Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Packet 11/25/1985
f • AGENDA - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting ATASCADERO ADMINISTRATION BUILDING FOURTH FLOOR ROTUNDA ROOM NOVEMBER 12, 1985 AT 7 :30 P.M. Call to Order Pledge of Allegiance Invocation Roll Call City Council Comments ** Proclamation - Proclaiming November as National Hospice Month ** Proclamation - Proclaiming November as Veterans' Unity Month A. CONSENT CALENDAR: • NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed below 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 considered separately. Vote may be by roll call. 1. Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of October 28, 1985 2. Proposed Resolution V-85 - - o ket� 3. Authorization Requested for Public Works Director to Enter Into a 5-Year Elevator Maintenance Agreement with Tri-County Elevator Company 4. Claim by Lennette Tingey (unspecified amount) (RECOMMEND DENIAL) 5. Proposed Resolution 125-85 - Authorizing a Procedure for the Destruction of Police Records 6. Motion Directing City Clerk to Advertise for Interested • Applicants to Serve as Citizen Representative to the Citizens Transit Advisory Committee I • 7. Tentative Parcel Map 26-85 - Davis/Greene - 8870 San Gabriel Road (Allow division of 8. 7 acres into 3 lots of 2.9 acres each) 8. Lot Line Adjustment 10-85 - Dulitz/Moore (Adjust property line to create 2 lots with frontage access off Garcia Road) B. ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT (Council will recess and convene as the Atascadero County Sanitation District Board of Directors) 1. Proposed Annexations into the Atascadero County Sanitation District: A. Public Hearing on the Following Proposed Annexations into the Atascadero County Sanitation District (Cont'd from 10/14/85 and 10/28/85) . a. Lots 73-87, Marchant Way b. Lots 66-72, Santa Rosa Road C. Lots 11-16 , Santa Rosa Road B. Proposed Resolution 118-85 (Alternate 6) - Approving Annexation for Improvement District #3 (Lots 73-87, Marchant Way, Lots 66-72, Santa Rosa Road and Lots 11-16, Santa Rosa Road (Cont'd from 10/14 and 10/28/85) C. Proposed Resolution 123-85 (Alternate 2) - Approving Annexation for Improvement District #3 (Lots 66-87, Block JC Marchant Way and Santa Rosa Road) (The Board of Directors will adjourn and reconvene as the City Council. ) C. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES, AND REPORTS 1. Public Hearing - Appeal by Gary Mulholland of a 10-Foot Sidewalk Requirement for an RMF-16 Project at 5550 Traffic Way 2. Public Hearing - Zone Change 6-85 - Planning Commission Request to Revise Minimum Lot Size Performance Standards For- mula in the RS, RSF-Z and LSF-Z Zones. (This involves the • substitution of specific site information in the septic suit- ability factor instead of using generalized soils data, and to consider elimination of the 20% lot size reduction adjust- ment option. ) 0 0 • 3. Public Hearing - Zoning Enforcement Hearings: Nuisance Abatement A. 1800 El Camino Real (APN: 49-131-47) Owned by Leonard Q. Brazzi (NOTE: Nuisance Abated Prior to Hearing Date) B. 5985 Rio Rita (APN: 49-151-06) Owned by Michael Frederick C. 2100 E1 Camino Real (APN: 49-141-41) Owned by Del Rio Investments (Leased by Phillip and Mary Simoneau) D. 4540 Hidalgo (APN: 28-042-03) Owned by Walter Braffett, etal. E. 8555 E1 Corte (APN: 30-401-01 - 05) Owned by William Poe F. 8405 Coromar Road (APN: 56-041-17) Owned by Harold Jr. and M.K. Sims • D. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Proposed Ordinance No. 112 - Amending the City Business License Ordinance Regulations (Recommend Continuance to future Council Meeting) (Cont'd from 10/14/85) (Verbal Presentation by Grigger Jones, Attorney) E. NEW BUSINESS 1. Proposed City Council/Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting Agenda for November 21, 1985 2. Authorization Requested for Staff to Enter into Agreement with a Private Engineering Firm to Provide Design Services for Replacing Graves Creek Bridge (Proposals due November 8) (Public Works Director Paul Sensibaugh to give verbal presentation) 3. Proposed Resolution 126-85 - Authorizing Mayor to Enter into Agreement with the County of San Luis Obispo to Exchange Property Tax Revenue, Transfer Appropriations Limit, and Settle and Release all Claims • 1 6 F. COMMUNITY FORUM G. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION 1. City Council 2. City Attorney 3. City Clerk 4. City Treasurer 5. City Manager NOTE: THE MEETING ADJOURNED TO A SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING ON THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 21 AT 4: 00 P.M. FOR THE PURPOSE OF INTERVIEWS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR AND TO 8: 00 P.M. FOR THE CITY COUNCIL/PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION JOINT MEETING. NOTE: THE MEETING WILL ALSO BE ADJOURNED TO AN OPEN (PUBLIC INVITED) STUDY SESSION TO REVIEW THE 1984-85 AUDIT AND FIRST QUARTER FINANCIAL REVIEW AT 6 :30 P.M. ON NOVEMBER 25 IN THE 4TH FLOOR CLUB ROOM (PRIOR TO THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED COUNCIL MEETING) • 4 7,7`71A MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting, October 28 , 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; he announced that the City Council met in a Closed Session, prior to tonight ' s meeting, to discuss litigation regard- ing the case of Levi & Marlene Barrett vs. City of Atascadero. Mayor Nelson presented a plaque to Officer Richard Blumberg acknowledging the value of his services as an Atascadero Police Officer. Officer Blum- berg is retiring after having served the City of Atascadero since 1980 , a charter member of the Police Department. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmembers Mackey, Molina, Norris and Mayor Nelson Absent: Mayor Pro Tem Handshy STAFF Mike Hicks , Fire Chief/Acting City Manager; Robert Jones , City Attorney/ City Clerk; Bud McHale , Police Chief; Henry Engen, Community Development Director; Paul Sensibaugh, Public Works Director; Cindy Wilkins, Deputy City Clerk. A. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Nelson announced the addition of Item #16 to the Consent Calen- dar , proposed Resolution 122-85 . 1. Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of October 14 , 1985 2 . Approval of Treasurer ' s Report - September 1-30 , 1985 3 . Approval of Finance Director's Report - September 1-30 , 1985 4. Motion Approving Mayor ' s Appointment of Mayor Pro Tem Handshy to Council/Atascadero Unified School District Ad Hoc Committee 5. Motion Approving Mayor ' s Appointment of Councilperson Mackey to Em- ployee Recognition Program 6 . Approval of Plans and Specifications & Authorization to Solicit Bids for Fire Station Remodeling 7 . Proposed Resolution 120-85 - Approving Acquisition of Two Patrol Cars through State Bid 8. Proposed Resolution 121-85 - Approving Acquisition of Building Inspec- tion Truck 9 . Tentative Parcel Map 24-85 - 7503 Carmelita - Thomas Bench - (Allow division of 3 .53 acre parcel into three lots of 1 . 06 , 1 . 23 and 1 .26 acres each) 10. Authorization to Solicit Proposals for Engineering and Design of Graves Creek Bridge •11 . Motion Accepting Staff Report on Urban Service Boundary Lines 1 COUNCIL MINUTES - 10/28/85 PAGE THREE Public Comment Mel Donald, 4935 Vida, had read somewhere that the Junior High was to be abandoned and two new schools built at another location. He wondered what the possibility is of the Postal Service making an agreement with the school district for the acquisition of the Junior High property, which appears to offer the space they're seeking as well as close proximity to the downtown area. Mayor Nelson responded that he doesn't believe the district is in a position at this time to move the Junior High (unless it were made an offer it couldn't refuse) , and it will probably be a number of years before any such move could be accomplished. Wally Dunn, representing the owner of site #1 , roughly 8, acres to- tal , described the condition of the property, which has been cleared, compacted for buildings and curb and gutter installed. The property was intended for the development of a shopping center; however, Mr. Dunn stated there is no major supermarket chain willing to come into Atascadero for lack of a sufficient customer market . Some of the in- terested parties he has been in contact with have , however , indicated that their firm would be willing to locate here if the Post Office was there , because it would be considered a major "draw" for custom- ers. Were they to decide to build at this site, the Post Office would be (at their choice) next-door to Atascadero Ford, and a large restaurant/steakhouse would be on the corner , leaving roughly 180 ,000 ft. of space between for the development of a shopping center . The property has been under study by engineering, feasibility and envir- onmental representatives of the Postal Service. The proposed new structure is about 5 times the size of the present facility. The openness of site #1 would provide for good access to and from, as well as freeway access and would also , Mr. Dunn believes , contribute to decreasing potential vandalism. Manford Vanderlip, who has a financial interest in the property at site #3 , has also had extensive conversations with the Postal Ser- vice representatives. The 3 proposed sites appear to be the only 3 available which really fall into the nature of the site requirements. The standard bid offering and offer to sale clearly say that the Pos- tal Service does have the ability to take property through condemna- tion, which would circumvent existing zoning and all public bodies down the line. In his discussions with the Postal Service, Mr. Van- derlip noted their primary concerns are (1) lot size , (2) the avail- ability of a traffic pattern both within and around the facility, and (3) topography, which is why these 3 lots were selected for con- sideration. Doug Leeds, speaking as Postmaster of Atascadero , clarified that there were no feasible offers in the downtown area. Their needs are based on a 20-year projection, and the Post Office is currently oper- ating in a crowded situation. He offered to try and answer any questions Council might have , however , most decisions are handled by the Los Angeles field office and outside of his involvement. 1 • • COUNCIL MINUTES - 10/28/85 PAGE FOUR Council was in consensus that the west side of the freeway (site #2)10 would not be an appropriate location, and a central area, if possible , should be pursued. There was some disagreement as to whether the north or south end of town would be best. Council , basically, is in agreement with the recommendations outlined in the staff report. C. ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT MOTION: By Councilman Molina to recess as Council and convene as the Atascadero CSD Board of Directors , seconded by Councilwoman Mackey; passed unanimously. 1. Public Hearing on the Following Proposed Annexations into the Atascadero CSD (Cont ' d from 10/14/85) (Request Item Continued to November 12 , 1985 Council Meeting) a. Lots 11-16 , Santa Rosa Road b. Lots 66-72 , Santa Rosa Road C. Lots 73-87 , Marchant Way Paul Sensibaugh, Public Works Director, requested that the Board continue this item until the next regular Council Meeting on Novem- ber 12th, when staff can come back with their report including the engineer ' s estimated assessment for each parcel. MOTION: By Director Mackey that the Board continue this item until their meeting on November 12 , 1985, seconded by Director Nor- ris; passed unanimously. 2 . Proposed Resolution 118-85 - Approving Annexation of Improvement District #3 (Lots 11-16 - Santa Rosa Road, Lots 66-72 - Santa Rosa Road, and Lots 73-87 - Marchant Way) (Cont 'd from 10/14/85) Paul Sensibaugh requested, the same as the previous item, that this be held over until the November 12th meeting. MOTION: By Director Mackey that the Board continue Item C-2 to Novem- ber 12 , 1985 , seconded by Director Molina; passed unanimously. 3 . Authorization to Waive Sewer Connection Requirement - Dale Ziegler , 5700 Ardilla Road Paul Sensibaugh gave staff report. MOTION: By Director Molina to approve the waiver request of Mr. Zieg- ler , seconded by Director Mackey; passed unanimously. MOTION: By Director Molina to adjourn as the Atascadero CSD Board of Directors and reconvene as the City Council , seconded by Dir- ector Mackey; passed unanimously. D. COMMUNITY FORUM No public comment. COUNCIL MINUTES - 10/28/85 PAGE FIVE E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION Mike Hicks , Fire Chief/Acting City Manager , announced that Mr. Row- land Kenney passed away over the past weekend. Mr. Kenney was a long-time member of the Fire District Board, having served for some 30 years. Chief Hicks expressed condolences to Mr. Kenney' s family and relayed that a memorial service is scheduled for 3 : 30 p.m. this Friday, November 1 , at the Community Church. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8: 20 P.M. TO NEXT REGULAR MEETING ON TUES. 11/12/85 . RECORDED BY: ROBERT M. City Clerk PREPARED BY: CINDY WILKINS, Deputy City Clerk RESOLUTION NUMBER 124-85 SUPPORT OF THE "DEEP POCKET DOCTRINE" • WHEREAS, the present joint and several liability law, also known as the "Deep Pocket Doctrine", has unfairly cost the cities of California millions of dollars in court judgments, settlements, legal costs, skyrock- eting insurance premiums and difficulty in obtaining adequate liability insurance coverage; and WHEREAS, this same doctrine has also cost other governmental bodies, business firms and professionals many millions of dollars; and WHEREAS, ultimately this cost is unfairly borne by the taxpayers and consumers of California; and WHEREAS, many cities, other governmental bodies, business firms and professionals are selected as defendants in lawsuits merely because of their perceived assets or insurance and often are found only fractionally at fault but must pay most or all of the judgment because the defendants most at fault cannot pay; and WHEREAS, the cost of this is unfairly borne by the taxpayers and consumers of California; and WHEREAS, the "Fair Responsibility Act of 1986" is an initiative measure that would give the voters of California an opportunity to reform . the inequities and injustices of the "Deep Pocket Doctrine" by holding liability lawsuit defendants financially liable in closer proportion to their degree of fault; now, therefore be it RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of endorse the "Fair Responsibility Act of 1986" and urge its support and passage to relieve the financial strain imposed on local government and its taxpayers. On motion by Council Person and seconded by Council Person , the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED: FDLFE NELSON, Mayor • ail Resolution Number 124-85 (Support of the Deep Pocket Doctrine) ATTEST: ROBERT M. JONES, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: HEMM=TON, City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROBERT Mo JONES, City Attorney r TAXPAYERS for FAIR RESPONSIBILITY 111 Anza Boulevard,Suite 406 • Burlingame,California 94010 (415)340-04 County Supervisors Association of California League of California Cities October 28 , 1985 California Chamber of Commerce California Taxpayers Association ATA_CACEp<1 California Manufacturers �'�`"^'�'K Association Dear City Official: Association for California Tort Reform California Medical You recently received information from the Association League of California Cities outlining the California Hospital effort by a coalition of government, business Association and health care organizations to change Association of California Insurance Companies California's unfair "deep pockets" law. This Alliance of coalition--Taxpayers for Fair Responsibility— American Insurers includes the County Supervisors Association of (Partial Listing) California, the League, California Chamber of Commerce, California Taxpayers Association, John H. Hodgson II, California Medical Association, California Treasurer Hospital Association and California Manufac- I.D. #850827 turers Association. The initiative supported by the coalition, the Fair Responsibility Act of 1986 , contains virtually the same provi- sions as SB 75. Your assistance is critically important to the success of this effort. The support of each council member individually, and the collec- tive endorsement of every city, will help the public to realize that "deep pockets" is a taxpayer issue--and that reform will mean the savings of millions of taxpayer dollars. The League, by resolution at its annual meet- ing, has made "deep pockets" reform a top priority. You can help immediately in the following ways: 1) Sign and return the enclosed endorse- ment card 2) Help persuade your full council to adopt the enclosed resolution. We would like to have resolutions from all boards by December 1. When it is passed, please send a copy to the Campaign office. 3) Contact 5 to 10 key community leaders to help with this effort (service club presidents, key business and profes- sional people,etc. ) . 4) Contact your local state legislators-- both Assembly and Senate members--and ask them to endorse the initiative. y. _ 2 _ 5) Circulate petitions. If you would like to help collect signatures , please contact the Taxpayers for Fair Responsibility Campaign office at (415) 340-0470 . All time spent by city officials on qualifying or advocating this ballot measure must be volunteer time. No city money, staff time, or city resources may be spent to qualify the initiative. City money and resources , including staff time and office equipment, may be spent to provide objective information on ballot measures , but not to advocate. Viola- tion of these prohibitions can result in both civil and criminal penalties. Working together, we can restore fairness to the law and save our cities millions of much-needed taxpayers ' dollars . Please contact Ethie lleaver , State Field Director, at the Campaign office if you need additional information. Sincerely, K�.c '2t�4w�� Richard S. Woodward Campaign Manager Taxpayers for Fair Responsibility Enclosures t^ • MEMORANDUM TO: City Council THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager FROM: Paul M. Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Elevator Maintenance Contract DATE: November 5, 1985 Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council authorize the Public Works Director to enter into an elevator maintenance agreement with Tri-County Elevator Company. , Inc. The 5-year term of the contract is standard for this type of maintenance contract. Background: • On July 1, 1985 our current 5-year elevator maintenance contract, with Oliver & Williams Elevator Corporation of Goleta, expired. Requests for Proposals were sent to area firms that perform this type of maintenance. The proposals were received October 25. Only one proposal was received, from Tri-County Elevator Co. , Inc. , for a fee of $49 .00 per month. Our previous contract for essentially the same service was $61.25 per month. Fiscal Impact: The City should realize a savings of $735 over the life of the contract. Additionally, the new contract shows an increase in liability insurance from $500 ,000 to $1,000 ,000 . • Maintain all accessory equipment except such items as are hereinafter excluded. • We will also examine, lubricate, adjust, repair and/or replace the following accessory equipment: ALL • It is agreed that we are not required to make renewals or repairs necessitated by reason of negligence or misuse of the equipment or by reason of any other cause beyond our control except ordinary wear and tear. We shall not be required to make safety tests nor to install new attachments on the elevator as recommended or directed by insurance companies or by government, state, municipal, or other authorities. • The following items of elevator equipment are not included in this contract: Refinishing, repairing or replacement of car enclosure, hoistway enclosure, hoistway door panels, frames and sills, car flooring, light bulbs, fluorescent tubes, under ground piping and casing and the hydraulic piston. • All work is to be performed during our regular working hours of our regular working days unless otherwise specified below. If for any reason you later request that examinations, adjustments or repairs be made on overtime,you are to pay us for the entire time spent at our prevailing overtime rates. This contract includes monthly maintenance on all equipment plus emergency call back service Monday - Friday 8 : 00 A.M. - 4 : 30 P.M. • It is agreed that we assume no liability for injuries ordamages to persons or property except those directly due to our acts or omissions; and that your responsibility for injuries or damage to persons or property while on or about the elevators referred to is in no way affected by this agreement. We shall not be liable for any loss, damage or delay caused by strikes, lockouts, fires, explosion,theft,floods, riot, civil commotion,war, malicious mischief,act of God,or by any cause beyond our reasonable control, and in any event we shall not be liable for consequential damages. n �1 INSURANCE COVERAGE • Tri-County Elevator Company, Inc. is insured at all locations where it undertakes business operations for the types of insurance and limits of liability as follows: A. Workmen's Compensation and Employer's Liability—Equal to or in excess of limits of Workmen's Compensation laws in the state of California. B. Comprehensive General Liability 1. Bodily Injury Liability—All sums which the Company shall become legally obligated to pay as damages because of bodily injury, sickness or disease, including death at any time resulting therefrom, sustained by any person other than its employees and caused by accident, up to $1,000,000 for any one accident. 2. Property Damage Liability—All sums which the Company shall become legally obli- gated to pay as damages because of injury to or destruction of property, including the loss of use thereof, caused by accident up to $1,000,000 for each accident. C. Comprehensive Automobile Liability 1. Bodily Injury Liability—All sums which the Company shall become legally obligated to pay as damages because of bodily injury, sickness or disease, including death at any time resulting therefrom, sustained by any person other than its employees, caused by accident and arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of any automobile, up to $1,000,000 each accident. 2. Property Damage Liability—All sums which the Company shall become legally obli- gated to pay as damages because of injury to or destruction of property, including the loss of use thereof, caused by accident and arising out of the ownership, main- tenance or use of any automobile, $1,000,000 each accident. The cost of the above, our standard insurance coverage, is included in this quotation or contract. If additional types of coverage or higher limits of liability are desired, they will be provided at additional cost. GOVERNOR AND SAFETY TEST • A governor and safety test will be made by the Tri-County Elevator Company, Inc. at their expense, on each elevator covered by this contract. The Tri-County Elevator Company, Inc. assumes no responsibility for the operation of the governor or safety, under the terms of this contract, until this test has been made. In the event the governor or safety does not meet the safety requirements, it shall be the owners responsibility to make the necessary repairs to place said equipment in condition which will be acceptable for coverage under the terms of this contract. The Tri-County Elevator Company, Inc. shall not be liable for damage to equipment re- sulting from this test. 1`' • The Service specified herein will be effective on November 1, 1985 . And will continue thereafter until terminated. Either party may terminate this agreement at the end of the Fifth year or at the end of any subsequent Five year period by giving the other party at least ninety (90) days prior written notice. PRICE FORTY NINE DOLLARS EXACTLY ($ 49.00 ) DOLLARS per month, payable monthly. • The price set forth in this contract shall be subject to adjustment,depending on the cost of labor. Each such adjustment shall be made as follows: Contract price shall be increased or decreased by the percentage of increase or decrease in the straight time hourly rate paid to elevators constructors. This increase or decrease would take place at the end of each year this agreement is in force. • This proposal when accepted by you below and approved by our authorized representative, shall constitute the contract between us, and all prior representations or agreements not incorporated herein are superseded. This contract constitutes our bid proposal for elevator maintenance as per your request. TRI-COUNTY ELEVATOR COMPANY, INC. BY----&/i9 ACCEPTED IN DUPLICATE Earl H. Schmidt,. Vice President Sales By Title Approved for Tri-County Elevator Company, Inc. Authorized Representative TERMS AND CONDITIONS It is expressly understood, in consideration of our performance of the service enumerated herein at the price stated, that nothing in this agreement shall be construed to mean that Tri-County Elevator Company, Inc. assumes any liability on account of accidents to persons or property, except those directly due to the negligent acts or omissions of Tri-County Elevator Company, Inc. or its employees; and that your own responsibility for accidents to persons or property, while riding on or being in or about the elevator or the elevators referred to, is in no way affected by this agreement. Tri-County Elevator Company, Inc. shall not be held responsible or liable for any loss,damage,detention or delay caused by strikes, lockouts, fire, explosion, theft, lightning, wind storms, earthquakes, floods, storms, riots, civil commotions, malicious mischief, act of God, or of any cause beyond its reasonable control whether or not the same is herein specified, and in any event it shall not be liable for consequential damages. No work,service or liability on the part of Tri-County Elevator Company, Inc., other than that specifically mentioned herein, is included or intended. Quotations are subject to change without notice. Payments are net cash and shall be made as follows: On completion if work is completed within a thirty day period. If work is not completed within a thirty day period, that portion of the value of the materials ready or delivered plus the labor performed, either at our shops or at the building, as invoiced; the remainder when the work is completed. We reserve the right to discontinue our work until such payments shall have been made as agreed. If it should become necessary for the elevator contractor to take legal action to collect any past due payments under this contract, the undersigned purchaser agrees to pay an additional amount covering collections costs and attorney fees. Interest will be charged at the full legal rate on all past due accounts. We reserve the right to discontinue work upon default of the contract terms. It is agreed that our workman shall be given a safe place to do their work. If not, we reserve the right to discontinue our work in the building when conditions are such that the lives of our workman are endangered by others. Should damage occur to our material or work on the premises by fire, theft or otherwise, if not our fault, the purchaser is to compensate us therefor. Unless otherwise agreed it is understood that the work shall be performed during regular working hours of regular working days. If overtime work is mutually agreed upon and performed, the additional price, at our usual rates for such work shall be added to the contract price herein named. The machinery, implements and apparatus furnished hereunder remain personal property and we retain title thereto until final payment is made, with right to retake possession of the same at the cost of the purchaser if default is made in any of the payments, irrespective of the manner of attachment to the realty, the acceptance of notes, or the sale, mortgage or lease of the premises. M E M O R A N D U M TO: Mike Shelton, City Manager FROM: Dick Anthony, Int. Asst. to City Mgr SUBJECT: Claim.- Lennette Tingey DATE: November 5, 1985 RECOMMENDATION City Council deny claim submitted by Lennette Tingey on April 23, 1985. m:. BACKGROUND Claimant alleges trip and fall in crosswalk at E1 Camino Real & Entrada Ave- nues due to very rough crosswalk. Claim has been reviewed by the City's adjustors, Carl Warren & Co. , who recommend denial at this time. DEA/cw r M E M 0 R A Ny ,D U M • TO: CITY MANAGER MIKE SHELTON FROM: CHIEF OF POLICE SUBJECT: PROPOSAL FOR POLICE RECORDS DESTRUCTION DATE: NOVEMBER 6 , 1985 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that we implement the attached procedure for destroying certain police records as specified in the resolution, as such records meet the required criteria in the Government Code Section 34090 and have been determined to be no longer needed. COUNCIL AND CITY ATTORNEY ACTION REQUESTED: Review and approve the attached resolution. PROBLEM STATEMENT: During the past five years our files have grown enormously. We have had to transfer many documents to our administrative storage area in the basement as we have no other available space. BACKGROUND: Section 34090 of the Government Code makes certain provisions for destruction of City records that have outlived their usefulness. It states that with the approval of the legislative body by resolution and written consent of the City Attorney, the depart- ment head may destroy any City record under his charge without making a copy thereof, after the record is no longer required. Attached is a copy of all applicable information. ALTERNATIVES : Microfilm many of our police records or expand current facilities to handle all records and have them easily accessible. FISCAL IMPACT: None - clerical time would be scheduled in accordance with regular work schedules to accommodate necessary records purge. RICHARD H. MCHALE CHIEF OF POLICE RHM: sb r RECOMMENDATION Inasmuch as criteria contained in the attached resolution meets the needs of this department and City and conforms to the guidelines of Government Code Section 34090 , I recommend that we submit this proposal to appropriate City Officials for approval. SANDI BARTELT sb a RESOLUTION NO. 125-85 A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING A PROCEDURE FOR DESTRUCTION OF POLICE RECORDS WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero is in need of a police records destruction procedure as described by law; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 34090 provides that the head of a City Department may destroy certain City records, documents, or instruments under his charge, without duplication, with the approval of the City Council by resolution and with the written consent of the City Attorney; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that certain records are no longer required for retention and an accumulation of police records has become unduly cumbersome; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Atascadero does hereby resolve as follows : . Section 1. The Council of the City of Atascadero hereby adopts the following policy with respect to records of the Atascadero Police Department after the same is no longer needed and is no longer required by law, without making a copy thereof. A. The following records will be retained for two years and subsequently destroyed: 1. Dispatch cards 2. Vacation check forms 3. Field interview cards 4 . Officers daily activity cards/sheets 5. Repossession reports 6 . Bail receipts 7. Traffic citations 8 . Deceased arrest files 9 . Expired bicycle licenses 10. Stored/Impound vehicle reports 11 . Non-injury accidents 12 . Injury/Overdose/Attempt suicide reports not resulting in death 13 . Lost and Found reports 14 . Missing persons reports which have been cleared 15 . Miscellaneous/Incident reports 16 . Courtesy reports for other agencies 17 . Misdemeanor citations 18 . Misdemeanor crime reports providing that: a. There is no outstanding warrant related to the report b. There is no property outstanding C. There is no death connected with the report d. It is not involved in civil or criminal litigation e. It does not involve an Atascadero City employee 19 . Index cards corresponding only to destroyed records 20 . Pawn slips 21 . Property index cards 22 . Dispatchers' notebooks B. The following records will be retained for five years and subsequently destroyed: 1. Injury accident reports 2. Felony crime reports providing that: a. There is no outstanding warrant related to the report b. There is no property outstanding C. There is no death connected with the report d. It is not classified under Sections 800 and 290 P.C. and 11850 H. & S. Section 2 . The records specified in Paragraph 1 of this • resolution do not include any documents relating to citizen complaints or investigations in response to citizen complaints relating to members of the Police Department to internal affairs investigation files, to capitol crimes, embezzlement of public funds, bribery of public officials, reports involving Atascadero City employees, arrest reports, and child abuse reports. Section 3. The City Council finds that the City Attorney has given his written consent to the destruction of the records described in Section 1 of this resolution, and the Chief of Police is authorized to destroy the Police records described in Section 1 of this resolution. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED: ATTEST: %. ROBERT M. JONES,__ CJTY ATTORNEY ROLFE NELSON, MAYOR NOTES - DESTRUCTION OF CITY RECORDS The destruction of City records is governed by two Government Code Sections: 34090 and 34090 . 5 . These sections separate destruction into two areas: 1. Records which may be destroyed without copying if there is approval given by legislative resolution and the City Attorney. 2 . Records which may be destroyed without approval given by legislative resolution and the City Attorney if they have first been copied. Section 30490 tells us that: With approval by legislative resolution: With approval of City Attorney; , Without copying; all City records may be destroyed except: a. Records affecting the title to real property b. Court records C. Records required to be kept by statute d. Records less than two years old e. Minutes, ordinances, or resolutions of the legis- lative body of a city board or commission. This means that any document or record not covered in the above five exceptions may be destroyed once approval is received by legislative resolution and consent given by the City Attorney. If any of the above five exceptions exist, then the record must first be microfilmed under the provisions of 34090 . 5 . Before any City record covered by one of the five exemptions is destroyed, two microfilm or other type copies must be made. 57 Ops. Atty. Gen. 307 , 6-20-74 POST RESULZE OF LAWS REGARDING CITY RECORD RETENTION Government Code Section 34090 Destruction of city records ; excepted records ; construction. Unless otherwise provided by law, with the approval of the legislative body by resolution and the written consent of the city attorney, the head of a city department may destroy any city record, document, instrument, book or paper, under his charge , without making a cony thereof, after the same is no longer required. This section does not authorize the destruction of : a. Records affecting the title of real property or liens thereon. b. Court records. C. Records required to be kept by statute. d. Records less than two years old. e. The minutes , ordinances , or resolutions of the legislative body or of a city board or commission. This section shall not be construed as limiting or qualifying in any manner the authority provided in Section 34090. 