bank, provided Council with pictures of what some of the other signage solutions at banking institutions in town have been and spoke in support of Council approval of appeal. Maggie Rice , Exec. Dir. of Atas. Chamber of Commerce , spoke in sup- port of the logos and the proposed signage. MOTION: By Councilwoman Norris to approve Res. 77-85 , seconded by Council- man Molina; passed by 4 : 1 roll-call vote , with Councilwoman Mackey voting NO. C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. - Traffic Safety Committee Reorganization Status Report Paul Sensibaugh, Public Works Director/City Engineer , gave staff report. No public comment. MOTION: By Councilwoman Norris to approve , in concept, the proposed changes in the Traffic Safety Committee, seconded by Councilwoman Mackey; passed unanimously. Mayor Nelson appointed Councilwoman Norris as the Council representative on said committee , with Councilwoman Mackey as alternate, and the two citizens listed on staff report as committee members as well. Councilman Molina requested that the committee look into the intersection at Pueblo and Sombrilla; there are no yield or stop signs at present. D. NEW BUSINESS 1 . Discussion Regarding F.Y. 1985-86 Budget Review Process and Timing Mike Shelton, City Manager, gave staff report and conferred with Council as to proposed dates for review of budget; Tuesday, Sept. 3rd, 7 :30 p.m. in Room 304 of the City Administration Bldg., was scheduled for the purpose of a brief overview of the budget, with all day Saturday, Sept. 7th, beginning at 8 :00 a.m. , scheduled for a more in-depth review, including verbal presentations by outside agencies requesting City funds. MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey to continue meeting past 11 : 00 p.m. , second- ed by Councilman Handshy; passed unanimously. COUNCIL MINUTES - 8/12 PAGE NINE _ 2. Detention Basin Policy Report Paul Sensibaugh, Public Works Director/City Engineer , gave staff report. Councilman Molina commended Mr. Sensibaugh for his reporting on the detention basin subject. Public Comment Whitey Thorpe, 40-year Atascadero resident, spoke in opposition of detention basins, and he feels they 're a hazardous nuisance. Council concurred with findings outlined in staff report . MOTION: By Councilman Handshy to recess as Council and convene as the Atas cadero County Sanitation District Board of Directors, seconded by Councilwoman Mackey; passed unanimously. E. ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT 1 . Atascadero County Sanitation District Sanitary Sewer and Wastewater Study Agreement Authorization with John Wallace and Associates Paul Sensibaugh, Public Works Director , gave staff report . MOTION: By Director Molina to concur with recommendations as outlined. in staff report , seconded by Director Mackey; passed _4 : 1 by roll- call vote , with Director Norris voting NO. (No public comment) 2. Sanitary Sewer Improvement District - Marchant Way Paul Sensibaugh gave staff report. Public Comment Mr. Carl Lownes, 9550 Marchant Way, responded to Board inquiry as to location of area petitioned to participate in a sanitary improvement district. Santa Rosa Rd. was not petitioned, as the attention was focused on the needs of: Marchant Way. Board concurred to give staff direction to bring this item back in ordinance form for public hearing process. 3. Proposed Sewer Service Annexations (Connections) to the Following Locations: A. Proposed Resolution 68-85 , Lot 4-A, Block WB - 8050 San Marcos B. Proposed Resolution 69-85 , Lot 32 , Block IB - Violetta C. Proposed Resolution 70-85 , Lot 33 , Block 6 - 9855 Las Lomas D Proposed Resolution 71-85 , Lot 43 , Block ZB - 6500 San Andreas Paul Sensibaugh gave staff report . MOTION: By Director Handshy to adopt Resolutions 68 , 69 , 70 & 71-85 , seconded by Director Molina; passed unanimously by roll-call vote. COUNCIL iMINUTES - 8/120 PAGE TEN 4. A. Proposed Resolution 72-85 —Adoption of Delinquent Service Charges for 1985-86 Property Tax Bill B. Proposed Resolution 73-85 - Adoption of Service Charges Added to the 1985-86 Property Tax Bill Paul Sensibaugh conferred with Board regarding proposed resolutions. MOTION: By Director Molina to adopt Resolutions 72 & 73-85 , seconded by Director Handshy; passed unanimously by roll-call vote. - MOTION: By Director Handshy for Board to adjourn and reconvene as the Atascadero City Council , seconded by Director Norris; passed unani- mously. F. COMMUNITY FORUM - No comments G. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION 1 . City Council - Councilwoman Mackey related that her residence had been solicited by children selling candy, the proceeds of which were apparently going to "Junior. Careers" in Fresno, -California. Mr. Engen stated that the group was cited for operating without a City Business License. Councilwoman Mackey also indicated that she will be unable to speak at an Offshore Oil Drilling Meeting in San Luis Obispo next week because of conflicting plans; in order to endorse the ongoing com0 promise of the amount of offshore oil drilling, she asked if anyone would be able to speak as a representative of Atascadero. Council concurred to send a letter in support of the compromise for less drilling, which Councilwoman Mackey intends to write . City Attorney - NONE City Clerk - NONE City Treasurer - NONE City Manager - NONE "Deep Pocket" Video not viewed tonight due to length of meeting. COUNCIL: ADJOURNED AT 11 :38 P.M. TO ITS NEXT REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 26 , 1985. RECORDED BY: ROBERT M. JO City Clerk PREPARED BY: CINDY WILKINS, Deputy City Clerk CITY OF ATASCACER TREASURER'S REPOR --------.---- JULY 1, 1985 TO JULY 31, 1985 RECEIPTS • TAXES Property Tax 15,714.87 Cigarette Tax 3,733.94 Motor Vehicle "In Lieu" 38,082. 55 Sales & Use 82, 500 .00 Livestock-Head Day Tax 283.92 Occupancy Tax 13,694.34 Franchises 4,025.77 LICENSE/PERMITS/FEES 35, 216.96 GAS TAX 19, 439.84 TRAFFIC SAFETY 5,312 50 RECREATION FEES 7,981.75 RETURNED FROM LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND AND MATURED TIME DEPOSITS 125,000.00 INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 36 ,756.83 REVENUE SHARING 42,660.00 STREET ASSESSMENT 1.04 TRANSPORTATION SB-325 90 ,684.25 ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE-PUBLIC WORKS 10, 543.00 MISCELLANEOUS Rents/Concessions 934 . 16 Sale Maps/Publications/Reports 216 .10 Special Police Services 255.00 Fines & Penalties 2, 566 .13 Dial-A-Ride Farebox 2, 205 .00 Planning Permit Deposits 3,510 .30 Bails/Bonds 1,677.50 Off-Highway Vehicles 200 . 27 Weed Abatement 587. 74 Reimbursement from Sanitation District 1,966 .48 Reimbursement to Expense 1, 372. 77 Traffic Safety Officer 4 ,248 . 09 P.O.S.T. 187 . 18 Narcotic' s Officer 3,935.04 Appeals 200 .00 Miscellaneous Funds 80.95 Overages & Shortages .04 TOTAL $ 555,774.31 1 AUGUST 20, 1985 To All Council Members: The breakdown detail on all accounts is available for your viewing in the Finance Department. VA Michael Shelton City Manager/Finance Director 3 • CITY OF ATASCADERO FINANCE DIRECTOR'S REPORT JULY 1, 1985 TO JULY 31, 1985 EXPENSE LISTING PAYROLL DATED 07/10/85 CHECKS #34043-34160 71, 017 .08 PAYROLL DATED 07/25/85 CHECKS #34161-.34262 64,722. 56 VOID CK#25175 CK. REG. DATED 07/11/85 (24. 00) VOID CK#25268 CK. REG. DATED 07/11/85 (60. 00) VOID CK#24373 CK. REG. DATED 05/01/85 (4, 004. 54) TOTAL 131,651. 10 5 M E M O R A N D U M • August 21, 1985 To: City Council Via: Mike Shelton, City Manager From: Bob Best, Parks and Recreation Director Subject: Agreement for Unskilled CMC Inmate Labor , RECOMMENDATION As this is a contract which was originally approved by Council at its first meeting in January 1985, approve the contract as sub- mitted for fiscal year 1985-86. BACKGROUND Inmates from the California Mens Colony have been performing unskilled labor for the construction of Paloma Creek Park since January 1985. They have proven to be of considerable value to the City, particularly as it relates to work not requiring a high level of skill. FISCAL IMPACT The use of inmate labor provides the City the opportunity of doing more with existing resources. The new agreement will cost the City approximately $1. 50 per day per inmate plus mileage. Needless to say, the cost savings for unskilled labor is consider- able. Inmates will only be assigned to work on an as needed basis and when a crew is available. • i'� AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CALIFORNIA MENS COLONY AND THE CITY OF ATASCADERO This Agreement made and entered into by the California Mens Colony, Department of Corrections, hereafter referred to as "CMC and the City of Atascadero hereafter referred to as "City" . Witnesseth: That the consideration of the covenants, conditions agreements and stipulations hereafter expressed do hereby agree to fur- nish services and materials as follows: 1. Recitals 1. 01 City has a need for unskilled laborers to perform general maintenance work and CMC has unskilled laborers available to perform such work. 1. 02 City desires to engage CMC as an independent contractor to provide services with the city. - 1. 03 The purpose of this Agreement is to provide a meaning- ful, useful and manageable work program as part of the work incen- tive of inmates at CMC to render a public service. Under no circum- stances are inmates of CMC to be considered employees or agents during the period of assignment to City projects. 2. Obligation of CMC 2. 01 CMC will provide a work force of custodially qualified workers who can perform unskilledlabor for general maintenance in the City parks, street parkways, beaches, reservoirs, and around the City in general within the City limits of the City of Atascadero. 2. 02 CMC will assign said work force to City between the hours of 8 : 00 a.m. and 4 : 00 p.m. , no more than five ( 5 ) days per week with Saturdays, Sundays and holidays excepted. 1 Agreement Between the 111iforn-ia Mens Colony and the City of Atascadero 2. 03 CMC will not commit inmates to City projects on days that the City cannot utilize their labor. 2. 04 CMC will transport inmates to and from an agreed upon work designated site. 2. 05 CMC will determine the amount of inmates that will be committed to a specific work site based on safety/security factors. Crew size and availability will be controlled solely by CMC. 2. 06 CMC will retain custody of the inmates at all times during the course of work within the City. 2. 07 CMC will furnish custody supervision to be responsible _for each crew for the discipline, security, control, welfare and safety of inmates. 2. 08 CMC will perform all necessary paperwork regarding hours worked, people used and accounting procedures. 2.09 CMC may reject any project which the Institution Adminis-0 tration feels could jeopardize the use of inmate labor or bring undue criticism in the use of this resource. 2. 10 CMC will provide lunches and beverage for the inmate crews. 2. 11 CMC will temporarily suspend work on any project without prior notification based on unforeseen custodial or situational circumstances. Written notification will be given if suspension will exceed 24-hours. 3. Obligation of City 3 . 01 City will receive the services of the inmate crews between 8:00 a.m. and 4 : 00 p.m. of each work day (minimum of six [ 6 ) hours ) . 2 Agreement. Between the California Mens Colony and tie City of Atascadero 3 . 02 City will provide heavy equipment and operators and/or specialized tools to said work details so as to enable the inmates to perform assigned work. The City will maintain said equipment in workable condition. Under no circumstances shall any inmate be permitted to use equipment or tools that he is not trained to use. 3 . 03 City will provide plans, material and technical guidance to the crew supervisor as necessary for all projects to be completed by CMC work crews. 3 . 04 City will provide CMC with information on size and location of projects. The work crew supervisor will ascertain the crew size and apprise the City on crew availab4lity. Advance notice of curtailments on a project will be provided by the City. 4 . Payment 4. 01 City will pay CMC for any work force assigned to City at the current prevailing rate for inmates of approximately $1. 50 per day, per crew inmate, and $2. 00 for an inmate leadman and a swamper . In high population density areas ( i.e. , within City limits ) crew strength will be limited to a maximum of fifteen [15 ] inmates per supervisor. 4 . 02 Miles traveled in excess of 20 miles from the California Mens Colony in one days time will be charged at the rate of $ . 20 a mile. 4 . 03 CMC will submit a detailed statement to the City each month which sets forth days, hours per day worked and number of inmates in the work force assigned to the City in the month immediately preceding. Statement will include mileage charges for miles traveled in excess of 20 miles per day. City will pay said statement within 3 Agreement Between the California Mens Colony and the City of Atascadero thirty ( 30 ) days after receipt thereof . CMC will add 30% to the monthly statement to the City ( 10% to be placed in the Inmate Welfare Fund, plus 20% for administrative costs) . 4 . 04 CMC shall have sole responsibility for disbursements of these payments to the personnel involved. 5. Work 5. 01 The work force assigned by CMC shall only perform general maintenance on property of City. Under no circumstances will said work force be used on public works projects or projects requiring skilled labor or projects requiring public bidding. 6. Relationship of Parties 6. 01 It is understood that the contractural relationship of CMC to City is that of independent contractor. The workforce and agents and employees of CMC on assignment to City are not, and shall not be considered employees or agents of City. 6 . 02 Any obligations to provide worker' s compensation insurance or to pay prevailing wages shall be borne by CMC to the extent that such obligations may apply, except as specified by law (Sections 3370-3371, Labor Code) . 7. Liability 7 . 01 The City and CMC will each be responsible for its own negligence in the performance of this contract and for resulting injury or property damage. Each party agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold the other party harmless from claims of damage or injury resulting from its own sole negligence in the performance of this contract. 4 ti� Agreement Between the California Mens Colony and the City of Atascadero 8. Termination 8. 01 This Agreement may be terminated by either party upon thirty ( 30 ) days prior written notice thereof. This Agreement shall terminate twelve (12 ) months from the date of signature by City unless it is extended by written notice from City to CMC, said notice from City being accepted by CMC. Agreement shall be extended at twelve (12 ) month intervals. 8. 02 This Agreement shall be renegotiated on a fiscal year basis. 9. Assignment 9. 01 Neither party shall assign any rights or obligations under this Agreement. 10 . Notices 10 . 01 Notices to be given between the parties shall be in writing and may be served by depositing said notices in the United States Mail, First Class and postage prepaid, addressed as follows: City of Atascadero 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, California 93422 California Mens Colony P. 0. Box 8101 San Luis Obispo, California 93409 11. Amendments 11.01 This agreement shall not be amended except by an Agreement in writing signed by both parties. 5 �j Agreement Between the California Mens Colony and the City of Atascadero II' IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement in the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, on the day and year first written. CALIFORNIA MENS COLONY CITY OF ATASCADERO Department of Corrections W. ESTELLE Warden Mayor of Atascadero Dated: Dated: ATTEST: C. J. Salvato Associate Warden Business Services 6 v M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council August 26 , 1985 VIA: Mike Shelton, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel Map 18-85 LOCATION: 10655 San Marcos/10670 Realito APPLICANT: Warren Miller (Kennaly Engineering) REQUEST: To divide a 5. 32 acre parcel into two lots of 2. 66 acres each. On July 15, 1985 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the above-referenced subject approving (with Commissioner Kennedy dissenting) the land division request subject to findings and condi- tions contained in Resolution 5-85- which was on the Consent Calendar at the August 5th meeting. There was discussion concerning the 20% lot size reduction criteria versus site specific information with the general consensus being that an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance should be initiated to eliminate the 20% reduction in favor of site specific criteria. John Kennaly, representing the applicant, spoke in support of the re- quest and noted that the only reason for submitting the application was the previous two decisions made by the Commissin in approving par- cel maps with lot sizes based on a site specific basis. He further elaborated on the difference between the zoning ordinance criteria factors and the soils maps criteria. Debra Kankiewicz, 11455 Viejo Camino, asked for several clarifications on the project. No one else spoke on the matter . Resolution No. 5-85 approving the tentative map was approved on August 5th, 1985. HE:ps cc: Warren Miller Kennaly Engineering Enclosures: Staff Report - August 5,1985 • Minutes Excerpt — July 15, 1985 Staff Report - July 15 , 1985 RESOLUTION NO. 5-85 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 18-85 (10655 SAN MARCOS/ 10670 REALITO) MILLER/KENNALY ENGINEERING WHEREAS, the Atascadero Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on July 15, 1985; and WHEREAS, at that meeting, after considerable discussion, it was decided that specific site information should be included; and WHEREAS, when this site information, specifically septic suitabil- ity is substituted in the lot size formula for the Soil Conservation Service Map category, the parcel map conforms to the City' s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Atascadero Planning Com- mission does hereby approve Tentative Parcel Map 18-85 as follows: Section 1. Commission Findings. 1. The creation of these parcels conform to all applicable zon- ing and the General Plan. 2. The creation of these parcels in conformance with the recom- mended conditions of approval will not have a significant adverse effect upon the environment, and preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not necessary. 3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development that is proposed. 4. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development proposed. 5. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or substan- tially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 6. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvement will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision; or that substantially equivalent alternate ease- ments are provided. 7. The proposed subdivision complies with Secion 66474. 6 of the State Subdivision Map Act, as to methods of handling and dis- charge of waste. Section 2. Conditions of Approval. 1. A preliminary soils report shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer . If tests indicate critically expansive soils or other soils problems, corrective measures shall be taken. 2. Water shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water Com- pany and water lines shall exist at the frontage of each par- cel or its public utility easement prior to recordation of the final map. 3. All existing and proposed utility easements, pipelines and other easements are to be shown on the final map. If there are other building or other restrictions related to the ease- ments, they shall be noted on the final map. 4. Drainage and erosion control plans, prepared by a registered civil engineer, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Public Works and Planning Departments prior to issuance of building permits in conjunctions with installation of driveways, access easements or structures. 5. Plan and profile drawings of proposed individual driveways and driveway easements shall be submitted for approval by the Planning and Public Works Departments in order to determine average grade and appropriate improvement requirements. 6. All conditions herein specified shall be complied with prior to filing of the final map. 7. A final map drawn in substantial conformance with the ap- proved tentative map and in compliance with all conditions set forth herein shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the City Lot Division Ordinance prior to recordation. a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners cre- ated and a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor shall indicate by certificate on the final map that corners have been set or will be set by a date spe- cific and that they will be sufficient to enable the survey to be retraced. b. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be submitted for review in conjunction with the processing of the final map. 8. Approval of this tentative parcel map shall expire two years from the date of Planning Commission approval unless an ex- tension of time is granted pursuant to a written request prior to the expiration date. 2 On motion by Commissioner Bond and seconded by Commissioner Michielssen , the foregoing resolution is adopted in its entirety by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Bond, Michielssen, Nolan, Kennedy, Sanders, and Chairman LaPrade NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hatchell DATE ADOPTED: August 5, 1985 WAYNE LAPRADE, Chairman ATTEST: HENRY ENGEN, Planning Director 3 Minutes - PlanningOm mission - July 15, 1985 • 5. Tentative Parcel Map 18-85: Request submitted by Warren Miller (Kennaly Engineering) to allow the division of 5.32 acres into two lots of 2.66 acres 0 each. Subject property is located at 10655 San Marcos/10670 Realito, also known as Lot 14 of Block 40. Mr. Davidson presented the staff report and explained the back- ground involved with this project. It was pointed out that even with a 20% lot size reduction, the minimum lot size requested was still under the required minimum. Mr. Davidson also pointed out that in two previous hearings, the issue of site specific informa- tion versus lot size criteria factors were discussed at length in which this particular application involved the same. Chairman LaPrade noted he would like to see evaluations on parcel maps on a site specific basis rather than using the 20% reduction. John Kennaly, representing the applicant, spoke in support of the requested land division and noted that the only reason for submit- ting the application was the previous two decisions made by the Commission in approving parcel maps with lot sizes based on a site specific basis. He further elaborated on the difference between the zoning ordinance criteria factors and the soils maps criteria and the difference between the two. Debra Kankiewicz, 11455 Viejo Camino, asked for several clarifica- tions on the project. Commissioner Sanders asked for clarification on the engineering information that had been submitted. MOTION: Made by Commissioner Sanders, seconded by Commissioner Hatchell and carried with Commissioner Kennedy dissenting to approve Tentative Parcel Map 18-85. Mr. Engen noted that a resolution reflecting findings and condi- tions for the lot split would be brought back for consideration at the August 5th meeting. There was further discussion concerning the appropriateness of eliminating the 20% reduction criteria in favor of determining lot sizes on more of a site specific basis, and Mr. Engen recommended that the Commission initiate a zoning text amendment to clarify the problem. MOTION: Made by Chairman LaPrade, seconded by Commissioner Hatchell and carried unanimously to initiate a zoning ordinance text amendment to eliminate the 20% minimum lot size reduction. 5 City of Atascadero Item: B-5 STAFF REPORT FOR: PlanningCommission Meeting Date: 7/15/85 g BY: Doug Davidson, Assoc. Planner Trainee File No:; TPM 18-85 Project Address: 10655 San Marcos/10670 Realito SUBJECT- To divide a 5. 32 acre lot into two parcels of 2.66 acres each. BACKGROUND: This application was originally reviewed in 1981-82. During this per- iod, there was a processing halt in lot splits in the 3-F Meadows area due to insufficient fire emergency access and the incompleteness of San Marcos Road and Los Altos through to Highway 41. When the Plan- ning Commission recommended to the City Council to allow lot splits to again occur, City staff reviewed the application under the application under the new zoning regulations (Title 9, adopted June 27, 1983) . The proposal was denied because the total of the performance standards in the RS (Residential Suburban) zone did not allow for a lot split of this 5.32 acre parcel. This application is for the same parcel. Notice of public hearing was published in the Atascadero News on July 5, 1985 and all owners of record property within 300 feet were noti- fied on that date. A. LOCATION: 10655 San Marcos/10670 Realito (Lot 14, Block 40) B. SITUATION AND FACTS: 1. Request. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .To divide a 5. 32 acre lot into two parcels of 2. 66 acres each. 2. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Warren Miller 3. Engineer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .John Kennaly 4. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5.32 acres 5. Streets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Realito and San Marcos are both improved streets and are not city-maintained. 6. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RS (Residential Suburban) 7. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vacant Tentative Parcel Ma*8-85 (Warren Miller) 8. Adjacent Zoning and Use. . . . . .North: RS, vacant South: RS, vacant East: RS, SFR West: RS, SFR 9. General Plan Designation. . . . .Suburban Residential 10. Terrain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Gentle to steeply sloping with many large oaks. 11. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration C. SITE AND DEVELOPMENT DATA: 1. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.32 acres 2. Minimum Lot Size. . . . . . . . . . . . . Lot Size Factor Average slope (11-20%) . 75 Distance from center (12,000-14,0001 ) .40 Septic suitability (severe) 1. 50 Condition of access (paved 15% slope) General neighborhood character (4. 24 ac. ) . 85 _ Required minimum lot size: 3.90 acres Lot size with possible 20% reduction: 3.12 acres 3. Proposed lot sizes. . . . . . . . . . .Parcel A - 2.66 acres Parcel B - 2.66 acres D. ANALYSIS: In the RS (Residential Suburban) zone, the minimum lot size is 2 1/2 to 10 acres depending on the sum of the lot size performance standards contained in the zoning ordinance. As the previous chart shows, the sum in this instance is 3.90 acres. To be granted20% reduction, the applicant must provide positive site specificinformation showing proposed building sites, proposed septic s stem location, plan/profile of driveways, and a prelimin- ary grading plan. The applicant has supplied this information; however, applying the 20% reduction results in a minimum lot size of 3.12 acres. This is substantially larger than the two proposed lots of 2.66 acres each. In sum, the proposed parcel map does not conform with the zoning ordinance minimum lot size standards. 2 Tentative Parcel Map&-85 (Warren Miller) • E. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of Tentative Parcel Map 18-85 based on the findings contained in Exhibit A. DGD:ps ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Findings for Denial Exhibit B - Location Map Exhibit C Parcel Map 3 Tentative Parcel Ma08-85 (Warren Miller) • EXHIBIT A - Tentative Parcel Map 18-85 Findings for Denial July 15, 1985 FINDINGS: 1. The creation of these parcels do not conform to applicable zoning regulations and the general plan. 4 6 13 41 x622 8 427" , ai fid. P xI g $ e ° ��•!° 2f a .- � JO 1 RS - S I .•110 33 4 J` r IeyiS � Q i a. 34 Is , '' 47 xo .,� ;o5ro >�� zo °•il t 1 ash, 3Pa j 12A .T. /—s 1 tp J "°b ° J 17 I 321 41f-•j2 IS) -517E /.a,s Ja °3 x b.•i �+.i•.C..� wt t 20 LOCA-FION 1 1! /ocyg igj3St 4'PI Zk.�.ic= __ pceJ �o i /►S S yyo /a,of+ p4 i ,CL4y° a i 's 1 \w 9yao s • .i r Job 1 FL . I r 21 1 C VVr It ~�I• CITY OF l�\ ATASCADEPO 'V{ Planning Department 'T^ 01 RS Map No. 14 _ \_� ) . �I ` p ��?�'oh�Sl \� �', t .� oil^,• \' .z S.3: :\ / •;,• ':�/' SPS� _ 53 7-`- `A `f 40 M E M O R A N D U M • 42 TO: City Council August 26, 1985 43 44 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager 45 46 FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director 48 SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel Map 17-85 49 50 APPLICANT: Jim Parsons (Kennaly Engineering) 51 52 LOCATION: 4650 Portola Road 53 54 REQUEST: To allow the division of a 6 .28 acre parcel into four lots 55 of 1. 57 acres each. 57 On July 15, 1985 and August 5, 1985, the Planning Commission conducted 58 a public hearing concerning the above matter and, upon review, unani- 59 mously (with Chairman LaPrade and Commissioner Sanders abstaining) , 60 approved the land division request subject to the findings and condi- 61 tions contained in the staff report with incorporation of the wording 62 "to prohibit cross lot drainage" within the conditions of approval. 63 �64 There was discussion among the Commission concerning the presence of 65 various utilities in the easement that will serve the proposed parcels 66 as well as discussion concerning policies on driveway paving. 67 68 Jim Judge, 4900 Portola Road, stated he has a natural spring that goes 69 across his property and wondered how four new homes would affect the 70 drainage situation on the property. 71 72 Terry Kramer, 4950 Portola Road, stated that his and Mr. Judge' s prop- 73 erties will be directly affected by the drainage from the new proposed 74 lot. He pointed out that he was not in opposition to the project but 75 felt that an environmental impact study was warranted. 76 77 Carla Sanders -stated she lives near the subject site and asked if this 78 area was an area identified as a "cease and desist" area. 79 80 John Kennaly, representing the applicant, spoke in support of the pro- 81 ject and answered concerns expressed by Mr . Judge and Mr . Kramer. 82 83 No one else spoke on the matter. 85 HE:ps •87 cc: Jim Parsons 88 Kennaly Engineering 2 �y Tentative Parcel Map '-85 (Jim Parsons) . 9. General Plan Designation. . . . .Low Density Single Family 10. Terrain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Gentle to moderately sloping - Parcels 1 and 2 are presently used as an orchard. 11. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration C. SITE AND DEVELOPMENT DATA: 1. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .6.28 acres ti 2. Required Minimum Lot Size. . . . Lot Size Factor Distance from center (4, 0001-6,000 ' ) . 10 Septic suitability (severe) .70 Average slope (0-20%) .30 Condition of access (city-maintained) .15 General neighborhood character . 32 Minimum lot size required: 1. 57 acres 3. Proposed lot size. . . . . . . . . . . .Parcel 1 - 1. 57 acres Parcel 2 - 1.57 acres _. Parcel 3 - 1.57 acres Parcel 4 - 1.57 .acres D. ANALYSIS: In the RSF-Z zone, the minimum lot size is 1 1/2 - 2 1/2 acres depending on the sum of the minimum lot size performance standards contained in the zoning ordinance. In this case, the sum of these standards is 1.57 acres, which is the same as the proposed lot size. Thus, the proposed parcels are in conformance with the zon- ing ordinance. Development of Site: The four parcels slope upward from Portola and become relatively level at the rear of Parcels 3 and 4. The slopes of Parcel 2 ap- proach 20% and any grading on such slopes requires precise plan approval by the Planning Department prior to the issuance of permits. The site is not in the sewer improvement district and the septic system design must conform to the Manual of Septic Tank Practices. 2 Tentative Parcel MaW7-85 (Jim Parsons) E. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Tentative Parcel Map 17-85 based on the findings and conditions of approval contained in Exhibit A. DGD:ps ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Findings and Conditions of Approval Exhibit B Location Map Exhibit C - Parcel Map 3 EXHIBIT A - Tentative Parcel Map 17-85 Findings and Conditions of Approval (as amended) July 15,1985 FINDINGS: 1. The creation of these parcels. conform to all applicable zoning and the General Plan. 2. The creation of these parcels in conformance with the recommended conditions of approval will not have a significant adverse effect upon the environment, and preparation of an environmental Impact report is not necessary. 3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development that is proposed. 4. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of devel- opment proposed. 5. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 6 . The design of the subdivision or the type of improvement will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large for ac- cess through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision; or that substantially equivalent alternate easements are provided. 7 . The proposed subdivision complies with Section 66474. 6 of the State Subdivision Map Act, as to methods of handling and discharge of waste. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Water shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water Company and water lines shall exist at the frontage of each parcel or its public utility easement prior to recordation of the Final Map. 2. All existing and proposed utility easements, pipelines and other easements are to be shown on the final map. If there are other building or other restrictions related to the easements, they shall be noted on the final map. 3. Drainage and erosion control plans to prohibit cross lot drainage, prepared by a civil engineer , shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Department prior to issuance of building permits in conjunction with installation of driveways, access easements or structures. 4 Tentative Parcel MaO17-85 (Jim Parsons) 4. Plan and profile drawings of proposed individual driveways and driveway easements shall be submitted for approval by the Planning and Public Works Departments in order to determine average grade and appropriate improvement requirements. This shall appear. as a Note on the final map. 5. A hammerhead or turn-around shall be constructed at the end of the 20 foot easement. 6. The alignment of the easement shall be changed to reflect the re- quired centerline radius of the Fire Department (28 feet inside, 48 feet outside) . 7. Fire Department requirements shall be determined by the fire mar shall prior to issuance of building permits. 8. All swales shall be delineated on the final map. 9. Supply document to verify the existing 20 foot easement and the public utility easement. 10. All conditions herein specified shall be complied with prior to filing of the final map. 11. A final map drawn in substantial conformance with the approved tentative map and in compliance with all conditions set forth herein shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the City Lot Division Ordinance prior to recordation. a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners created and a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor shall indicate by certificate on the final map that corners have been set or will be set by a date specific, and that they will be sufficient to enable the survey to be retraced. b. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be submit- ted for review in conjunction with the processing of the final map. 12. Approval of this tentative parcel map shall expire two years from the date of Planning Commission approval unless an extension of time is granted pursuant to a written request prior to the expira- tion date. 5 anonZ3 71 � 12-A 2 � tiYc �w.A `,L•�.. or 22 510° IIS w�a° 16 27 r �.A I6 W 21\\ 5=o5 1\ Rn O 7 P ¢c. _ \\g2oo 1 6Y.3 R..wIt • RS(FH E655 �,o5 5�p5 tori ae9 O _ 28 20.A 530o P,�Ge,'•>t' 4'+ y �\h*�� ,ntY*y'� . SIT - s 19•A SsoO /'- 6, ISTD O X • • l iJ !-1 l 1 "7 t \ 16 ,9 5550 ;,e\ ,�' _' ')-." co✓'���P.•"sem 3 - e al � le 5 _ I6 tea' "i5 s"• _ Iry Q -a 5 S 5�. LOCA n Q �R. (/) 205 34 60A SeoS . \�<4 o� 'Os i o •5°-'` fit/ .� SS `3Z r -ts..se .S •o° ° •RUAU 23 .h o` r•6 42°. I SOA 22 A 0 3a� 40 41 \ . 6 �iew I�Ii.88�a9 49e.v:99�0 39� 1 1 0 23 All 2 J �4 , O OI J• O C1, ._. .._..- 10755 T s YI. LS 26 \ IIA.' {.� . I•,7J 26.A �.l 19 10 17• 1 1641 X'S iY•45118 \� 29 N - (•� J� •off l ,. (C� 1( CeGz2S 56 o.\N y \J `r \ 29 49 ,°° o 7 48 � ..2.65 • 30 S 7 46 31 ..3 v L399 O•• ♦S Cn • ]2 13 4 24 � J• ,�TSo 43 25 6.1co �.. 23 >u 22 wa 3'P' 28 - 2 �� r• S 41 y' 695. W 20/0710 6 s• V S S 29 a 0iyAP UjOS J6 12 : 19 ��° a `; ♦ GtoS 37 39-4 p.n ,V 3 `l42i w0106 k0.:0 _ X155 z oro 39.9 �9 17 �9 RS 37•A b710 „ .re 'i 70o 38.9 14 38.4 2C eye 8 CITY OF ATASCADERO `T ,f- /lPlann11lb Department 1 .. e t Fitt 1. ; � ..i� j J-�7/tU cu...-+.+.ai.a •Tw... Map ..� :...31 F»RTOCA kb NJ LLIT 1 v -oto G C e3�\a btioorF t e w Q \ q ti Rv�� ti 35dIn- ,' /x In t. o d • �...:// 370 _ +- M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council August 26 , 1985 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director -, SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel Map 19-85 APPLICANT: Sevcik and Thomas (Twin Cities Engineering) LOCATION: 3600 E1 Camino Real REQUEST: To revise existing property lines to create two lots from three existing lots. On August 5, 1985, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing concerning the above matter and, upon review, unanimously approved the application subject to the findings and conditions contained in the staff report. • Tom Vaughan, with Twin Cities Engineering, indicated his concurrence with the recommendation. There was brief discussion among the Commission concerning conditions for prior approvals on the site, the applicant's participation in a a traffic light, as well as discussion pertaining to adequate provi- sions being taken to assure protection of trees on the site. No one else appeared on the matter. HE:ps cc: Sevcik and Thomas Twin Cities Engineering • _ Tentative Parcel Map09-85 (Sevcik & Thomas) 7. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vacant 8. Adjacent Zoning and Use. . . . . .North: RS, residential South US Highway 101 East: CR, vacant West: CR, commercial 9. General Plan Designation. . . . .Retail Commercial 10. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration C. ANALYSIS: In the CR zone, there are no minimum lot size standards under pro- visions of the Zoning Ordinance. The analysis will focus on the new property lines and their relationship to the proposed hotel/ restaurant development. Hotel/Restaurant Site Plan: As shown in attached Exhibit D, the proposed Best Western Motel will occupy three buildings with the parking areas located on the periphery. The future restaurant is proposed for the rear of the site. Current lot line configuration does not allow for these two uses to be on separate lots. Furthermore, a property line runs down the middle of the hotel site directly in the path of proposed _ _Building B. This property line is to be eliminated. The property line between the hotel and restaurant sites will be adjusted. The creation of two lots where three previously existed ensures that the proposed building will not be located on any lot lines and that each use will be on a separate legal lot. Staff feels this adjustment does not conflict with any city policies or ordi- nances, and will allow the proposed development to proceed. Site and development standards have been reviewed by staff as part of Conditional Use Permit 21-84. There was a later hearing under Conditional Use Permit 9-85 which allowed two freeway signs of 100 square feet each on a single pole for the two uses. Conditions of these two permits will guide this proposal during the construction phase. D. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Tentative Parcel Map 19-85 based on the findings and conditions of approval contained in Exhibit A. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Findings/Conditions of approval Exhibit B - Location Map Exhibit C - Parcel Map Exhibit D - Conditional Use Permit 21-84 Site Plan Exhibit E - Conditions of Approval - Conditional Use Permit 9-85 2 Tentative Parcel Ma,.9-85 (Sevcik & Thomas) _ EXHIBIT A - Tentative Parcel Map 19-85 Findings/Conditions of Approval August 5, 1985 FINDINGS: 1. The creation of these parcels conform to all applicable zoning and the General Plan. 2. The creation of these parcels in conformance with the recommended conditions of approval will not have a significant adverse ,effect upon the environment, and preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not necessary. 3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development that is proposed. 4. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of devel- opment proposed. 5. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 6. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvement will not e conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large for ac- cess through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision; or that substantially equivalent alternate easements are provided. 7 . The proposed subdivision complies with Section 66474.6 of the State Subdivision Map Act, as to methods of handling and discharge of waste. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: ` 1. A preliminary soils report shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer . If tests indicate critically expansive soils or other soils problems, corrective measures shall be taken. 2. Water shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water Company and water lines shall exist at the frontage of each parcel or its public utility easement prior to recordation of the Final Map. 3. All existing and proposed utility easements, pipelines and other easements are to be shown on the final map. If there are other building or other restrictions related to the easements, they shall be noted on the final map. 3 ,r: Tentative Parcel Map*9-85 (Sevcik & Thomas) 4. Drainage and erosion control plans, prepared by a registered civil engineer , shall be submitted for review and approval by the Plan- ning Department prior to issuance of building permits in conjunc- tion with installation of driveways, access easements or structures. 5. Plan and profile drawings of proposed individual driveways and driveway easements shall be submitted for approval by the Planning and Public Works Departments in order to determine average grade and appropriate improvement requirements. 6. All conditions herein specified shall be complied with prior to filing of the final map. 7. A final map drawn in substantial conformance with the approved tentative map and in compliance with all conditions set forth herein shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the City Lot Division Ordinance prior to recordation. a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners created and a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor shall indicate by certificate on the final map that corners have been set or will be set by a date specific and that they will be sufficient to enable the survey to be retraced. b. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be submit- ted for review in conjunction with the processing of the final map. 8. Approval of this tentative parcel map shall expire two years from the date of Planning Commission approval unless an extension of time is granted pursuant to a written request prior to the expira- tion date. 4 al Planning Department 1.? , rl4 °. 'ilk!{ •":�i �r S��.!_1_�.I{�l-'�_.1.1`�i�`� �• 1° \ /i3r 12 v SI w onion Pil �� r� •1r [7�1 a / °sr Itt lai �'tJt rr• �l �� 6M�. lyxpa °t.♦ N. 4 J+a I l all 3 +•- ` G � Map No. 11 ^' R ..Nr.. Nf� Mt - ^ "'��•l � 5055 Ni � _' =°. ie1 tot "F t• saes ;iw •k .`. �.�.' Kri 1 O �R rr�t � ase ^ 2 1 i 4�ro M t ,2 1{�ya a n� r,tS �f t• aerst .3• .• ' • \ � 37 1 } a+4 : i}l' rlrsls re In m W 4V0 P 191 H 1]t 7t1• 147 Ott 1 a+s• ,�, ^ rp y > t• ° 137_ 174\ b yy w T •\` '1 ♦ aT Yta �4 � ^ t _ a "� !•� M m yatw •°t ^C A5 „r 1 taa� Noi .x. 1>a ac +e \ ti� r s� ► !♦♦a: '•O� ,�> hr 31i^ta� a•+i» r la► ; q. ° +' •1.'+`S A Ol4 �+>•L /o g6` �tb�5� mart to a ' �. Ott It} � ^ Its Itt � Na; N R • ti ♦If �• ft tat °: ar ^ tar h C at4` Ia0 t 'wf J 3l1 ♦S� pg Ia R� IN° r° ua� � r�17. 6•� rr'► G Jr'ft azo S� St♦1 rt a»° 2y0 Ns ^3 a o ttf m q �J S'B r•« ',r oto a•��' : �"'ao . f.r� rn !4L "1'•' Dy 'S;?f4j...V v '+aa IF}Y�- • • t. � � -0 1 Via LI �1 �+`' �•f°�s� 6 n ' / •b 7 / LO CA -rlc P A` �,'•� lox- �, o �° 14 11• 103 p ' sw L(FHIs ) 6 fv e t/ 3 � •- W i-; 3�aJ•D' Yv a � „� v 106 r ' ��I It•0 A 4 �.I' .a.r a , y 3 oy N 91 t'F •f rl-a.'cP/t f;_, T' Ate. VIP J / p 21 S x (` 10frp 1 !!%. y 51'a p♦��� t7 REVSSf::\ 9. a/ TyBil• ' 4/ r •p. A (zM1a t2i}6 IP / � ` � •i!�! •a!w.�rNi A' / 4.�\♦ •ion � 13 j o 14/ -Z 1° I a L(FH) � 4 t t rPI 30 A �� ,'�' X16 ,'�V � != G•w a•1 ts,es 3 g 29 7 +'%/ a, ✓• IT O•i`O .rs h` r IZ • 40 � '_'� � Sg rf1p 1 • , J4 5�d 26 C � '♦ ! t t6 8 43 \� ►" I+�w vats;lr V�v°a,p t �'"'= 3Tr-1 w 42 ^20A a••1 •22 RS1r ► ; _ "\�✓ _ t `I; .'R C . ♦+ir 1Lr-�.m\,Y:a.r _ J•+ .. l♦ tj • 11 a r = , ��y��yam!•f•.,.•e �/ .t 4 •r r rw. 1 • 1 M tm o•°a•atwYp KlJ+`�•1>•t Gt.. Is ap7 t. .=:!1.Sr, .<a?ei:xA:it1+2~M�� /c:7'kt'�.y+...� +a'�r'cl'ti=.f'9'Y ..`.r•C I r,rra T� I� •e 1 � w d U ' ; O ' Z7r.5' ` ti 1 n' N37'=rZ'�-1 r,7 Lof S 0 n O. (� i '� J x � r s , y r ^F C X t9 fli• t I ; _ 42�. ;l "u ------- � —L t I SITE ALAN �`► ( COLONY NU ',T c 1 Conditional Use Permit 21-84 (Sevcik & Thomas) EXH1.3t1- E EXHIBIT A - Conditional Use Permit 21-84 Findings and Conditions of Approval November 5 , 1984 FINDINGS : 1 . The application together with the recommended conditions conforms to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan. 2 . The application as submitted will not have a significant adverse effect upon the environment and preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not necessary. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Site development including buildings, driveways, parking, land- scaping and other features shall be consistent with plans submit- ted including any modifications' required herein and all provisions of Title 9 of the Atascadero Municipal Code. 2. All conditions of approval herein shall be complied with for each phase of construction prior to occupancy of new construction. 3 . Building architecture shall be generally consistent with submitted elevations. a. Roof-mounted or outdoor mounted equipment shall be screened as required by Section 9-4. 128 of the Zoning Ordinance. 4 . Landscape and irrigation plans in conformance with Section 9-4.124 shall be approved by the Planning Department prior to issuance of building permits. 5 . All new utilities and utility connections shall be placed under ground. 6 . Submit two sets of grading , drainage, and erosion control plans for review and approval by the Planning and Public Works Depart- ments in accordance with Section 9-4. 138 and 9-4.148. 7 . The number of fire hydrants and their location and design shall be approved by the Fire Department prior to issuance of building permits. 8 . Access roadways shall be not less than 20 feet wide and shall have a minimum of 13116" of vertical clearance (UFC 10. 207 (a) ) . Plans show 12 feet of clearance at the entrance to the lobby. 4 Conditional Use Permit 2l (Sevcik & Thomas) 9 . A sprinkler system shall be installed for irrigation and fire- fighting purposes. 10 . Curb, gutter and sidewalk shall be required. Submit road improve- ment plans designed by a civil engineer registered in the State of California for review and approval by the Public Works Department. 11'. Obtain sewer connection permit from the City of Atascadero Public Works Department prior to connection to public sewer . 12 . This Conditional Use Permit shall expire one year from the date of final approval, unless all conditions are satisfied and project shows substantial progress, or unless an extension is granted pur- suant to Section 9-2. 118 of the Zoning Ordinance. 13 . A total signage of 120 square feet for each tenant is allowed, ex- cluding the freeway sign. Signage shall be limited to: a. One freeway sign not to exceed 30 feet in height and 125 square feet in size for use by both the tenants. b. One monument sign not to exceed 40 square feet in size and 10 feet in height for each of the two uses. C. An additional 80 square feet in wall signs is allowable for the restaurant, as well as for the motel. 14 . A lot merger is required before building permits may be issued. 15 . Prior to the issuance of permits, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City to participate in the installation of a traffic signal at El Camino Real and San Anselmo Avenue. The level of participation shall be determined on the basis of benefit derived by this project and other developments anticipated along the El Camino Real corridor . Rev. 11/8/84 Ps 5 { un .. _� M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council August 26, 1985 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director Y SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel Map AT 830311:1 LOCATION: 3100/3150 Ardilla Road APPLICANT: Gordon T. Davis (Twin Cities Engineering) REQUEST: To extend the time allowed to complete conditions of the tentative map. • On August 5th, the Planning Commission considered the above-refer- enced matter on its consent calendar unanimously approving the request subject to the findings and conditions contained in the original staff report dated May 16, 1983. No one spoke on the matter . HE:ps cc: Gordon T. Davis Twin Cities Engineering Tentative Parcel Map AT 830311:1 (Davis/Twin Cies) _ 9. General Plan Designation. . . . .Suburban Residential 10. Terrain. . . . . . . . . . .Stee l sloped lots, heavily . . . . . . . . . . . Steeply P Y covered with oak trees and nat- ural grasses 11. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration has been recorded with the County Recorder C. ANALYSIS: The minimum lot size in the RS (Residential Suburban) zone is 2 1/2 to 10 acres, depending on the minimum lot size standards of the zoning ordinance. At 4 .7 acres, these four lots do conform to the zoning ordinance. The tentative map approval requires substantial road improvements in which the applicant is attempting to complete, and staff sees no reason not to grant a time extension. D. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the time extension request subject to the conditions set forth at the time the project was originally approved. Approval of this one year time extension shall expire on May 23, 1986. DGD:ps ATTACHMENT: Exhibit A - Staff Report dated May 16, 1983 2 1979 CITY OF ATASCADERO is Planning Department May 16 , 1983 STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP AT .830311:1 LOCATION: 3100 and 3150 Ardilla Road (Lots 7,8 , Block 25) APPLICANT: Gordon T. Davis (Twin Cities Engineering) REQUEST: To allow division of two parcels,: totaling 18.83 acres into four parcels of 4.7 acres each. ' BACKGROUND 1. Existing Zoning: A-1-BV-3-D(508) 2. General Plan: Suburban Single Family Residential 3. Environmental Determination: The applicant has completed an Ini- tial Study Environmental Description form. The Planning Director has prepared a draft Conditional Negative Declaration indicating the project will not haveany significant adverse impacts upon the environment if certain mitigation measures are incorporated into the project. 4. Site Conditions: The site is located on the side of a hill. The lots are heavily covered with oak trees and natural grasses. Average slope is 30%. Power lines cross the property diagonally from a point close to the intersection of the lots and Ardilla Road toward the southwest corner of Lot 7 . Ardilla Road is unimproved. 5. Project Description: The applicant requests permission to divide his two lots totaling 18.83 acres into four equal lots of approxi- mately 4. 7 acres each. The division would entail installation of Ardilla Road which is currently a dirt driveway. STAFF COMMENTS On April 7 , 1983 the Subdivision Review Board met with the applicant' s engineer, John Kennaly. Also in attendance were: Larry Stevens, Planning Director ; Mike Hicks, Fire Chief; Wayne LaPrade, Planning Commissioner ; Patsy West, Senior Engineering Technician; Kami Griffin and Greg Fuz, Planning Interns; and Fred Buss, Associate Planner. The following items were discussed: -2- i TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP AT 830311:1 (Davis) 1 Need better indication of lot corners in the field. 2. Indicate the location of the trees in the right-of-way. 3. Frontage improvements will be required including water lines and a fire hydrant. The current zoning on the lots is A-1-BV-3 which is a slope-deter- minant, variable, minimum lot size zone. Actual average slope using the contour measurement method is 29.91%. The BV-3 zoning establishes a 4 1/2 acre minimum lot size for the 25-30% slope range. Review of the five criteria used to determine minimum lot size in the proposed RS zoning indicates a minimum lot size of 4. 6 acres. In either case, the size requested is less than the required minimum. FINDINGS 1. The application as submitted complies with applicable zoning and subdivision regulations and conforms with the 1980 Atascadero Gen- eral Plan. 2. The project as submitted will not have a significant adverse . effect upon the environment and the preparation of an Environmen- tal Impact Report is not necessary. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above Findings, the Planning Department recommends: A) Issuance of a Conditional Negative Declaration as follows: 1. Adequate provision shall be made for draiange and erosion control and protection in conjunction with road and site development. 2. Grading and tree removal shall be minimized during all phases of road and site development. 3. Adequate provision shall be made to minimize fire hazards in conjunction with site development. 4. Adequate and sufficient tests shall be performed on each lot to ensure septic suitability at each building site; and, B) Approval of Tentative Parcel Map AT 830311 : 1 subject to the fol- lowing conditions: 1. Private sewage disposal systems will be an acceptable method of sewage disposal if reports and designs are acceptable. All tests, reports and designs shall conform to methods and guidelines prescribed by the Manual of Septic Tank Practice TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP AT 830311:1 (Davis) and a other applicable City ordinances. The following .Note . shall appear on the Final Map: "Appropriate soils reports including a percolation test, a test to determine the presence of ground water , and a log of a soil boring to a minimum depth of ten (10) feet shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. Where soils reports indicate that conven- tional soil absorption systems are not acceptable, City ap- proval of plans for an alternative private sewage disposal system, designed by a Registered Civil Engineer , shall be required. Depending upon the system, more restrictive re- quirements may be imposed. " 2. Water shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water Com- pany and waterlines shall exist at the frontage of all par- cels prior to filing of the Final Map. 3. All other available utilities not already in place shall be extended underground to each parcel frontage at the time of building permit. Any utility easements are to be shown on the Final Map. ' 4. Effortsshallbe made to minimize grading that would be dis- ruptive to the natural topography and removal of existing, mature trees. The following shall appear as a Note on the Final Map: "No trees shall be removed without compliance with applicable City ordinances. No grading shall commence without an appro- priate permit and compliance with applicable City ordinances. 5. Drainage and erosion control plans, prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer , shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Department prior to issuance of building permits in conjunction with installation of private driveways, ac- cess easement or buildings. 6. Plan and profile drawings of proposed individual driveway(s) and driveway easements shall be submitted for approval by the Public Works and Planning Departments in order to determine average grade and appropriate improvement requirements. if average slope exceeds 12%, paved improvement would be a re- quirement at the time of application for a building permit. Otherwise, an all-weather surface would be required similar- ly. In no event will driveways be allowed which exceed 20% in slope. The -driveway access shall be improved to a minimum width of twelve (12) feet and shall have a minimum unobstruc- ted vertical clearance of fourteen (14) feet. Notes to these effects shall appear on the Final Map. 7. Roof 'materials for all structures shall be Class C rating or better and a Note to that effect shall appear on the Final Map. -4- TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP AT 830311:1 (Davis) 8. All 1 pipelines and other easements of record shall be shown on the Final Map. A letter shall be submitted from each utility company indicating the nature and extent of any building re- strictions. A Note stating any such restrictions shall ap- pear on the Final Map. 9. Drainage swales shall be indicated on the Final Map and a Note so shall appear on the Final Map which states: "Any modification of the ground during site development with- in fifty (50) feet of the drainage swales shall be subject to approval by the Planning and Public Works Departments. " 10. Two fire hydrants of a type and size specified by the City Fire Department shall be installed by the applicant along the frontage of the parcels. Exact location and manner of place- ment shall be subject to the approval of the Fire Department. A letter from the Fire Department certifying the installation of the hydrants shall be received by the Planning Department prior to recordation of the Final Map. 11. Ardilla Road shall be constructed along the frontage of the property to City standards including a minimum paved width of twenty (20) feet with three (3) feet of graded shoulder on each side of the paving prior to recordation of the Final Map. a. Improvements to be constructed under an inspection agreement and encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. b. Improvement drawings, including improvements to control grading and erosion within the road right-of-way, shall be submitted.,' to the Public Works Department for review and approval. 12. Ardilla Road, between the subject property and the improved section of Ardilla Road, shall be improved with an all- weather surface. Said improvement is to be maintained by the property owner (s) . 13. An offer of dedication to the public for road purposes for twenty (20) feet along Ardilla Road for the entire property frontage shall be shown on the Final Map and be made by cer- tificate thereon. 14. All conditions herein specified shall be complied with prior to filing of the Final Map. 15 . A Final Map in compliance with all conditions set forth here- in shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the City Lot Division Ordi- nance prior to recordation. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP AT 830311:1 (Davis) a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners cre- ated and a Registered Civil Engineer shall or licensed land surveyor shall submit a letter certifying that the monuments have been set prior to recordation of the Final Map. b. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be submitted for review in conjunction with the processing of the Final Map. 16. Approval of this Tentative Parcel Map shall expire two years from ' the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted pursuant to a written request prior to the expira- tion date. ACTION The Planning Commission should, by motion, direct Staff as deemed appropriate. REPORT PREPARED BY• VF D BUSS ssociate Planner REPORT APPROVED BY: LAWRENCE STEVENS Planning Director Ps 110 19 �41 `��_y 17 d `e-Ltl / 4 \\ 27 -- I ��; %, II / 8 7 6 '5 4 r ;� 18a 19 I a b 43 'I9 t 14 i I J it; 3 , 6 f ' 2/ �i12 15 I 18b 18c 7 / t. , 5 / 2 16 J 12 a tte �nos I� � � � 33 0 ' 4 13 ;I tl°, 10 9 I 13 25 Z y ' 33 a 12 - 17 22 23 / 3 14 J 24 4 18 i 2 , C -15 32 $11 21 25 / 16 \ s o �,I 19 CA /23 1 31 0 32% �L. L g ' R 30 V 1 `L i 27 \� 31 18/ 290 < y33a r 17 \ 19 3 18 X16 28 2 33b (\ 19 20 / 15 I ; ; 20 28 d \ / 14 / i 21 28 i R \1 19 i 13 11 10 1 9 ' v 22 �s 40 23 2 20 �/, �1q����'✓�( 6�9T j 2 a �� / 21 / T"'25 /6 %22/ 6 1 s .z7 zao. 15 17 2V 24 25 26 27 , 270 1,28 / 5 4 26b27 3 8 `4f' 14 16 I ; 2� / 3 27 ick A 27 2 - 9 13 14 / 33 34 35 36 37 13 _ 5 10 is I T 04% 19 12 I 27 5 / I IQ "9 8 J 7 6 ! ?J / t2 i 20I 3 2 39 O 4 4 �, 2 I I 38 27 21 r �,�_ _ ( 37 , 12 24 i � � � 1 1 34 '\ 35 26 2' , . ' 33 10crz / 23 / / 26'/2 '28 , 29 30 ; 31 32 Q o / 1P _ \ 14 1 18 28 \� �,24 / il�' 6 > / / 15 \ / 13 /, i II 10 i II 17 '/ 23 / a2 14 9 8 I 7 10 1616 20 22 7J �Pp 17 13 12 � 28 / 30 21 2019 f\ 16 22 23 24 18 25 26/ � 31 15 L ANO 27 34 32 20 sem: 16 15 18 14 39 13 OA/l-k/ t 23 �,2 4 22 1 ,r � j 12/ tt 1'-7?Fd--?43// META C 37 36 35 38 134! 33� '�3 Lars 7��', P�GcrG �s 3 2 / I 39 �icc( t 29 28 t�a4 6;40 1 E 27 J` 52 b 1 41 /42` 43 ~� 26/ q 51 t t 1 44 i 25 in' I - 45 50 i o QS Ai y li Aj � C Al lh 1 � �ry ,I 1 I _ j � ! I I i r 3' � }m."'W"y, A .n•;...--`^:',ter • M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council August 26 , 1985 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director ,`; , , SUBJECT: Lot Line Adjustment 3-85 LOCATION: 12650 San Cayetano (Lot 29, Block 57) APPLICANT: Brian Charnley (Twin Cities Engineering) REQUEST: To adjust the existing lot lines to allow for an addition- al building site. �- On August 5 th, the Planning Commission considered the above-refer- enced matter on its consent calendar unanimously approving the request subject to the findings and conditions contained in the staff report. No one spoke on the matter. HE:ps cc: Brian Charnley Twin Cities Engineering • d :ian Charnley) TA: • • • „4.71 acres ;ot siZe. • ' • Lot Size Factor 1.00 -16 ,000' ) .50 ly (slow) 1.25 p%) 15 !4 slope) •78 mss (unimproved .9 ac.) hood character (3 4.03 acres ,.�� � � `, �� r size: rt Minimum lot reduced by 20�. . . . . . . . . . , • . .3 .22 acres .45 acres . .Parcel 1 _ 4,26 acres zes. • • • • Parcel 2 _ 1.49 acres •Parcel l _ 3.22 acres izes• • • • • • • ' Parcel 2 1 lot JJJJ size is 2 burban) zone, the minimum standards u the performance site is ;ing no the sum of this ;p lot size for information nance. The minimum necessary the Pro supplied the of showing plan/ applicant has consists disposal system, p reduction. of sewage disP tan. sites, location gradin p s, and a preliminary g 3.22 Y lot Size of results in a minimum lot is conforming 4.36 acre the zoning N reduction The under legal lots• roviding .re present nonconforming while Pot line e lot is p this situation this proposal maintains that granting ertY• Staff feels rop site. utilization of p is in a better approval of Lot Line Adjus tment 3-85 based on the tions contained in Exhibit A- ndi pit A - Finding s/Conditions of Approval bi - Location Adjustment bi Lot Line 2 Lot Line Adjustment85 (Brian Charnley) EXHIBIT A - Lot Line Adjustment 3-85 Findings/Conditions of Approval August 5, 1985 FINDINGS 1. The application as submitted has been determined to be categori- cally exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. 