5 for the destruction of records , documents , instruments , books and papers in accordance with the procedure therein prescribed. Section 34090. 5 Destruction of records : conditions Notwithstanding the Provisions of Section 34090 , the city officer having custody of public records , documents , instruments , books , and papers , may without the approval of the legislative body or the written consent of the city attorney, cause to be destroyed any or all of such records , documents , instruments , books , and papers , if all of the following conditions are complied with : a. The record, paper, or document is photographed, microphotographed, or reproduced on film of_ a type approved for permanent photographic records by the National Bureau of Standards . b. The device used to reproduce such record, naner, or document on film is one which accurately and legibly reproduces the original thereof in all details . C. The photographs , microphotographs , or other reproductions on film are made as accessible for public reference as the book records were. d. A true copy of archival quality of such film reproductions shall be kept in a safe and separate place .for security purposes. Provided, however, that no page of any record, paper, or document shall be destroyed if any such page cannot. be reproduced on film with full legibility. Every such unreproducible nage shall be permanently_ preserved in a manner that will afford easy reference. Section 34090 . 7 Duplicate records less than five years old; destruction Notwithstanding the provisions of section 34090 , the legislative body of a city may prescribe a procedure under which duplicates of city records less than five years old may be destroved if they are no longer required. �j i OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL State of California EVELLE J. YOUNGER Attorney General ------------------------- OPINION , of No. CV 72/291 EVELLE J. YOUNGER JUNE 20, 1974 Attornev General , GEORGE J. ROTH , *eputy Attorney General , ------------------------- The Honorable Gene S. Muehleisen, Executive Director of the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training has requested an opinion on the following questions relating to retention of records by city police departments : ' 1 . Under Government Code section 34090. 5, may the head of a city department destroy original documents without making two microfilm copies if he first obtains the approval of the legislative body of the city by resolution and the written permission of the city attorney as provided for by Government Code section 34095? 2 . Is it the Legislature' s intent to require two microfilm copies of all original paper documents , before destruction, and require that the two copies be maintained = indefinitely? 3. Is there a requirement as to how lon- the oris in.i documents or reports must be kept before they r:.1v be micro photographed and destroyed? 4 . Govt,rnnn(_nt Ct)de :;Cr t.; on 34090 . ', stibdivi si cin (c) states , "The phocographs , n�ic:ronhntograi�!is , or ocher reproc(uctions on film arc- nvidu as accu::sibl.e for Public rLferunce as tht.- book record: worn ." Docs thi requirL' the ci�;eI,cy t o Lu abl o to provide: a "h.ird-coo-)N- , " have: a ,nicroiil:1- r� .tdc_t ;iv,,i. i ;a�l� Or merely he ahlc Lo pi•c-vit'r � inieraIic! 0 - mi_cr(- ,i.l.m to the public ? r 7 i 5* Goverrment Code section*090 . 5 subdivision (b) states , �A true copy of archival quality of such fil^i reproductions shall be kept in a safe and separate place for security purposes . " Does this mean that the "true copy" must be made from the film or could it be a copy of the original paper document? The conclusions are : 1. Any city record, document, instrument , book, or paper which is not covered by the c%ceptions to Government Code section 34090 may be destroyed by a city department head provided he obtains the approval of the legislative body by resolution and also the written consent of the city attorney. 2. The Legislature intended that before any city record which is covered by the exceptions to Government Code section 34090 is destroyed two microfilm or other authorized type copies must be made and retained indefi- nitely. 3. Provided that copies of original city documents are made and preserved as set forth in Government Code section 34090 . 5 , there is no requirement as to how long original documents must be kept before they are micro- photographed and destroyed. 4. After prescribed copying and destruction, a mechanical "reader" must be made available to the public for microfilm and microfiche items . Copies of records and documents must be made for the public if requested. 5. The additional microphotograph or microfilm copy required by Government Code section 34090 . 5 may he made from the original document or from a mi.Crophotograph thereof. ANALYSIS The pertinent Government: Codc?/scetiOns re--td cis folJOWS : "§ 34090 : "Unless nt herwi se provi fled hY lat. , wi.th tIIL- aphrnvail oF th- lcf;i i ati ve hody by 1 !10 written consent of the ci c.y attorney t ho hrcid (" f n City dcpartrrent dest:rc�)• aiiv city record , clo(-tuuent- , iijstru- mcnt , mock or 1)•1per , tinder Iii: ch��rgc , t,:i t-hout mril;i nt; a copy #E-hereof, after the same is no 1 oiigef• required . 1 . A1.1 sc tion refs r� ��� c are to the Govt'r-nMe!j _ Coy, unlc!is ot.lierwiso' ljocccl . �n (b) • "This section does not authorize the destruction of: pla:rue '.(��) Records affecting, the title to real property or liens thereon. " (b) Court records . "(c) Records required to be kept by statute. (d) Records less than five years old. citthey „(e) The minutes , ordinances , or resolutions of the legislative body or of a city board or commission. ` t "This section shall not be construed as limiting y neat or qualifying in any manner the authority provided in Section 34090. 5 for the destruction of records , documents , Zer instruments , books and papers in accordance with the Jefi- procedure therein prescribed. " lents "§ 34090.5: ode "Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 34090, .ong the city officer havingcustodyof docu- ments , instruments , bok.s ,and apers,lbmay,rwithout the, approval of the legislative body or the written consent of the city attorney, cause to be destroyed any or all b of such records , documents , instruments , books , and .3 papers , if all of the following conditions are com- ed. plied with : copy "(a) The record , paper, or document is photo- 3de graphed , microphotographed, or reproduced on film of a type approved for permanent photographic records by the National bureau of Standards. "(b) The device used to reproduce such record , paper, or document on film is one which accurately f 0 1 and legibly reproduces the original. thereof in all details . " (c) The photogrr.phs , microphotogr iphs , or other reproductions on film are made as accessible for public reference jts the hook records were . �y „ ru_ (d) A truc copy of nrc•hi.val quali.t.y of such film reproduce!i.e i)s sh:1 l l 1w ki.-pt. in a safe and separate place fc,i- S:-curi_ty "Provided , hc�wevc•r , thnL no page of an", record, p;tl"-,r , or document ; I� I 1 h• (le:; troyed if anti' stic}1 page Co:� cc);-rlot be ic'hr. , <': ccc3 �� , fi irn t:�i.tii full ].cgibility . CV 72/?01 Every such unreproducible page shall be permanently preserved in a manner that will afford easy reference." "§ 34090. 7: "Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 34090 , the legislative body of a city may prescribe a procedure under which duplicates of city records less than five years old may be destroyed if they are no longer required. " These sections provide a comprehensive method whereby a city may destroy documents no longer necessary for normal operations , but at the same time the sections also provide a guarantee to the public that essential documents which may be of some future use will be kept available for reference in a space-saving miniature form. .It will be noted that destruction of documents is not required under these sections . The use of the word "may" indicatr- permissive rather than mandatory conduct. Gov. Code § 14 . However, if destruction is desired, it may only be done in the manner pro- vided for by the statute. The mode prescribed is the measure of the power. Reams v. Coolev, 171 Cal. 150 , 154 (1915) ; Bear River Sand and Gravel Corp. v. County of Placer , 118 Cal.App d 6684,-6$9 �193j) . QUESTION NO. 1 .Under section 34090 " . . any city record, document instrtur,ent, book or paper ." in tR -custody of a city depart- ment head may be destroyed " . without making a copy thereof • with the approval of the legislative body [of the city] by resolution and the written consent of the city attorney (Emphasis added. ) The authority granted by section 34090 is subject to several important exceptions and conditions : (1) There be no other law providing otherwise. (2) The record must no longer be required . (3) The record must not .Icrect t!ze title to real .property or liens thereon. (4) The recor,' ;must not he a court record . (5) The record ntu:;t not lie one requi_rod to be kept by statut - . (6) ' 'tie record must- he -It ].east five years old . (7) The rv:•,),,Y miusv not. i)c, c2it_11e1: mi,111tes , ordinances car. re:.:tl : rrt:; C t1w logislcitivc body or of a Ci.L:V 10 CV 72/291. If any of the above exceptions exist , the record mry not be destroyed unless the provisions of section 34090 .5 are complied with by the city officer having custody of same. Thus , in answer to Question No . l , . if the record is not one of those listed in the seven categories above , the re head of a city department may destroy original documents without making copies if he first obtains the approval of the legislative red. " body of the city by resolution and the written permission of the city attorney as provided in section 34095. r-eby OUESTTON NO. 2 3 IDe We believe it was the intent of the Legislature to a require that before any original document which is within any of the above seven categories set forth in section 34090 may be destroyed by the head of a city departmunt two microfilm or not other authorized type copies must be made and retained indefi- idiem e nitely. Section 34090 . 5 , subdivision (d) would appear to cover Howe%& this situation. It requires that a copy of the film repro- pro- duction shall be kept separately in a safe place. _e ,ar QUESTION NO. 3 Zd Provided that copies of original city documents are made and preserved as set forth in section 34090 .5 , there is - no requirement as to how long original documents or reports = must be kept before they are microphotograhhed and destroyed. n The only time limit is set forth in section 34090, subdivision P - (d) , second paragraph. However , the third aragraph provides eof - that section 34090 shall not "in any manner ' limit or qualify she the authority to destroy granted in section 34090. 5 . The rnev latter section has no time provisions before original records _ may be copied and destroyed. co UESTION' NO. 4 If the microphotograph or photographic reproduction is to be "as accessible for public reference as the book records were" this would seem to require that a mechanical "reader" would necessarily have to be available for public use . To merely provide a microfiche or microfilm without a "readei-" would mean that the public would have to bring their OWn mechanical device to F;ct ;:cc(�ss to clic. information con- tainccl iii the record. This; wns obvicusi.y riot the le,,islative 1nlc�s�L . The 1'ubl i c- Act , gcctions. 61250-6260 , emphasi , es t`•lr• public ' s r ; );lit Co nc•c oss ol- i nfoi-mation c•clncerni rid, the con- (luct- of Lhe pul)) l(, ' hc�stncs : , P 11)1 i s records must he open to inspection at ill gimes . § 6253 . 11 CV 7'?/291. Under section 6256 an exact co record shall be PY (of any identiYi� �� _ provided unless impracticable to do so. UESTION -NO. 5 Under section 34090.5 a true copy of the film of archival quality must be kept in another safe place. As long as it is an exact copy, it does not matter whether it is made from the original document or from the film copy. Exact or true copies would necessarily be the same. '.0 X F 12 §32210 COVER 1982 A"'e"d"1ent. Chan ('ODE i Person"i is ngh� to "alI rlgl9�f the third sentence all Opera tion offered from the same s nlence t!�r or other t e,sentence "attached or ' cy"after•' any lav'relating to and from the added at the end of thebef before ' 4_ +eiau- exempt from taxation: also deleteor d fr mPtcylven• the extent Petr tted b sect- �,�� third f CMI Y`+�l%l'O 04--- el"r 10 the changes to neutralize and made o d 4he t..de of gender refe ' �Otutwtjntive CHAPTER 6. COUNTY PEACE 0 �� DISABILITY AND AND FIRE SERVICE RET - AND DEATH BENEFIT PLANS Law Review Com,+lerttarfes thecwOrk. Collateral estoppel; The extent to orkmen's co Pal or mpensation a `Which lisions of Hast-1-J.763.Pension boards bind q� PPeals board munici- Orb t 1')"01 21 a, S TITLE 4• GOVERNMENT DOF CITIES NISION 1, CITIES GENERAIyy :�. tzieuil CHAPTER I. GENERAL 'qf ,',�':' E 2- ARTICLE - § 34051. ELECTIONS Repealed by Stats.1978, C. 1287 bnr• • P.4214, § 31 .Yr, ARTICLE 3. AFFIDAVIT � § 34080. Change of OF CO tifPL name; affidavit of completion ETION The clerk of the legislative gislative proceeding the city is locate an conducting ducti g the g have proceeding shall record The cit been Complied with, if it relates tstatino that all r with the recorder of until the Y shall not perform an equirements of law the affidavit Y official act, the validity the change of name Pertarnt"g to the (Amended b Of completion has of which de me of a city Y Stats.1973, been recorded. • pends upon eucb O.665,P- 1221, § 7; Stats.1978, Proceedings, Law Renew Commentatiea C. 76, _ Recordation ofd P•208, § 1,urgency,eff April ?, 1978. is Li.488. °penis; comment. (1974)S f'acif- r ) mnn J . § 34081. Repealed b �r.,•c Y'Stats-1978, C. 76, P.208, § 2, urgency, eff. April 7 at . 1978 ARTICLE 'f1°Tt - - See. 4. MISCELLANEOUS 34090.6. Destruction of § 34� Destruction recorded radio and telephone communications. of city records; Unless otherwiseexcepted records; t written Provided by law, construction CO"sent of the with the dOCument,instrument c1tY attorney the head of a ci of the legislative body is no longer re book°t Papet, under his charge,C1tY de Y by resolution and the This section without making a co Y record m: does not authori PY thereof,after t Ca) Records affectingthe destruction he carne ar the title °f' the (b) Court records. to real property or liens thereon. (c) Records required to be kept by statute. § dot nd nine indicates than wr1 2 changes Y am or additions b lost endment Ast GOVERNMENT CODE §34090.5 +i►�� (d) Records less than ' ' • two years old. 0 (e) The minutes,ordinances,or resolutions of the legislative body or of a city board or commission. --am-ANO This section shall not be construed as Iimiting or qualifying in any manner the authority provided in Section 34090.5 for the destruction of records,documents,instruments,books and papers in accordance with the procedure therein prescribed. Off (Amended by Stats.1975, c.356, p. 801, § 1.) 1975 Amendment. Substituted two for five years in 3. —Copies of original,exceptions. subd(d). The legislature intended,by§ 34090.5,that before any Forms: See West's California Code Forms, Govern- city record which is covered by the exceptions in this *3 ment. section is destroyed two microfilm or other type copies. must be made and retained indefinitely. 57 Ops.Atty., Gen.307,6-20-74. Notes of Decisions 4, Discovery In general t Record disclosed no rigorous and systematic proce- Copies of original,exceptions 3 dures designed to preserve evidence, but, rather,whole- sale hole Discovery 4 sale destruction of unsustained citizen complaints against Exceptions.in general 2 police officers previously preserved; therefore, people Tape recordings of council meetings 5 could not avoid sanctions for destruction of the com- plaints•which deprived defendant who was charged with battery on police officer and resisting officer in discharge 1. In general of his duty of opportunity to locate witnesses who could State could not justify destruction of unsustained Citi- testify that on past occasions the officers involved in his zen complaints against police officers by reliance upon case had used excessive or unnecessary force. People v. this section governing destruction of records and resolu- Zamora(1980) 167 Cal.Rptr.573,615 P.2d 1361. tion by city council, which apparently approved vague Where it was not contended that provision of this and misieading request by city police department for section or city council resolution, pursuant to which destruction of miscellaneous records without disclosing police internal affairs records more than two years old significance of the records nor purpose for which destruc- had been destroyed,was unconstitutional.and where the _s ,„ tion was sought,under the mistaken impression that the records had been destroyed before defendant did acts = records were more than five years old and no longer resulting in his being charged with wilfully resisting, useful,when in fact the resolution authorized destruction delaying or obstructing officers in performance of their ' of records less than two years old in violation of this duties•issuance of prerogative writ to prohibit municipal ection. People v.Zamora(1980) 167r Cal.Rptr.573,615 court from enforcing its subpoena and subpoena duces P.2d 1361. tecum concerning police policy regarding disclosure or Tape recordings of radio and telephone calls to the destruction of information about peace officers as con- police department made to have a record of accident tained in police files was affirmed City of Sacramento reports,the times of police and ambulance responses,and v Municipal Court in and for Sacramento County(1978) for use in internal affairs investigations are made for the 148 Cal.Rptr. 114,83 C.A.3d 795. purpose of preserving their informational content for future reference and therefore may not be destroyed until 5. Tape recordings of council meetings they are at least two years old and destruction is autho- Where the city clerk makes an authorized tape record- rized by resolution of the city council and by the written ing of a city council meeting to facilitate the preparation consent of the city attorney. 64 Ops.Atty.Gen. 435, of the minutes: (a)any person has a right to inspect the f-2�1• tape which includes the right to listen to the tape on Any city record document,instrument.book or paper equipment provided by the city, (b) any person has a not covered by the cxcemions in this section may be right to receive a copy of the tape which includes the `estroyed by a city department head Provided he obtains right to buy a duplicate copy from the city or to make a rite approval of the lezislati%e body by resolution and duplicate copy on his own equipment but does not include the right to have a written transcript made,and also the written consent of the city attorney. 57 Ops. ,ttv.Gen.307,6-20-74. (c)the tape recording may be destroyed at any time if the '. Exceptions—fn General purpose for which it was made and retained was sotely to facilitate the preparation of the minutes of the meeting 'f any of the exceptions in this section exist the record but if the tape was made or retained to also preserve its ' the may not be destroyed uniess the provisions of 34090.5 informational content for public reference it may on)v be :;re complied with by the city officer having custody of destroyed as expressly authorized by state law. 64 Ops. "i me :,e record. 57 Ops.Atty.Gen. 307,6-20-74. Atty.Gen. 317,4-17-81. 34090.5. Destruction of records; conditions tiotwithstanding the provisions of Section 34090, the city officer having custody of public records, Iocuments, instruments, books, and papers, may, without the approval of the legislative body or the ritten consent of the city attorney, cause to be destroyed any or all of such records, documents,- nstruments, books, and papers, if all of the following conditions ' are complied with: -tent Asterisks ° indicate deletions by amendment 3 r §34090.5 GOVERNMENT CODE (a) ' • ' The record. Paper, or document is Photographed microphotographed or reproduced on film of a type approved for Permanent Photographic records by the National Bureau of Standards b The device used to reproduce such record a r or document on film is one which accuratel and leggy reproduces the original thereof in all details. (c) The Photographs microphotographs or other reproductions on film are made as accessible for Public reference as the book records were (d) A true copy of archival quality of such film reproductions shall be kept in a safe and separate place for security purposes. „ Provided, however, that no page of any record paper or document shall be destroyed if any such page cannot be reproduced on film with full legibility. Every such unrep toihle Pale shall be permanently preserved to a manner that will afford easy reference (Amended by Stats-1970, c. 55, p. 71, § 1; Stats.1971, c. 56, p. 75, § 1.) Notes of Decisions must be made and retained indefinitely. 57 Ops.Atty. In general I Gen. 307,6-20-74. Copies of original 2 The additional microphotograph or microfilm copy Readers 3 required by this section may be made from the original document or from a microphotograph thereof. Id. Provided that copies of original city documents are 1. In general made and preserved pursuant to this section.there v no requirement as to how long original documents must be If any of the exceptions in § 34090 exist the record kept before they are microphotographal and destroyed. may not be destroyed unless the provisions of this section Id. are complied with by the city officer having custody of the record. Ops.Atty.Gen.307,6-20-74. 3. Readers 2. Copies of original After copying and destroying city records.pursuant to this section,a mechanical"reader"must he made ayatja- The legislature intended, by this section, that before ble to the public for microfilm and microfiche Mems.and any city record which is covered by the exceptions in copies of said records must be made for the public, if § 34090 is destroyed two microfilm or other type copies requested 57 Ops.Atty.Gen.307,6-20-74. § 34090.6. Destruction of recorded radio and telephone communications Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 34090,the head of a department of a city,county,or city and county, public safety communications center,or the head of a special district after 100 days may destroy recordings of telephone and radio communications maintained by the department or the special district. Such destruction shall be approved by the legislative body and the written consent of the agency attorney shall be obtained. In the event that such recordings are evidence in any claim filed or any pending litigation,such recordings shall be preserved until pending litigation is resolved. For purposes of this section,"recordings of telephone and radio communications"means the routine t daily taping and recording of telephone communications to and from a city,county,city and county,or special district, department, and all radio communications relating to the operations of suer depart- 9 ments or special districts. (Added by Stats.1981,c. 1174, p. 4731; § 1.1.) c t c CHAPTER 2. CLASSIFICATION w f § 34102. "General law cities" Notes of Decisions Superior Court of Solano County 005) 1.I (:al-Rptr. 44,46 C.A.3d 657. F I. In general Neither Pen.C. , 373a making it the .:un Court would take iudicial notice of fact that city, attorney of a charter city to prosecute t chile n,i ince, which had purported to remove its pan-time city actor- nor Health & S.C. § 1618 authorizing 01-10 ent,rnevs ney from all prosecutorial functions in order to allow the and city attorneys to prosecute siolauons,d H and Safetv Code or other statutes reflect a generaj i,,,jSjati`e city attorney and his law partners to represent criminal v. scheme under which state has es. ld- trig Nuof a defendants, was a general law city. Montgomery general law city attorney's duces ld C Underline indicates changes or additions by amendment 4 A 01 GOVERNMENT CODE GOVERNMENT CODE §§34200 to 34219 Repealed xo¢raohed or n•ttr.iuced on CHAPTER 3. COUNCIL ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL * # s RELATIONS [REPEALED] itional Bureau of "andards. film is one which accurateiy Chapter 3 was repealed by Stats.1975,c. 641,p. 1391,§ 1. Prior to repeal, the heading was amended by Stats.1969, c. 138,p. 322, § 122. ;alt tt are made as smc tole for §§ 34200 to 34219. Repealed by Stats.1975, c. 641, p. 1391, § 1; Stats.1975, c. 678, p. 1485, § 34 in a isafe and •cpxrat8 Section 12 of Stats.1975, c: 641, p. 1395, provided: Sections 34213 and 34214, formerly §§ 65017.2, kept Council on Intergovernmental Relations is here- 65017.3• added by Stats.1969, c. 1641, p. 4015, § 3, re- by abolished." numbered§§ 34213,34214 and amended by Stats.1969,c. hall be dextro ed if try <uch 138, p. 326, §§ 139, 140; Stats.1971, c. 1792, pp. 3861, :nreproduciblg2aec nail be Y See,now,generally§§ 65040 et seq. 3862,§§ 1,2,specified the powers of the council relating Prior to repeal §§ 34200, 34205 were amended by to planning and assistance. See:now,§ 65040. Stats.1969, c. 138, p. 322, §§ 123, 125; Stats.1970, c. Section 34215, added by Stats.1969, c. 138, p. 324, 1366,p.2533,§ 1; Stats.1971,c.226,p.348,§ 3; Stats. § 133, amended by Stats.1971, c. 1792, p. 3862, § 3 1971,c 227,p.349,§ 1. See,now,§ 65040.6. relating to planning assistance and advice. See, now, rained indefinitely. 57 Or,.Atty. Section 34202.5, added by Stats.1969, c. 138, p. 322, § 65040. �K-rxv § 124,provided for the members of the former intergo- Section 34216, added by Stats.1969, c. 138, p. 325, .ophotograph or microfilm copy vernmental council on urban growth to continue in office § 134, amended by Stats.1971. c. 1792• p. 3862, § 4, n tray be made from the or ramal in the council on intergovernmental relations on and required the council to divide the state into regional acrophotograph thereof. 1.1. after Sept. 11, 1%9. planning districts. See,now,§ 65040.4. of original city .kxumcnt, ata Section 34207, added by Stats.1969, c. 138, p. 323, Section 34217, formerly § 65019.3, added by Stats. .rsuant to this section.there n no § 126,amended by Stats.1970.c. 172• p.417, § 22, pro- 1959• c. 1641. p. 4017, § 3, renumbered § 34217 and long original documents mu,t he vided that the council on intergovernmental relations amended by Stats.1969,c. 138,p.327,§ 142; Stats.1972, ,ncrophotographcd and dcstrmei. succeeded to and was vested with the duties, powers, c.902•p. 1604•§ 2,required the filing of annual reports purposes,etc.,of the intergovernmental council on urban by city,county and regional planning commissions. See, growth now,§ 65040.5. . _stroying city rerds,pursuant to Section 34207.5,added by Stats.1970,c. 1553.p.3175, Section 34217.1, added by Stats.1969, c. 138, p. 325.' cosu cal"reader-awn be made ,,aria- § 1, required that the council on intergovernmental de- § 135, required that districts include natural physio- icrofilm and microfx3te nems,and velopment cooperate with the commission of housing and graphical regions and areas having mutual social and , must be made for the runic. ,i community development. commercial interests. See,now,§ 65040.4. ^:.Gen.307,6-20-74. Sections 34208,34209,34209.2.added by Stats.1969,c. Sections 34217.2.34217.3,added by Stats.1973,c. 1098, , p. 323, §§ 127 to 129, authorp• 2236,§§ 1, 2.authorized elections to form a regional 138authorized the use of unex- t�': "' 138,penp. funds and the transfer oofficers, employees, planning district from contiguous counties or to transfer ions records papers,offices and equipment from the intergo- a county from one regional planning district to another vernmental council on urban growth to the council on district. 7ment of a city,county,yr cin• � Section 34217.4,added by Stats.1973,c. 1098,p. 2237, al district after 100 days may intergovernmental relations § 3,authorized the council to change district boundaries. A by the department or the Section 34211, added by Stats.1969, c. 138, p. 324, Section 34218, formerly§ 34211•added.by Stats.1963, , specified the powers and duties of the council. �dy and the written consent of 131 § c. 1809. p. 3664. § 1, amended by Stats.1965, c. 823, p. See,now,§ 65040. ngs are evidence in any claim 2416• § 6, renumbered § 34218 and amended by Stats. pending litigation is resolved. Section 34211.1, added by Stats.1972, c.902, p. 1604, .1%9,c. 138,p.324,§ 130,specified that the council was § 1,amended by Stats.1973,c.120,p. 181,§ 1,related to to snake use of completed studies and research by state unieations"means the routine the guidelines for mandatory elements in city and county agencies and commissions and to contract with public Ay,county,city and count•,or general plans,preparation,technical assistance and trans- agencies and private persons and organizations rte operations of such detrarL_ mitral of copies. See now.§ 65040.2 Section 34219• formerly § 34212,added by Stats.1963, Section 34212.formerly§ 65017.1 added by Stats.1959, c. 1809,p. 3664.§ 1,renumbered§ 342i9 and amended c. 1641,p.4015. § 2,renumbered § 34212 and amended by Stats.1969,c. 138,p.324,§ 131 stated that no regula- by Stats.1969,c. 138,p.326,§ 138,authorized the court- tory powers were vested in the council. - cil to furnish information and technical and professional Subordination of repeal by Stats.1975,c.678,to other advice on the preparation of master or general plans legislation during the 1975 portion of the 1975-76 Regu- when requested by local jurisdictions. See, now, lar Session.affecting this section and taking effect on or § 65040.3. before Jan. 1, 1976,see note under Bus.&Prof.C.§ 491. DIVISION 2. ORGANIZATION AND BOUNDARIES ano County 119"5) 121 Cai.Rptr. Part Section -?a making it the .:un ,f t•; 2. Municipal Organization Act . . .. . ... . ...... . ..... . ... .... .. ..... . ... .. .... 35000 ity to prosecute rubhc nur,ances. :618 authorizing district atiomevs •rosecute violations"f Hearth and PART 1. ORGANIZATION tatutes reflect a general lezrsiatt,e Lite has preempteu the sumect of a Chapter Section •.ev s duties. Id. 1, Special Charter Cities .. . . . . . . . . .. ... .. . . . . ... . . . . . . . ... . . . .. .. . .. . .. . . . . 34300 2. City Charters . . ... . .. . . .. . . . .. . .... . ... . . . .. . . . . . . . . ... . .'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34450 or additions by amendment Asterisks ' ° ° indicate deletions by amendment a WWI �l MARIJUANA RECORD PURGE PROCEDURES I. BACKGROUND This procedure outlines in detail the process involved in complying with the provisions of Section 11361. 5 of the Health and Safety Code , effective January 1 , 1978. Very basically the requirement is for destruction of the following records : (all sections are H&S Codes) 11357 (b) - After 1-1-76 , and any two years old. 11357 (c) - After 1-1-76 , and any two years old. 11360 (c) - After 1-1-76 , and any two years old. 11530 - Prior to 1-1-76 . 11364/11915 - Prior to 1-1-76 . 11365 - Prior to 1-1-76. 11550 - Prior to 1-1-76 . For 'proper implementation of this 'procedure it is imperative that it be understood that destruction of records be such that "it appears that the arrest or conviction never occured" . II. TERMINOLOGY A. "Destruction" - oermanent 'phvsical destruction where possible , and where this is not possible without destroving other data, permanent obliteration. B. "Record" - Any document in the possession of the Atascadero Police Department which would contain information on the arrest, citation and/or conviction of offenders charged with the above violations. Said records to include , but not be restricted to : 1. Dispatch Log Entries 2 . Dispatch Cards 3. Report Number Log 4. Arrest Number Log 5. Booking Sheets 6. Citations 7. Crime Reports (Includes Court Disposition Forms) � ,1Y 8. Arrest Jackets 9 . Alpha Index Cards 10 . Arrest and Citation_ Register 11. Field Interrogation Cards 12. Evidence Room Records III. PROCEDURES A. Location and identification. A search of all pertinent records must be accomplished. "Pertinent records" in this case means dispatch logs and alpha index cards. Review of F. I . cards for those incidents not otherwise recorded will be required. From these basic files the below listed data can be compiled: 1. Names 2 . Case numbers 3. Arrest jacket numbers 4 . Times and dates of incidents • With this information, most of the records can be located and pur B. Destruction. Once identified, the applicable records listed in Section II-B should be checked and those entries containing reference to the arrest and/or conviction of any person charged with the crimes listed in Section I will be destroyed or permanently obliterated. C. Recommended methods of destruction. The following methods are suggested only; common sense and individual preference being the kev to efficient destruction , providing the results are in compliance with the law. 1. Dispatch Logs - blank out with correction fluid or black ink. 2 . Dispatch Cards - tear into more than four parts . 3 . Booking sheets - a. Complete book `,n - If specified charges are the only ones appearing on the booking sheet , locate all conies of the booking sheet within the department and destrov by shredding or tearing into more than four parts. b. Partial booking - If specified charges are in addition to other charges , blank out the specified charges wit correction fluid on all copies of the hooking sheet h by the department. 4 . Citations - Locate and destroy the citation by tearing into more than four parts . 5. Crime reports - a. Simple reports (only involving specified charges) - Remove crime report from the file and destroy it by shredding or tearing each page into more than four parts. b. Compound reports (where a specified charge is included in another charge that is not to be destroyed) - Carefully blank out any reference to the specified charge (s) . Discretion will dictate whether correction fluid or use of a black marker would be better. 6 . Arrest Jackets - Check all documents in the jacket and locate the pertinent references. Destruction may be blanking out with correction fluid, physical and complete destruction or other method as dictated by the circumstances. In some cases this will leave an empty jacket. Keen it in the file for future use. 7. Alpha index cards - Blank out the specified entries with correction fluid or black marker. 8. Arrest and Citation Register - Blank out with correction fluid or black marker. 