2. The application as submitted conforms with all applicable zoning and subdivision regulations, and the granting of a 20% lot size adjustment is justified pursuant to Section 9-3. 144 (c) (2) of the Zoning Ordinance. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The Lot Line Adjustment as generally shown on the map attachment provided herein shall be submitted in final map format to be ap- proved by the Planning Department prior to recordation by the County Recorder ' s Office. 2. The proposed adjusted lot lines shall be surveyed and monuments set at the new property corners prior to recordation of the final map. 3. The location of all improvements and easements shall be delineated on the Final Map. 4. Additional fire hydrants will be required upon development of San Cayetano. 5. An encroachment permit for the private road connection to Puento Road shall be obtained from the Public Works Department. The con- nection shall be constructed per encroachment requirements. 6. Provide ingress and egress easement across Parcel 2 for Parcel 1. If utilities are proposed within the driveway easement, then a public utility easement should also be specified. 7. Construct San Cayetano to a minimum 16 feet wide with a turnaround at the terminus. Drainage facilities shall be installed per cur- rent City road standards. All fill shall be compacted to a mini- mum 90% relative compaction under the direction of a registered civil engineer. 3 Lot Line Adjustment �85 Brian Charnley 7 ( y) _ 8. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a practical plan and profile which shows the vertical and horizontal road alignment shall be submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Department. This shall be drawn by a registered civil engineer and shall ensure that utilities won' t conflict with future road _ improvements. 9. Approval of this lot line adjustment shall expire two years from the date of final approval unless a time extension has been gran- ted pursuant to a written request prior to the expiration date. 4 s • 00,y - �n�3 .46 L H1/ . 5f� 1 sK REVISION DATE 81f _ _ - .r L • 'T . - rtao"i,� q t 'i"x 1 SAN so We y i leu' i . q e 11405y 4115 12 -` �) iEtivE 2°v A GAAVE5 GH�y ..I 9 102 a i 14 /170 - It ]S Sa ]s M 31 / ,y It �. � 8 eos •i � LV Ser: p.. x li = �.: • ' ` ` ,,� alas 9 • � `'�w � � ). silos '� ) .. 8f fa _ Mvs • X l 1 1 i.J 8D oc S a°° 5 'rJ CITY OI+' ATASCADERO Planning De partment - C EI�-r� �1��(•,{ -1��I���T �7�� � - /. -� s'" •M�� 1'S-•fso'A�S'o"�.feiyr'i^e.+ y1 N t - . 4. V clW 2Iw 2la M V L O - ti •'i :T �P a1 -rte' c� /fes ss �l � H to NIW � Y � �` Q b `Y6'>�•-rt��Q;'\ 4I-4 0: 4 ►v ^ .2 w ® ssj�o :`�si C Z�yS B,�L] Cl 9? h 0 rx ^ 3 qv qu o y ^ 3 � v U h� az r`0u v�.°,a � a � n p,a•L "o<� 1. d i fir. • M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council August 26 , 1985 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Lot Line Adjustment 7-85 LOCATION: 6505 Santa Cruz and 1335 Garcia (Lot 18, Block 48) APPLICANT: Jim DeWelt (Daniel J. Stewart) REQUEST: To adjust existing lot lines to provide for better build- ing sites. On August 5th, the Planning Commission considered the above-refer- enced matter on its consent calendar unanimously approving the request subject to the findings and conditions contained in the staff report. No one spoke on the matter. HE:ps cc: Jim DeWelt Daniel J. Stewart • C. SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: 1. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8.46 acres 2. Required Minimum Lot Size. . . . Lot Size Factor Distance from center (14,000 '-16 ,000 ' ) . 50 Septic suitability (well-suited) .50 Average slope (0-20%) . 50 Condition of access (City-maintained) . 40 General neighborhood character . 51 Minimum lot size required: 2.41 acres Minimum lot size allowed by zoning ordinance: 2. 50 acres 3. Proposed Lot Size. . . . . . . . . . . .Parcel A: 2. 5 acres Parcel B: 5. 96 acres D. ANALYSIS: In the RS zone, the minimum lot size is 2 1/2 to 10 acres depend- ing on. the sum of the minimum lot size performance standards contained in the zoning ordinance. In calculating the minimum lot size for this site, special consideration was made for the septic suitability factor . The U.S.G.S. soils maps show the site area as having a severe septic suitability rating, but the applicant has submitted soil percolation tests showing that the soil is well suited for septic systems. The Planning Commission has considered site specific data in the past and has expressed a desire to revise the zoning ordinance to allow for the review of site specific information. Therefore, staff has incorporated this site specific data into their calcu- lations of minimum lot size performance standards and has based their analysis on this policy determination. In this case, the sum of these standards is 2. 41 acres; the zoning ordinance sets the minimum at 2.50 acres which is the same as the applicant' s proposed lot size. Thus, the proposed lot sizes cre- ated by the lot line adjustment are in conformance with the zoning ordinance. E. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Lot Line Adjustment 7-85 based on the findings and conditions contained in Exhibit A. ATTACHMENTS : Exhibit A - Findings/Conditions of Approval Exhibit B - Location Map Exhibit C - Lot Line Adjustment Map EXHIBIT A - Lot Line Adjustment 7-85 Findings/Conditions of Approval August 5, 1985 FINDINGS: 1. The application as submitted has been determined to be categori- cally exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. 2. The application as submitted is consistent with the General Plan and conforms with all applicable zoning and subdivision regulations. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The lot line adjustment as generally shown on the map attachment provided herein shall be submitted in final map format to be ap- proved by the Planning Department prior to recordation by the County Recorder ' s Office. 2. The proposed adjusted lot lines shall be surveyed and monuments set at the new property corners prior to recordation of the final map. 3. The location of all improvements and easements shall be delineated on the final map. The deeded lot line to be removed that divides Parcel 1 shall be shown on the final map. 4. Approval of this lot line adjustment shall expire two years from the date of final approval unless a time extension has been granted pursuant to a written request prior to the expiration date. Oil lillizJ";AjjL!-'nu .IInincr DE3paIatIijt:I14- fk `a-�.m ` ' ^�`\ \ b\�``, lan is If TE as i• <i 7 „!`\ iso tf 3 �r n ,♦4\t, 5y \ego 30 if _' \ 34 \ x.y r .� ga a 39 s (/F--l/•—f( / 41 A \ t .R. s s ,s32 : ``,.. -..�a.,+ xf ,'C \r1^ i a,r I• 4 i 30 , 31 o C • 1 1 r .j• e , ^ i t S� i � • �' �,s tB +i a '..: �`�. :_���,f..7>f.,�`` � 0 1 t:����lo a - s vxr.M•.:�- ''�{�x'.' _--�� 1 yt tet.' ,`t /%:,.:o .ea.v �.^' e� s l •1. . `a..,�`.- ••�° � � •a it f'� ..• "• � /i'I`'1�•.-'i`��'�/ s..`,. s' � 26 12 f o � �� + •\ 9. s`s ".jam \ 2T+:i � o �r� � 11 i -``'.yam -•- ` i. EXH151T " 5 " Lcca+ion, Map L.O4— lam' 4L-A �i gupol n' 8 ww °ate is °` xq V J 4N o9F Q � � o �s °$ ai���� W �°WW � w Qq,• Q Q ,, 1 � � f,,aW a0 �i Q�a•° � � �y 4 gi i �� � � � ��t=� O � kir° ,► 7t� � it NZE •• � � a n0.. w Qv : ot�3 e� �� o � Q �s a {u cik F-/HTom' ` ` " C /1 YLe f 0 b� ob �pT�� �o. £ it•wd.g� p o 2" .7.00,.4r.ss"v IV ps '•:i d /� � , 0. Y" C h A - - �� h q vo •va J IN. L ~M 4_ ...r .iy•afr _ l 3.oO.fo.l1 � ! N M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council August 26 , 1985 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Lot Line Adjustment 8 -85 LOCATION: 6295 and 6305 Flores APPLICANT: Roger Staver (Kennaly Engineering) REQUEST: To adjust existing lot lines to allow existing structures to be on one lot. • On August 5 th, the Planning Commission considered the above-refer- enced matter on its consent calendar unanimously approving the request subject to the findings and conditions contained in the staff report. No one spoke on the matter. HE:ps cc: Roger Staver Kennaly Engineering • C. ANALYSIS: The current lot sizes of Lot 58 and a portion of Lot 54 are 1. 51 and 1.49 acres, respectively. The lots are existing nonconforming lots of record in an RS (Residential Suburban) zone which requires a minimum lot size of from 2 1/2 to 10 acres. City policy has been to permit lot line adjustments in such cases provided the degree of lot size nonconformity is not increased. The applicant is proposing a lot line adjustment which would in- crease Lot 54 by .01 acres while decreasing Lot 58 by .01 acres. It appears the applicant could redesign the lot line adjustment to involve an equal exchange of acreage. This revision to the ad- justment would not alter the degree of nonconformity and would then comply with City policies. D. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Lot Line Adjustment 8-85 based upon the findings and conditions of approval contained in Exhibit A. MM:ps ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Findings/Conditions of Approval Exhibit B - Location Map Exhibit C - Lot Line Adjustment Map EXHIBIT A Lot Line Adjustment 8-85 Findings/Conditions of Approval August 5, 1985 FINDINGS 1. The application as submitted has been determined to be categori- cally exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. 2. The application as submitted is consistent with the General Plan and conforms with all applicable zoning and subdivision regulations. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The lot line adjustment shall be redesigned to involve an equal exchange of acreage. 2. The lot line adjustment as generally shown on the map attachment provided herein shall be submitted in final map format to be ap- proved by the Planning Department prior to recordation by the County Recorder ' s Office. 3. The proposed adjusted lot lines shall be surveyed and monuments set at the new property corners prior to recordation of the final map. 4. The location of all improvements and easements shall be delineated on the final map. The deeded lot line to be removed that divides Parcel 1 shall be shown on the final map. " S. Approval of this lot line adjustment shall expire two years from the date of final approval unless a time extension has been granted pursuant to a written request prior to the expiration date. AT 8>_ 1Z� S-LS-BL SC ,S�j.v .�I,� � ��� ♦1� II j /I�� r ARE yf WCA*C)N MP.kP . �a�e ` •' is 4y € L ,� RMF/10 4 6417 .. \ a /p<�.`_ 'e � �. • " '• RE':ZSi O:: DATE BY - J ~� ^' - �~ >� • ' '9( SAN >.esIt G f"'-p f° '•� •, '�.-- RMFI16 �ti t•°,, y�tYy i'v,}. I9.O -C 1 14 • '. - ylrD 16 � ,•er le'_rM• 1 � s ' 'a w ;y� { ab:�a}�Il.d - ,;ri t, ���. ' • t t - a' h to^ - M� { "� - 'C! , � "`' )rw �}waP�tIt 9 't.•;° Y4 ^° t "v 09 D f0, �4 p �•Tl.a � �./ � C� J// ' *O /naoa � uN , v-m».. ^ tl ro 6 .• f 3�' r+ / J r.. A R •'nw ,0'o h tl.0 .. 'F.y .,y /c P ' Dt L L a w� �0 3 rMr. �„��S)> ,`Y is I�h a •, '? p,r».t / � G•'`�,C � 4ti{ :�. 9` :g;5b 3 ttcw .° Aa �' la t3'+J ya y a`i.B �•�. J�oy �:� r�y� �Jv t4 •"� r ��; T"C:�9 �) ff��� J T •..M2 1 w p 'J 1+. •'•i7 `'�'� �4� r yi 7, It to 31 o s"�{ t"•t�' sb5 1. 17 •�' � S�; x`790 � � If _ p 1] k iu as R, Jt 1., +' ' ' a•°t _�� Szao tt 7 r LEi " 'tti... N " '' -�, � ''*•• 51,3 to t S - -��i v pw ate, ;• -•cam'• - •. '• IQ �. d �t � ItHH'J "• '••` e 1 t- Ti ', r,. tow.. `, ai t�\ rc 6^•� .Yy ,�a ,•♦ (.,/e �.Q �.+ `'''��••���tarS. ,3`7\t)`Ib -_ • 5'�y, moi`,, .•:'t• � �+•` 11 y [,20 �•1 a',• i`•l 1B• '.,.?'r' +.'�; -rte� C ��''y�. _ �e5� rt4� `j. ,..,1l+ _ h 1[ t) 4� 7J. i,•5 • ; . .¢' - .. •5�cs � < °,� rR :.. � �r� L�F er).o ' �ia s' ib '�i , a S e ... • 1i+`,y:' y. W �r •..41•Ih• t•• ��> >��3 � S 4 '..j ; 17 ' / Q t N e t ��.' '•1 �ro y i. .�e FB L SF— In dU\IK•..rT. �3_r;, 66 ' S,B6. lip• ;DZa •a° ' t° • ar;. '•� 2 -.+° [ .a>rd,9• '�±fK 10 f O 6t "' ?n r: `Z9 •( t ; _ ,w t . - s ns13 ••IOG �.`+tS���y 1 � •,aD :.t �{ft.. H' 'y' ea `tb at r D° r 1 ' - It s 14 s ! .a'• ^" 1 • r.ee.a 66 y)a' ;,� „ h b .~ •� \ LSF—*- ' - T ai •F , ,tt�•' �,�'^•V f'�.1 �,� : >\• /.S •^•` ,, ,• .,. >' � T'CS r JOOy Y _ o.,•. A 50 it.+ y.5 s ' '45 Dp .,•r3) \c).`} • ,+ ., A�55 1 rJ 4SUF Z' 4•(IS . 1 1,lam. i' tt tid' •'fl 5101• . .' ISJu , ,',/• iy -�' .a' >rs ,. 79 .. I'S J�os •.-Ph' �,LV1 01. t... t, •` �• -- / �R•Mw �.:i� 7 � s\'y•..+ 82 so P aS s i sy•• ) >rs t �r r;' r tc u 601d"� , . ',,�..+..tsfY.+e r',r•.. a1 "`.o•ft , ,, ti .e ( ri, ..• tl „� \ •��`�. ) • •.t ,+'o •r... �r. i' .c„ iIy` rroUB�C�� �, a r10 v V 11H , b.e ..i tt, s s ka 'lys :,{] r T LSC'Y / r (� i e2� +�• t 1.7••I °40 SF ,y`HFJ ws s\ o,+��.• r rau )�,�'` /"V v , tf'« Jan`+ j+, '(p'l,._ �_ -\{ ,�..I•+. a. S �. i .••� ' as ,' ,f f•,.� 1 ,,s>� _ 'C� N1C m ^sf)� �J a,P�'` r..�, - - v off' ` �e�oo Y'•�° t ��y� ncp }s p� �r ice\ I' r-'' -v - ,• y. `a -+S" t,r.a u»,s'1�+V�F'' g��,u r�'� �r..�,j.t.. e s v s•. ylt ',..�wW :� r1 \ t ��+�\`• •t •i'. Js/ /r"�--_.r...` %°yam`l �� f pilo S G /�j�d\y•[J���a ,,��y� .• t -° '- e,tiegN`�r. '��� �• k,'- r`e!'!�?S'R`•��vsr'.i�'�sv�%s' CITY OF ATASCADERO Planning Department � 1 L7 vR� I .- 6_ r� e 1t M w•.•_•w�� ? �_ '1 i -. _ , Y ,,. ]�nth r �.+..••.•r"`��' •�",r�.,1/1 i.1 C. t:Zi11-.r�.r:" 7- 1./•f ...... '• . _ .�..�. ._ _ __. .. 1� •.. �`3[ s,l�,.•/V,�� h O � h �o N44� I Ot A)??*42rN tx ALIn o� 66/:J $ ©d0cy SMOY 3 4� k1Z, TO: Mike Shelton, City Manager August 26, 1985 FROM: Karen Vaughan, Administrative Secretary SUBJECT: I.B.M. COPIER REPLACEMENT RECOMMENDATION: 1. Authorize Mayor Rolfe Nelson, upon review and recommendation by Acting City Attorney, to enter into a lease/purchase agreement with I.B.M. for acquisition of a IBM Series 3, Model 60 Copier. 2. That City trade-in current copier for $1,197 as credit towards the lease/purchase of the new copier . BACKGROUND: The presently owned IBM Model 20 maintenance and copy cost (52,000 copies per month) averages $1,209.00 monthly. The Model 20 has become increasingly undependable with frequent break- downs seriously handicapping business productivity through down time. Staff reviewed a recent Data Pro User Rating Survey, rating high- volume copiers (attached) which analyzed 129 copiers and gave an overall "honor role" rating to the following: Eastman Kodak. . . . . . . . . .Not offered in the Central Coast area IBM Model 40 & 60. . . . . .$20,490 including additional features Xerox 1075 & 1090. . . : . .Basic cost approximately $70, 000 (not including additional features As can be seen, the Kodak Copier is not an option as it is not serviced in this area and the Xerox Copier is cost prohibitive. COST ANALYSIS: The purchase cost of the IBM Model 60 is $20 ,490. With a 36-month lease period, monthly cost (maintenance and copier cost based on 52,000 copies per month) will be $1,182. 00 . As can be seen, the City can acquire a new IBM Model 60 Copier on a 36-month lease/purchase basis (including copy and maintenance cost) for less money than we are paying presently for copying and maintenance costs alone. 1 t C01 1-015-101 v j - • Copiers ATTACHMENT #1 User Ratings of Copiers Regardless of how impressive its features or how much fanfare surrounds its introduction,,a co-pier's true strengths The results of Datapro's 1985 Copier User Survey andlor shortcomings can only be gleaned from its day-to- are presented in this report. A description of the flay performance in the user's environment.User opinions survey methodology and questionnaire format can serve a dual purpose:they provide testaments to the quality be found with the actual survey results.Following and capabilities of a particular model and they provide an this report are tables containing summaries of the 1 indication to the vendors of what areas they need to work user evaluations for 2,078 copiers,including low-, on further. Since such is the case, Datapro polled a cross-_ mid-, high-, and duplicating-volume units. section of users of low-, mid-, high-, and duplicating- volume� copiers. The results of the 1985 Datapro Copier 1,I63 rated a single copier, 191 rated 2 copiers; 89 rated 3 User Survey are presented in this report;the survey analy- machines; and 122 rated 4 or more copiers. Figure 1 sis is based on information received from questionnaires illustrates these categories of respondents. mailed to subscribers of THE OFFICE magazine located throughout the United States. All valid returns were batched and the results tabulated by Respondents to the survey answered questions covering Datapro's in-house market research staff.The information sgathered was summarized as percentages of total responses, such areas as primary copier applications,equipment con- figuration, acquisition methods, usage patterns, and selec- Percentages of those answering a particular question, and weighted averages. Weighted averages were computed us- tion criteria. In addition,the users rated their machines in ing a scale of 1.4-tp 10.0 with 10.0 being the highest score 11 subjective categories.The result is an evaluation of 129 obtainable. The number of responses for each value was copier models. Also, we have compiled a list of those multiplied by the corresponding weight, i.e., "Excellent" copiers held in the highest esteem by respondents to this was weighted as 10 and"Poor"was weighted as 1,and the year's survey.The 1985 Honor Roll of Copiers can be found average taken by dividing the sum of the products by the later in this report. total number of responses for that category. We would like to stress that individual profiles or ratings QUESTIONNAIRE FORMAT should never be the major consideration in making an acquisition decision. However,when used with discretion Users were asked to answer 93 questions in 3 broad and with the understanding that many factors are involved in selecting a copier, the information gathered from this categories. survey can be useful during the equipment evaluation GENERAL INFORMATION—In the first section of the rocess. questionnaire,we asked users to indicate how many people SURVEY METHODOLOGY were employed at their address and to identify the overall copying environment at their locations. In addition, re- spondents were asked to indicate their copier acquisition Questionnaires were mailed to 19,802 OFFICE subscrib- plans for 1985 and to rate certain selection considerations D► ers. Each allowed the user to rate a single copier model, although recipients were encouraged to reproduce the form in order to rate more than 1 model.All of the returns were audited by Datapro analysts, and a number of them were Four or more copiers per respondent judged to be invalid for 1 or more of the.following reasons: Three copiers per respondent more than I copier model was rated on a single form;the Two copiers per respondent response was a duplicate; the form was received after the syr; deadline; the ratings section of the questionnaire was not 6% completed;machines were rated that were not copiers;or, the response revealed a vested interest on the part of the respondent. Copier models receiving less than 5 responses 12% were not included in the breakdown of the user ratings, although the responses were considered to be valid and were included in the tabulation of the vendor summaries. pax Datapro processed returns from a total of 2,128 respon- One copier per dents—i l percent of the mailing.From those respondents respondent we received 3,155 responses,of which 2,410 were judged to be valid and 745 were determined invalid. Respondents represented a broad range of installations, from small organizations with only 1 copier to large firms or institu- Figure 1. Breakdown of users responding for single or multiple tions with more than 50 copiers.Of the valid respondents, units. JULY 1985 ©1985 DATAPRO RESEARCH CORPORATION,DELRAN,NJ 08075 USA REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED + CD11-015-102 J Copiers i User Ratings of Copiers );.on a scale of 1 to 10,with 10 being"very important"and I copier must have received no less than 20 responses rating being "not important Answers to this section of the the unit,must have an Overall Satisfaction rating of no less questionnaire were counted only once for users who sub- than 8.0, and must have no other rating of less than 7.3. mitted multiple returns. While other copiers met i or 2 of the criteria, only the following fulfilled all requirements for a place on the 1985 USAGE INFORMATION—Here we asked users to identi- Datapro Honor Roll of Copiers. fy the manufacturer and model of the copier being rated and to indicate the attachments with which it was LOW-VOLUME COPIERS equipped. Users were also asked to indicate the length of time the copier had been installed and to identify the type Overall of environment in which it was located. In addition, we Satisfac- Other No. of surveyed users for information pertaining to their copier tion Lowest Respons- acquisition methods and their replacement plans for 1985. Rating , Score es Finally,we requested data on the number of copies general- ly produced per original on the rated model; the greatest Xerox 1035 8.1 8.0 69 number of copies produced per original; the number of Xerox 2830 8.2 7.7 35 copies produced per month; how many times per month the copier required service,either scheduled or nonsched- MID-VOLUME COPIERS j uled;and the primary applications for which the copier was employed. Overall . RATING INFORMATION--In this section,each respon- �- Satisfac- Other No. oftion Lowest Respons dent was asked to rate the copier in i l areas: ease of Rating Score as operation; copy quality; ability to copy various types of originals;ease of user maintenance;reliability of the copier, Minolta EP 4502 8.5 7.6 41 reliability of the attachments; vendor technical support, Minolta EP 5308 8.0 -71.6 22 including training, responsiveness, and effectiveness of Savin 5030 8.0 7.5 27 service; actual performance compared to anticipated per- _ formance;and overall satisfaction with the unit. The final survey question allowed users to indicate whether or not HIGH-VOLUME COPIER/DUPLICATORS they were satisfied enough with the copier to recommend it to others with copying needs similar to their own. Overall Satisfac- Other No. of SURVEY RESULTS tion Lowest Respons- Rating Score as In the tables accompanying this report we present informa- tion gathered on 129 copier models. Both plain-and coat- 150AF ed-paper copiers are represented in the tabulations; Eastman Kodak 9.2 8.4 22 however,we did not received enough responses to include 200AF any coated-paper models in the ratings section.Along with tabulating the responses for individual copier makes and IBM Series III 8.0 7.3 22 models, Datapro wanted to examine and compare the Model ' - results by manufacturer.Therefore,vendor summaries are ModIBM Serieess III 8.3 7.9 10i presented in a second set of tables following this report and Xerox810705 . 8.6 8.2 67 contain ratings for the 17 firms whose models were rated in the 1985 survey. IO%• ' DUPLICATING-VOLUME COPIERS To assist'readers in examining the results of this survey,we have identified 4 classes of copiers:low-volume units(with Overall rated speeds between 1 and 20 copies per minute); mid- Satisfac- Other No. of volume units(with copying speeds ranging from 21 to 50 tion Lowest Respons- copies per minute);high-volume copier/duplicators(oper- Rating Score es ating at speeds of 51 to 90 copies per minute);and duplicat- ing copiers(with rated speeds of 91 copies per minute). Xerox 9500 8.4 7.4 28 HONOR ROLL SPECIAL MERIT AWARDS Eligibility for this year's Honor Roll was determined by comparing the tabulated results for the individual models Among the areas of major concern to copier users are the in the Users'Ratings category of the questionnaire against reliability of the copier, copy quality, vendor service,and selected criteria.To qualify for a place on the Honor Roll,a overall satisfaction with the vendor.Aside from the Honor>— 1 © 1985 DATAPRO RESEARCH CORPORATION, DELRAN,NJ 08075 USA JULY 1985 REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED ATTACHMENT #2 llE - a International Business Machines Corporation 3820 State Street �1 467 July 24, 1985 P.O. Box Santa Barbara, California 93130 805/569-3400 Mr. Michael Shelton City Administrator City of Atascadero If 6500 Palma Avenue t Atascadero, CA 93422 1 Dear Mr. Shelton: am enclosing comparisons bet-ween your current IBM Model 20 Copier and I the Model 60 which is designed for higher volume and has more features. Current Costs Per Month (July 1 , 1985 Prices) Model 20 with reduction, 20 bin collator and mete r:_receptacIe (auditron) average volume 52,000. Base maintenance cost $223.00 Copy costs (0-20K @.117) (20K+ @ .0235) 986.00 $1 Proposed Copier Costs Model 60 with automatic document feed, reduction, 20 bin collator and copy control feature. ICC G' Lease Purchase 36 Months 48 Months 60 Months Model 60 $16,650.00 $551 .00 $436.00 $367.00• ADF 1 ,050.00 35.00 27.00 23.00 Reduction 900.00 30.00 24.00 20.00 20 bin collator 1 ,650.00 55.00 43.00 36.00 Copy control 240.00 8.00 6.00 5.00 $20,490.00 $679.00 $536.00 $451 .00 Maintenance and copy costs per month after 6 months warranty. i Model 60 $112.00 ADF 10.00 Reduction 11 :00 20 bin collator 48.00 Copy control 10.00 191 .00 Copy cost @ .006 each (52 ,000) $312.00 1 1 Mr. Shelton July 24, 1985 Page Two Under the 3 lease periods shown above your costs would be: 36 Months 48 Months 60 Months Base lease $679.00 $536.00 $451.00 Maintenance 191 .00 191 .00 191 .00 Copy cost 312.00 312.00 312.00 $1 ,182.00 $1 ,039.00 954.00 For the first 6 months after installation, your costs would be reduced b $503.00 per month maintenance and copy costs) because of the warranty. The only supply costs other than paper is toner. Prices for toner #1669070 is based on the number of cartons purchased. Each carton yields approximately 77,000 copies shipped in multiples of 2 cartons. Quantitv Price Each 2 $85.00 4-10 77.00 12+ 70.00 The trade-in value of your Model 20 with 20 bin collator, serial 1520314 is $1 ,197.00. There are no transportation or installation charges on a purchased or ICC leased copier. (Unusual moving and drayage charges, such as stair crawlers, etc. , etc. are chargeable) . The enclosed prices are for your information only and are subject to change. Please let us know if you need additional information. Sincerely, Donald G. Cockrell William C. Klaiber Copier Specialist Marketing Manager National Marketing Division National Marketing Division 1 DCC/WCKK:fs Enclosures cc: Bruce Eggleton, IBM Corporation { a 77 RESOLUTION 82-85 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO APPROVING A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AND - LOCAL 817 SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNIT ATASCADERO CHAPTER CLERICAL BARGAINING UNIT WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero has met and conferred in good faith with Local 817 Service Employees International Union (S.E.I.U. ) Atascadero Chapter Clerical Bargaining Unit for the purpose of discussing wages, benefits, and other conditions of employment; and WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero and the Atascadero Chapter Clerical Bargaining Unit have reached an agreement regarding said wages, benefits, and other conditions of employment for the term of Fiscal Years 1985/86 and 1986/87; iNOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Atascadero City Council hereby approves the Memorandum of Understanding between the City and Local 817 Service Employees International Union Atascadero Chapter Clerical Bargaining Unit for Fiscal Years 1985/86 and 1986/87, and authorizes the City Manager , as the Employee Relations Officer, to enter into said agreement on behalf of the City. On motion by Councilperson and seconded by Councilperson , the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED• CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA By: ROLFE NELSON, Mayor • 81985 .MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING CITY NIGFR. BETWEEN THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AND LOCAL 817 SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, ATASCADERO CHAPTER CLERICAL BARGAINING UNIT This Memorandum of Understanding is entered into between the Employee Relations Officer of the City of Atascadero, hereinafter referred to as "City, " and the Local 817 Service Employees International Union, Atascadero Chapter Clerical Bargaining Unit, hereinafter referred to as "Unit, " and made pursuant to California Government Code Sections 3500, et seq. , City of Atascadero Municipal Code, Title 2, Chapter 2, Section 2-2 . 01 through Section 2-2 . 13, inclusive, and the City of Atascadero Resolution No. 12-80, dated July 14, 1980, and subsequent amendments thereto. The parties have met and conferred in good faith regarding employment terms and conditions for members of the Unit as recognized by the City of Atascadero on May 9, 1983, and, having reached agreement, as herein set forth, submit this memorandum to the City Council with a joint recommendation that that body resolve to adopt the terms and conditions and take such other additional actions as may be necessary to implement its provisions . Section 1 . 0 Purpose. It is the purpose of the Memorandum of Understanding, hereinafter referred to as "MOU, " to promote and provide for continuity of operation in employment through harmonious relations, cooperation and understanding between management and employees covered by the provisions of this MOU and to set forth the understanding reached between the parties as a result of good faith negotiations on matters set forth herein. Section 2 . 0 Full Understanding, Modifications, Waiver. 2. 1 This MOU sets forth the full and entire understanding of the parties regarding the matters set forth herein. Any other prior or existing understanding or agreement by the parties, whether formal or informal, regarding any such matters, are hereby suspended or terminated in their entirety, if in conflict with this Memorandum. f 2 .2 No agreement , alteration, understanding, variation, waiver or modification of any of the terms or provisions contained herein shall in any manner by binding upon the parties hereto unless made and executed in writing by both parties hereto and, if required, approved and implemented by the City Council. 2 . 3 The waiver of any breach, term orconditionof this Agreement by either party shall not constitute a precedent in the future enforcement of all its terms and provisions. Section 3.0 Vacation and Holidays. 3. 1 Vacation leave shall be credited, computed and used as specified by Section 9. 0, Employee Benefits, of Resolution No. 12-80, dated July 14, 1980. 3.2 It is agreed and understood that the taking of vacation, shall be as scheduled by the Department Head subject to the needs of the City. 3.3 Holidays shall be observed in accordance with Section 9. 4, Employees Benefits, of Resolution No. 12-80 dated July 14, 1980, and Resolution No. 52-82, Section 5, Subparagraph K dated November 8, 1982 . Section 4 . 0 Salaries and Health Insurance. 4 . 1 Effective July 6, 1985, salaries in effect on July 5, 1985 shall be increased by five (5%) percent . Effective July , 1986, salaries in effect on July , 1986, shall be increased by four (4%) percent. Effective January , 1987, salaries in effect on January , 1987, shall increased by two (2%) percent. 