9. Field Interrogation Cards - Remove and destroy the F. I . card. 10 . Evidence Room Records - Blank out where appropriate or destroy. D. working Aids. The following working aids will be prepared and used in connection with this procedure: 1. A check-off worksheet, locally reproduced, which will insure completeness of destruction of all records involving one incident. This worksheet is to be destroyed when its usefulness is ended. See Appendix I. 2. A rubber stamp which is to be affixed to those records modified by these destruction procedures. This will explain in the future missing documents and omissions in official reports. The rubber stamp will be small enough to be used on all documents , and ,, 11 read: Modified or destroyed As required by law Date Init. When reports or booking sheets are destroyed, a plain blank sheet will replace the destroyed one . Stamp the sheet and show the case number or arrest number. r MARIJUANA PURGE WORKSHEET CASE NUMBER INSTRUCTIONS : Check off the -below NAME boxes when action is completed. (Record or entry is to be destroyed or *modified) . DAILY LOG, (Date Time ) MODIFY. DISPATCH CARD. DESTROY. BOOKING SHEET (Booking # ) DESTROY OR MODIFY. CRIME REPORT (Case # ) . DESTROY OR MODIFY. ** CITATION (# ) DESTROY. ARREST JACKET (I .D. # ) DESTROY OR MODIFY• ALPHA INDEX CARD (Name ) DESTROY OR MODIFY. ARREST AND CITATION REGISTER (month ) MODIFY. F. I. CARD. DESTROY. EVIDENCE ROOM FILES . DESTROY OR MODIFY. OTHER (Specify ) , The Records Supervisor will destroy this document when above action is completed. *Modified entries shall be stamped "modified or destroyed as required by law" . **If destroyed, replace report with plain paper showing case number and stamp. Note : Destroy = tear into more than four parts. Modify = blacken or nut correction fluid over entry. RESEARCH NOTES Any dept. utilizing microfilm does not need a resolution per Section 34090 . 5 Government Code. Any record processed through the Court remains on file in Court indefinitely by law, and so is not lost if later needed. A record connected to an arrest can be filed in the arrest jacket for the life of the arrest file. Dept. of Justice teletypes are property of DOJ and can be destroyed according to your dept. policy. Points of consideration on records destruction: Identify need to purge Identify records to purge Determine any existing City Ordinances pertaining to de- struction or retention. Consider storage space Consider microfilm possibility/alternatives Determine retention criteria for documents Identify destruction method Three major documents necessary to implement destruction process 1. Memo to the Chief including: Introduction, Background, Authorization, Method, Recommendation 2 . Memo to City Manager from the Chief including: Statement of Problem, Statement of Solution, Attachments of authorization and resolution 3. Resolution sample including retention periods for all records to be destroyed DOJ retention periods in automated systems 3 years property and bikes 5 years on stolen vehicles and parts 30 days on stored/impounded vehicles 30 days on lost/repossessed vehicles 15 years on child abuse indefinite retention on firearms - until cleared by agency missing persons - until cleared by agency It' s a good idea not to destroy records involving City personnel . TABLE OF CONTENTS C Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PART I DEFINITIONS A. Infractions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 B. Misdemeanors . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 C. Felonies . . .. . . . . . 1 D. Offenses where a prior constitutes a felony . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 E. Nonretainable offenses . . . . . . . . . 2 F. Retainable offenses . . . . . . . . . 2 PART II CRIMINAL RETENTION PERIODS A. Zero Retention Period . . . . . . . . . . . 3 B. Five-year Retention Period . . . . . . 3 C. Seven-year Retention Period . . . 3 D. Modified Life Retention Period . . . . . 4 PART III EXCEPTIONS TO BASIC CRIMINAL RETENTION PERIODS A. Convictions requiring registration under 290 PC . . . . . . . . . . i . . . . 5 B. Convicted felons on perpetual parole 5 C. Juveniles . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 D. Out-of-state Records . . . . . . . . . . . 5 E . Deceased Records . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 F. Wants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 G. Marijuana Charges . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 PART IV APPLICANT RETENTION PERIODS A. Zero Retention Period . . . . . . . 7 B. Five-year Retention Period . . . . . . . . 7 C . Age 67 Retention . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 D. Age 70 Retention . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 E . Age 80 Retention . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 PART V NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES A. California Contributing Arrest Agencies 8 B . Federal Bureau of Investigation . . . . . . 8 ATTACHMENT I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 i • INTRODUCTION This handbook presents definitions , retention schedules , and notification procedures currently used by the California Department of Justice ' s On-Going Purge Program. Each record in departmenr files has a tentative purge dare at which time it is reviewed for retainability. Because the purge program is a part of the record keeping function of the Bureau of Identification and Information and not mandated by law, it should be understood that records destroyed by this department may legitmately exist in other agencies . ii PART I DEFINITIONS The following are working definitions employed in the California On-going Purge program and are not meant to be exact legal de f iii L ions . A. INFRACTION: A minor crime which is not punishable by imprisonment . B. MISDEMEANOR: All crimes classed by statute as minor crimes , except those specified as infractions . Misde- meanor crimes are those not punishable by death or imprisonment in a state or federal prison. For On-going Purge purposes , the following three infractions are treated in the same manner as misdemeanors : 2261 VC - Impersonate CHP Officer 10552 VC - False report theft with intent to deceive 10655 VC - Failure to make report or keep record C. FELONY: A major crime which is punishable under law by death or imprisonment in a state or federal prison. , D. PRIOR CONSTITUTES A FELONY: In certain instances , a prior conviction or a mis emeanor crime upgrades a subsequent offense to a felony. Misdemeanors becoming felonies after a prior conviction are : Obscene matter 311 . 2 (a) PC Indecent exposure* 314. 1 or 314. 2 PC Nonsufficient funds under $100 476a(b) PC Annoying or molesting child* 647a PC Petty theft (must serve time in a penal institution) 484, 488 PC Professional practi-ce violation 2795 B&p Forging prescription 4237 B&P Carrying concealed weapon without license 12025 PC Selling or possessing ammunition 12304 PC *Conviction of these offenses since July 1 , 1944 would be cause for record retention per criteria for Section 290 of the Penal Code (see page 5) . 1 � 1� E. NONRETAINABLE OFFENSES : 1 . Subjects arrested for drunk, 647 (f) PC, unless the local agency indicates that the arrest was for being under the influence of drugs . 2. Subjects arrested for violation of local ordinances . 3 . Subjects arrested -for minor traffic offenses . A minor traffic offense is defined as any traffic offense which is not listed in Attachment I . 4. Subjects arrested for such minor or nonspecific offenses as "investigation, " "suspicion, " "lodger, " "inquiry" or "disorderly. " F. RETAINABLE OFFENSESi Retainable offenses are arrests or violations of the law (excluding nonretainable offenses identified above) or arrests resulting in a conviction and subsequent confinement in a county, state, or federal penal institution. 2 PART II CRIMINAL RETENTION PERIODS As a basic rule , all entries on a criminal record (including our-of--state arrests) :must mee't purge criteria in order for the eciminal record to be purged. The entire record will be retained if any criminal entry does not meet purge criteria. A. Zero Retention Period 1. Subjects arrested for drunk, 647(f) PC, unless the local reporting agency indicates that the arrest was for being under the influence of drugs ; i.e. , 647 (f) (drugs) . 2 . Subjects arrested for violation '6f :local ordinances . 3 . Subjects arrested for minor traffic offenses . A minor traffic offense is defined as any traffic offense which is not listed in Attachment I. 4. Subjects arrested for such minor or nonspecific offenses such as "investigation, " "suspicion, " "lodger, "" "inquiry,"g q y, or disorderly, " except when the reporting agency provides a specific code citation to a retainable offense. CB. Five-year Retention. -Period 1 . Misdemeanor arrests not resulting in a conviction or for which no disposition was received - retention period begins on the date of arrest . 2 . Retainable arrests which are later termed "detention only" under 849(b) PC - retention period begins on the date of detention (arrest) . 3 . Retainable misdemeanor arrests reduced to nonretain- able offenses - retention period begins on the date of arrest. C. Seven-Year Retention 1 , Misdemeanor arrests which result in a conviction - retention period begins on the date of arrest. 2 . Felony arrests which do not result in a conviction, or for which no disposition was received - retention period begins on the date of arrest . 3 . Felony arrests reduced to misdemeanor or nonretain- able offenses - retention period begins on the date of arrest . 3 D. Modified Lifetime Retention Period Arrests which result in -conviction for: 1 . An offense where a prior conviction constitutes a felony. 2. An offense which would be a felony depending upon disposition. 3 . Felonies . When the record indicates the subject has reached age 70 and has had no arrests since age 60, the record will be purged. If the individual has been arrested after age 60, the record will be maintained until the subject is at least age 70 or for the applicable retention period even if it extends past the 'age of 70 or , in the case of a felony conviction, for a 10-year period commencing with- the date of release from supervision. i 4 .n Zvi PART III C EXCEPTIONS TO BASIC CRIMINAL RETENTION PERIODS Generally, in the area of exceptions , the basic rule , "all entries must meet purge criteria in order for a criminal record to be purged" still applies . This is not true -of "E" or "F" below. A. Records of subjects convicted of offenses requiring registration under Section 290 of the Penal Code will be retained for the life of the individual , or until he is 100 years old, or for 10 years from the date of release from supervision, whichever is longest. B . Records. of subjects sentenced to prison on felony convictions , then paroled for life will be maintained until the subject has reached age 80 . At age 80, the bureau will inquire of the California Department of Corrections about the subject ' s status . Retention reverts to modified life if subject has been discharged from parole. C. Records of juveniles committed by- a juvenile court to , a California Youth Authority facility will be retained until age 25 or 5 years from date of release, whichever is longer. Commitments by an adult court to CYA will be retained as a conviction for the misdemeanor -or felony charge. Records of juveniles not committed to CYA will be retained for 7 years from the date of arrest. The department ' s policy for establishing a criminal history record on juveniles is : 1. No reports of arrests for Welfare and Institutions Code 600 and 601 will be retained. 2 . No WIC 602 ' s for nonserious offenses , as described in Part I , Section E , will be retained, except for CYA commitments . 3 . All reports of arrests for WIC 602 with serious offenses and commitment to CYA are presently being maintained in the manual file , but are not being made available through the automated system. D. Vien a record in California files contains only out-of- s,tate entries it is purged immediately. Exceptions are those records of convictions of offenses which, if committed in California, would be registrable under 290 PC (See Part III , Section A) . E . Records of deceased persons will be purged one year after the date of death. Records of homicide victims will be purged 3 years after the date of death. 5 F. Persons who are wanted by law enforcement agencies will be treated as follows : 1 . All records of "wants" entered into the automated wanted persons system will be retained as long as the want is active. 2. Wants not entered into automated wanted persons system Tvill be referred to the Department of Justicn. Command Center. They will contact the field agency requesting the status of the want. 3 . Cancelled wants will not be retained. G. Certain marijuana charges occuring after January 1, 1976, are removed from the record after two years . If those charges constitute the entire record, the record will be purged. Specifically, these charges will be purged two years from date of disposition or date of arrest if no disposition exists . 11357b H&S 11357c H&S 11360b H&S (after 1977) 11360b H&S (prior to 1977) 6 r� PART IV APPLICANT RETENTION PERIODS The retention period for applicant .records is determined by the ty-,' tis response provided. The bureau will respond with either a current record only or with a current record plus notification of any subsequent arre — information. Subsequent action notifica- tions are profided to state agencies ,with contracts specifying such notifications , to law enforcement agencies on sworn and non- sworn employees , and to agencies handling the application for licenses and permits discussed below. Records maintained solely because of applicant entries will be stripped of criminal entries when all criminal charges are purgeable. Records will not be stripped until contributing local agencies are notified. A. Zero Retention Period - Applicant clearance only requests . B. Six-year Retention Period - Applications for the following licenses or permits are purgeable six years from date of issue. C 1 . License to carry a concealed weapon 2 . Destructive device permit 3 . Machine gun permit or license 4. Sawed-off shotgun permit or license C. Age 67 Retention - Records of peace officers and those with peace officer status are purgeable when the subject reaches age 67 and all other purge criteria are meta Local agencies should notify the Bureau of Identification and Information of those applications which do not result in employment. D. Age 70 Retention - Applications for employment purposes , submitted by agencies with whom this Bureau has a subsequent notifications contract , will be retainable until the subject reaches age 70. E. Age 80 Retention - Applications for licenses or permits , submitted by state agencies with whom this Bureau has a subsequent notifications contract , will be retained until the subject reaches age 80 , or for ten years from the last date fingerprinted, whichever is longer. 7 PART V NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE Records identified as purgeable which require notif-ication to local �igcncios will be held in storage _for two months after the contrib- t'�:_r� agencies have been notified. This period will allow each agency time to review its own records to determine if there is additional information available which would prevent the record from being purged. Records will be reactivated during this period upon receipt of acceptable documentation substantiating an arrest or disposition which would nullify the purgeable status of the record. It is requested that a copy of the document used by Purge for notification be returned along with the documents supporting reactivation. This notification copy will allow Purge to process the request more expeditiously. All local agencies previously notified of the purgeable record will be notified upon reactivation of the record. A. California Contributing Agencies 1. Local agencies will not be notified of purgeable records when all arrest entries on the rap sheet are dated prior to January 1, 1950 . 2 . Each California police department and sheriff ' s office which contributed a retainable offense to an individual ' s record and having entered into a notification agreement with Purge will be notified except as noted in "1" above . 3 . Local agencies which want to be notified of this department' s purging of records , but which do not desire to submit additional arrest or disposition information should notify the Department of Justice of their status . 4. No agency will be notified of the purging of records containing only applicant entries . 5 . Unless especially requested, no agency will be notified of the purging of records containing only nonretainable entries . 6 . No agency will be notified of deletions of these marijuana charges : 11357b H&S , 11357c H&S , 11360b H&S (after 1977) , 11360c H&S (prior to 1977) . 7. New arrests of a subject whose record has been purged will result in the establishment of a new file on that subject. B . Federal Bureau of Investigation The FBI will be notified of the California Department of Justice ' s intention to purge a record when all criminal entries are determined to be destructible . The FBI will be notified when those marijuana deletions discussed in Section A 6 , above , are made . 8 1 � I "-A • M E M O R A N D U M TO: Honorable City Council November 12, 1985 FROM: Mike Shelton, City Manager SUBJECT: SOLICITATION OF APPLICANTS TO SERVE ON THE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: City Council direct the City Clerks Office to solicit for citizen applicants to represent the City of Atascadero on the Regional Citizens Transit Advisory Committee. BACKGROUND: City' s appointment to the Citizens Transit Advisory Committee, Mr. William (Bill) Silver, has resigned for personal reasons . By-laws of the Coordinating Council require citizens to legally • post the position prior to appointment. Mr. Silver has recom- mended a replacement, Mrs . Joan Doole, who will be presented with an application to apply. Assuming Mrs . Doole applies, her application, along with other interested applicants will be submitted to Council at the December 9th Council Meeting. Based on the response, Council will be requested to make an appointment at that time or conduct interviews , as you may desire. MS :kv • i • M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council November 12, 1985 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager "Ljjl� FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel Map 26-85 APPLICANT: Catherine Davis (Guy Greene) LOCATION: 8870 San Gabriel Road REQUEST: To allow the division of an 8.7 acre parcel into three lots of 2.9 acres each. On October 21, 1985, the Atascadero Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the above-referenced subject unanimouslyrecommend- ing approval of the tentative map subject to the findings and condi- tions as contained in the attached staff report. During the course of discussion, it was pointed out that this partic- ular piece of property was previously reviewed by both the Planning Commission and City Council and subsequently denied for a three-way lot split under Tentative Parcel Map 6-84. (Two lots were approved. ) Guy Greene, representing the applicant, spoke in support of the pro- ject and noted that in the redesign of this map, consideration had been taken to assure that the many concerns previously expressed by the area residents had been responded to in the redesign and condi- tions of approval. Robert Brown, 8850 San Gabriel, noted that he and other neighbors were pleased with the creativity in this new request and felt that the con- ditions contained in the staff report would take care of the area neighborhood' s concerns with this property. No one else spoke on the matter . Enclosures: Staff Report - October 21, 1985 Planning Commission Minutes Excerpt - October 21, 1985 HE:ps • cc: Catherine Davis Guy S. Greene Tentative Parcel Map t-85 (Davis/Greene) A. LOCATION: 8870 San Gabriel Road (Lot 11, Block 33) B. SITUATION AND FACTS: 1. Request. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .To allow the division of a 8 .7 acre parcel into three lots of 2.9 acres each. 2. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Catherine Davis 3. Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Guy S. Greene 4. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8.7 acres 5. Streets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .San Gabriel is a 40 foot wide suburban collector road. 6. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RS (Residential Suburban) 7. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vacant 8. Adjacent Zoning and Use. . . . . .North: RS, S.F.R. s South: RS, S.F.R.s East: RS, S.F.R.s West: RS, S.F.R. s 9 . General Plan Designation. . . . .Suburban Single Family Residen. 10. Terrain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Gentle to steeply sloping with several large oak trees. A large stream swale crosses the lot and opens out to a drainage plain. 11. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration C. SITE AND DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS: Option No. l: 1. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 .7 acres 2. Minimum Lot Size. . . . . . . . . . . . . Lot Size Factor Average slope (16%) . 75 Distance from center (10-12, 000 ' ) .30, Septic suitability (severe) 1. 50 Road (City-accepted) .40 General neighborhood character (2.93 ac. ) . 59 3. 54 acres 3. Minimum lot size. . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. 54 acres 2 Tentative Parcel Map 26-85 (Davis/Greene) • Option No. 2: slope Average (16% .75 P ) Distance from center (10-12,0001 ) . 30 Septic suitability (moderate) .75 Road (City-accepted) . 40 General neighborhood character (2. 93 ac.) .59 2. 79 acres 2. Minimum Lot Size. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. 79 acres 3. Proposed Lot Sizes. . . . . . . . . . .Lot 1 - 2.9 acres Lot 2 - 2. 9 acres Lot 3 - 2.9 acres D. ANALYSIS: In the RS (Residential Suburban) zone, the minimum lot size is 2 1/2 to 10 acres, depending upon the sum of the lot size standards contained in the zoning ordinance. As the previous chart shows, these are two options in evaluating this proposal. The first option uses the zoning ordinance as it is currently written. Septic suitability is derived from the Soil Conservation Service Maps and, in this case, the soil suitability is severe (1. 50) . The second option substitutes percolation rate texts for the Soil Conservation Service Maps. Percolation rates were submitted which resulted in a septic suit- ability factor of moderate ( . 75) . In the past, staff has included this information as a part of the request for the 20% reduction, allowable under the zoning ordinance. Past Action: At the October 7, 1985 meeting and the earlier August 19, 1985 meeting, the Planning Commission approved Tentative Parcel Map 25-85 (Curtis - Atascadero Road) and Tentative Parcel Map 20-85 (Gini - La Paz Lane) , respectively. Likewise, at their meeting of July 15 , 1985 , the Commission directed staff to prepare findings and conditions of approval for Tentative Parcel Map 18-85 (Miller - San Marcos Road) . These decisions were, in themselves, influ- enced by two previous commission decisions (Peterson on San Gab- riel and Dunham on La Paz Lane) . These approvals were unusual in that they granted the 20% reduction possible under the zoning or- dinance and accepted the favorable percolation test results. Also at the July 15, 1985 meeting, the Commission directed staff to prepare a zone text change to eliminate the 20% reduction and accept site specific information in its place. This item appears in this agenda ( item B-1) . The current request conforms to this proposed new language of the zoning ordinance in that the favor- able percolation rates have been accepted in the calculations without any further reductions. 3 • • Tentative Parcel Map 26-85 (Davis/Greene) Development of Site: Several issues are raised in site design and development. Staff agrees that the redesign of this subdivision defines more suitable building sites than the earlier submittal. Furthermore, staff feels that as a part of this approval, the building sites should be limited to those shown on the map. Grading and tree removal that would be disruptive to the natural terrain also appears to be minimized in this redesign. According to Zoning Ordinance Section 9-4.144, Grading Near Watercourses, approval of a drainage plan shall ensure that the proposed grading will not alter the natural water flow, unless alternative drainage facilities are provided. This is especially important in this case because this project will contribute to Atascadero Lake, which further impacts the Ama- poa/Tecorida flood area. Condition #4 of this approval (this was also included in the earlier conditions of approval for a two-way lot split) contains language relating to the controlling and chan- nelization of drainage. Additionally, an engineered geology re- port regarding the effect of geologic conditions on the proposed grading and development is required (condition #6) . According to Section 21. 20. 060 of the county Subdivision Ordi- nance, lots shall not be created if the depth of the lot is three times greater than the average width of the lot. It goes on to say that the Planning Commission may grant exceptions to the rule if certain findings, such as unusual topographic conditions, are made. Staff believes that the building site alignment in this case warrants such an exception. To serve these building sites, private easements are necessary. These and all other proposed and existing easements are required to be shown on the final map. Residential Policy No. 11 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan states that "attention shall be paid to the aesthetic result of land division. Building sites shall be encouraged on natural slopes, with minimal disruption of native vegetation and water- sheds, and efficient layout of access and utilities. " In this case, the topography dictates a rather unusual subdivision design; however , the building sites and driveway locations have been loca- ted with the natural terrain in mind. In sum, staff feels this parcel map of three lots is a better de- sign than the original submittal for the following three reasons: 1. The proposal does not include a request for the 20% reduction and substitutes site specific information (percolation tests) in its place. This is consistent with the proposed zone text change, initiated by the Planning Commission (Item B-1) . 2. The building sites and driveway locations have been relocated to minimize grading and tree removal. Conditions have been applied relating to grading, including a soils report and a geology report. 3. The area contributes waterflow to the Atascadero Lake; how- ever, conditions of approval (#4) have been applied to ensure a proper drainage plan for the site. 4 Tentative Parcel Map 26-85 (Davis/Greene) • E. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Tentative Parcel Map 26-85 based on the findings and conditions contained in Exhibit A. DGD:ps ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Findings/Conditions of Approval Exhibit B - Location Map Exhibit C - Parcel Map Exhibit D - Staff Report - June 4, 1984 Exhibit E - Letter from applicant Exhibit F - Initial Study Environmental Description Form 5 • Tentative Parcel Map 26-85 (Davis/Greene) EXHIBIT A - Tentative Parcel Map 26-85 Findings/Conditions of Approval October 21, 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 density of development 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. 8. The proposed depth-to-width ratio of the parcels in excess of 3 :1 is acceptable due to the unusual topographic conditions. 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. 6 Tentative Parcel Map 16-85 (Davis/Greene) • 4. Drainage and erosion control plans, including devices to carry drainage flows beneath San Gabriel Road and to control and chan- 0 nelize drainage on the subject property, prepared by a registered civil engineer , shall be submitted for review and approval by the Public Works and Community Development Departments prior to issu- ance of building permits in conjunction with installation of driveways, access easements or structures. This shall appear as a note on the final map. 5. Plan and profile drawings of proposed individual driveways and driveway easements shall be submitted for approval by the Public Works and Community Development Departments in order to determine average grade and appropriate improvement requirements. A 16 foot wide driveway with a minimum 30 feet common ingress and egress shall be constructed. 6. An engineered geology report, including a description of site geology with conclusions and recommendations regarding the effect of geologic conditions on the proposed development, shall be sub- mitted and approved prior to the issuance of building permits. 7. Building sites shall be limited to those shown on the map. 8. One City standard fire hydrant is required on the roadway point where all three lots adjoin. 9. The applicant shall dedicate the right-of-way along San Gabriel Road frontage as follows: a. 20 feet from the center line between property line prolanga- tions, or submit proof acceptable to the Public Works Depart- ment that the dedication has been done. 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 final approval unless an extension of time is granted pursuant to a written request prior to the expiration date. 7 I I � N-boaCD s9r-a I cr Wacr $ d CQ ao— WQ to 9w in EE� UJ La Z Z W w / U I I Wcr Q i left -' / i/ '�i' �L U ice . ' /�/ �i/ 1 It HT1 N�'i �I ""j, Lp pppp� to I it I f l j i j 1I� Ill l 1, I I 111 1 / / 1 I 1 iii ;�II I 1iI'iI 1 II Illi o;�1 �j ill, 1 1 II 1 1 I�II 11 II %`-'- 111 1111 l l 1 Ill I I i , I / o/ 11 t l l I l l l l�i 1 1 �9v I - / / Ccn j - � 11 it I t ,11,1 1„II,ll IIII ,Il I I IIII I I III 1 jjj lift i'it '%/ At �J �• k-,m_12878- I4T78-107 12.8178-1 Z1 32:81 78-1611 1/ AIT Cil LI° eZ nQ� LA ;'�'•� t,• *�4,,+ +„ $ '., �� � d-=0"� rn•a1,,.2 Dire :RJF 7�i •' 1i '\ { 1 *'��. °° , -n �� C Jo Z °1n • s, 19 9Ay » :.',!� �i^ ♦ sr,o" A�a -T 1. `rr O•so . \. isss�'i r air<e � s IS ^%� �,Ar •/=e. s1. �S< 2 I tm 9,'Io s``\ +m\/ 2,�(Ai �\,� ' 1i}A _ % ...r., k [ ae :., \ �• \, .% NTI ` Lac pm { 20 f1";N• �L,_ em/ 8 0/ ` ��\ •A.• y� � .. a 3:•.a I .,� 22. 7. I/O •12. 1 y. 0 �9 $4 ^a' $ m d / 11 •.�3, . ,p 6_•A'wo Jo f /2S a �r SA\ /24 rµ /nac O�r+ I m, N14 23 ,�� O/ i v' •l♦��-,a�. r 35 a 244 �9 m . 34 i I rr" moi/ 4 I d I ^30-. (33, y. ep.' O IOIDO 4` J ?3A I ' ' ,tj I „ rem 32 `,..,..-•.. s aN ►•a. m I 0 <w 1 •\ p�• / _I �' A <, N { m 1 � C '0"40 ea ' 3 /osro m A ^ yq { 1.I1, O 27 20, 19 D`` 9b, m� d $ ESI ropao > 8 A 2 r 0e/ f- 17 16 /14 A628 33S _r_vr.. / /o►' S aQ12ep 1 Ds 33 29 to_2 1 :cl -- 31 2130 32 e/ 33 •6 • r;i 3a 35 D o m.' 36 37 1 t - a 38 39 �'<< 41 45 01 : 44 .O ...Z m N ! '43 m $ - 7 42w Cl TY L C CITY OF ATASCADERO ' s -Ill'-Planning� Department l21+V _ � , n�� � �� ��.,r.111 � [rsi,.3...u.......a i nry.•�ttV.i„.`:..i�..n ;. ili. r 7 '�;"`-`"'� 'tia,+�/� _. - - I!tys.rr'f`wta•o....V.r�..,.wa...mleta 1'r 14 2�itt7.%.�y;•i .zne 4 n r7. SNA::j.��,.:,���1�; -;•^ ;,_>>YS .t` ,� . l tfnr.S1^a. VL..I t I �'1c •v ♦ �� _...... .. �r. ~, ';��'J�ntW ta...ruw•...... �.,.•..s.•..s. - i FX1+ 1 Sat 7- .0 STAFF REPORT Planning Commission - City of Atascadero Date: June 4, 1984 Item: B-5 Notice of public hearing was printed Public Hearing Case:TPM6-84 in the Atascadero News on May 25, Public hearing to permit div- 1984 and all owners of record prop- ision of 8.7 acres into three erty located within 300 feet were lots of 2.9 acres each util- notified by United States mail on izing the lot size reduction that same date. adjustment. A. Location: 8870 San Gabriel Road (Ptn. Lot 11, Block 33) B. Situation and Facts: 1. Request. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .To create three lots of 2.9 acres each from an 8.7 acre parcel utilizing the lot size reduction adjustment. 2. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Catherine C. Davis 3. Engineer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Kennaly Engineering 4. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8.7 acres 5. Streets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .San Gabriel Road is a 40 foot wide suburban collec- tor road. 6. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RS (Residential Suburban) 7. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vacant 8. Adjacent Zoning and Use. . . . . . . . . . .North: RS, S.F.R.s East: RS, S.F.R. s South: RS, S.F.R.s West: RS, S.F.R. s 9. General Plan Designation. . . . . . . . . .Suburban Single Family Residential 10. Terrain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Large stream swale opening out to a drainage plain. �t t Tentative Parcel Map 6-84 (Davis) 11. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration C. Site and Development Data: 1. Site area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8.7 acres 2. Required minimum lot size. .. . . . . . . Lot Size Factor Average slope (16%) .75 -" Distance from center (10-12000) .30 Septic suitability (severe) 1. 50 Road (City accepted) .40 General neighborhood character (2.93 ac. ) . 59 3. 54 acres 3. Minimum lot size reduced by 20%. . . 2.83 acres a 4. Proposed lot sizes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Parcel A: 2.9 acres Parcel B: 2.9 acres Parcel C: 2.9 acres 5. Access. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Proposed private easement across the parcels from San Gabriel Road 6. Shape. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Irregular, rectangularly shaped lots arranged in tandem from San Gabriel Road. 7. Average slope of building site and leach field. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Parcel A: 13% Parcel B: 17% Parcel C: 10% 8. Earthwork and size of pad. . . . . . . . .Parcel A: 400 cubic yards cut and fill, 5000 s.f. Parcel B: 550 cubic yards cut and fill, 5500 s.f. Parcel C: 300 cubic yards cut and fill, 5000 s. f. Easement Road: 450 cubic yards cut and fill, 850 feet long (12 feet wide) 9. Slope of Driveways. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Parcel A: 2% Parcel B: 10% Parcel C: ' 10% 2 / Tentative Parcel Map 6-84 (Davis) ' D. Subdivision Review Board: On April 5, 1984 the Subdivision Review Board met with John Ken naly to discuss the project. Members of the Board in attendance were: Vern Elliot, Fire Captain; Patsy West, Senior Engineering Technician; and Fred Buss, Associate Planner. Discussion centered around the minimum lot size reduction adjustment, location of sep- tic systems relative to drainage ways, fire hydrant requirement on the easement or at San Gabriel Road and the possibility of street improvements. The" Board had no major concerns about the project. E. Analysis: Staff review notes that the proposed lot division is in a drainage area. Though the adjustment data shows the feasibility of three lots (building pads) , drainage must be a consideration with re- gard to septic system location and road/driveway improvements. Specific Findings in the Zoning Ordinance are required to be made in order to grant the adjustment to minimum lot size. These five Findings reflect safety concerns. The granting of the adjustment may well adversely affect the safe- ty of persons and be injurious to nearby•property and/or improve- ments. This drainage area is generally inundated during the rainy season with additional streams or watercourses emptying into it from the west and east property lines. The proposed location of the building pad in the front parcel is in an area where drainage enters the swale. This water is drainage from the larger area to the west. The opposite rear corner of the front parcel would cre- ate the same problems. Staff does not feel that the specific site information clearly demonstrates that the adjustment is warranted. F. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of Tentative Parcel Map 6-84 to create two lots and further recommends denial of the requested Adjustment to reduce the minimum lot size based on the Findings that follow and the conditions contained in Exhibit "A" . Additionally, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission certify the attached Nega- tive Declaration as a complete and accurate document consistent with the provisions of C.E.Q.A. G. Findings: 1. The specific site information submitted does not clearly dem- onstrate that the adjustment in lot size is warranted. 2. The granting of the adjustment may adversely affect the health or safety of persons, be materially detrimental to the public welfare, or be injurious to nearby property or improvements. 3 Tentative Pa 684 Parcel Map 3. The granting of the adjustment will not result in better utilization of the affected property. 4. The creation of two lots with a minimum lot size of 3. 54 acres on this parcel conforms to all applicable zoning and subdivision regulations. 5, The creation of two lots in conformance with the recommended conditions of approval will not have a significant adverse effect upon the environment and preparation of an Environ- mental Impact Report is not necessary. . 4 Tentative Parcel Map 6-84 (Davis) EXHIBIT "A" - Tentative Parcel Map 6-84 Conditions of Approval June 4, 1984 1. This tentative map approval is granted for the creation of two lots with neither lot to be smaller than 3. 54 acres. od 2. Private sewage disposal systems will nsea n ac acceptable. All htestsf sewage disposal if reports and designs guidelines pre reports and designs shall co j nform to methods and g li- scribed by the Manual of Septic Tankandtices aother pp shall appearonthe cable City Ordinances. The following ' 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 hall to a minimum depth of ten (10) of t Pet S lanning Department prior the issuancebof aubuilding permitbmitted to e onv Where soils reports indicate the rovalnof plansoforaan alteornative tems are not acceptable, city app a Registered Civ private sewage disposal system, designed bCivil on the system, moreit Engineer, shall be required. Depending up re- strictive requirements may be imposed. " dero 3. Water shall be obtained from the thesfontageMofueach parcelal Water Corpits 1 and water lines shall public utility easement prior to recordation of the Final Map. 4. All existing and proposed utility easements, pipelines and other easements are to be shown n relatedthe altoapIf the easements, other building or other restrictions shall be noted on the Final Map. shall 5. Grading that would be disruptive to the maturelytreesoshallalso be be minimized. Removal of exisgas a Note on the Final Map: minimized. The followng shall appear "No trees shall be removed without compliance with applicable City shall commence without an appropriate per- ordinances. No grading or$inance ." mit and compliance with applicable City . repared by a Registered Civil 6. Drainage and erosion control plans] P royal by the Plan- Engineer , shall be submitted for review and approval in con unc- ning Department prior to issuance of building P 7 tion with installation of driveways, accesseasets or struc- tures. This shall appear as a Note on theFinalMap 7. 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 eargas a rade and appropriate improvement requirements. This shall app Note on the Final Map. 5 Tentative Parcel Map 6-84 (Davis) Exhibit A, Page 2 - Tentative Parcel Map 6-84 Conditions of Approval June 4, 1984 8. All conditions herein specified shall be complied with prior to filing of the Final Map. 9. 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. 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. 6 z ae Irk^ ere,p / r rrJi� / I i aIto ! ,,/' ., ''•r,r�r to u� law NO Qq .� I ohs "� • 1 . VA �► ' • r r !' 71 a !� ��i. 3 - � '�-•xy 'i"�t tau; , �u/ -` • ` S ..\ • •�� * -I �,. "ysL GUY S. GREENE & ASSOCIATES Land Use Planning and Design Guy S. Greene Ahmad Samiee September 2, 1095 'sir. Henry Engen, Director Planning Department City of Atascadero 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, 'CA 93423 Subject: Tentative Parcel Map 6-84 Dear Henry: I have been retained by Ms. Catherine Davis as consultant on- the above project, and would like to re-submit the application for division of the subject nroperty into three lots. My reason for doing so at this time is that we can, I believe, present a significantly different program from that nreviously submitted. The specific elements are these: 1. to Calculating the lot size factor, we have determined that the septic suitability is in fact . 75 (moderate) . Percolation tests are enclosed. The project thus appears to fall within the city's established guidelines, and does not require a 20%reduction. 2. Calculations of the effect on runoff of an additional dwelling " (enclosed) show this to be negligible. 3. Re-design of the subdivision minimizes grading, defines building sites, defines a drainage easement, re-defines lot lines. 4. Specific design elements mitigate the contribution of this project to the general Atascadero Lake drainage system. 5 . Calculations have been prepared which determine the effect of an additional septic system on the downstream areas. In view of the above, and the plan which is attached, I reouest a re- consideration of this project by the Planning Commission and the City Council. Best regards, C;u S Greene RECE_i J1.=;, CSC: n 475 South Stone Avenue, Tucson, AZ 85701 (602) 792-0255 • 4373 Heritage Road, Paso Robles, CA 93446 (805)239-1421 �n 4tasea ems41 ® x r3 r F 0 INCORPORATED JULY 2. 1979 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION (To be completed by applicant) This form is being used to obtain information concerning your project. The information you supply will be used to make a determination as to whether any significant adverse environmental impacts may result from the proposed project. This form should be submitted to the Planning Department for evaluation in conjunction with your application. It is to your advantage to see that all the necessary information is supplied and is accurate. If the information is inaccurate or not sufficient, you will be required to submit additional information upon request. For Office Use Only: Applicant Name _ File No./Primary Address Entitlement: Phone Contact Person Name e--Al Proposal Title: At'-dress 4-5-75 Phone r1.3`� 14-21 Description of Project: SUSDI IDC ON. 8.7 - a- Legal Description of Property: Assessor' s Parcel Number: A. GENERAL INFOPMATION: 1. Will this project produce odors, steam, vapors , or Yes No k waste? 2 . Is the project to utilize an individual subsurface Yes '?( No sewage system? (if yes , complete Section C of this form) I� Initial Study Environmental Description -2- 0 Is 3. Is the project to be connected to existing sewer Yes No_X lines? (if yes, complete Section D of this form) 4. Do you contemplate constructing sewage treatment Yes No�c_ facilities? 5. Will industrial waste be discharged? (if yes , com- Yes No plete Sections D and F of this form) 6. Will this project have onsite water softening Yes No A regeneration? 7 . Site Information: If more detail is needed, attach sheet. a. Terrain: Level to gently rolling, 0-10o slopes 2 Acres slopes of 10-300 —Acres steep slopes over 300 ¢• 5 Acres b. Hydrology: springs, streams, lakes, or marshes Yes No) on the site Describe: C. Proposed grading and land changes _ 12ZLATMD T'C) AGG.F 5S 'nfZ�V d. Vegetation: All natural vegetation already re- Yes No X moved or altered Natural vegetation will be Yeses No undisturbed Significant tree-cutting or Yes No k vegetation removal proposed (describe number of trees, area affected, etc. ) e. Are uses on adjacent properties similar to those Yes >e -No— proposed on the project site? Different use. Describe f. Describe any other unique or significant features of the site: ?�1_OA => '1:>2AJNA4tF 5WALIE: 2001/0 t SLa'FS 'b SLS 1 L_1>ru c1 S rTT___S Initial Study En onmental Description -3� 8. If you think the project will not or cannot have any signifi- cant environmental effects , indicate your reasons below: S W(:; L1E - 'FArn►L`f 2�s �ENc.�S bu �Zoxr � T 'QF- Ac.eC-s E4. F-t W I1UVW -UFA L 1 rAPA FL 9 . Are any of the following being submitted with this environmental description? a. Grading Plan Yes No b. Drainage Plan Yes No 1. Slope map Yes No 2 . Contour map Yes No c. Vegetation Map Yes No 1. Trees to be removed Yes No — 2 . Trees to be replaced Yes No 3. Trees to be planted Yes No If yes to c. (1) , (2) , or ( 3) describe: SZJ=- -j d. Landscaping plan Yes No jC e. Building plan 6fQ�C��tL SIBS OIJLy Yes�No 10. Amenities in project, such as park areas , open space, common recreation facilities, natural area. Describe: oyy� 11. Are there any proposed signs and/or lighting? Describe: *Id 12. Are there any proposed or existing deed restrictions? Yes X No If yes , describe: a. nature of restrictions �tz.ty��y b. administrative responsibility C. maintenance responsibility l Initial Study En onmental Description -4� 13 . Potential impact on community services : a. Number of school children in project '(� Z -5 School district LTAS , U�3 ( F(1 b. Need for police service Location of nearest station Response time (in minutes) C. Need for fire protection Location of nearest station Response time (in minutes) B. WATER: 1. Water Supply Existing system Yes No New system with permit required Yes No 2. Source Well GOM V\ � L-- Yes No Surface Yes No Imported Yes No 3. What is the use of the water? Domestic Residential Yes ' No Type: (Homes , apartments , trailer park) � 5 Commercial Yes No Type: (Food estab. , shop, etc. ) Industrial Avon-Domestic Yes No Type: (Agricultura , processing, recreational) 4 . Is there sufficient water available for this use? Yes &---No Present :Maximum Capability g.p.d. .Maximum pressures at maximum demand psi 5 . Number of service connections required for the project. 3 6. Population served 7 7 . Does .-7ater meet Health Department quality requirements? Bacteriological Yes — No Chemical Yes r No Physical Yes , No Water Analysis Report submitted ("I Muir Yes ., No Initial Study En onmental Description -5� C. SUBSURFACE SEWAGE TREATMENT: 1. Has an engineered percolation test been accomplished? Yes w" No —* 2. Has a conclusion been stated as to the suitability of Yes — No individual systems? 3. Has a conclusion been stated as to the amount of re- Yes *-' No quired sq. ft. of bottom area of leaching lines per 100 gallons of septic tank capacity? 4 . Has a conclusion been stated as to the amount of re- Yes No quired sq. ft. of sidewalk of seepage pits per 100 gallons of septic tank capacity? 5. Is the area (parcel, lot, etc. ) of sufficient size to Yes '^ No provide an area equal to 1000 of original installa- tion to provide for expansion? 6 . What is the depth of the water table? Lo O 'E� 7 . What is the quality of any shallow (in relation to existing ground evaluations) water table? Explain: �J b U 3 . Is there a portion of the lot(s) that is unsuitable for individua installations due to soil or geologic conditions, slope, etc? Yes `'`No If yes , please explain: S LO t � 9 . what is the distance to the nearest sewer line? y-0 O O ft. 10 . What is the distance to any neighboring water wells? -- ft. 11. Will subsurface drainage result in the effluent re- Yes No appearing on adjacent lands? 12. Viill subsurface drainage result in the possibility Yes No ✓ of effluent reappearing in surface water? D. SE:4AGE TREATMENT FACILITY (WASTE TREATMENT) : 1. What is the capacity of existing (or new) sewage g.p,Cl* treatment facilities? i`1. Initial Study Enid onmental Description _6 2 . What is the present maximum flow of existing sewage g.p.d. treatment facilities? 3. What is the amount of the proposed flow? g.p.d. 4 . Describe the type of treatment and disposal: 5. Does the existing collection, treatment and disposal Yes No system have adequate additional capacity to accept the proposed flow? 6 . Do you have letters or documents from the facility Yes No operator verifying ing all of the above? E. SOLID WASTE: 1. What is the type of solid waste? Domestic Industrial Agricultural Other 2 . What is yardage per capita per day? 3. What type of storage? Dumpster Single Containers Other 4. Do you have a storage site? Yes No 5 . Where is the waste disposal storage in relation to buildings? 6 . Have you made arrangements for collection? Yes No F. COIIERCIAL-INDUSTRIAL PROJECTS : Describe project: ',/A Initial Study EnvWnmental Description -7ja 1. Are there any emissions (gases , smoke, odors , fumes, Yes No vapors) ? 2. Do you anticipate that this project will increase the Yes No noise level in the immediate vicinity? 3. Anticipated sources of noise: 4 . Will shielding be provided for potentially hazardous Yes No operations ( including heat, radiation, light & noise). If yes, describe: 5. Will protection be provided for storage of hazardous Yes No materials? 6 . What specific wastes are produced? G. VECTOR CONTROL: insects rodents etc. 0 1. Are recreational lakes being planned for the project? Yes No X 2 . Are there adequate facilities for cleaning and dispo- Yes No X sal of fish parts? 3 . Are there any swamps, wet lands , salt marshes, springs,Yes No A or wilderness areas adjacent to the project? 4. Are there any irrigated pastures on or adjacent to Yes No the project? 5 . Are there any sewer ponds on or adjacent to the pro- Yes No X ject? 6 . Are there any waste disposal sites on or adjacent to Yes No k the project? 7. Are there any plans for drainage on and from the Yes x No project? 8. Are there any plans for controlling standing water Yes No X in borrow pits , drainage ditches , curb drains , etc? 0 9 . Are there any Flood Control Projects on or adjacent Yes No 3k' to the project? T\ Initial Study Envyronmental Description - 10. Are there any feed lots, poultry operations , dairies Yes No ?► horse stables, hog ranches , rabbitries , or other animal operations adjacent to or within a mile of the project? 11. Are there any animal manure stockpiles on or near the Yes No k project? 12 . Is there any extensive fruit and/or vegetable harvest- Yes No X ing near the project? 13 . Are there any food producing plants near the project? Yes No X If you answered "yes" to any of the above questions , please explain: Ll%U . cFL6Q) CU&uQISM-OW114 PLAN MM 4 AIDS ef-FECITS ou A-TA XA'PSrzc LICE 14 . Are there plans for weed abatement? Yes No_Zr If yes, what materials are to be used? 15. Are there special plans for handling refuse? Yes No >c If yes, describe: I have completed this Initial Study and the information contained is accurate to the best of my knowledge. b 1,6 Date i at r Name (Printed) A-3T3 4-eZTk;13-_ :address Phone n Minu - Planning Commission - October 21, 1985 Commissioner an asked why the RS zone had f ratings wherein the the RSF-Z an SF-Z zones only had a ratings. There was discussion concerning S. Commissioner 'Bond stated tha information contained in the staff report is what the mmission requested. Chairman LaPrad pened the hearing to the pu 'c and there was no testimony ' en. M �N: Made by Commissioner Hatchell, seconded by Commiss er Nolan and carried unanimously to recommend approval Zone Change 6-85 as reflected in the draft ordinance. 2. Tentative Parcel Map 26-85 : Request. submitted by Catherine Davis (Guy Greene, representa- tive) to allow division of 8. 7 acres into three lots of 2.9 acres each. Subject property is located at 8870 San Gabriel Road, also known as a portion of Lot 11 of Block 33. Mr . Davidson presented the staff report and summarized the history related to this project wherein a previous application for a three way lot split had been denied by both the Planning Commission and City Council. Mr . Davidson pointed out that the 20% reduc trion which was requested in the first application and subsequently denied had not been requested in the present proposal. Guy Greene, representing the applicant, concurred with the recom- mendation in the staff report. He noted that this new map, in its redesign, had taken into consideration the many concerns previous- ly expressed by the area neighbors, and briefly addressed some of the particular areas of concern which included drainage, grading, and septic locations. Robert Brown, 8850 San Gabriel, noted that he and other neighbors were pleased with the creativity in this new lot split request and felt that the conditions of approval contained in the staff report would assure that the neighbors' concerns would be met. MOTION: Made by Commissioner Bond, seconded by Commissioner Michielssen and carried unanimously to recommend approval of Tentative Parcel Map 26-85 subject to the findings and conditions contained in the staff report. C. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment at this time. D. INDIVIDUAL ACTION AND OR DETERMINATION: 1. Planning Commission 2 G771,_ M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council November 12, 1985 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager lk4a FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director AV SUBJECT: Lot Line Adjustment 10-85 LOCATION: 1300 Garcia Road APPLICANT: James and Sylvia Dulitz (Shirley Moore) REQUEST: To adjust a property line to create two lots which will have frontage access off of Garcia Road. On October 21, 1985, the Planning Commission considered the above ref- erenced subject on its consent calendar, unanimously approving the request subject to the findings and conditions contained in the at- tached staff report. There was no discussion on this item. Enclosure: Staff Report - October 21, 1985 HE:ps cc: James and Shirley Dulitz Shirley Moore • q't Lot Line Adjustment O-85 � (Dulitz/Moore) C. ANALYSIS: The current lot sizes of the two portions of Lot 4 are 2. 