4 .2 The City and Association agree to convert the existing salary plan to a five step salary plan. Current employees shall be converted to the new plan effective January , 1986; all employees hired after August 1, 1985, shall be placed on the five Step plan. a. Trainee, Qualified and Fully Qualified salary rates shall be converted to steps A, C & E respectively. b. New steps B & E shall be created by establishing the mid-point between steps A & C and C & E. C. Newly hired employees shall normally be placed at Step A. Advanced step hiring may be approved by the City Manager. d. Movement between steps shall be at twelve month intervals and subject to satisfactory performance. The initial step movement after hiring, however, shall be after twelve months or after completion of probation, whichever occurs later. e. Effective January , 1986, current employees at salary rate Fully Qualified shall be placed at Step E. f. Effective January , 1986, current employees with eighteen months or more service time at the qualified salary rate shall be advanced to Step E. g. Effective January , 1986, current employees with less than eighteen months service at the Qualified salary rate shall be placed at Step C of the new salary plan. Thereafter, they shall be eligible for salary step advancement at twelve month intervals. h. Current employees at Trainee salary rates shall proceed to the Qualified or Step C salary rate in accordance with the rules of the existing salary plan. Thereafter, they shall be eligible for Step Advancement at twelve month intervals . i. the parties acknowledge that the above contains their conceptual agreement as to the salary plan conversion and that more detailed personnel rule language will be needed to fully implement the salary plan. Draft personnel language will be forwarded to the Association for review, and, upon request, joint meetings, prior to its adoption. 4 .3 The City agrees to pay for all medical and dental benefits for each unit member employee and the rate and coverage prevailing under the City' s medical and dental program as it now exists through the City' s agreement with the New England Life Insurance Company as established by the Agreement of the Joint City-Employee Medical Insurance Committee. It is agreed that the i City will pay for fiscal year 1985-86 dependent medical and dental coverage up to Ninety Five and 89/100 ($95 . 89) Dollars per month. Effective October 1, 1986, the City' s maximum dependent medical/dental coverage shall be increased to One Hundred Ten and 89/100 ($110 . 89) Dollars. 4 . 4 For those employees without dependents or who do not choose to enroll their dependents in the City plan, the amount of the City contribution shall be paid to the employee as an addition to his/her regular pay. Section 5 . 0 Union Security. 5 . 1 Dues Deductions . The City and Union agree that requests for, changes in, and cancellations of union dues and other deductions shall be promptly processed through the Finance Department and put into effect at the employee' s request. Deductions shall be made from each paycheck and remitted to the Union monthly. Requests for deductions shall be made by City- approved authorization cards in accordance with applicable State law. The City will process changes in the amount of Union dues as often as once every three months. Dues deduction amounts may vary between employees. The City will notify the Union of all changes in deductions monthly. The Union agrees to indemnify and hold the City harmless from any liabilities which may arise as a result of the application of this Article. 5 .2 Union Access. A) The City agrees that an authorized union staff member may be granted access to a work location to participate in investigation and processing of grievances per the grievance procedure or to observe working conditions, when and to the extent necessary, and only if it will in no event adversely affect the operational, security or safety requirements of the City, upon the approval of the Employee Relations Officer or his/her designee. B) The Union shall provide the Employee Relations Officer with a list of all authorized staff representatives, and the list shall be kept current by the Union. C) When and to the extent necessary and only if it will in no event adversely affect the operational, security or safety requirements of the City and upon notification and approval of the Employee Relations Officer or his/her designee, an authorized union staff member is permitted to communicate with employee (s) and/or union steward(s) on official City time without said employee (s) and/or union steward(s) loss of compensation. It is not the intent of this section to allow general union meetings on City time; but rather to allow investigation and discussion of working conditions, grievances and safety issues. D) It is understood that every reasonable effort shall be made to perform the above activities on off-duty time. E) The City will allow the use of existing bulletin board space. Bulletin board space shall be used only for the following subjects : 1) Local 817 recreational information, social and related news bulletins; 2) scheduled meetings; 3) information concerning elections or results thereof; and 4) reports of official business of Local 817 . Prior to posting items shall be initialed by an authorized representative of the Union and City. All outdated materials must be removed by the Union. 5 .3 Union Stewards . A) The City authorizes the unit to appoint three (3) "union stewards", any one of which may represent an employee subject to the City' s grievance procedure. B) The Union shall provide the employee Relations Officer with a list of all authorized union stewards, and the list shall be kept current. C) An employee and/or his/her "union steward" representative may, when and to the extent necessary, take official City time without loss of compensation in order to participate in the investigation and processing of a grievance, upon notification and approval of the Employee Relations Officer or his/her designee. D) The Employee Relations Officer will approve employee and/or union steward taking official time to investigate and process a grievance when and to the extent necessary and only if it will in no event adversely affect the operational, security or safety requirements of the City. E) It is understood that the employee and/or union steward shall make every reasonable effort to perform the above activities on off duty time. , Section 6.0 Contracting Out . The City will give reasonable notice to the Union if it intends to contract out the functions currently performed by employees within the Unit . Upon request, the City will meet with the Union to explain the reason for the decision to contract out and to solicit Union views on the proposal . Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the rights of the City Council to contract out work in its sole discretion. Section 7 .0 Term Life Insurance. 7 .1 City shall maintain a term life insurance policy for each unit member in a total amount of Fifteen Thousand dollars ($15, 000. 00) and shall pay all premiums for such policy during the term of this Agreement. 7 .2 Effective July 6, 1985, the City shall maintain a term life insurance policy for each dependent of each 'unit member in a total amount of One Thousand Dollars ($1, 000 . 00) per dependent and shall pay all premiums for such policy during the term of this Agreement . Section 8 .0 General Benefits . 8 . 1 It is agreed that overtime, compensatory time off (CTO) , retirement, leaves and other benefits and conditions of employment shall be as specified by City Resolutions No. 12-80, 31-81 and 52-82 and Atascadero Municipal Code, Title 2, Chapter 2, inclusive. Pregnancy leave shall be provided in accordance with State Law. 8 .2 Support Services Aides shall be allowed to accrue 16 holiday hours prior to required payoff. 8 . 3 The City agrees to add grandparents to the list of family members for whom the employee is allowed to take bereavement leave. Section 9. 0 Probationary Period. The probationary period for newly hired employees shall be twelve months. The probationary period for employees promoted to a higher classification shall be six months in the new classification. The City shall have the option of granting a newly hired employee permanent status at any time after nine (9) months of service. Section 10 . 0 State Disability Insurance. If permitted by State law, unit employees shall be allowed to vote on addition of State Disability Insurance. Insurance premiums shall be paid by the employee, if a majority of the unit employees vote for addition of insurance coverage. Prior to implementation of the insurance, the City and Union shall agree on an integration formula which shall be set up so as to insure employees receiving State Disability Insurance do not receive greater net pay than they would receive while working. Section 11 . 0 Shift Changes. The City shall give employees reasonable notice of routine shift changes. Emergency shift changes shall be made on an as needed basis . Section 12 . 0 Effective Date. It is understood and agreed upon that the provisions of this MOU shall be effective as of 0001 a.m. , July 1, 1985, and shall remain in effect, unless modified by mutual agreement, until midnight June 30, 1987 . Section 13. 0 Implementation. 13. 1 This MOU constitutes a mutual recommendation to be submitted to the Atascadero City Council. It is understood that this MOU shall not be binding upon parties either in whole or in part unless and until said City Council : a) acts, by a majority vote, formally to approve and adopt said MOU, b) and acts in a timely manner to appropriate the funds necessary to implement the provisions of this MOU which require funding. 13.2 Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event the City Council fails to take all of the actions necessary for timely implementation of this MOU, either party may request the renewal of the meet and confer procedure. Section 14 . 0 Provisions of Law. 14 . 1 This MOU is subject to all current applicable federal, state and local laws, regulations and resolutions. Ordinances, rules and regulations dealing with employee wages, hours and working conditions enacted by the City Council shall be subject to the appropriate revisions, amendments and deletions necessary to conform with the purpose, intent and application of the provisions of this Agreement . 14.2 If any part or provision of this MOU is in conflict or inconsistent with such applicable provisions of federal, state or local laws or regulations, or is otherwise held to be invalid or unenforceable by any tribunal or competent jurisdiction, such part shall be suspended and superseded by such applicable law or regulations, and the remainder of this MOU shall not be affected. 14 .3 The Association and City understand the pendency of the issuance of Fair Labor Standards Act Regulations. It is agreed that the lack of accurate information makes it impossible to the City to implement all elements of the Fair Labor Standards- Act at this time. The City reserves the right to take all steps necessary to implement the Fair Labor Standards Act when information is available. Upon request, the City will meet with the Association to discuss the implementation. Section 15. 0 Applicability of Other, Rules and Regulations. It is agreed that all provisions of any existing or prior, understandings or personnel policies, customs, practices and actions not specifically included in Atascadero Municipal Code, Title 2, Chapter 2, inclusive, and associated rules and regulations adopted by the City Council of the City of Atascadero, shall be superseded by the provisions of this MOU. Section 16. 0 Management Rights. The authority of the City includes, but is not limited to the exclusive right to determine the mission of its constituent departments, commissions and boards; set standards of service; and promotion; direct its employees; take disciplinary action for "just cause"; relieve employees from duty because of lack of work or for other legitimate reasons; maintain the efficiency of governmental operations; determine the methods, manning and 1 t t N personnel by which governmental operations are to be conducted; determine the content of job classifications; take all necessary actions to carry out its mission in emergencies; exercise complete control and discretion over its organization and the technology of performing its work; provided, however, that the exercise and retention of such rights does not preclude employees or their representatives from consulting or raising grievances over the consequences or impact that decisions on these matters may have on wage, hours and other terms of employment. Section 17. 0 Grievance Procedure. Unit employees shall be entitled to utilize the grievance procedure as outlined in Section 6. 0 of Resolution No. 12-80 Section 18 . 0 Peaceful Performance Clause. , ,The parties to this MOU recognize and acknowledge that the services performed by the City employees covered by this Agreement are essential to the public health, safety and general welfare of the residents of the City of Atascadero. Union agrees that under no circumstances will the Union recommend, encourage, cause or pert its members to initiate, participate in, nor will any member of the bargaining unit take part in, any strike, sit- down, stay-in, sickout, slow-down, or picketing (hereinafter collectively referred to as work-stoppage) , in any office or department of the City, nor to curtail any work or restrict any production, or interfere with any operation of the City. In the event of any such work stoppage by any member of the bargaining unit, the City shall not be required to negotiate on the merits of any dispute which may have risen to such work stoppage until said work stoppage has ceased. In the event of any work stoppage, during the term of this MOU, whether by the Union or by any member of the bargaining unit, the Union by its officers, shall immediately declare in writing and publicize that such work stoppage is illegal and unauthorized, and further direct its members in writing to cease the said conduct and resume work. Copies of such written notices shall be served upon the City. If in the event of any work stoppage the Union promptly and in good faith performs the obligations of this paragraph, and providing the Union has not otherwise authorized, permitted or encouraged such work stoppage, the Union shall not be liable for any damages caused by the violation of this provision. However, the City shall have the i 0 0 right g t to discipline, to include discharge, any employee who instigates, participates in, or gives leadership to, any work stoppage activity herein prohibited, and the City shall also have the right to seek full legal redress including damages, as against any such employees. ATASCADERO CLERICAL CITY OF ATASCADERO BARGAINING UNIT DATE DATE EXHIBIT I - MONTHLY SALARY SCHEDULE . S.E.I.U. - CLERICAL UNIT MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FY 1985/86 - 1986/87 (EFFECTIVE JULY 6, 1955) Step Classification A B C D E Clerical Assistant I 1020 '1080 1140 1190 1250 Clerical Assistant II 1120 1190 1250 1310 1370 Support Services Aide 1180 1250 1310 1380 1440 EXHIBIT II MONTHLY SALARY SCHEDULE S.E.I.U. - CLERICAL UNIT MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FY 1985/86 - 1986/87 (EFFECTIVE JULY 7, 1986) Classification Step A B C D E Clerical Assistant I 1060 1120 1190 1240 1300 Clerical Assistant II 1160 1240 1300 1360 1420 Support Services Aide 1230 1300 1360 1.440 1500 Y EXHIBIT III - MONTHLY SALARY SCHEDULE S.E.I.U. - CLERICAL UNIT • MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING_ FY 1985/86-1986/87 (EFFECTIVE JANUARY 3 , 1987) Classification Step A B C D E Clerical Assistant I 1080 1140 1210 1260 1330 Clerical Assistant II 1180 1260 1330 1390 1450 Support Services Aide 1250 1330 1390 1470 1530 _'o/ RESOLUTION 87-85 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO APPROVING A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING • BETWEEN THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AND LOCAL 817 SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNIT ATASCADERO CHAPTER GENERAL SERVICES BARGAINING UNIT WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero has met and conferred in good faith with Local 817 Service Employees International Union (S.E.I.U. ) Atascadero Chapter General Services Bargaining Unit for the purpose of discussing wages, benefits, and other conditions of employment; and WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero and the Atascadero Chapter General Services Bargaining Unit have reached an agreement regarding said wages, benefits, and other conditions of employment for the term of Fiscal. Years -1985/86 and 1986/87; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Atascadero City Council hereby approves the Memorandum of Understanding between the City and Local 817 Service Employees International Union Atascadero Chapter General Services Bargaining Unit for Fiscal Years 1985/86 and 1986/87, and authorizes the City Manager , as the Employee Relations Officer, to • enter into said agreement on behalf of the City. On motion by Councilperson and seconded by Councilperson the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety onothe following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED: CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA By: ROLFE NELSON, Mayor ATTEST: ROBERT M. JONES, City Clerk • MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AND LOCAL 817 SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, ATASCADERO CHAPTER GENERAL SERVICES BARGAINING UNIT The Memorandum of Understanding is entered into between the Employee Relations Officer of the City of Atascadero, hereinafter referred to as "City, " and the Local 817 Service Employees International Union, Atascadero Chapter General Services Bargaining Unit, hereinafter referred to as "Unit, " and made pursuant to California Government Code Sections 3500, et seq. , City of Atascadero Municipal Code Title 2, Chapter 2, Section 2-2 . 01 through 2-2 . 13, inclusive, and the City of Atascadero Resolution No. 12-80, dated July 14,1980, and subsequent amendments thereto. The parties have met and conferred in good faith regarding employment terms- and conditions for members of the Unit as recognized by the City of Atascadero on April 12, 1982, and, having reached agreement, as herein set forth, submit this Memorandum to the City Council with a joint recommendation that that body resolve to adopt the terms and conditions and take such other additional actions as may be necessary to implement its provisions . Section 1. 0 Purpose. It is the purpose of the Memorandum of Understanding, hereinafter referred to as "MOU, " to promote and provide for continuity of operation in employment through harmonious relations, cooperation and understanding between management and employees covered by the provisions of this MOU and to set forth the understanding reached between the parties as a result of good faith negotiations on matters set forth herein. Section 2 . 0 Full Understanding, Modifications, Waiver. 2 . 1 This MOU sets forth the full and entire understanding of the parties regarding the matters set forth herein. any other prior or existing understanding or agreement by the parties, whether formal or informal, regarding any such matters, are hereby suspended or terminated in their entirety, if in conflict with this Memorandum. A, 2 .2 No agreement, alteration, understanding, variation, , waiver or modification of any of the terms or provisions contained herein shall in any manner be binding upon the parties hereto unless made and executed in writing by both parties hereto and, if required, approved and implemented by the City Council. 2 .3 The waiver of any breach, term, or condition of this Agreement by either party shall not constitute a precedent in the future enforcement of all its terms and conditions. Section 3. 0 Vacation and Holidays 3 . 1 Vacation leave shall be credited, computed and used as specified by Section 9. 0, Employee Benefits, of Resolution No. 12-80, dated July 14, 1980 . 3 .2 It is agreed and understood that the taking of vacation shall be as scheduled by the Department Head subject to the needs of the City. 3 .3 Employees transferring from the County shall use their county hire date to determine their vacation accrual entitlement. 3.4 Holidays shall be observed in accordance with Section 9.4, Employees Benefit, of Resolution 12-80 dated July 14, 1980 and Resolution 52-82, Section 5, subparagraph K, dated November 8, 1982 . Section 4 . 0 Salaries and Health Insurance. 4 . 1 Effective July 6, 1985, salaries in effect on July 5, 1985, shall be increased by five (50) percent. Effective July 7 , 1986, salaries in effect on July 6 , 1986, shall be increased by four (4%) percent . Effective January 3 , 1987, salaries in effect on January 2 , 1987, shall be increased by two (2%) percent . 4 .2 The City and Union agree to convert the existing salary plan to a five step salary plan. Current employees shall be converted to the new plan effective January 4 , 1986; all employees hired after August 1, 1985, shall be placed on the five Step plan. a. Trainee, Qualified and Fully Qualified salary rates shall be converted to steps A, C & E respectively. -2- b. New steps B & E shall be created by establishing the mid-point between steps A & C and C & E. c. Newly hired employees shall normally be placed at Step A. Advanced step hiring may be approved by the City Manager. d. Movement between steps shall be at twelve month intervals and subject to satisfactory performance. The initial step movement after hiring, however, shall be after twelve months or after completion of probation, whichever occurs later. e. Effective January 4 , 1986, current employees at salary rage fully qualified shall be placed at Step E. f. Effective January 4 , 1986, current employees with eighteen months or more service time at the qualified salary rate shall be advanced to Step E. g. Effective January 4 , 1986, current employees with less than eighteen months service at the qualified salary rate shall be placed at Step C of the new salary plan. Thereafter, they shall be eligible for salary step advancement at twelve month intervals. h. Current employees at Trainee salary rates shall proceed to the Qualified or Step C salary rate in accordance with the rules of the existing salary plan. Thereafter, they shall be eligible for Step Advancement at twelve month intervals. i. The parties acknowledge that the above continues their conceptual agreement as to the salary plan conversion and that more detailed personnel rule language will be needed to fully implement the salary plan. Draft personnel language will be forwarded to the Union for review, and, upon request, joint meetings, prior to its adoption. 4 . 3 In addition to increases provided under 4 . 1 and 4 .2 above, the City shall make special range adjustments to the classifications listed below in keeping with the results of the -3- compensation survey: Custodian 2.75% July 6 1985, 2.75% July 7 , 1986; Senior Building Maintenance Worker 1.5% July 6 1985, 1.5% July 7 , 1986. Senior Park Maintenance Worker .5% July 6 , 1985, .5% July 7 , 1986. 4. 4 Employees reclassified pursuant to the Becker and Bell Study, shall have their reclassifications made effective July 6, 1985. 4.5 . The City agrees to pay for all medical and dental benefits for each unit member employee and the rate and coverage prevailing under the City' s medical and dental program as it now exists through the City' s agreement with the New England Life Insurance Company as established by the Agreement of the Joint City Employee Medical Insurance Committee. It is agreed that the City will pay for fiscal year 1985-86 dependent medical and dental coverage up to Ninety Five and 89/100 ($95.89) per month. Effective October 1, 1986, the -City' s maximum dependent medical/dental coverage shall be increased to One Hundred Ten and 89/100 ($110 . 89) . 4 . 6For those employees without dependents or who do not choose to enroll their dependents in the City plan, the amount of the City contribution shall be paid to the employee as an addition to his/her regular pay. Section 5 . 0 Union Security. 5. 1 Dues Deductions . The City and Union agree that requests for, changes in, and cancellations of union dues and other deductions shall be promptly processed through the Finance Department and put into effect at the employee' s request. Deductions shall be made from each paycheck and remitted to the Union monthly. Requests for deductions shall be made by City approved authorization cards in accordance with applicable State law. The city will process changes in the amount of Union dues as often as once every three months. Dues deduction amounts may vary between employees . The City will notify the Union of all changes in deductions monthly. The Union agrees to indemnify and hold the City harmless from any liabilities which may arise as a result of the application of this Article. 5 .2 Union Access. A) The City agrees that an authorized -4- union staff member may be granted access to a work location to _ participate in investigation and processing of grievances per the grievance procedure or to observe working conditions, when and to the extent necessary, and only if it will in no event adversely affect the operational, security or safety requirements of the City, upon the approval of the Employee Relations Officer or his/her designee. B) The Union shall provide the Employee Relations Officer with a list of all authorized staff representatives, and the list shall be kept current by the Union. C) When and to the extent necessary and only if it will in no event adversely affect the operational, security or safety requirements of the City and upon notification and approval of the Employee Relations Officer or his/her designee, an authorized union staff member is permitted to communicate with employee (s) and/or union stewards (s), on official City time without said employee (s) and/or union steward(s) loss of compensation. It is not the intent of this section to allow general union meetings on City time; but rather to allow investigation and discussion of working conditions, grievances and safety issues. D) It is understood that every reasonable effort shall be made to perform the above activities on off-duty time. E) The City will allow the use of existing bulletin board space. Bulletin board space shall be used only for the following subjects: 1) Local 817 recreational information, social and related news bulletins; 2) scheduled meetings; 3) information concerning elections or results thereof; and 4) reports of official business of Local 817 . Prior to posting items shall be initialed by an authorized representative of the Union and City. All outlined materials must be removed by the Union. 5 . 3 Union Stewards. A) the City authorizes the unit to appoint three (3) "union stewards", any one of which may represent an employee subject to the City' s grievance procedure. B) The Union shall provide the Employee Relations Officer with a list of all authorized union stewards, and the list shall be kept current. -5- C) An employee and/or his/her union steward representative may, when and to the extent necessary, take official city time without loss of compensation in order to participate in the investigation and processing of a grievance, upon notification and approval of the Employee Relations Officer or his/her designee. D) The Employee Relations Officer will approve employee and/or union steward taking official time to investigate and process a grievance when and to the extent necessary and only if it will in no event adversely affect the operational, security or safety requirements of the City. E) It is understood that the employee and/or union steward shall make every reasonable effort to perform the above activities on off duty time. Section 6. 0 Contracting Out . The City will give reasonable notice to the Union if it intends to contract out the functions currently performed by employees within the unit . Upon request, the City will meet with the Union to explain the reason for the decision to contract out and to solicit Union views on the proposal Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the rights of the City Council to contract out work in its sole discretion. Section 7 . 0 Term Life Insurance. 7 .1 City shall maintain a term life insurance policy for each unit member in a total amount of Fifteen Thousand dollars ($15, 000. 00) and shall pay all premiums for such policy during the term of this Agreement. 7 .2 Effective July 6, 1985, the City shall maintain a term life insurance policy for each dependent of each unit member in a total amount of One Thousand Dollars ($1, 000.00) per dependent and shall pay all premiums for such policy during the term of this Agreement. Section 8 . 0 General Benefits . 8 .1 It is agreed that overtime, compensatory time off (CTO) , retirement, leaves and other benefits and conditions of employment shall be as specified by City Resolutions No. 12-80, -6- 31-81 and 52-82 and Ata � scadero Municipal Code, Title 2, Chapter 2, inclusive. Pregnancy leave shall be provided in accordance with State law. 8.2 Employees assigned standby duty shall receive one and one quarter (1 .25) hour of straight time pay for each day of standby. Employees called back to work shall receive a minimum of two hours pay at straight time. Employees working in excess of two hours once called back shall receive time and one-half pay for hours worked in excess of two hours. 8 . 3 Uniforms . The City shall provide uniforms to Unit employees and replace them on an as needed basis. jackets will be included as a part of: the uniform provided. 8 . 4 The City agrees to add grandparents to the list of family members for whom the employee is allowed to take bereavement leave. 8 .5 During each year of this Agreement, the City will make a one time payment to a7.1 unit employees of Fifty-seven and 50/100 ($57 .50) towards the purchase of Safety Shoes . Proof of Purchase is required. Once purchased, safety shoes must be worn will working. Section 9. 0 Probationary Period. The probationary period for newly hired employees shall be twelve months. The probationary period for employees promoted to a higher classification shall be six months in the new classification. The City shall have the option of granting a newly hired employee permanent status at any time after nine (9) months of service. Section 10. 0 Rest Periods. Any employee required to work more than 16 hours within a twenty four hour period shall be entitled to an eight hour rest period prior to returning to work. If any portion of the eight hour rest period occurs during the employees' regularly scheduled work hours, the employee shall receive normal compensation for that time. This section shall not apply in the case of emergencies. -7- Section 11. Shift n 0 S t Cha ges. The City shall give employees reasonable notice of routine shift changes. Emergency shift changes shall be made on an as needed basis. Section 12. 0 Patching/Paving Work. The City shall make a reasonable attempt to schedule patching work during days/times when temperatures are not expected to exceed 100 degrees. Itis mutually understood that employees working with paving contractors must adhere to the contractors work schedules. Section 13 . 0- State Disability Insurance. If permitted by State law, unit employees shall be allowed to vote on addition of State Disability Insurance. Insurance premiums shall be paid by the employee, if a majority of the -unit employees vote for addition of insurance coverage. Prior to implementation of the insurance, the City and Union shall agree on an integration formula which shall be set up so as to insure employees receiving State Disability Insurance do not receive greater net pay than they would receive while working. Section 14 . 0 Work Gloves As soon as practicable the City shall provide employees with leather palmed cotton work gloves . The Public Works Department shall issue regulations establishing reasonable standards for provision of the gloves, replacement of gloves, and the maximum number of gloves made available during any fiscal year. Section 35 . 0 Effective Date. It is understood and agreed upon that the provisions of this MOU shall be effective as of 0001 a.m. , July 1, 1985, and shall remain in effect, unless modified by mutual agreement, until midnight June 30, 1987 . Section 16. 0 Implementation. 16. 1 This MOU constitutes a mutual recommendation to be submitted to the Atascadero City Council. It is understood that this MOU shall not be binding upon parties either in whole or in -8- part unless and until said City Council: a) acts, by a majority vote, formally to approve and adopt said MOU, b) and acts in a timely manner to appropriate the funds necessary to implement the provisions of this MOU which require funding. 16.2 Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event the City Council fails to take all of the actions necessary for timely implementation of this MOU, either party may request the renewal of the meet and confer procedure. Section 17 . 0 Provision of Law. 17 . 1 This MOU is subject to all current applicable federal, state and local laws, regulations and resolutions. Ordinances, rules and regulations dealing with employee wages, hours and working conditions enacted by the City Council shall be subject to the appropriate revisions, amendments and deletions necessary to conform with the purpose, intent and application of the provisions of this Agreement. 17 .2 If any part or provision of this MOU is in conflict or inconsistent with such applicable provisions of federal, state or local laws or regulations, or is otherwise held to be invalid or unenforceable by any tribunal or competent jurisdiction, such -- -part shall be suspended and superseded by such applicable law or regulations, and the remainder of this MOU shall not be affected. 17 .3 The Association and City understand the pendency of the issuance of Fair Labor Standards Act Regulations. It is agreed that the lack of accurate information makes it impossible to the City to implement: all elements of the Fair Labor Standards Act at this time. The City reserves the right to take all steps necessary to implement the Fair Labor Standards Act when information is available. Upon request, the City will meet with the Association to discuss the implementation. Section 18 . 0 Applicability of Other MOD' s, Rules and Regulations It is agreed that all provisions of any existing or prior MOU' s, understandings or personnel policies, customs, practices and actions not specifically included in Atascadero Municipal Code, Title 2, chapter 2, inclusive, and associated rules and regulations adopted by the City Council of the City of Atascadero, shall be superseded by the provisions of the MOU. -9- Section 19.0 Management Rights The authority of the City includes, but is not limited to the exclusive right to determine the mission of its constituent departments, commissions and boards; set standards of service and promotion; direct its employees; take disciplinary action for "just cause"; relieve employees from duty because of lack of work or for other legitimate reasons; maintain the efficiency of governmental operations; determine the methods, manning and personnel by which governmental operations are to be conducted determine the content of job classifications; take all necessary actions to carry out its mission in emergencies; exercise complete control and discretion over its organization and the technology of performing its work; provided, however, that the exercise and retention of such rights does not preclude employees or their representatives from consulting or raising grievances over the consequences or impact that decisions on these matters may have on wage, hours and other terms of employment. Section 20 . 0 Grievance Procedure. Unit employees shall be entitled to utilize the grievance procedure as outlined in Section 6.0 of Resolution 12-80 . ---- _ __Section-2l.O --Peaceful Performance Clause Thearties to this MOU recognize and acknowledge that the P g g services performed by the City employees covered by this Agreement are essential to the public health, safety and general welfare of the residents of the City of Atascadero. Union agrees that under no circumstances will the Union recommend, encourage, cause or permit its members to initiate, participate in, nor will any member of the bargaining unit take part in, any strike, sit- down, stay-in, sickout, slow-down, or picketing (hereinafter collectively referred to as work-stoppage) , in any office or department of the City, nor to curtail any work or restrict any production, or interfere with any operation of the City. In the event of any such work stoppage by any member of the bargaining unit, the City shall not be required to negotiate on the merits of any dispute which may have risen to such work stoppage until said work stoppage has ceased. In the event of any work stoppage, during the term of this MOU whether by the Union or by any member- of the bargaining unit, the Union by its officers, shall immediately declare in writing -10- i and publicize that such work stoppage is illegal and unauthorized, and further direct its members in writing to cease the said conduct and resume work. Copies of such written notices shall be served upon the: City. If in the event of any work stoppage the Union promptly and in good faith performs the obligations of this paragraph, and providing the Unit has not otherwise authorized, permitted, or encouraged such work stoppage, the Union shall not be liable for any damages caused by the violation of this provision. however, the City shall have the right to discipline, to include discharge, any employee who instigates, participates in, or gives leadership to, any work stoppage activity herein prohibited, and the City shall also have the right to seek full legal .redress including damages, as against any such employee. ATASCADERO GENERAL SERVICES CITY OF ATASCADERO BARGAINING UNIT DATE DATE -11- EXHIBIT II - MONTHLY SALARY SCHEDULES S.E.I.U. - GENERAL SERVICES UNIT MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FY 1985/86 - 1986/87 (EFFECTIVE JULY 7, 1986) Step Classification A B C D E Custodian 1180 1240 1310 1380 1440 Maintenance Worker I Drainage 1290 1350 1420 1500 1570 Parks 1290 1350 1420 1500 1570 Sanitation 1290 1350 1420 1500 1570 Streets 1290 1350 1420 1500 1570 Wastewater Treatment Plant 1370 1450 1530 1600 1680 Operator In Training Maintenance Worker II 1410 1500 1570 1650 1730 Building Maintenance _ 1410 1500 1570 1650 1730 Worker Maintenance Worker III 1490 1570 1650 1740 1820 Recreation Coordinator 1490 1570 1650 1740 1820 Senior Park Maintenance 1510 1590 1660 1750 1830 Worker Wastewater Treatment Plant 1530 1610 1700 1780 1870 Operator I Supervising Maintenance 1560 1640 1730 1820 1900 Worker Senior Building Main- 1600 1690 1780 1870 1960 tenance Worker Wastewater Treatment Plant 1760 1850 1940 2050 2140 Operator II Chief Wastewater Treatment 1980 2090 2190 2310 2410 Plant Operator 2 ;2: EXHIBIT I - MONTHLY SALARY SCHEDULE S.E. I.U. - GENERAL SERVICES UNIT MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FY 1985/86 - 1986/87 (EFFECTIVE JULY 6, 1985) Step Classification A B C D E Custodian 1100 1160 1230 1290 1350 Maintenance Worker I: Drainage 1240 1300 1370 1440 1510 Parks 1240 1300 1370 1440 1510 Sanitation 1240 1300 1370 1440 1510 Streets 1240 1300 1370 1440 1510 Wastewater Treatment Plant 1340 1420 1490 1570 1640 Operator in Training Maintenance Worker L1 1360 1440 1510 1590 1660 Building Maintenance 1360 1440 1510 1590 1660 Worker Maintenance Worker III 1430 1510 1590 1670 1750 Recreation Coordinator 1430 1510 1590 1670 1750 Senior Park Maintenance 1440 1510- 1590 1670 1750 Worker Wastewater Treatment Plant 1490 1560 1670 1740 1820 Operator I Supervising Maintenance 1500 1580 1660 1750 1830 Worker Senior Building Main- 1520 1600 1690 1770 1860 tenance Worker Wastewater Treatment Plant 1690 1780 1870 1970 2060 Operator II Chief Wastewater Treatment 1900 2010 2110 2220 2320 Plant Operator 1 „r- EXHIBIT III - MONTHLY SALARY SCHEDULE S.E.I.U. - GENERAL SERVICES UNIT MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FY 1985/86 - 1986/87 (EFFECTIVE JANUARY 3, 1987) Step Classification A B C D E Custodian 1200 12`60 1340 1410 1470 Maintenance Worker I: Drainage 1320 1380 1450 1530 1600 Parks 1320 1380 1450 1530 1600 Sanitation 1320 1380 1450 1530 1600 Streets 1320 1380 1450 1530 1600 Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator in Training Maintenance Worker II 1440 1530 1600 1680 1700 Building Maintenance 1440 1530 1600 1680 1700 Worker Maintenance Worker III 1520 1600 1680 1770 1860 Recreation Coordinator 1520 1600 1680 1770 1860 Senior Park Maintenance 1540 1620 1690 1790 1870 Worker Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator I Supervising Maintenance 1590 1670 1760 1860 1940 Worker Senior Building Main- 1630 1720 1820 1910 2100 tenance Worker Wastewater Treatment Plant 1800 1890 1980 2090 2180 Operator II Chief Wastewater Treatment 2020 2130 2230 2360 2460 Plant Operator 3 RESOLUTION 88-85 • RESOLUTI:ON OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO APPROVING A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AND ATASCADERO FIRE CAPTAINS BARGAINING UNIT WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero has met and conferred in good faith with the Atascadero Fire Captains Bargaining Unit for the pur- pose of discussing wages, benefits, and other conditions of employ- ment; and WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero and the Atascadero Fire Captains Bargaining Unit. have reached an agreement regarding said wages, benefits, and other conditions of employment for the term of Fiscal Year 1985/86; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Atascadero City Council hereby approves the Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the Atascadero Fire Captains Bargaining Unit for Fiscal Year 1985/86 , and authorizes the City Manager, as the Employee Relations Officer,. to enter into said agreement on behalf of the City. • On motion by Councilperson and seconded by Councilperson the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED: CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA By: ROLFE NELSON, Mayor ATTEST: ROBERT M. JONES, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: • MICHAEL SHELTON, City Manager RE CE , Vira MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING CITY 141G Vii. BETWEEN THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AND THE ATASCADER.O FIRE CAPTAINS BARGAINING UNIT This Memorandum of Understanding is entered into between the Employee Relations Officer of the City of Atascadero, hereinafter referred to as "City, " and the Fire Captains' Bargaining Unit of the Fire Department Employees Association, hereinafter referred to as "Unit, " and made pursuant to California Government Code Sections 3500 et seq, City of Atascadero Municipal Code, Title 2, Chapter 2, Section 2-2 . 01 through Section 2-2 .13, inclusive, and the City of Atascadero Resolution No. 12-80, dated July 14, 1980, and subsequent amendments thereto. The parties have met and conferred in good faith regarding employment terms and conditions for members of the Unit as recognized by the City of Atascadero on April 13, 1981, and, having reached an agreement, as herein set forth, submit this memorandum to the City Council with a joint recommendation that that body resolve to adopt the terms and conditions and take such other additional actions as may be necessary to implement its provisions. Section 1. Purpose. 1 .1 It is the purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding, hereinafter referred to as "MOU, " to promote and provide for continuity of operation in employment through harmonious relations cooperation and understanding between Management and employees covered by the provisions of this MOU and to set forth the understanding reached between the parties as a result of good faith negotiations on matters set forth herein. 1.2 This MOU shall replace and supersede the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) reached between the Unit and the City, effective July 1, 1984 adopted August 13, 1984, and earlier Memoranda between the Atascadero Fire Captains' Association and the Board of Directors of the Atascadero Fire Protection District . Section 2 . 0 Full Understanding, Modifications Waiver. 2 . 1 This MOU sets forth the full and entire understanding of the parties regarding the matters set forth herein. Any other prior or existing understanding or agreement by the parties, 1. •r whether formal or informal, regarding any such matters, are hereby suspended or terminated in their entirety, if in conflict with this Memorandum. 2 .2 No agreement, alteration, understanding, variation, waiver or modification of any of the terms or provisions contained herein shall in any manner be binding upon the parties hereto unless made and executed in writing by both parties hereto and, if required, approved and implemented by the City Council . 2.3 The Waiver of any breach, term or condition of this Agreement by either party shall not constitute a precedent in the future enforecement of all its terms and provisions. Section 3. 0 Sick Leave. Fire Captains shall earn and use sick leave subject to the provisions of Section 9.5 of Resolution No. 12-80, dated July 14, 1980. Sick leave credited from either District or City service may be used as available and needed subject to the City' s Personnel Rules and Regulations, except that any sick leave used shall first be deducted from the credited amount carried over from district service until such credits are exhaused. It is agreed that nothing herein shall be construed as providing any ---- vested right;- monetary -or otherwise, to any unused sick leave exisiting at time of retirement in accordance with the City' s Public Employees Retirement System contract. Section 4 .0 Vacation. 4 .1 Vacation leave shall be credited, computed and used as specified by Section 9.0, Employee Benefits, of Resolution No. 12-80, dated July 14, 1980 . 4 .2 It is agreed and understood that the taking of vacation shall be as scheduled by the Fire Chief subject to the needs of the City. Section 5. 0 Salaries. 5.1 Effective July 6, 1985, salaries in effect on July 5, 1985, shall be increased by five (5%) percent . 5.2 For purposes of police-fire comparison Fire Captain shall be compared to Police Sergeant, Fire Engineer shall be compared to Police Officer with no comparable basic fireman vs. police classification. - 5. 3 The City and Association agree to convert the existing salary plan to a five step salary plan. Current employees shall be converted to the new plan effective January , 1986; all employees hired after August 1, 1985, shall be placed on the five Step plan. Basic elements of the plan are as follows: a. Trainee, Qualified and Fully Qualified salary rates shall be converted to steps A, C & E respectively. b. New steps B & Zz shall be created by establishing the mid-point between Steps A & C and C & E. c. Newly hired employees shall normally be placed at Step A. Advanced step hiring may be approved by the City Manager. d. Movement between steps shall be at twelve month intervals and subject to satisfactory performance The initial step movement after hiring, however, shall be after twelve months or after completion of probation, whichever occurs later. e. Effective January , 1986, current employees at salary rage Fully Qualified shall be placed at Step E. f. Effective January , 1986, current employees with eighteen months or more service time at the qualified salary rate shall be advanced to Step E. g. Effective January , 1986, current employees with less than eighteen months service at the qualified salary rate shall be placed at Step C of the new salary plan. Thereafter, they shall be eligible for salary step advancement at twelve month intervals ., h. Current employees at Trainee salary rates shall proceed to the Qualified or Step C salary rate in accordance with the rules of the existing salary plan. Thereafter, they shall be eligible for Step Advancement at twelve month intervals. i . The parties acknowledge that the above contains S their conceptual agreement as to the salary plan conversion and that more detailed personnel rule language will be needed to fully implement the salary plan. Draft personnel language will be forwarded to the Association for review, and, upon request, joint meetings, prior to its adoption. Section 6. 0 Medical/Dental Benefits. 6. 1 The City agrees to pay for all medical and dental benefits for each Fire Captain employee and the rate and coverage prevailing under the City' s medical and dental program as it now exists through the City' s agreement with the New England Life Insurance Company as established by the Agreement of the Joint City-Employee Medical Insurance Committee. It is agreed that the City will pay for fiscal Year 1985-86 dependent medical and dental coverage up to One Hundred Four Dollars and 14/100 ($104 .14) per month. For those employees without dependents or do not choose to enroll their dependents in the City plan the One Hundred Four Dollars and 14/100 ($104,14) shall be paid to the employee as an addition to his/her regular salary. Section 7 . 0 Overtime. 7 .1 City agrees to pay all Fire Captains overtime, upon certification by the Fire Chief using authorized time card forms, for any overtime worked in excess of the established 56 hour work, week. (This is equivalent to 121.33 shifts per year. ) such overtime shall be computed using the rate of time and one-half applied to the 56 hour work week hourly wage scale for the individual concerned. 7.2 Effective July 6, 1985, employees called back to work for hours not contiguous to a scheduled shift shall be compensated a minimum of two hours of overtime for each call back period. Section 8 .0 Holiday Time. Unit employees shall receive five and 13/100 (5. 13) shifts time as Holiday time for the term of the Agreement . Holiday time will be credited at eleven (11) hours per month. Section 9. 0 Term :Life Insurance. 9.1 City shall maintain a term life insurance policy for each unit member in a total amount of Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15, 000 . 00) and shall pay all premiums for such policy during the term of this Agreement. 9.2 Effective July 6, 1985, the City shall maintain a term life insurance policy for each dependent of each unit member in a total amount of One Thousand Dollars ($1, 000 .00) per dependent and shall pay all premiums for such policy during the term of this Agreement. Section 10. 0 General Benefits . It is agreed that compensatory time off (CTO) , retirement and any other benefits and conditions of employment shall be as specified by City Resolutions No. 12-80 and 52-82 and Atascadero Municipal Code, Chapter 2, inclusive. Section 11 . 0 Probationary Period. The probationary period for newly hired employees shall be eighteen months . The probationary period for employees promoted -- to a higher classification shall be twelve months in the new classification. Section 12. 0 Effective Date. It is understood and agreed that the provisions of this MOU shall be effective as of 0001 a.m. , July 1, 1985, and shall remain in effect, unless modified by mutual agreement, until midnight June 30, 1986. Section 13.0 Implementation. 13. 1 This MOU constitutes a mutual recommendation to be submitted to the Atascadero City Council . It is understood that this MOU shall not be binding upon the parties either in whole or in part unless and until said City Council : (a) acts, by a majority vote, formally to approve and adopt said MOU, (b) and acts in a timely manner to appropriate the funds necessary to implement the provisions of this MOU which require funding. 1- • ! _ 1 Notwithstanding the fore oin in the event the Cit 3 2 foregoing, Y Council fails to take all of the actions necessary for timely implementation of this MOU, either party may request the renewal of -the meet and confer procedure. Section 14 . 0 Provisions of Law. 14 . 1 The MOU is subject to all current applicable federal, state and local laws, regulations and resolutions . All ordinances, rules and regulations enacted by the City Council shall be subject to the appropriate revisions amendments and deletions necessary to conform with the purpose, intent and application of the provisions of this Agreement . 14 .2 If any part of provision of this MOU is in conflict or inconsistent with such applicable provisions of federal, state or local laws or regulations, or is, otherwise held to be invalid or unenforceable by any tribunal of competent jurisdiction, such part shall be suspended and superseded by such applicable law or regulations, and the remainder of this MOU shall not be affected. 14 .3 The Association and City understand the pendency of the issuance of Fair Labor Standards Act Regulations. It is agreed that the lack of accurate information makes it impossible - -- - for the City to implement all elements of the Fair Labor Standards Act at this time. The City reserves the right to take all steps necessary to implement the Fair Labor Standards Act when information is available. Upon request, the City will meet with the Association to discuss the implementation. Section 15. 0 Applicability of Other MOU' s, Rules and Regulations. It is agreed that all provisions of any existing or prior MOU' s, understandings- or personnel policies, customs, practices and actions not specifically included in Atascadero Municipal Code, Title 2, Chapter 2, inclusive, and associated rules and regulations adopted by the City Council of the City of Atascadero, shall be superseded by the provisions of this MOU. Section 16.0 Management Rights. The authority of the City includes, but is not limited to the exclusive right to determine the mission of its constituent departments, commissions and boards; set standards of service; determine thero dur ; p ce es andstandardsof selection for employment and promotion; direct its employees; take disciplinary action for "just cause"; relieve its employees from duty because of lack of work or for other legitimate reason; maintain the efficiency of governmental operations; determine the methods, manning and personnel by which governmental operations are to be conducted; determine the content of job classifications; take all necessary actions to carry out its mission in emergencies; exercise complete control and discretion over its organizations and the technology of performing its work; provided, however, that the exercise and retention of such rights does not preclude employees or their representatives from consulting or raising grievances over the consequences or impact that decisions on these matters may have on wage, hours and other terms of employment . Section 17 . 0 Peaceful Performance Clause. The parties to this Memorandum of Understanding recognize and acknowledge that the services performed by the City employees covered by this Agreement are essential to the public health, safety and general welfare of the resident of the City of Atascadero. Association agrees that under no circumstances will the Association recommend, encourage, cause or permit its members - to initiate, participate in, nor will any member of the bargaining unit take part in, any strike, sit-down, stay-in, sick-out, slow-down or picketing (hereinafter collectively referred to as work-stoppage) , in any office or department of the City, nor to curtail any work, or restrict any production, or interfere with any operation of the City. In the event of any such work stoppage by any member of the bargaining unit the City shall not by required to negotiate on the merits of any dispute which may have given rise to such work stoppage until said work stoppage has ceased. In the event of any work stoppage, during the term of this Memorandum of Understanding, whether by the Association or by a member of the bargaining unit, the Association by its officers, shall immediately declare in writing and publicize that such work is illegal and unauthorized, and further direct its members in writing to cease the said conduct and resume work. Copies of such written notice shall be served upon the City. If in the event of any work stoppage the Association promptly and in good faith performs the obligations of this paragraph, and providing the Association has not otherwise authorized, permitted or 1� encouraged such work stoppage, the Association shall not be 9 liable for any damages caused by the violation of this provision. However, the City shall have the right to discipline,, to include discharge, any employee who instigates, participates in, or gives leadership to, any work stoppage activity herein prohibited, and the City shall also have the right to seek full legal redress including damages, as against any such employee. ATASCADERO FIRE CAPTAINS CITY OF ATASCADERO BARGAINING UNIT QA�&7) �W-A DATE DATE Effective 7/6/85 Exhibit I - Monthly Salary Schedule Atascadero Fire Captains Bargaining Unit Memorandum of Understanding FY 1985-6 STEP Classification A B C D E Fire Captain - Prevention 1950 2050 2160 2270 2380 Fire Captain -Suppression 1950 2050 2160 2270 2380 1<4 RESOLUTION NO. 89-95 • RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING A SALARY/CLASSIFICATION SCHEDULE FOR CITY EMPLOYEES NOT REPRESENTED BY RECOGNIZED BARGAINING UNITS Section 1. A Salary/Classification Schedule, attached as Exhibits I, II and III, for City employees not represented by recognized bargaining units is hereby adopted. Section 2. The City shall convert the existing non-management salary plan to a five step salary plan. Current non-management employees shall be converted to the new plan effective January 4, 1986; all employees hired after August 1, 1985, shall be placed on the five step plan. a. Trainee, Qualified and Fully Qualified salary rates shall be converted to steps A, C & E respectively. b. New steps D & E shall be created by establishing the mid-point between steps A & C and C & E. C. Newly hired employees shall normally be placed at • Step A. Advanced step hiring may be approved by the City Manager. d. movement between steps shall be at twelve month intervals and subject to satisfactory performance. ]ae initial step movement after hiring, however, shall be after twelve months or after completion of probation, whichever occurs 'Later. e. Effective January 4, 1986, current employees at salary rate fully qualified shall be placed at Step E. f. Effective January 4, 1986, current employees with eighteen months or more service time at the qualified salary rate shall be advanced to Step E. g. Effective January 4, 1986 , current employees with less than eighteen months service at the at the qualified salary rate shall be placed at Step C of the new salary plan. Thereafter, they shall be eligible for salary step advance- ment at twelve month intervals. h. Current employees at Trainee salary rates shall proceed to the Qualified or Step C salary rate in accordance with the rules of the existing salary Ulan. Thereafter, they shall be eligible for Ste.P Advancement at twelve • months intervals. b. The City shall pay all medical and dental benefit premiums for the employee at the rate and coverage prevailing under the City' s medical and dental program as it now exists through the City's agreement with the New England Mutual Life Insurance Company. c. Through January 3, 1986, the City shall pay for dependent medical and dental coverage up to Ninety Five and 89/100 ($95 . 89) per month. Effective January 4, ,1986 , the City shall pay the full premium amount for eligible dependents ' coverage. d. For those employees without dependents or who choose not to enroll their dependents in the City plan, the amount of the City contribution as described in Section C,, above, shall be, paid to -the employee as an addition to his/her regular pay. e. Through January 3 , 1986, the City shall maintain a term life insurance policy in a total amount of Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15 ,000 .00) and shall pay all premiums for such policy. Effective January 4, 1986 , the City shall increase the amount of the coverage by Thirty-Five Thousand Dollars ($35 , 000. 00) to a total amount of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50, 000.00) and the City shall pay the full premium amount for such coverage. f. The City shall maintain a term life insurance policy for each eligible dependent of the employee in a total amount of. One Thousand Dollars- ($1, 000. 00) _per dependent and shall pay all premiums for such dependents. g. Effective January 4, 1986 , the City shall grant two and one-half (22) days of administrative leave, such leave to be taken at the convenience of the City and subject to the approval of the employee' s department head. Effective Jul17 7, 1986 , the City shall grant five (5) days of administrative leave to be taken during Fiscal Year 1986-87. Time not used shall be forfeited. Section 5. For confidential/technical employees, including Administrative Secretary I and Imo, Building Aide, Building Inspector, Engineering Aide, Engineering Technician I and II, and Finance Clerk I and II, effective July 6 , 1985 through June 30, 1987, the following provisions regarding benefits shall apply; a. The City shall continue to pay the employee monthly contribution (7% of gross) to the Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) . /J b. The City shall pay all medical and dental benefit premiums for the employee at the rate and coverage prevailing under the City's medical and dental program as it now exists through the City' s agreement with the New England Mutual Life Insurance Company. The City shall pay for Fiscal Year 1985-86 dependent medical and dental coverage up to Ninety- Five and 89/100 ($95. 89) per month. Effective October 1, 1986 , the City' s maximum dependent medical/dental coverage shall be increased to One Hundred Ten and 89/100 ($110 .89) . c. For those employees without dependents or who choose not to enroll their dependents in the City plan, the amount of the City contribution shall be paid to the employee as an addition to his/her regular pay. d. The City- shall maintain a term life insurance policy for each employee in a total amount of-Fifteen Thousand Dollars .($15, 000. 00) ;and shall pay all premiums for such policy during Fiscal Years 1985-86 and 1986-87. e. The City shall maintain a term life insurance policy for each eligible dependent of the employee in a total amount of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000. 00) per dependent and shall pay all premiums for such dependents during Fiscal Years 1985-86 and 1986-87. On motion by Councilman and seconded by Counci man , the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted its entirety by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED: ROLFE D. NELSON, Mayor ATTEST: ROBERT M. JONES, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ROBERT M. JONES, City Attorney MICHAEL B. SHELTON , City Manager �,52 Exhibit I _ Effective 7/6/85 CITY OF ATASCADERO SALARY/CLASSIFICATION SCHEDULE MA14AGEMENT EMPLOYEES CLASSIFICATION MONTHLY SALARY Director of Parks and Recreation $2 , 650. 00 Director of Community Development $3,340.00 Police Chief $3,380.00 Fire Chief $3,440. 00 Director of Public 6qorks/City Engineer $3,770 .00 �5: EFFECTIVE: Jul 6985 Rxhibit II -yA CITY OF ATASCADERO SALARY/CLASSIFICATION SCHEDULE MID-MANAGEMENT/PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES Classification Step A B C D E Recreation Supervisor 1570 1660. 1750 1830 1920 Support Services 1590 1680 1770 1860 1950 Coordinator Assistant Planner 1610 1700 1790 1880 1970 Zoo Curator 1610 1700 1790 1880 1970 Assistant Civil Engineer 1860 1960 2060 2170 2270 Associate Planner 1860 1960 2060 2170 2270 Assistant to the City Manager 1950 2060 2170 2280 2380 Chief Building Inspector 2060 2180 2290 2410 2520 Senior Civil Engineer 2060 2180 2290 2410 2520 Senior Planner 2090 2210 2320 2440 2560 Police Lieutenant 2140 2260 2380 2500 2610 Fire Battalion Chief 2140 2260 2380 2500 2620 Plan Check Engineer 2140 2260 2380 2500 2620 Superintendent of Public Works 2140 2260 2380 2500 2620 Assistant Finance Director 2190 2310 2430 2560 2680 EFFECTIVE: Jul 7 1986 Y Exhibit II B CITY OF ATASCADERO SALARY/CLASSIFICATION SCHEDULE MID-MANAGEMENT/PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES Classification Step A B C D E Recreation Supervisor 1630 1730 1820 1900 2000 Support Services Coordinator 1650 1750 1840 1930 2030 Assistant Planner 1680 1770 1860 1960 2050 Zoo Curator 1680 1770 1860 1960 2050 Assistant Civil Engineer 1930 2040 2140 2260 2360 Associate Planner 1930 2040 2140 2260 2360 Assistant to the City Manager 2030 2140 ---2260-----._---2-370 - —2480-------- Chief Building Inspector 2140 2270 2380 2510 2620 Senior Civil Engineer 2140 2270 2380 2510 2620 Senior Planner 2170 2300 2410 2540 2660 Police Lieutenant 2230 2350 2480 2600 2710 Fire Battalion Chief 2230 2350 2480 2600 2720 Plan Check Engineer 2230 2350 2480 2600 2720 Superintendent of Public Works 2230 2350 2480 2600 2720 Assistant Finance Director 2280 2400 2530 2660 2790 Januar • EFFECTIVE: y�, 1987- Exhibit II C CITY OF ATASCADERO SALARY/CLASSIFICATION SCHEDULE MID-MANAGEMENT/PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES Classification Step A B C D E Recreation Supervisor 1660 1760 1860- 1940 2040 Support Services Coordinator 1680 1790 1880 1970 2070 Assistant Planner 1710 1810 1900 2000 2100 Zoo Curator 1710 1810 1900 2000 2100 Assistant Civil Engineer 1970 2080 2180 2310 2410 Associate Planner 1970 2080 2180 2310 2410 Assistant to .the City Manager 2070 2180 2310 2420 2530 Chief Building Inspector 2180 2320 2430 2560 2670 Senior Civil Engineer 2180 2320 2430 2560 2670 Senior Planner 2210 2350 2460 2590 2710 Police Lieutenant 2270 2400 2530 2650 2760 Fire Battalion Chief 2270 2400 2530 2650 2770 Plan Check Engineer 2270 2400 2530 2650 2770 Superintendent of Public Works 2270 2400 2530 2650 2770 Assistant Finance Director 2330 2450 2580 2710 2850 EFFECTIVE': July 6 , 1985 EXHIBIT III - A CITY OF ATASCADERO SALARY,/CLASSIFICATIOtd SCHEDULE TECHNICAL/CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES Classification Step' , A B C D E Finance Clerk I 1120 1190 1250 1310 1370 Administrative Secretary I 1240 1310 1370 1440 1510 Finance Clerk I1 1240 1310 1370 1440 1510 Engineering Aide 1360 1440 1510 1590 1660 Building Aide 1390 1470 1550 1630 1700 Administrative Secretary II 1430 1510 1590 1670 1750 Engineering Technician I 1450 1530 '1610 1690 1770 Engineering Technician II 1610 1700 1790 1880 1970 0 Building Inspector 1690 1780 1870 1970 2060 EFFECTIVE: July ?, 1986 EXHIBIT III - g CITY OF ATASCADERO SALARY/CLASSIFICATION SCHEDULE TECHNICAL/CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES Classification Step . A B C D E Finance Clerk I 1160 1240 1300 1360 1420 Administrative Secretary I 1290 1360 1420 1500 1570 Finance Clerk IS 1290 1360 1420 1500 1570 Engineering Aide 1410 1500 1570 1650 1730 Building Aide 1450 1530 1610 1700 1770 Administrative Secretary Il 1490 1570 1650 1740 1820 Engineering Technician I 1510 15901670 1760 1840 Engineering Technician II 1670 1770 1860 1960 2050 Building Inspector 1760 1850 1940 2050 2140 15�; EFFECTIVE: January 3, 1987 EXHIBIT III - C CITY OF ATASCADERO SALARY/CLASSIFICATION SCHEDULE TECHNICAL/CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES Classification Step A B C D E Finance Clerk I 1.180 1260 1330 1390 1450 Administrative Secretary I 1320 1390 1450 1530 1600 Finance Clerk II 1320 1390 1450 1530 1600 Engineering Aide 1440 1530 1600 1680 1760 Building Aide 1480 1560 1640 1730 1810 Administrative Secretary II 1520 1600 1680 1770 1860 Engineering Technician I 1540 1620 '1700 1800 1880 Engineering Technician I1 1700 1810 1900 2000 2090 Building Inspector 1800 1890 1980 2090 2180 x ` !fir�.� F� "I D tNGOl1""A7[D JULY 2. 1170 Y a" PROCLAMATro3 OF THANKS AND APPRECIATIOti 70 � �+ "�:� ��. _ SOrGENE fREINRERG ` ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER v WHEREAS, Goorgena began employment with the City of Atasoadero },- on March 23, 1982, and has since established an impressive record zn Peraonnel _ administration; and { -WHEREAS, she has been instrumental in the administration and " x`xefi.nement of Cit:s Paruornol Rules and Procedures, planning and >-executing the recruitment of City omalauees, providing extensive � eaiotance to the Citu tAanalaer in labor rotation issues, worKod " sxtenaivelu on tho City 's Classification Study and Salary Plan ' Conversion and coordinated ti:a recant Medical Coverage �"on- i tieraion, and; WHERE 'S, GeorgenEa ha.a conei•atantly ehown a high standard of }.�` rofesaional . ad:.cation, oyaZ:y, and hard work encompassing many . , = �. �a4 of per, and has contributed greatly to Lire be tornenL�o,;'`t;:c C::ta of AtasclUaro; T k t Tu: " PORE, ✓F . ^ '"10 LA1.1t."D tha: th a Council and emnLoyeas or , the C�.ty•rOf AtaiacC::4ro . 0 .tits I aCnrOJLRd3tT vi?Or.^rBnea trcL►: e?rY7 'Q h'> `COM ri:.tman.`, :.1::ervj ., c o t'• L,ut: on to t;:o %:.t:/, of Ataocad aro, m and Oo►:gratuLe 4:t ;,or -'.or ,fi�:J• ,.'eZL .^.ora. Y i BE I.' FUP.r `�-H f':S�'Cvni:�«D :;.a: tt:a Council and emplop'veo of t t a C-ty o ' Altaztcadoro e_-ten[: ,`v:a#: I• 'boat wi ahoj to G�:organa n her ,'uturs� c ;.avor4i. g C; o. Ata<;caaer--i, {.'a fjr►: _a s 77-1 RESOLUTION NO. 83-85 • A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO OPPOSING THE DELAY AND/OR ELIMINATION OF HIGHWAY PROJECTS WITHIN SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY CURRENTLY APPROVED IN THE STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. WHEREAS, the State of California has identified significant revenue shortfalls which may cause a delay and/or elimination of currently approved State highway projects within San Luis Obispo County; and WHEREAS, all State highway projects within San Luis Obispo County currently approved by the California Transportation Commission as part of the Five-year STIP are deemed essential for the public safety and welfare of residents and visitors to San Luis Obispo County; and WHEREAS, such highway projects, if not undertaken as currently scheduled in the five-year State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), may cause further injuries, damages and inconveniences to the 'travelling public, NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY OF ATASCADERO RESOLVES its opposition to any delay, elimination or significant modification of any highway project currently scheduled within the current STIP; and FURTHER RESOLVES THAT the City of Atascadero supports discussions • between the Counties of San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara to develop a common policy for projects contained within Cal Trans District Five; and FURTHER RESOLVES THAT in the event the State of California does modify its current five- year State Transportation Improvement Program,it will do so by providing for a minimum funding level for all deficit rural or less populated counties to assure a safe level of intra--state travel between urbanized counties, as well as for the: safety and protection of rural county residents. On motion of Council Member seconded by Council Member , and on the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted the day of , 1985. MAYOR • ATTEST: CITY CLER K �4 M 13 M 0 R A N D U M • TO: City Council August 12, 1985 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director � a SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2A-85 LOCATION: 2300 Ramona Road (Lot 9, Block 23) APPLICANT: P.E. and K.S. Gaughan (Glen Lewis) REQUEST: To revise the General Plan Land Use map from Suburban Single Family Residential to Retail Commercial On May 6, 1985 and June 17, 1985, the Planning Agency and Planning Commission, respectively, considered the above-referenced application. The Commission, after considerable discussion, unanimously recommended denial of the request. • Glen Lewis, representing the Gaughans, spoke about the two large churches that are adjacent to the subject property in that they have contributed to eliminating the residential nature of the area and noted that the churches would have a large impact on the surrounding streets with respect to increased traffic. Patrick Gaughan, applicant, stated that there are 100 spaces that sep- arate his property and the church and spoke about the problems he is encountering because of the property' s location between the two churches. He also pointed out that there are other lots in the ` sur rounding area that are involved with commercial uses. Mr. Engen referenced a neighborhood petition against the proposed change. Comments were also expressed by Andrea Schulte, Terry Hood, Betty Finocharrio, and Mrs. Grove as reflected in the attached minutes excerpt. There was discussion among the Commission concerning the compatibil- ity of churches in a residential neighborhood, the street improvements which would be required if the request was approved, and the fact that the property is close to Highway 101 and a major intersection. No one else spoke on the matter . • HE:ps Minutes - Planning A'Pency - May 6, 1985 Mr. Engen noted that the applicants had requested a continuance based on a letter from the Adobe Plaza' s attorney. He stated he will refer the matter to the City Attorney for an opinion. Con- sensus was to continue the matter to June 3rd. C. NEW BUSINESS Consideration of applications submitted for General Plan Cycle GPIIa-85 - GPIIi-85 Joel Moses briefly summarized the applications submitted for this cycle with respect to expanded study areas, etc. John Wallace, acting Public Works Director, briefly commented on the City' s sewer capacity especially as it relates to added density and spoke on a City-wide ,package and overall study that is currently being prepared by the Public Works Department. He stated that the sewer plant presently has the capacity for approx- imately 1300 more units and there are 1600 units in the develop- ment or planning stage City-wide. Mr . Moses then proceeded to address each of the General Plan items: 1.� GP2A-85 (Gaughan) •- Planning Agency concurred with staff' s recommendation to expand the study area as referenced in the staff report. 2. GP2B-85 (H & A Financial) - Planning Agency concurred with staff' s recommendation for preparation by the applicant of an Environmental Impact Report for the proposed overall project. 3. GP2C-85 (Acoma Corporation) - Planning Agency concurred with the applicant' s request to continue the matter to the next , cycle in October, 1985. 4. GP2D-85 (Eric Mich:ielssen) - Planning Agency concurred with staff' s recommendation to continue the matter to the next cycle in October, 1985, but with staff to prepare the pre- requisite 10,000 square foot lot language amendment to the general plan and zoning ordinance. Eric Michielssen briefly commented on the intent with this initiation of the amendment. 5. GP2E-85 (Gordon Hilchey, Sr. ) - Planning Agency concurred with staff' s recommendation for preparation by the applicant of an Environmental Impact Report for the proposed overall project. 6. GP2F-85 (Caroline S. Rehbock) Planning Agency concurred with staff' s recommendation not to expand the study area for this application. 5 Minutes - Planning m ission - June 17, 1985 lem B. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. General Plan Amendment 2A-85: Request submitted by P.E. and K.S. Gaughan to revise the Gen- eral Plan Land Use Map from Suburban Single Family Residen- tial to Retail Commercial. Subject property is located at 2300 Ramona and enlarged study area to include the frontage from Del Rio to Conejo Road. Doug Davidson presented the staff report and pointed out that ap- proval of this application would result in mixed uses for the area and that retention of the churches and residential uses be com- patible with the existing designation. Glen Lewis, representing the applicant, stated that he has been studying the various changes within the city for several years and noted that churches still seem to fall in the realm of a residen- tial nature He further noted that that the two large churches adjacent to the applicant' s property have destroyed the residen- tial nature of the area. Mr. Lewis also addressed the fact that with regard to increased traffic, the two churches will have a large impact on the surrounding streets. Andrea Schulte, San Gregorio Road resident, felt that there is still a lot of available commercial land to be developed and would hope that this land could be utilized -before new areas are developed. Terry Hood, Cascabel resident, felt that this request just adds to l the problem of strip development and concentration should be given to developing the already available commercial land. Patrick Gaughan, applicant, spoke in support of the application and noted that on the location map there are 100 spaces that sep- arate his property and the church. Mr. Gaughan spoke about the problems he is encountering in trying to sell his property due to his property' s being located between the two churches noted the other lots in the surrounding area that are involved with commer- cial uses. Betty Finocharrio, area resident, noted that a church had ap- proached her to buy a lot she owns in a residential neighborhood, and that after polling her neighbors, decided not to sell the lot because the neighbors were opposed to having a church in that neighborhood. She spoke in support of the request and did not feel the use would be incompatible with the area. Mrs. Grove, 6155 Conejo Road, stated she was vehemently opposed to the land use change as she wishes to live in a strictly single family area. Mr. Engen referenced a neighborhood petition against the proposed change. 2 Minutes - Planning mission - June 17, 1985 Commissioner Michielssen stated that due to the size of the two churches, the area was already impacted and asked what improvement the L.D.S. church is making to Ramona Road with regard to the in- crease of traffic being generated. Mr. Moses responded that the improvements are limited to installa- tion of asphalt curbing, landscaping, extension of water and gas dines and upgrading of the fire hydrant and pointed out that Ram- ona is a fully developed street. Commissioner Bond concurred with Commissioner Michielssen' s remarks. Commissioner Kennedy noted that because of the access situation, she did not feel there would be a lot of traffic traveling along the residential portions of the neighborhood. Mr. Gaughan further addressed the different properties that are commercial in nature and spoke about a water basin on the property. Mrs. Schulte stated that approval of this project would set a dangerous precedent and cited some examples with regard to this. Chairman LaPrade noted that the intersection of San Anselmo had been zoned the same and had set an earlier precedent and stated that the concern he has is that the property is close to Highway 101 and a major intersection. Commissioner Michielssen felt that each application should be con- sidered in its own light. Commissioner Hatchell stated that he would consider a zone change for the property. Mr. Engen explained the strategies in attempting to keep the com- mercial land along E1 Camino Real and noted the lack of sewer ser- vice in the area, and affirmed that churches are considered com- patible in residential areas subject to appropriate conditions. MOTION: Made by Commissioner Bond, seconded by Commissioner Michielssen and defeated with a roll call vote to approve General Plan Amendment 2A-85: AYES: Commissioners Michielssen, Bond, and Kennedy NOES: Commissioners Nolan, Sanders, Hatchell and Chair- man LaPrade MOTION: Made by Commissioner Hatchell, seconded by Commissioner Bond and carried unanimously to recommend denial subject to the findings contained in the staff report. 3 General ,Plan AmendmeO 2A-85 (Gaughan/Lewis) 7. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Single -family residence 8. Adjacent Zoning and Use. . . . . .North: RS, church South: RS, vacant East: U.S. Highway 101 West: RS, residential 9. General Plan Designation. . . Suburban Single Family Residen. 10. Terrain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Residential area, including a church and a commercial designa- tion at the corner of Del Rio and Ramona. 11. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration C. ANALYSIS: There are several issues of concern in analyzing this request for a land use change from Suburban Single Family to Retail Commer- cial. The major question becomes: Is this area commercial in nature at present? Does it represent a viable commercial area in the future? Commercial designation on this frontage also raises questions of circulation and traffic impact. Land Use Compatibility: Currently the corner of Del Rio and Ramona Road is zoned CT (Com- mercial Tourist) and is occupied by an abandoned service station. The five lots of the study area are comprised of one church (Four- square Church) , one single family residence (Gaughan) , and three vacant parcels. Staff cannot agree with the applicant that the area is becoming commercial in nature. The gas station has been vacant for quite some time and the Foursquare Church cannot be considered a commercial entity. Another church (L.D.S.) is cur- rently under ur-rently _under construction in the general area at 2600 Ramona; how- ever, this is not included in the study area. The General Plan is not a specific diagram especially in areas such as this where a dominant land use does not exist. The Gen- eral Plan, on page 58, discusses a concept known as the "wavy line concept which "encourages retention of zoning for the less intensive use until demand dictates a change of zoning for the more intensive use. " It goes on to say that property proposed for commercial use, although contiguous, is in another ownership and is developed with a less intensive use, such as a residence, or is vacant, a land use change may be withheld until the time is right for the more intensive commercial use. In staff' s opinion, this area is not appropriate for commercial development. Provision of Services: On page 66, the General Plan discusses commercial development out- side the Urban Services Line. Such development shall be examined and reviewed, on an individual basis, "to insure that there is no conflict between the intensity of of the land use and minimum par - 2 1 City of Atascadero Item: B-1 STAFF REPORT FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: 6/17/85 BY: Doug Davidson, Assoc. Planner Trainee File No: GPA 2A-85 Project Address: 2300 Ramona SUBJECT• To revise the General Pian Land Use map from Suburban Single Family Residential to Retail Commercial. BACKGROUND: At the Planning Agency meeting of May 6 , 1985 each of the applications for this General Plan Cycle II was considered. I At that time, the Planning Agency concurred with staff's recommendation to enlarge the study area to include the frontage on Del Rio to Conejo Road but not including Lots 7A and 7B. Notice of public hearing was published in the Atascadero News on June 7, 1985 and all owners of record property located within 300 feet of the study area were notified on that date. A. LOCATION: 2300 Ramona (Lot 9 of Block 23) B. SITUATION AND FACTS: 1. Request. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .To revise the General Plan Land Use Map from Suburban Single Family Residential to Retail Commercial. 2. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .P.E. and K.S. Gaughan 3. Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Glen Lewis 4. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Subject site is approximately two acres. The expanded study area increased the area from one residential lot to five lots. 5. Streets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ramona Road is City maintained with a 40 foot wide right-of-way 6. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RS (Residential Suburban) r General .Plan Amendme0 2A-85 (Gaughan/Lewis) _ cel sizes. Sewage disposal shall be a prime factor for consideration. " This part of Ramona Road is not within the Urban Services Line. High intensity commercial retail would not be appropriate in such a case. The City' s planning practice has been to be very selec- tive on the type and location of commercial uses allowed on this side of Highway 101, which is predominantly residential through the City. Current Commercial Zoning; The commercial-tourist corner at Del Rio and Ramona Road is pres- ently occupied with a vacant gas station which has been abandoned for years. This is partly due to the fact that visibility of southbound traffic along Highway 101 is limited. Overall circula- tion and traffic impact along the frontage .are a concern of staff. Extension of commercial zoning would intrude into a residential neighborhood. Across the freeway from the subject area is a commercial neighbor- hood designation located at the four corners at Del Rio Road and El Camino Real. Commercial Park zoning encompasses the land southwest of this corner. This commercial property is partially vacant at present. The existing amount of commercial land on the north end of El Camino Real is more than sufficient to serve the community. Summary: The commercial designation along this part of Ramona Road is not appropriate. Commercial retail uses are too intense for this res- idential area which lies outside the Urban Services Line. Commer- cial designation of this area would result in a mixed use pattern of churches, residences, and scattered businesses. Retention of the church/residential character of this area would be consistent with the intent of the general plan. D RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings contained in Exhibit A, staff recommends denial of General Plan Amendment 2A-85. DGD:ps ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A Findings for Denial Exhibit B - Location Map Exhibit C - General Plan Amendment Map 3 1!� General ;Plan Amendment 2A-851 (Gaughan/Lewis) EXHIBIT A - General Plan Amendment 2A-85 Findings for Denial June 17, 1985 FINDINGS: 1. The proposed land use map change does not result in a logical representation of the existing residential area. 2 The proposal is premature and not compatible with the surrounding land use and zoning. 3. The subject area is outside the Urban Services Line and, thus, not suitable for intense commercial use. 4. The subject area is not appropriate for less intensive commercial uses either because of its location or the existing available amount of commercial property. 5. The proposal is not consistent with the policies of the General Plan. 4 �a= � My / `q -3�' ~ '�•/\ �t. 32- 4 33 \~% � S•,r� ° ' -305 �, , �: -p a�• ,l'S Lt\3Q`r� - 2-0 25 Wo .9�. ws Myr to 0 ie \ 3! ,,/ \• STA / , � 3r 35 ro =o40 ' a ol 1b% .4000 l\: il�fiQp'taa:, . f ' i\t1 '�I •� :0V '000" `1. �1�'�j'• .S �� %C Y moo''` \gip Sa ,'y���� �� i`.tP ;t.R a4�' ,•�� � �L 5� `�� \`'� ,,.;�� � r:�..e� Vii. . .� 'op AS t �•- F 15 EX 141 B EI 4L 13 ° PL - ;;t; ,—_ �t \ \�-• 2550 �," % N t I III III III III III will III III III III III ,� Tn qMr,�. `i �',�,- 13 �r.>=`t12{ ITy. �� �'.• \� - ,. �•' <�... 00 236 t f = ,,:..k. yM Z3 , ' tt-•'`; s2 .` k " ' , ,,n 01 In ` 24 b ` y � . ., , 25 •�, 2 l , , • F `r 1, • • iuii � � � ' ■ 1► f11r• HIM 1111N ► •• Ilion 1 will • t 1Y1rtr•rf •M • �/ ren•.vu. rr�urr 1 lsfruvo •Nur „�.• ` nuo•vi rru u me NEWS 1 Ltflrt•\•Uf /tfr r�' • �1 wuutawrrs.vr. i u•rwr• .0 . •rw;p Vim...' i � r 1 Ile -In Ln C +^ n ? .0. ,. +_ + I 1, 7 r- .,-.nom �� �. i• co 1006, �t 1 ' , r, , 3 8r� 2 / a c)CD C�Cz�m.ce, r 3100 �. P RESOLUTION NO. 74-85 A RESOLUTIONOFTHE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO DENYING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2A-85 TO REVISE THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM SUBURBAN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO RETAIL COMMERCIAL (2300 RAMONA GAUGHAN) z WHEREAS, the applicant has filed to amend the City of Atascadero' s General Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Atascadero conduc- ted a public hearing on the subject matter on June 17, 1985 and rec- ommended denial of the amendment; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Atascadero conducted a public hearing on the subject matter on August 12, 1985. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Atascadero does hereby find as follows: 1. The proposed land use map change does not result in a logical representation of the existing residential area. 2. The proposal is premature and not compatible with the sur- rounding land use and zoning. 3. The subject area is outside the Urban Services Line and, thus, not suitable for intense commercial use. 4. The subject area is not appropriate for less intensive com- mercial uses either because of its location or the existing available amount of commercial property. 5. The proposal is not consistent with the policies of the Gen- eral Plan. 6. Denies General Plan Amendment 2A-85. On motion by and seconded by the foregoing resolution is adopted in its entirety by the fol- lowing roll call vote: AYES: NOES; ABSENT• DATE ADOPTED: CITY OF ATASCADER10, CALIFORNIA _ By ROLFE D. NELSON, Mayor ATTEST: ROBERT M. JONES, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: f U n ._ MICHAEL SHELTON, City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROBERT M. JONES, Interim Ciity Attorney PREPARED BY: HENRY ENGEN, Community Deve:Lopment Director t 41 M E M O R A N D U M • TO: City Council August 26, 1985 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director �K RE: Community Development. Block Grant- Annual Report and consider- ation of amendments to agreement RECOMMENDATION: Following completion of public hearing, direct staff to request a time extension for the completion of the senior citizens congregate housing community development block grant to September 30 , 1986 and request for further amendment to the grant agreement to enable funding of a 1, 470 foot, six inch water line and five fire hydrants. BACKGROUND: • As a condition of the 1984 Community Development Block Grant for the 95 unit senior citizen housing project at 10165 El Camino Real (Judy and Ed Young) , the City is required to conduct a public hearing rela- tive to progress on the program. In addition, representatives of Cal- ifornia Manor have requested an amendment to the agreement to allow for the expenditure of unexpended funds toward the construction of a 6 inch water line and fire hydrants on the site (see attached letter dated August 2, 1985) . CHRONOLOGY OF PROGRAM ACTIVITIES: The following reflect key steps toward completion of this program: July 1, 1984 - The City is advised that its application for a $600, 000 grant for a senior citizens congregate housing project has been approved. August 27, 1984 - City Council passed Resolution No. 47-84 authorizing execution of agreement. September 18 , 1984 - The State Housing and Community Development De- partment transmitted an executed copy of the grant agreement to the City. December 3, 1984- City Planning Commission approved Conditional Use • Permit 3-84 amending an ear.lier (April 3, 1984) use permit for the project which granted reduction of parking and a density bonus for low-income individuals. Re: C.D.B.G. Annua0eP ort Consideration of amO'ndment _ January 28, 1985 - City staff transmitted the initial study and envir- onmental assessment required under the agreement together with the • revision to the application which limited expenditures to purely site acquisition and deleting other site improvements. February 4, 1985 - Planning Commission approves Housing Element which is transmitted to the State for review. February 25, 1985 - Dennis Greene & Company completed an appraisal of the 4.74 acre parcel and established a market value of $532,000. March 11, 1985 - City Council authorized execution of regulatory and development agreements required of the project. April 8, 1985 - City Council approved draft Housing Element following State review. This was a pre-requisite to enable the drawdown of funds for the project. April 22, 1985 - City Council passed Resolution No. 30-85 authorizing acquisition of property from the Youngs and sale back to Califor- nia Manor for $1.00 in exchange for entering into a low rent hous- ing project pursuant to the grant agreement. May 8, 1985 —City submits drawdown for funds to pay for appraisal ($1,500) and land acquisition ($532,000) . June 5, 1985 - Escrow closed with land acquired by the City utilizing • block grant funds and transmittal back to the Youngs. July 21, 1985 - Building permit available for issuance. July 22, 1985 - Notice from the Housing and Community Development that a public hearing is required to evaluate the year ' s performance. August 2, 1985 - Notice transmitted by the Youngs from the Atascadero Mutual Water Company requesting consideration of an amendment to the agreement to provide for $19, 507. 50 for water line improve- ments and fire hydrants. August 21, 1985 - Building permit issued. ANALYSIS: The following is the summary of the status of funding authorized and expended under the Block Grant program: BUDGET EXPENDED REMAINING General Administration $15, 000 -0- $15, 000 Property acquisition: Appraisal 1, 500 1, 500 -0- Land acquisition 532,000 532, 000 -0- Unexpended 45 ,500 -0- 45 ,500 Audit 6, 000 -0- 6, 000 • Total Whole Budget: X600,000 $533,500 $66 ,500 2 Re: C.D.B.G. Annuale ort 'Consideration of ame m nt P / e From the above, it is evident that there are monies in the authorized budget to fund eligible activities. On the question of whether the water lines and hydrant improvements are eligible, there is a divided opinion. The first reaction from the State was that it is an ineligi- ble activity since it is an improvement located on private property. Requirements for the loop line and the hydrants were imposed by the Public Works and Fire Departments to provide proper service to the site. The Atascadero Mutual Water Company has indicated that the im- provements are on the "public" side of the meter and would be main- tained by the Water Company and could be incorporated into a City pub- lic easement for that purpose. However, the fact that the Mutual Water Company is a private company adds to the question of whether the improvement is, again, "public. " Should the agreement be amended, the City would have to administer bids for the installation of these im- provements and provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act might come into play with respect to those improvements. ACTIONS REQUIRED: 1. A public hearing needed to receive possible testimony with respect to this first year project to the State Housing and Community Dev- elopment Department as part of the City' s grantee performance report for FY 1984/85. 2) Time extension - the grant extends to September 30, 1985 and an extension will be necessary if there is an amended agreement to provide for the public improvements noted. It is suggested that this be extended to September 30, 1986 to be on the safe side. 3) Amendment for public improvements - to fund public water lines and hydrants. HE:ps ATTACHMENTS: Atascadero Mutual Water Company communication - August 2, 1985 cc: Ed and Judy Young, California Manor 3 r `1t I 36 5850 TRAFFIC WAY P.O. BOX 6075 ATASCADERO, CA 93423 • (805) 466.2428 TASCAUERO MUTUAL WATER COMPANY ESTABLISHED 1913 August 2, 1985 Mrs. Judy Young 9485 E1 Camino Real Atascadero, CA 93422 Dear Judy: Re: Waterline installation costs California Manor As requested, I am forwarding updated costs .for water main installation and fire hydrants on the above project. 1470 ft. - 6" water line loop in project $ 11,760. 00 5 fire hydrants onsite 7,747. 50 Please let me know when you are ready to update the 4-inch meter materials costs. The per unit connection fee of $215. 00 has not changed. Sincerely, n /_�y Robert E. Hamilton, Superintendent REH/pm ' REFERENCE: COPIES: U DIVISION PAOIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMONY E10064 ❑ CUSTOMER GM4486536 O ACCT. DEPT. AGREEMENT TO INSTALL FACILITIES v DISTRICT OR PERFORM OTHER WORK CALIFORNIA PROPERTY...MARKETING, a _Calif . Corporation, --------------•---•-----••-----------•---•-----•--.......... _. .......-• •. ........ .................................... ttcrcivaftcr called Customer, has requested Pacitic Gas and Islectric Company, hereinafter called Pacific, 1016 5_..E 1--Cami no--Rea l-,__-Ata•scadero.,.....•-_______ to perforin the lie retuafter-described work at............... ---------------------------------------------------------------$an Luis Qbispo...Couty n ............................................ St.tte of California. Pacific will perform said work and furnish all necessary labor, appliances, materials'and facilities re- tluirt•cl therefor, subject to the following conditions: I. Said work shall be as follows: (Describe hereunder in detail the materials and facilities to be furnished and/or work to he clone. For each facility installed, specificully indicate whether ownership shall vest in Pacific or Customer upon completion of work. If Inure space is required use other side and attach any necessary drawings.) Trench Inspection Fees: $ 88.32 Electric Rule 16 (copy attached) Service Charges: 1,851.96 _ Electric Rule 20 (copy attached) Costs to Remove Existing Overhead Facilities Crossing the Site: 1,344.00 "Customer shall pay to Pacific upon demand the total actual cost of the work performed by Pacific hereunder. Total actual cost as used herein includes costs incurred by Pacific for labor, materials and supplies, transportation, stores expense, tools, payroll taxes, insurance, supervision, general office overheads, and other direct costs which are allocable to such work in accordance with Pacific's standard practice under the applicable Uniform System of Accounts prescribed by the California Public Utilities commission. Customer shall pay to Pacific on account of ` such work, prior to the commencement thereof, the sum of $3,284.28. If, upon completion of said work, the cost thereof to Pacific, as above defined,, shall be greater or less than this sum, the difference shall be paid to Pacific by Customer or repaid to Customer by Pacific as the case may be, without interest." Upon completion, ownership shall vest in Pacific. 2. \X'henever part or all of said work is to be furnished or performed upon property other than that of Customer, Customer shall first procure from the owners thereof all rights-of-way and/or permits necessary therefor in form satisfactory to Pacific and without cost to it. —�--�ztstatnrrStratF�mrrrcdiat�ly,—aPt7rr�trttr<rrnt"t�y—t'acifrr;—pay—ttr•�'aritit^'as thC'�mirtete—Ctsrrtr�Ct— dollars($-------------------•------� I.XeCLited this...............`-'. ..� day of------------ ................. 19. .5... ........................••-----•--••---........................._..--••-----••---••- PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Customer CALIF. PROPERTY MARKETING ,.. For: Manager MISSION TRAIL Division Mail Address:....9485 E1Camino__Real ......... Atascadero, CA_...93422•----•--------••---..._..... 62-4627 REV. t-62 ....................................... i Kennaly Engineering 5975 Traffic 64ag 466-6827 P.O. Box 1198 Atascadero, California 93423 i STATEMENT I Judy ?dung Ualifoaaia Manor t i 008-85 --� PLEASE RETURN THIS STU$WITH YOUR REMITTANCE.YOUR CANCELLED CHECK IS YOUR RECEIPT. s DESCRIPTION MMEL 8/23/85 Offisite Uitlity Plan $682.00 California Manor i Please refer to Job # 008-85. i PAY LAST AMOUNT IN BALANCE I 4otFocann• COLUMN- 8S 874 POLY PAK (50 SETS) 8PS74 tofs:.., f 4 %� Eac a'A`r:aw r K'+1. .c•*jwt ws "r, _ s Volbr 3c rt Jrvoyt:- August 26 , 1985 Mrs . Judy Youi .I California Len( irs 9485 E1 Camino Real Atascadero, CJS 93422 Subject: Califorr is Manor-Fire Protection Main, Later it , and Fire Hydrants Dear Judy, Our proposal to write an easement description and set construction stakes for the subject above is as follows: 1. Write legal descri::tion of Fire Protection Main, service laterals and Fire Hydrants $ 1,200. 00 2 . Construction stakes for the above improvements $ 1,360 . 00 This proposal is based on staking all six Fire Hydrants cit one time and staking the fire main in a separate operation. All requests for additional stakes will be according to our current fee schedule. Thank you , and please do not hesitate to call if you should have any questions. Sincerely, Alan Volbrecht AV/rmv Enclosure 6275 Palma Avenue • Post Office Box 753 . AtascariPrn Cnlifnrnia . aq<t 9? _ 'POrA A,.;_c;. R&58150 TRAFFIC WAY P.O. BOX 6075 ATASCADERO, CA 93423 (805) 466-2428 ATASCADERO MUTUAL WATER COMPANY ESTABLISHED 1913 August 2, 1985 Mrs. Judy Young 9485 E1 Camino Real Atascadero, CA 93422 Dear Judy: Re: Waterline installation costs California Manor As requested, I am forwarding updated costs for water main installation and fire hydrants on the above project. 1470 ft. - 6" water line loop in project $ 112760. 00 5 fire hydrants onsite 72747. 50 Please let me know when you are ready to update the 4-inch meter materials costs. The per unit connection fee of $215. 00 has not changed. Sincerely, Robert E. Hamilton, Superintendent REH/pm • M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council August 26, 1985 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director RE: Proposed Ordinance Ill - Development Mitigation Tax Ordinance (second reading) and implementing Resolution No. 64-85 RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the attached ordinance to go into effect on October 1, 1985 together with the resolution establishing the $. 50/square foot development mitigation impact tax. BACKGROUND: The first hearing on this matter was at the City Council' s August 12th • - meeting when Ordinance No. 111 was passed for first reading. The draft ordinance was amended at that time to delete exception (e) rela- tive to non-profit buildings. That was the only change from the orig- inal hearing draft. HE:ps ATTACHMENTS: Draft Ordinance No. 111 Draft Resolution No. 64-85 • t (c) The City Council of the City of Atascadero has held pub- lic hearings relating to the necessity of raising and increasing city revenues. (d) The most practical and equitable method of raising City revenues is to impose a tax upon new construction in the City. 3-7 .03 Definitions. The following terms shall have the following meanings when used in this Chapter : (a) "Building" means any structure having a roof supported by columns and/or walls and intended for shelter, housing, and/or en- closure of any person, animal or chattel, but not including tents or mobilehomes. (b) "Building Permit" means a building permit for residen- tial, non-residential, or mobile home site development applied for to the Community Development Department of Atascadero on or after the effective date of this Ordinance. (c) "Construct" "Construction" as used in this Chapter means means the putting together, assembling, erection or altering of con- struction materials components, or modules into a structure, or por- tion of a structure, and includes restructuring, enlarging or altering any structure. "Construct" also includes the moving from outside the City and locating of a building, or portion thereof, onto a lot or parcel of land, and also includes the improvement of land' as a mobile home lot. (d) "Dwelling Unit" means an independent, attached or de- tached residential building designed to house and provide living space including kitchen and bathroom facilities, for an individual family. (e) "Gross Building Area" means the total floor area of each floor of all buildings subject to this ordinance, including internal circulation, storage and equipment space, as measured from the outside faces of the exterior walls, including halls, lobbies, stairways, ele- vator shafts, enclosed porches and balconies. (f) "Mobile Home" means a vehicle without self-propulsion designed and equippedas a dwelling unit to be used with a foundation. (g) "Mobile Home Lot" , as used in this Chapter , means any area or portion of a lot designated, designed, or used for the occu- pancy of one (1) mobile home on a permanent basis. (h) "Non-Residential" includes all uses of land other than residential including agricultural, communication, cultural, educa- tional, recreation, manufacturing, processing, resource extraction, retail trade, services, transient lodging, transportation and whole- sale trade uses. 2 ,` M "Person" includes any individual, firm, co-partnership, corporation, company, association, joint stock association; city, county, state or district; and includes any trustee, receiver, assignee, or other similar representatives thereof. (j) "Structure" as used in this Chapter means any artifact constructed or erected, the use of which requires attachment to the ground, including any building, but not including fences or walls six feet or less in height. (k) As used in this Chapter, the terms "residential, "com- mercial, " "office," "industrial, " "hotel, " "motel, " and "quasi-public have the same meanings as are defined in the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance of this City, as well as administrative interpretations thereof. 3-7.04 Imposition of Taxa In addition to any other fee, license or tax required by this Code, every person constructing or causing to be constructed or erected any building or structure in this City for which a building permit - is required, shall pay a Development Mitiga- tion Tax in the amount and at the rates set forth by resolution of the City Council, 3-7.05 Tax Rates Amount. The City Council shall establish a tax rate by resolution and may amend such schedules from time to time. 3-7 .06 Periodic Adjustment. Each of the base tax rates established pursuant to Section 3-7.05 of this Chapter shall be adjusted annually by the City Council, based on the upward or downward movement of the Consumer Prise Index of April of each year and be effective on Septem- ber 1, 1986. (a) The Consumer Price Index as used in this Ordinance shall be the Consumers Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Work- ers, San Francisco - Oakland, California, all items - Series A. (1967 100) (Index) published by the U.S. Department of Labor Statistics. In the event the foregoing index is no longer published, a comparable index will be used. (b) Annual adjustment to this tax shall be reviewed by City Council prior to adoption by resolution in June of each year. 3-7.07 Time and Place of Payment. The amount of tax imposed for the construction of any building permit or portion thereof, shall be due and payable at the Building Division, City Hall, Atascadero, Califor- nia, prior to the issuance of, a building permit. The tax for a mobile home space shall be paid prior to the issuance of the first permit for the construction of such space or if such construction is performed without a permit, at the time when construction is commenced No appli- cation shall be received or accepted by the Building Division until the tax is paid. 3 3-7.08 Refunds. If a building permit approval is vacated or voided and if the applicant so requests in writing,there shall be a refund of the entire tax paid. In the event that subsequent to the application for building permit and payment of the tax therefore, it is determined that there is less square footage of the gross building area than was previously determined, a refund shall be made of such excess amounts as the Building Official shall determine. 3-7.09 Disposition of Proceeds. Funds from this tax shall be placed in the General Fund and shall be available for general governmental purposes. Decision on the expenditure of such funds shall be made by the City Council in the context of approval of the City's annual oper- ating and capital improvement budget or at such other time as the Council may direct. 3-7.10 Exceptions. There is excepted from the tax imposed by this Chapter the following: (a) The construction of a building or structure or mobile home which is a replacement for building or mobile home being demol- ished or moved to outside the City from the same lot or parcel of land. The exception shall equal but not exceed the tax which would be payable hereunder if the building or mobile home being replaced were being newly constructed. If the tax imposed on the new building ex- ceeds the amount of this exception, such excess shall be paid; (b) Accessory buildings or structures in planned develop- ments, multi-family or mobile home parks, such as a clubhouse, swim- ming pool, or laundry facility; (c) Buildings or structures which are "clearly accessory to a principal use such as fences, pools, patios, parking spaces, garages, residential accessory buildings (except guest houses) , and agricultural accessory buildings as outlined in Title 9; (d) Any person when imposition of such tax upon that person would be in violation of the Constitution and the laws of the State of California, County of San Luis Obispo, or City of Atascadero; (e) A condominium project converting an existing multi-fam- ily building into condominiums where no new dwellings are added or created; (f) Any rebuilding of a structure destroyed or damaged by fire; explosition, act of God or other accident or catastrophe, which rebuilding does not increase the original gross building area. If such increase does occur, the increase shall be subject to the tax rate as imposed by this Chapter ; (g) Any rebuilding of a historical building recognized, acknowledged, and designated as such by the City Planning Commission or City Council; 4 �{4; (h) The construction of any building by the City of Atasca- dero, or the United States or any Department or Agency thereof, or by the State of California or any Department, Agency or Political Subdi- vision thereof, or any residential development where the City Council finds there are specific over-riding fiscal, economic, social or en- vironmental factors benefitting the City which, in the sole. judgement of the City Council, would justify the approval of such development without the payment of said tax. 3-7.11 Construction Prohibited. It is unlawful for any person to erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, improve, make, put together or convert any building or structure in the City, or attempt to do so, or cause the same to be done, without first paying the tax imposed by this Chapter. 3-7.12 Tax Liability; Enforcement. The taxes imposed by this Chap- ter at the time of application for a building permit are due from the person by or on behalf of whom a residential or non-residential build- ing or mobile home space is constructed, whether such person is the owner or a Lessee of the land upon which the construction is to occur, The Community Development Director shall collect the tax due here- under . The full amount due under this Chapter shall constitute a debt to the City of Atascadero. An action for the collection thereof may be commenced in the name of the City in any Court having jurisdiction of the cause. The City Manager shall be responsible for the adminis- tration and enforcement of this Chapter. His decisions may be ap- pealed to the City Council whose decision shall be final. 3-7.13 Effective Date. The taxes imposed by this Chapter shall be applicable with respect to building permits for construction activi- ties, applied for on or after Octber 1, 1985. 3-7.14 Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of a Court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not effect the validity or remaining portions of this Chapter. Section 2. Publication. The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be published twice within thirty (30) days after its passage in the Atascadero News, a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published, 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 certification to be entered in the Book of Ordinances of this City. 5 Section 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and ef- fect at 12:01 a.m. on October 1, 1985. The foregoing ordinance was introduced' on August 12, 1985 and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on August 26, 1985. On motion by and seconded by the foregoing Ordinance is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED: CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA By ROLFE NELSON, Mayor ATTEST: ROBERT M. JONES, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ROBERT M. JONES, Interim City MICHAEL SHELTON, City Manager Attorney 6 �c RESOLUTION NO. 64-85 A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A DEVELOPMENT MITIGATION TAX PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE 111 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Atascadero has adopted Ordinance No. 111 known as the "Development Mitigation Tax Ordinance and F WHEREAS, Section 3-7.04 and 3-7.05 of Ordinance 109 provides for the adoption of a tax schedule required to be paid by developers. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IN RESOLVED THAT: 1. The following tax rate schedule shall be effective October 1, 1985: a. The development or construction of residential or non- residential buildings, and the person causing such to be constructed shall pay a tax in the amount of FIFTY CENTS ($0. 50) per square foot of gross building area. b. The developer of a mobile home park shall pay a one-time development mitigation tax of THREE HUNDRED SEVENTY-FIVE DOLLARS ($375.00) for each mobile home space site. C. For the alteration of any building or structure, the ap- plicable tax rate shall be computed only upon the addi- tional square footage, if any, resulting from the alteration. d. Mixed use projects shall be assessed upon the area de- voted to each use category set forth in this section, as determined by the Building Official of the City. 2. This schedule of fees shall not apply to building permit ap- plications which were accepted by the Building Division as complete applications prior to October 1, 1985. On motion by and seconded by , the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety by the following vote: AYES• NOES: ABSENT: DATE ADOPTED ;C l'- CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA By ROLFE NELSON, Mayor ATTEST: ROBERT M. JONES, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ' 1 MICHAEL SHELTON, City anager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROBERT M. JONES, Interim City Attorney PREPARED BY: HENRY ENGEN, Community Development Director a MEMORANDUM TO: City Council THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager FROM: Paul Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Ordinance Amendment Establishing Traffic Committee DATE: August 23, 1985 Recommendation: Approve ordinance 4-3. 209, 4-3. 210 and add 4-3. 211 as an effort to reestablish and revise the Traffic Committee. Additionally Council may officially appoint the members to serve for particular terms. Background: Council approved in concept at the last regular meeting the proposed ordinance amendment which in effect adds two (2) citizens and one council member to the committee and eliminates one police officer . Staff suggests the following citizens and officials be appointed to the terms as shown. Dedra Casparian - One Year Term William Heath - Two Year Term Barbara Norris One Year Term Fiscal Impact: Considerable volunteer time and staff time will be necessary to make the committee function properly. The individual solutions to problems may be costly dependent upon the complexity of the solution. Council will be able to address costs through the budget process or through other appropriate remedies prior to committment of funds. The committee has no power to expend monies. Attachment: Ordinance 4-3. 209 thru 4-3. 211 PMS/vjh tcord • (c) The Chairman shall appoint one member to serve as secretary to record all official actions or recommendations . (d) Matters shall be decided by a majority vote of those members present. Four members shall constitute a quorum. (e) The committee shall not attempt to ursurp the powers of elected or appointed officials designated by ordinance to protect the health, safety and welfare of the general public. Section 2 . Publication. The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published twice within thirty (30) days after its passage in the Atascadero News , a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published 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 certification to be entered in the Book of Ordinances of this City. Section 3 . Effective Date. This ordinance shall go into effect an be in full force and .ef ct at 12 : 01 a.m. on , 1985 . The foregoing ordinance was introduced on August 26, 1985 , and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on September 9 , 1985 . On motion by and seconded by the foregoing or finance is hereby adopteed n its entirety on t e o owing role call vote : AYES : NOES : ABSENT: ADOPTED: ATTEST: CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA: ROBERT M. JONES , City Clerk ROLFE NELSON, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ROBERT M. JONES , Interim City Attorney MICHAEL SHELTON, City Manager MEMORANDUM • TO: City Council THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager FROM: Paul Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Ae Mlig ons Prohibiting Parking in Certain Areas DATE: August 23, 1985 Recommendation: The Traffic Committee recommends that Council pass Resolution No. 84-85 to establish a no parking zoneon El Camino Real in the vicinity of the Lucky Center , and Resolution 85-85 to establish a no parking zone on El Camino Real in the vicinity of Pacific Home Improvement and Motel 6. Staff supports the findings of the Traffic Committee in both cases. Background: The newly formed Traffic Committee which included two citizens and one council member, all appointed by the City Manager, addressed i several problem areas at their meeting on August 14. These same members are expected to serve on the reorganized Traffic Committee to be established by Council on August 26 . The attached minutes show that two items regarding poor visibility due to on-street parking were recommended for Council action. Resolution 84-85 would establish a no parking zone (red curb) on the east side of E1 Camino Real afrom Cascada to Solano. A neighborhood petition is also enclosed which cries for the elimination of parked cars at this location. Many of the cars are signed "For Sale" and therefore are not employees or patrons of adjacent businesses. Indeed, the area has adequate off street parking to address those needs. Resolution 85-85 would establish a no parking zone (red curb) on the west side of El Camino Real from Santa Rosa to a point approximately 1000 feet north. Semi trucks frequent this location and poor visibility from drive egresses is encountered. The solution does not mean that vehicles will not park on the east side of E1 Camino Real, or that other areas along El Camino Real with similar problems will benefit. It will be safe to assume, in fact, that other areas will be addressed by the Traffic Committee in the future. • RESOLUTION NO. 84 -85 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO DESIGNATING A NO PARKING ZONE ON THE EAST SIDE OF EL CAMINO REAL FROM SOLANO STREET TO CASADA STREET WHEREAS, Section 4-2. 1101 et sequence of the Atascadero Municipal Code allows the city Traffic Engineer to determine the location of NO PARKING areas , and to place and maintain appropriate signs or markings indicating the same; and WHEREAS , the Atascadero Traffic Committee has recommended that prohibiting vehicles from parking in the east side of El Camino Peal between Solano Street and Casada Street will alleviate or correct a sight distance traffic condition. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Atascadero directs the City Traffic Engineer to place and maintain appropriate signs or markings indicating a NO PARKING AREA on the east side of El Camino Real from Solano Street to Casada Street. On Motion by Council and seconded by Council , the foregoing Resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote: AYES : NOES : ABSENT : ADOPTED: ATTEST: Robert M. Jones , City Clerk Rolfe Nelson, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: P"obert M. Jones , Interim Paul Sensibaugh, City Engineer City Attorney TRAFFIC COMMITTEE Agenda Item No. //8s • ACTION. REQUEST Problem: S& 111 � 774frl asca c cSo�4l7 Location: Sias 74 5, E.C, tom. q C� Action Requested By: Signature 2S-ketch BelowQ See Attached SketchF]Refer to Drawing Existing Proposed c cs C C u c�� Cenr o , u c r (:2e17{�rNj Recommended Solution: L1° 164�71%Jn^ i,qn G' V Committee Decision: Estimated Cost: Cost. Necessary Action:2Council oDirector of Public Works Q Chief of Police oNone Controlling Ordinance or Resolution: Approved by Traffic Committee �� /�/• .P�zOI(�1 � Chairman Date F-1 Disapproved by Traffic Committee Chairman Date Approved by Council El Denied by Council Date Date DWork Completed by Public Works Superintendent Date Initials Director of White - Public Works Canary - Chief of Police Pink - Planning Director Goldenrod - City Manag( i July 27, 1985 Atascadero Safety Traffic Commission P.O. Box 747 Atascadero, CA 93423 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN : We, the undersigned, are writing this letter to apprize you and your department of a major safety hazzard existing on El Camino Real at the Lucky Shopping Center. The hazzard is the on-street parking of all the "For Sale" cars, trucks and what-have-you. These,,,yehicles are all parked on the East side of the street, and both North and South of the main entrance to the shopping center. This con- tinuing dangerous situation makes it almost impossible to exit the shopping center safely, as the exiting driver cannot pos- sibly see down .the street far enough for a safe distance to enter E1 Camino Real , without entering the first lane of traffic. We are therefore urgently requesting that some kind of immediate corrective action be taken before there is a tragic accident at this location. We will greatly appreciate your response to this letter, stating what corrective action you plan to take to alleviate this on-going situation, at your earliest convenience. Thank you! Concerned Citizens, 1 ur�7 vh•-�� 1 i 0� V r � 4800 Obispo Rd. , Atascadero, 93423 10025 E1 Camino Real , #98, Atascadero, CA 93422 OVA-- � f• � fr � ` � 61- ;-,- 'P7L) 'Ls CYC �L,C� `' C% '`D fC,c �✓C� 27 ILL 7Y *Call Recurm DATE: TIME: l�•s� CONTACT NAME: rve /mozmo- PHONE NUMBER: ACCOUNT NUMBER: TOPIC: O' (fa--W Ino ort C t S SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION:—J o D/7 &YL 47617el- wa ory /7 Q-� 4-k 0e /o NEXT STEP(S):-,,-Z— 2k14' GL. o e Pe s 01ic - — /moo114zl2 4-7Z a c a. oyt — .a et 8 4� �ortrr et RESPONSIBILITY: SUBMITTED BY: iv— TM Pacific Telephone Official Sponsor and Supplier of the 1984 Olympic Games C 1980 L.A.Olympic Committe RESOLUTION NO. 85-85 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO DESIGNATING A NO PARKING ZONE ON THE 14EST SIDE OF EL CAMINO REAL FROM SANTA ROSA ROAD TO A POINT 1000 FEET NORTH WHEREAS , Seciton 4-2. 1101 et sequence of the Atascadero Municipal Code allows the City Traffic Engineer to determine the location of NO PARKING areas , and to place and maintain appropriate signs or markings indicating the same; and WHEREAS , the Atascadero Traffic Committee has recommended that prohibiting vehicles from parking in the west side of El Camino Real within 1000 feet of the intersection with Santa Rosa Road will alleviate a sight distance traffic problem. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Atascadero directs the City Traffic Engineer to place and maintain appropriate signs or markings indicating a NO PARKING ZONE on the westsideof El Camino Real from Santa Rosa Road to a point 1000 feet north on El Camino Real. On Motion by Counti?_ and seconded by Council the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote. AYES : NOES ABSENT ADOPTED: ATTEST Robert M. Jones , City Clerk Rolfe Nelson, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Robert M. Jones , Interim Paul- Sensibaugh, City Engineer City Attorney TRAFFIC COMMITTEE Agenda Item No. 8ft/8s ACTION. REQUESI0 Request Date Problem: S/b/l/ { on G�� �' ,, , Location: /C/e 741,111 SQ,7747- leo S 4 Or•rn T Q od/�r�-.*im c2 �� /D©O -4-e- 176.-,-111 .r Action Requested By: Signature Sketch Below See Attached Sketch o Refer to Drawing r6 f Existing w /4n1� Proposed �t G' Do,rq ,^as a "! qu Recommended Solution: /"�i^�iir� �� IAI -/g/ -70' 16-1067erl- V Committe/e� Decision: 14Fe1Con4,r4-4",�/ LgzoVe -50/'u7�- Cocs.-.Cil v Estimated Cost:. Necessary Action: L Council oDirector of Public Works o Chief of. Police None Controlling Ordinance or Resolution: 2-Approved by Traffic Committee _ Chairman � Disapproved by Traffic Committee Date Chairman Date Approved by Council F1 Denied by Council Date Date Work Completed by Public Works Superintendent Date Initials Director of White - Public Works Canary - Chief of Police Pink - Planning Director Goldenrod - City Managc \1 MINUTES - Traffic Committee Meeting August 14, 1985 5:00 p.m. The meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m. by Chairman Sensibaugh. ROLL CALL: Present Paul Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works; Barbara Norris, Councilwoman; Bill Heath, Citizens Representative; Henry Engen, Community Development Director Absent - Bud McHale, Police Chief; Diedra Casparian, Citizen Representative It was noted that Chief McHale was on vacation and staff was unable to contact Ms. Casparian to advise her of the first meeting of the reconstituted Traffic Committee. Paul Sensibaugh reviewed the draft ordinance that had been approved in concept form by the City Council on August 12th and noted the appointments of Councilwoman Norris, Bill Heath and Diedra Casparian to the expanded Traffic Committee. Bill Heath advised that he could be designated as a rep from Caltrans and Sensibaugh responded that the intent was to not involve other agencies but to emphasize local individual participation. Action Request Forms were reviewed providing for a basis of bringing matters to the Committee. Follow up action by the Committee will either be via the City Manager ' s office or to the City Council depending on the requirements of the proposed improvement. ACTION AGENDA: a) Sight Distance Problem on El Camino Real at Lucky Store (citizen petition enclosed) Following discussion a motion was jtA made by Heath and seconded by Norris and carried unanimously to recommend to the City Council passage of an ordinance to red � i curb the street frontage in front of the Lucky' s shopping center and to concurrently post signs to provide adequate sight distance in this area. b) Stop Sign request on Ardilla at Balboa Heath noted a need to field inspect this location and review any data such as traffic counts or accident history at the area to see if the location warrants a stop sign or possibly a yield sign. Matter was continued for future study. c) Sight Distance Problem on West San Anselmo at El Camino Real This matter will be brought back for consideration after field investigation, 1 d) Truck Parking and Sight Distance Problem in Vicinity of Motel 6 and other areas. In response to complaints of truck parking blocking sight distance JO. 106 along this area and following discussion, a motion was made by e Norris and seconded by Heath and carried unanimously to recommend to City Council installation of No Parking signs and red curbing in front of Motel 6, Pacific Home Improvement and the Goodrich Dairy building. e) Signal at Santa Rosa This signal is being considered in the proposed capital improve- ment program going to the City Council for a hearing on September 7th. Thee is a need for warrants justifying a traffic signal at this location. The concensus of the group was that the pro- posed Plaza Madrid on the other side of the freeway should pro- vide a traffic analysis of their impact on the area. The issue of a signal will be considered by Council as part of the budget for FY 85-86. f) Truck Route Study/Load Limits This is a general problem which would require additional study to be considered at a future meeting. In addition, the questions of limiting overnight parking on El Camino Real requires additional study with respect to Police recommendations on enforcement problems. g) Dangerous Curve at Portola and Ardilla. Was reviewed and continued to a future meeting following opportunity to view the site. h) Handicapped Ramps at Entrada and E1 Camino Real i) Handicapped Ramps at Traffic Way and El Camino Real j) Handicapped Ramps at Palma and Entrada It was noted that handicapped ramps would be a matter requiring funding as part of the annual CIP. Service clubs have also ex- pressed some interest in contributing. Motion by Engen, seconded by Norris to recommend to the City Council that they establish a line item in the budget for handicapped ramps with priority locations to be determined at a later date. k) Mail drop at Atascadero Mall (Chamber of Commerce) Following discussion, motion by Norris and seconded by Sensibaugh carried unanimously to recommend removal of the concrete block at this location. 1) No Parking on South side of Solano Following discussion, consensus was that this 30 ' street lying between the pizza restaurant and the Lucky center only be 2 permitted to have parking on one side of the street and it is likely that elimination of on-street parking on the north side would be preferred. This matter to be continued until the street is improved and traffic situation can be evaluated. m) Pueblo and Sombrilla Yield sign (Molina) Committee agreed that this is a problem intersection that needs to be studied with respect to possible location of signage. To be continued to the next agenda for submittal of background information. NEW BUSINESS Engen and Norris noted that the stretch of_El Camino Real between the Morro Road signal and West Mall has a number of problem areas and Caltrans is in the process of commencing a resurfacing program. Recommendations should be developed as to a parking restriction on El Camino to be undertaken concurrently. This will be a future agenda item. Prior to adjournment it was decided to have the regular monthly meetings on the 2nd Wednesday of each month from 3 to 5 o'clock p.m. beginning with the next meeting scheduled for September 11th. Attempts will be made to get agendas out 10 days prior to the meeting date. Meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. Respectfully Submitted HENRY E GEN Acting ecreta 3 • MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Directors, Atascadero County Sanitation District THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager FROM: Paul Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Marchant Way Sewer Extension DATE: August 23, 1985 Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Board approve the attached resolution establishing the annexation of Lots 73 through 87 of Block JC to the Sanitary Improvement District. The City Attorney has outlined in the attached memo the procedure that is to be followed if the Board approves the resolution. Staff additionally recommends that the lots along Santa. Rosa be included within the district. It is further recommended that Kennaly Engineering be appointed by Council to prepare estimates and specifications for the assessment • district. .. . . Background and Discussion: This area is one of the Cease and Desist areas that the Regional Water Quality Control Board has directed the City' to alleviate. The first three lots southeast of Pismo Avenue are already connected to the sanitary sewer system but for some reason were never annexed. These lots are not expected to benefit from the sewer extension but should be included in the annexation proceedings. The lots along Santa Rosa that are not connected at Avenal Avenue are also located within the Cease and Desist area. Connection to these lots will require an easement to Marchant Way or connection to a separate extension along Santa Rosa. Marchant Way owners are expected to cooperate on the easements since it would eliminate raw sewage in their rear yards. Santa Rosa owners would benefit by con- nection into Marchant Way because they would not have to pump into the sewer as is expected if they connect to Santa Rosa. The argument that only one side of Santa Rosa would remain to pay for a future Santa Rosa sewer is correct. However , the southerly side of Santa Rosa is not in the Cease and Desist area and Marchant Way has only on side contributing to its extension. i MORLAN & JONES, and HANLEY An Association of Attorneys THOMAS M.MORLAN 8655 MORRO ROAD,SUITE C TEMPLETON OFFICE ROBERT M. JONES POST OFFICE BOX 606 118 MAIN ST.—P.O.BOX 957 ROY A. HANLEYTEMPLETON,CA 93465 ATASCADERO,CALIFORNIA 93423 TELEPHONE: (805) 466-4422 (805)434-2555 August 21 , 1985 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Atascadero City Council FROM: Robert M. Jones SUBJECT: Annexation of Marchant Way Neighborhood to Atascadero County Sanitation District. Pursuant to Section 4834 at sequence of the Health and Safety Code, the following steps shall be taken when the Sanitary District annexes property to the improvement portion of the Sanitary District. 1. A Resolution shall be adopted initiating proceedings for annexation which contains the following: A. Exterior boundaries of the territory proposed for annexation. B. A statement that the territory will be benefited by annexation. C. A statement of the time, date and place of Hearing of the proposed annexation not less than 15 or more than 60 days after adoption of the Resolution initiating the proceedings . D. A statement that interested persons may make written protest to the annexation. 2. Notice of the Hearing on the Annexation shall be published and each landowner shall receive actual notice by mail of the Hearing. 2O Annexation of Marchant Way Page 2 3. At the time of Hearing, if a majority protest shall not have been filed, the District Board shall adopt a Resolution making one of the following determinations A. Disapproving the proposed annexation. B. Approving the proposed annexation. C. Approving the annexation but excluding any lands which the Board finds will not be benefited by becoming a part of such improvement district. 4. If the District Board approves the proposed annexation, a Certified copy of the Resolution of the District Board together with a map or plat of the new boundaries of the improvement district shall be filed. At the time of the actual Hearing, a proposed budget should be discussed to give notice to those interested that amount that the Board believes shall be the initial cost of sewer connection to each parcel. Of par- ticular concern in the Marchant Way neighborhood, is the hook-up of real property to the immediate west situated on Santa Rosa Road. If th property owners desire to become a part of the Marchant Way annexation, easements for sewer lines will have to be procured by the Santa Rosa property owners from the Marchant Way property owners . This may pose a particular problem for the District and it is recommended that the Santa Rosa property owners , if they desire to join the annexation process be given an opportunity to discuss easement possibilities with the adjoining landowners on Marchant Way. DATED: August 21 , 1985 BY: Robert M. Jones , Interim City Attorney rt RESOLUTION NO. 86_-85 A RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT INITIATING PROCEEDINGS FOR ANNEXATION OF LOTS 73 THROUGH 87 OF BLOCK JC THROUGH THE IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT OF THE ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT PURSUANT TO SECTION 4834 OF THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE WHEREAS , the Atascadero County Sanitation District is impowered by Section 4834 of the Health and Safety Code to annex territory already a part of the County Sanitation District through the improvement district of that County Sanitation District; and LtiHEREAS , the Atascadero County Sanitation District has received a Petition from the owners of 13 Lots located on Marchant Way, City of ' Atascadero, requesting that their property be annexed to the Sanitation Service District; and ,MEREAS , it is in the best interest of Atascadero County Sani- tation District to provide sewer serivice to the subject property, to-wit Lots through of Block - of the City of Atascadero; and WHEREAS , the extension of utility service to existing private structures are categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (class 19) . NO , THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE DIRECTORS OF THE ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT AS FOLLOWS : Section 1. The Board finds that the territory described in this Resolution will be benefited by annexation to the improvement district; Section 2. The territory that is intended to be annexed to the Sanitary Improvement District is listed as follows : Lot 73 Block JC , Atascadero Colony A.P.N. 31-381-20 Lot 74 Block Jc , Atascadero Colony A.P .N. 31-381-51 Lot 75 Block Jc , Atascadero Colony A.P .N. 31-381-51 Lot 76 Block ,TC Atascadero Colony A.P .N. 31-381-53 Lot 77 Block JC , Atascadero Colony A.P .N. 31-381-52 Lot 78 Block JC , Atascadero Colony A.P.N. 31-381-46 L� Lot 79 Block JC Atascadero Colony A.P.N. 31-381-47 Lot 80 Block Jc , Atascadero Colony A.P .N.- 31-381-59 Lot 81 Block JC , Atascadero Colony A.P.T.- 31-381-60 Lot 82 Block JC , Atascadero Colony A.P.N. 31-381-32 Lot 83 Block JC , Atascadero Colony A.P.N. 31-381-43 Lot 84 Block JC , Atascadero Colony A.P .N. 31-381-10 Lot 85 Block 1C , Atascadero Colony A.P.N. 31-381-09 Lot 86 Block JC , Atascadero Colony A.P.N. 31-381-35 Lot 87 Block JC , Atascadero Colony A.P.N. 31-381-07 Section 3 . A Nearing shall be held at Atascadero City Hall on September 9, 1985 , at 7 : 30 P.M. on the proposed annexation of the aforesaid property to be annexed into the Atascadero County Sanitation District. Section 4. Any interested person desiring to make written protest against such annexation shall do so by written communication, containing the signature and street address of the protestant , and shall be filed with. the Clerk of the Atascadero County Sanitation District , P. O. Box 747 , Atascadero , California 93423, not later than 7 : 30 P :M. , September 9 , 1985. On motion by Board Member and seconded by Board Member , tFie foregoing Resolution is adopted in its entirety by the rollowing role call vote: AYES : NOES: ABSENT: DATE: ATTEST : Mike Shelton, Secretary Rolfe Nelson, Chairman APPROVED AS TO FOR14 Robert M. Jones , Interim City Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Paul M. Sensibaugh, Dire for o-f Public works/City Engineer _ m H 11. A W a Ilk ° °Q RF s.'S°32W d2 43 50. UAIt S lo- A � s rn Vs, W w dC.3, C., . �a s ti r 1 u1fnN 4�' ~ �� a ti• ti F�9 Sp "b all Ch C-31 f t77ilVl, �l �-- • rrl � CS C-4 b 3> 137.82 . rcao Y qW z ° rn 70 � �e m oo �N r_l16.d9 � O Y A Om y Q S30.55 W 10,5- Al 0,5- n� c - CITY COUNCIL OF ATA SCADERO SUB JECt: Sewers The following property owners on Marchant Way petition the city of Atrascadero to grant permission to place a sewer line approximately 1620 feet on Marchant Way, from lot 79 north of Santa Rosa Road to Pismo Street, and west on Pismo Street approximately 125 feet to the existing city sewer manhole. We would petition the city for the option of paying all sewer costs including engineering by assessment on city tax rolls, or be able to pay the costs outright, at the discretion of the property owner. ADDRESS LOT NAME SIGNATURE 9450 87 STUBBS l:, N.. n n. g 9460 $6. KIRKENDALL ,r► ,� 9470 $5 GEARHART t / 9480 84 KELLY 9490 83 PESENTI 9500 82 REEVES 9510 81 IviOIdTAGUE 9520 80 DOHERTY �� 3530 73 LITTLE ;. ezzI _, 9550 74 LOWNES 9570 75 RIESAU 9570 76, RIESAjJ 9576 6 77 PIERCE 980 r$ PHILLIPS ti 9590 79 THOMPSON 4: RECORDING REQUESTED BY: r City of Atascadero AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: City of Atascadero Public Works Department P. 0. Box 747 Atascadero, CA 93423 APN: AGREEMENT TO PARTICIPATE IN A NONOPPOSED FORMATION ' OF AN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION OF ROAD IMPROVEMENTS ON MORRO ROAD, ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of 1985 , by and between ereinafter collectively referred to as "DEVELOPER" , and the City o Atascadero, a Municipal corporation in the State of California, called "CITY". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS , DEVELOPER is the record.owner of real property situated in the County of San Luis Obispo , State of California, City of Atascadero, here- inafter referred to as the "SUBJECT PROPERTY, " which is more particularly described as follows : WHEREAS , DEVELOPER has prepared and filed plans for the development of a _ project number —, at Morro .Road, in the City of Atascadero for approval y City; and - WHEREAS , a condition of approval of said. project requires that the applicant enter into an agreement to waive his right to protest the establishment of an Assessment District for construction of road im- provements on Morro Road, also known as Highway 41 adjacent to the subject property pursuant to Section 9-4. 159 of the Municipal Code of Atascadero; and WHEREAS , execution of this agreement by DEVELOPER and CITY and sub- sequent performance of its obligations by DEVELOPER and its successors and interest will satisfy the requirement imposed by the CITY as a condition of road improvement of said NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED by and between the parties hereto as follows: 1. CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS . DEVELOPER agrees to participate at a future date, by bearing its proportionate cost under an Assessment District or other proceed- ing lawfully providing therefore, in the construction and install- ation of road improvements , to include , but not limited to curbs gutters and sidewalks and street pave-out , hereinafter referred to as the "street widening plan" and such other related road im- provements and all necessary appurtenances in connection therewith, i upon demand by*TY, when said public imppr�ements are to be con- structed and installed- for the Highway ,41 - Morro Road area. 2. FORMATION OF ASSESSMENT DISTRICT. Upon demand by CITY, DEVELOPER will participate in, and will not oppose, the formation of an Assessment District or other proceed- ings for the construction and installation of the public improve- ments described in paragraph l above within the area. 3. WAIVER OF RIGHT OF PROTEST. DEVELOPER agrees , on behalf of itself and its successors in . inter- ests , to waive the right to file or present any oral or written protest against the establishment of an Assessment District or other proceedings by the CITY to construct and install the public improve ments. described in paragraph 1 above within the area. 4. AGREEMENT RUNS WITH THE LAND. This agreement shall run with the subject property described above and shall be binding upon the DEVELOPER and all its assigns and its successors in interests. 5 . INDEMNIFICATION. The applicant, and its successors and interests shall defend, in- demnify and save harmless the City of Atascadero . it' s officers , agents , and employees from ,any and all claims , demands , damages , costs and expenses or liabilty occasioned by the performance or attempted performance of the provisions hereof, or in any way arising out of this agreement , including, but not limited to, in- verse condemnation, equitable relief, or any wrongful. act or any negligent act or omission to act on the part of the DEVELOPER or his agents, employees , or independent contractors directly respon- sible to the applicant; providing further that the foregoing shall apply to any wrongful acts , committed, jointly or concurrently by the DEVELOPER, the DEVELOPER' S agents , employees , or independent contractors and the CITY, it' s agents , employees , or independent contractors. Nothing contained in the foregoing indemnity pro- visions shall be constured to require the applicant to indemnify the CITY against any responsibility or liability in controvention of Section 2782 of the Civil Code 6. EFFECTS OF WAIVER. CITY' S waiver of breach of any one (1) term, covenant , or other provision of this agreement , is not a waiver of breach of any other term, nor subject on breach of the term or provision waived. 7. NOTICES. Unless otherwise provided, all notices herein required herein shall be in writing and delivered in person to sent by Registered Mail , postage pre-paid. Notices required to be given to CITY shall be addressed as follows : City Clerk, City of Atascadero , P. O.Box 747 , Atascadero, California 93423. Notices required to be given to DEVELOPER shall be addressed as follows : w r Provided that 0 party may change such a*ess by notice in writing to the other party and thereafter notices shall be addressed and transmitted to the new address . 8. VALIDITY OF OTHER AGREEMENTS . This agreement is in addition to, and does not supercede, any other agreement or agreements entered into by and between the parties hereto. 9. INVALIDITY If any term, convenant, condition or provision of this agreement is held by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remainder of the provisions hereof shall remain in full force and effect and shall in no way be effected, impaired, or invalidated thereby. 10. AGREEMENT TO BE RECORDED. Applicant and CITY intend and consent to recordation of this Agree- ment in the Office of the San Luis Obispo County Recorder. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement as of the day and year first above written. ATTEST: CITY OF ATASCADERO Robert M. Jones , City Clerk Rolfe Nelson, Mayor APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Paul Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works APPROVED AS TO FORM A14D LEGAL EFFECT: Robert M. Jones , Interim City Attorney DEVELOPER: a� RECORDING REQUESTED t City of Atascadero - AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: City of Atascadero Public Works Department P. 0. Box 747 Atascadero, CA 93423 APN: CITY OF ATASCADERO DEFERRED IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR HIGHWAY 41 - MORRO ROAD This Agreement , dated this day of 1985 , by and between , collectively referred to as DEVELOPER and the CITY OF ATASCADERO, a Municipal corporation of the State of California, called "City WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, DEVELOPER is the record owner of real property situated in the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, City of Atascadero, hereinafter referred to as "Subject Property" which is more particularly described as follows : and which is locatea on Highway 41 , also known as Morro Road, etween Portola Road and E1 Camino Real; and WHEREAS, DEVELOPER has prepared and filed plans for Project Number, Precise Plan in the City of Atascadero for approval by City; and WHEREAS , as a condition precedent to the approval of said plans by CITY, DEVELOPED. is required to offer for dedication such portions of land intended for streets, highways , and other public use and also to construct and install or otherwise to agree to construct and install certain other improvements; and WHEREAS , DEVELOPER has offered for dedication to CITY for public use the streets and easements shown on separate documents for public use and certain other improvements ; and WHEREAS, Section 9-4. 159 of the Municipal Code for the City of Atascadero provides that certain required improvements may be delayed when the City Engineer determines that they would be premature to the development of the area, and WHEREAS , as a condition precedent to the acceptance to the dedication of such streets and easements and final approval of said project plans by CITY, DEVELOPER is required to enter into an agreement with the City to construct certain improvements , and to provide the City with certain plans , dedications and waivers of protest for special districts , that may be formed to make said improvements ; 0 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED BY AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES HERETO AS FOLLOWS : 1 . DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS Developer, at his sole costs and expense, shall design, construct, and install a portion of Highway 41 , fronting the project to be shown on plans to be designed, approved and filed in the Office of the Director of Public Works of the CITY which are referred to and incorporated herein as though fully set forth at this point. 2. CHANGES IN PLANS AND IMPROVEMENTS All improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the improvement plans , referred to in Paragraph l above and in accordance with all spplicable City standards and regulations, as finally approved by the Director of Public Works . The parties hereto contemplate that certain corrections and revisions in said improvement plans may be necessary to comply with applicable City standards and regulations as determined by the Director of Public Works , as well as the Department of Transportation (also known as Cal-Trans) for the State .of California. DEVELOPER shall complete such improvement plans conformed to all applicable standards and regulations for approval by the Director of Public Works, including any corrections and revisions thereto, prior to the approval of said project. DEVELOPER shall perform all changes or alterations in the construction and installation of such improvements .to conform with plan revisions , all in accordance with the improvement plans as finally completed and approved by the Director of Public Works . 3 SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS The following specific requirements precedent to the approval of the developments are agreed upon by the parties to be provided by DEVELOPER prior to the commencement of the work of improvement, if the Director of Public Works requires them, to-wit: A. A street widening plan of that portion of Highway 41 , also known as Morro Road, frongint DEVELOPER'S project, including elevations and drainage; B. A plan establishing the set back of the project from the ONE HUNDRED FOOT (100 ' ) right-of-way line of Highway 41; C. Offer to dedicate any such land for street purposes if the right-of-way line for Highway 41 is less than FIFTY FEET (S0 ' } from the center line of Highway 41 to the property line of the DEVELOPER. 16 4: INSPECTION AND CEPTANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS The Director of Public Works or his duly authorized representative upon written request of the DEVELOPER, shall inspect the improve- ments herein agreed to be constructed and installed by DEVELOPER, and if determined to be in accordance with the applicable city standards and the improvement plans , shall recommend the accept- ance of such improvements by CITY. The actual cost of inspection of said improvements shall be paid by the DEVELOPER. S . MAINTENANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS DEVELOPER shall maintain all public improvements provided for in this agreement and which may be further provided for on the sub- division map or conditions of approval thereof, until acceptance by the City Council. 6. GUARANTEE OF IMPROVEMENTS DEVELOPER shall guarantee such improvements for a period of ONE (1) year., following completion by DEVELOPER and acceptance by CITY, against any defect of work or labor done, or defective materials furnished in the performance of this agreement by DEVELOPER. In the event any such improvements are determined to be defective within the period provided herein, DEVELOPER shall without delay or without cost to CITY, repair or reconstruct any such defect of work or materials. Should DEVELOPER fail to act promptly or in accordance with this requirement, or should the exigencies of the case require repairs or replacements be made before DEVELOPER can be notified, CITY may, at it' s option, make the necessary repairs or replacements or perform the necessary work, and DEVELOPER shall pay to CITY the actual cost of such repairs. 7. TITLE TO IMPROVEMENTS Title to , and in ownership of, all improvements constructed herein by DEVELOPER shall vest absolutely in CITY, upon completion of the improvements by DEVELOPER, and acceptance of such improvements , by CITY. 8. AS BUILT DRAWINGS DEVELOPER shall keep accurate records on a set of project blue-line prints of all additions and deletions to the work, and of all changes in location, elevation and character of the work, not other- wise shown or noted on the improvement plans. Prior to field accept- ance of the work, DEVELOPER shall deliver this "As Built" information to the Director of Public Works for the Director' s approval and retention. 9. BINDING ON SUCCESSORS AND INTEREST It is expressly understood that this agreement shall be recorded in the County recorder' s Office of the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California and further that all provisions of this agree • ment shall be binding on the parties and their executors , admin- istrators , assigns and successors and interest. 10: DEVELOPER' S INIJVNCE DEVELOPERshall not commence workunderthis agreement until DEVELOPER shall have obtained the following insurance and the coverage and certification thereof shall have been approved by the CITY, through the City Attorney' s office as to form, amount 0 and carrier. a. DEVELOPER shall maintain contractual liability insurance pursuant to this agreement with CITY, with the following mini- mum limits of liability as indicated in either (1) or (2) as follows: (1) Bodily Injury Liability $500,000 $1 ,000,000 Each Person Each Occurrence Property Damage Liability $250 ,000 $ 500 ,000 Each Occurrence Aggregate (2) A single limit for bodily injury liability and property damage liability combined of: $500 ,000 $1 ,000 ,000 Each Occurrence Aggregate b. The DEVELOPERS liability insurance policy shall have an additional insured endorsement, naming the CITY, its officers and employees , as additional insureds. Insurance coverage in the minimum amounts set forth herein shall not be construed to relieve DEVELOPER from liability in excess of such coverage, nor shall it preclude CITY from taking such other actions as are available to it under any other provision of this Agreement or otherwise by law. At such time as the CITY shall except the improvements constructed thereon, DEVELOPER' S responsibility for providing the above described insurance shall lapse. 11. NO ASSIGNMENT WITHOUT CONSENT DEVELOPER. shall not have the right to assign or transfer this agreement or any part thereof, without the prior written consent of CITY. 12. NOTICE OF BREACH AND DEFAULT If DEVELOPER refuses or fails to obtain prosecution of the work, or any severable part thereof, with such diligence as will insure its completion within the time specified, or any extensions thereof, or fails to obtain completion of said work within such time, or if the DEVELOPER should be judged a bankrupt, or DEVELOPED. should make a general assignment for the benefit of DEVELOPER' S creditors , or if a receiver should be appointed in the event of DEVELOPER' S in- solvency, or if DEVELOPER, or any of DEVELOPER' S contractors , sub- contractors , agents or employees , should violate any of the provisions of this agreement, CITY may serve written notice upon DEVELOPER of• DEVELOPER' S breach of this agreement , of any portion thereof. 13'.- BREACH OF AGREONT: PERFORMANCE BY CITY In the event of any such notice, DEVELOPER fails to complete the work and improvements specified herein, within TEN (10) days after the serving upon such notice of breach, CITY may take over the work and prosecute the same to completion, by contract or by any other method CITY may deem adviseable, for the account and at the expense of DEVELOPER, and DEVELOPER shall be liable to CITY for any excess cost or damages occasion- ed CITY thereby; and, in such event , CITY without liability for so doing, may take possession of, and utilize in completing the work, such materials , appliances , plans and other property be- longing to DEVELOPER as may be on the site of the work and necessary therefore. The right of CITY provided in this agreement or in addition to and accumulative to any and all other rights of CITY as provided by law and any election by CITY to proceed pursuant to the provisions the paragraphs of this agreement relating thereto, shall not be construed as being in lieu of any other rights pro- vided by law. 14. INDEMNIFICATION The DEVELOPER, and his successors in interests , shall defend, indemnify and save harmless the City of Atascadero, it' s officers , agents and employees from any and all claims , demands , damages , costs and expenses or liability occasioned by the performance or attempted performance of the provisions hereof, or in any way , arising out of this agreement, including, but not limited to , in- verse condemnation, equitable relief, or any wrongful act or any negligent act or omission to act on the part of the DEVELOPER or his agents, employees, or independent contractors directly respon- sible to the applicant; providing further that the foregoing shall apply to any wrongful acts , committed, jointly or concurrently by the DEVELOPER, the DEVELOPER' S agents , employees , or independent contractors and the CITY, it ' s agents , employees , or independent contractors . Nothing contained in the foregoing indemnity pro- visions shall be construed to require the applicant to indemnify the CITY against any responsibility or liability in controvention of Section 2782 of the Civil Code. 15 . NOTICES Unless otherwise provided, all notices herein required herein shall be in writing and delivered in person or sent by Registered Mail, postage pre-paid. Notices required to be given to CITY shall beaddressedas follows : City Clerk, City of Atascadero , P. 0. Box 747 , Atascadero , California 93423. Notices required to be given to DEVELOPER shall be addressed as follows : Provided that any party may change such address by notice in writing to the other party and thereafter notices shall be addressed and transmitted to the new address . TN WITNESS WHEREOF , Ole parties hereto have exe*ted this agreement - is of .the day and year First' above. written, ATTEST: CITY OF ATASCADERO Robert M. Jones , City Clerk Rolfe Nelson, Mayor APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Paul Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL EFFECT: Robert M. Jones , Interim City Attorney DEVELOPER: r 2