41 and 1.79 acres, respectively. The lots are existing, nonconforming lots of record in an RS zone which requires a minimum lot size ranging from 2 1/2 to 10 acres. City policy has been to permit lot line adjustments in such cases provided the degree of nonconformity is not increased. The appli- cant' s proposal involves an equal exchange of acreage. This ad- justment would not alter the degree of nonconformity and would, therefore, comply with city policies. D. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Lot Line Adjustment 10-85 based on the findings and conditions contained in Exhibit A. MM:ps ATTACHMENTS : Exhibit A - Findings/Conditions of Approval Exhibit B - Location Map Exhibit C - Lot Line Adjustment Map 2 Lot Line Adjustment f-85 (Dulitz/Moore) EXHIBIT A - Lot Line Adjustment 10-85 Findings/Conditions of Approval October 21, 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. 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. 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. 3 r Depu 7 14 � FS SCCA-TION1200 GPve-( J'Tzo 20 J � c �'a''r s q t\•\a �j� Qa _ \r 33 � >�2 \ •O ` Q, . � \ `• Ni \ cis 1e /'/\ / 4� \r 14 S ` 'a `\ RS(FH) ,3,�'=: 47 �, yi• 17 '1 ' lei > > ,. 0 �..\ �tA /11 �.a ., :.. .. r�,�,.F41 s.,., > / if •��i)f� 42 4 t• s AN ` ,.o:-- - � ! ��• mal .� { � r / a �`.) �.:.-•i• 5��] ,53 - ;; ..t,-.''.:�. �Jt- ;' � .. � rG!�`• a 1,�'f' ""•'�...><� ;j '•Zee t�• � _ -` . •! 1 I �`r I', i �' ....>• a "\ e :,'S-�3,:.� �� ' t �_•�, ,'�` .,.•.sr...\S i•,.tl mac%��7•a \b+ t t 4 9• ( 1 (_tea 13 �` RJ 2414 \•'\r, J.> 1 s > \ 13 20 _ LLA 10 - E35- 04Z �U OAP AN 07~vv D,A V • MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Directors THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager� d FROM: Paul 14. Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer s SUBJECT: Marchant Way - Santa Rosa Sanitary Sewer District DATE: November 4, 1985 Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Board approve Resolution 123- 85 which adopts Alternate 2 and to entertain separately any future requests for emergency measures from the north side of Santa Rosa for failing septic systems. Background: The Marchant Way landowners petitioned the City to form a sewer extension district due to septic problems associated with the Cease and Desist area. Staff at that time recommended that theP arcels on the northerly side of Santa Rosa be included since they too are in the Cease and Desist area. At that time the neighborhood felt that two sewers should be constructed, one in Marchant Way and the other in Santa Rosa. It was their feeling that since easements would be required across the Marchant lots it perhaps would be better to involve both sides of Santa Rosa. A sewer in Santa Rosa as it turns out would have to be run easterly to Marchant due to the grade differential westerly to Avenal. The owners thought to extend a welcome to the southerly side of Santa Rosa so that the cost per acre could be reduced. Owners to the south quickly joined the petitioners and presented their names to staff. It was not realized by Public Works until the night of the hearing that the lots south of Santa Rosa- were outside the Urban Services Line. In most other areas the Urban Services Line approximates the Atascadero Sanitation District Boundary. Discussion: Referring to the Community Development Director ' s October 28, 1985 memo to the City Council, it is clear that the area south of Santa Rosa was not intended to be served by a public sewer . It is therefore not in the best interest of the City for the Board to extend a sanitary sewer along Santa Rosa. If possible, however , it is in the City' s best interest if the Board can eliminate septic problems through annexation into the District without disturbing the General Plan concepts. The adequacy of downstream line sizes should be investigated if this alternative is selected. Alternate 6 : This alternate is the same as alternate 5 plus the three large lots to the southeast. Again, all the lots south of Santa Rosa are outside the Urban Services Line. The cost of this alternate is approximately $222, 000 or about $0.16 per sq. ft. of lot area. The adequacy of downstream line sizes should be investigated if this alternative is selected. SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES Alternate . :. Only In Compliance Staff Total Cost per Number Cease & Desist with Gen. Plan Recom. Cost Sq.Ft. of Lot Area 1 Yes Yes No $130 , 000 $1. 06 2 Yes Yes Yes 140 ,000 0,72 3 Yes ? No 210 ,000 1. 07 4 No No No 222 ,000 0 . 43 5 No No No 222,000 0 . 23 6 No No No 222 , 000 0 . 16 Fiscal Impact: This project will be an assessment district with each parcel paying their fair share, including engineering, administrative and interest or bond charges. It is anticipated that the District will borrow money from the League of California Cities pool and repay it through the assessment process. The Board additionally may Ion- to the engineering costs via FmHA funds, but at this writing we have not received FmHA' s final stamp of approval. They now are indicating that they would prefer to spend the money faster and on one project instead of putting it in a fund to be drawn down slowly. ��b CITY COUNCIL OF ATASCADERO SUBJECt: Sewers The following property owners on Marchant Way petition the city of Atascadero 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 12 5 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 9460 86 KIRKENDALL 9470 85 GEARHART 9480 84 KELLY 9490 S3 PESENTI 9500 82 REEVES 9510 81 MONTAGUE 9520 80 DOHERTY 9530 73 LITTLE 9550 74 LOWNES 9570 75 RIESAU 9570 76 RIESAU 9576 77 PIERCE 9580 78 PHILLIPS 9590 79 THOMPSON � � I CIT`I COUNCIL OF ATASCADERO SUBJECt: Sewers The following property owners on Marchant Way petition the city of Atascadero 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 , 9460 86 KIRKENDALL p - 9470 85 GEARHART 9480 84 KELLY � 9490 E3 PESENTI 9500 82 REEVES 9510 81 MONTAGUE �� ���� 4�� ti'����,2 ,«��_: - 5 80 DOHERTY 9530 73 LITTLE 9550 74 LOWNES C' 0570 75 RIES A U 9570 ;'6 RIESAU 9576 77 PIERCEy/ ,.l,'n 1 F/YC(' ��.%- �rum�✓� ' 9580 78 PHILLIPS .t / 9590 79 THOMPSON CITY COUNCIL OF ATASCADERO SUBJECT: SEWERS The following property owners on Santa Rosa Road petition the city of Rtascadero to grant permission to place a sewer line from the intersection of Santa Rosa Road and *Marchant Way, north on Santa Rosa Road to Auenal Avenue. We would petition the city for the option of paying all sewer costs including engineering by assessment on city tats rolls, or be able to Pay costs outright, at the discretion of the property owner. MAP SECTION 31-38-381 Assessor's ADDRESS LOT z NAME SIGNATURE 7975 56 Moser 7985 55 Hay 4 7995 36 McMurray i 8005 44 O'Dell 8015 41 Romero 8025 62 Kagel 8035 61 Jatobsen CITY COUNCIL Of ATRSCADERO SUBJECT: SEWERS The following property owners on Santa Rosa Road petition the city of Rtascadero to grant permission to place a sewer- line from the intersection of Santa Rosa Road and Marchant Way, north on Santa Rosa Road to Auenal fluenue. We would petition the city for the option of paying all sewer costs including engineering by assessment on city tatr rolls, or be able to pay costs outright, at the discretion of the property owner. MAP SECTION 54-15-151 Assessor's ADDRESS LOT IT NAME SIGNATURE 7950 43 Andrews X01( L=Z 7960 41 Smith 1 7988 49 Peyton 7984 47 Topham vacant lot 7982 48 Weems ���',2� 8000 28 Sutton vacant lot percel J 8008 B Weems vacant lot parcel 8010 C Weems 8014 Brunner 8030 19 Moench 8040 13 Doerfler 8050 23 Bunton 8070 .51 Nelson _ •/ucGnt of 8020 50 Nelson CITY COUNCIL OF ATnSCADERO SUBJECT: SEWERS The following property owners on Santa Rosa Road petition the city of Atascadero to grant permission to place a sewer line from the intersection of Santa Rosa Road and Marchant Way, north on Santa Rosa Road to ozena# Avenue. 1111e would petition the city for the option of paying all sewer costs 3: including engineering by assessment on city tan rolls, or be able to pay costs outright, at the discretion of the property owner. x MAP SECTION 56-35-351 Assessor's ADDRESS LOT NAME SIGNATURE 8090 18 Duty 0092 10 Duty 810o 14 Monooio 0150 22 Taylor 91 -.1,110 35 Gaskell • rant lot 37 Dykstra 8170 27 Berndt 3150 25 Williams voc.-I It lot '71 Yarriold 3229 42 Ltion 3250 -13 1-lulder Ol C C.. C�` l,� fi.RSC+.00�jO BJECT: SE1DERS The following aropert r owner's on Santa Rosa Road petition the cite of Otascadero ,o grant permission to place a sewer !ine from the intersection of Santo Rosa Road anti Marchant LL+ay, north on Sang Rosa Woad to t,u--naI RL,e-nue. 1111e would pe f+tion the City for the option of pauing all sewer costs inciudina engineering by assessment on city tax rolls, or be able to p3; ccsts outright, at the discretion of the propertq owner. Mi?P SECTION 5 -:351 AssPssr,r's I I Orl 0 IR ES; LOT ;ME SlGNl1IL;-;E 31290 13 Outu u; 1!� i -Y Yic�S�a0lt7 Ta+alor L)dSkell ccrtt !I,r ^� tai• ra � � ( —t-- I J 'JIU •,ten CITY COUNCIL OF ATASCADERO . SUBJECT: SEtt1ERS The following property owners on Santa Rosa Road petition the city of Atascadero to grant permission to place a sewer line from the intersection of Santa Rosa Road and Marchant Way, north on Santa Rosa Road to Avenal P.L►enue. We would petition the city for the option of paying all sewer costs including engineering by assessment on city tart rolls, or be able to pay costs outright, at the discretion of the property owner. MAP SECTION 56-35-351 Assessor's ADDRESS LOT = NAME SIGNATURE 8090 18 Duty 8092 18 Duty 8100 14 Mongolo '_ - L--217 8150 22 Taylor 8140 36 Gaskell ./i ar,rint !-)t 37 Dykstra 8170 27 Berndt 8160 26 Williams 41 Yarnold 8220 42 Leon 8250 43 Mulder RESOLUTION NO. 118-85 A RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT APPROVING THE ANNEXATION OF IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 3 TO THE ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT PURSUANT TO SECTION 4834 ET SEQ 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 to the Improvement District of the County Sanitation District; and WHEREAS, the Atascadero County Sanitation District has received a petition from property owners residing on Marchant Way and Santa Rosa Road in the City of Atascadero requesting to be annexed to the Atascadero County Sanitation District which if approved would create an improvement district to include Lots 11 through 16 of Block 13 and Lots 66 through 87 of Block JC, in the City of Atascadero, and WHEREAS, the Atascadero County Sanitation District Board of Directors has properly noticed a Hearing for the proposed annexation of the aforesaid lots; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of Atascadero County Sanitation District to provide sewer service to the subject pro- perty, as afore described; and WHEREAS, the extension of utility service to existing private structures are categorically exempt or receive a negative declaration pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Class 19) . NOW 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 benefitted by annexation to the Atascadero County Sanitation District, and creation of Improvement District #3; Section 2. The Territory that is intended to be annexed to the Sanitary Improvement District, thereafter entitled Sanitary Improvement District #3 of the Atascadero County Sanitation District is listed as follows: Ptn. Lot 11 Block 13 , Atascadero Colony A.P.-N. 56-351-43 Ptn. Lots 11 and 12 Block 13 , Atascadero Colony A.P .N. 56-351-42 Ptn. Lot 12 Block 13 , Atascadero Colony A.P .N. 56-351-41 Ptn. Lot 12A Block 13 , Atascadero Colony A.P .N. 56-351-26 Ptn. Lot 12 12A Block 13 , Atascadero Colony A.P .N. 56-351-27 Ptn. Lot 13 Block 13 , Atascadero Colony A.P.N. 56-351-37 Ptn. Lot 13 Block 13 , Atascadero Colony A.P.N. 56-351-36 Ptn. Lot 13 Block 13 , Atascadero Colony A.P .N. 56-351-22 Ptn. Lot 13 Block 13 , Atascadero Colony A.P.i1. 56-351-14 Ptn. Lot 13 Block 13 , Atascadero Colony A.P .N. 56-351-18 Ptn. Lot 14 Block 13 , Atascadero Colony A.P.N. 54-151-50 Ptn. Lot 14 Block 13 , Atascadero Colony A.P .N. 54-151-51 Ptn. Lot 14 Block 13 , Atascadero Colony A.P .N. 54-151-23 Ptn. Lot 14 Block 13 , Atascadero Colony A.P .14T. 54-151-18 Ptn. Lot 14 Block 13 , Atascadero Colony A.P .'N. 54-151-19 Ptn. Lot 15-A Block 13 , Atascadero Colony A.P .?i. 54-151-28 Ptn. Lot 15A Block 13 , Atascadero Colony A.P .:1. 54-151-52 9 Ptn. Lot15A Block 13 , Atascadero Colony A.P .N. 54-252-53 Ptn. Lot 15 Block 13 , Atascadero Colony A.P .N. 54-131-48 Ptn. Lot 15 Block 13 , Atascadero Colony A.P.N. 54-151-47 Ptn. Lot 15 Block 13 , Atascadero Colony A.P .N. 54-151-49 Ptn. Lot 16 Block 13 , Atascadero Colony A.P.N. 54-151-41 Ptn. Lot 16 Block 13 , Atascadero Colony A.P .N. 54-151-43 Ptn. Lot 16 Bloc; 13 , Atascadero Colony A.P .N. 54-151-42 Ptn. Lot 16 Block 13 , Atascadero Colony A.P.N. 54-151-30 Ptn. Lot 16 Block 13 , Atascadero Colony A.P .N. 54-151-20 Lot 66 Block JC , Atascadero Colony A.P.N. 31-381-56 Lot 67 Block JC , Atascadero Colony A.P .N. 31-381-55 Lot 68 Block JC , Atascadero Colony A.P.N. 31-381-36 Lot 69 Block JC , Atascadero Colony A.P .N. 31-381-44 Lot 70 Block JC , Atascadero Colony A.P .N. 31-381-41 Lot 71 Block JC , Atascadero Colony A.P .N. 31-331-62 Lot 72 Block JC , Atascadero Colony A.P . I. 31-381-61 _Ot 71Bloc'_; 'C , Atasc:clam t R1-^n f o= 7 0ck c Atascadero Colony ` Bicck 'C Atascadero I-olonV 1 j Low 76 Bloc','- .JC , .itaSCa:ero Colony A.P ... . 31-3R1-53 mot 77 Block JC Atascadero Colony A. P .1.. 31-,g1 - 9 Tot „ Bloc?: ?C , Atascadero Colony Lot 79 Block JC Atascadero Colonv A. ? Lot 80 Block JC Atascadero Colonv A.P 31-341-59 Lot 81 Block JC Atascadero Colonv A. P .1T. 31-341-�0 Lot ;42 Block JC Atascadero Colonv A.P ... . Lot 83 Block JC , Atascadero Colony A.P.T?. Lot 84 Block JC , Atascadero Colony A.P .N. _ Lot 85 Block JC , Atascadero Colony A.P .N. Lot 86 Block JC , Atascadero Colony A.P .1N. Lot 87 Block JC , Atascadero Colony A.P.iv. Section 3. The Atascadero County Sanitation District Board shall file a certified Map of this Resolution together with a map or plat of the new boundaries of the Improvment District as required by Section 54900, 54901 and 54902 of the Government Code. Upon such filing, the annexation of the territory of the Improvement District shall be effective. On motion by Board Member and seconded by Board Member , the foregoing Resolution is adopted in its entirety by the following role call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: DATE: ATTEST: MIKE SHELTON, Secretary ROLFE NELSON, Chairman APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ROBERT M. JONES, City Attorney PAUL M. SENSIBAUGH Director of Public Works/ City Engineer J` w'1 RESOLUTION NO. 123-85 A RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT APPROVING THE ANNEXATION OF IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 3 TO THE ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT PURSUANT TO SECTION 4834 ET SEQ 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 apart of the County Sanitation District to the Improvement District of the County Sanitation District; and WHEREAS, the Atascadero County Sanitation District has received a petition from property owners residing on Marchant Way and Santa Rosa Road in the City of Atascadero requesting to be annexed to the Atascadero County Sanitation District which if approved would create an improvement district to include Lots 66 through 87 of block JC in the City of Atascadero, and WHEREAS, the Atascadero County Sanitation District Board of Directors has properly noticed a Hearing for the proposed annexation of the aforesaid lots; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of Atascadero County Sanitation District to provide sewer service to the subject pro- perty, as afore described; and WHEREAS, the extension of utility service to existing private structures are categorically exempt or receive a negative declaration pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Class 19) . NOW 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 benefitted by annexation to the Atascadero County Sanitation District, and creation of Improvement District #3; Section 2. The Territory that is intended to be annexed to the Sanitary Improvement District, thereafter entitled Sanitary Improvement District #3 of the Atascadero County Sanitation District is listed as follows: Lot 66 Block JC , Atascadero Colony A.P.N. 31-381-56 Lot 67 Block JC , Atascadero Colony A.P .N. 31-381-55 Lot 68 Block JC , Atascadero Colony A.P.N. 31-381-36 Lot 69 Block JC , Atascadero Colony A.P .N. 31-381-44 Lot 70 Block JC , Atascadero Colony A.P .N. 31-381-41 Lot 71 Block JC , Atascadero Colony A.P.N. 31-331-62 Lot 72 Block JC , Atascadero Colony A.P .N. 31-381-61 �ot ;3 Bloc!-" ,c , Atascadero Colony mot Block TC , Atascadero Colony ` TOL 75 Block �C , Atascadero r1olon-7 mot 77 Block TC A.tascal ero Colon-? A. Lot 77 BlockT- A tasca-ero Color77 A. P .;: . t _ot ,? Bloc!': TC Atascadero Colo-1-7 Lot 79 Block JC Atascadero Colony Lot S0 Block JC Atascadero Colc_^_y Lot 2, Block ��C _.tascadero Colc nv P _ A. . `T Lot 33 Block t_ Atascadero Coio7.•7 A. P . �V 5 t i • Lot 83 Block JC , Atascadero Colony A.P.T1. Lot 84 Block JC , Atascadero Colony A.P .T1. — Lot 85 Block JC , Atascadero Colony A.P .N. Lot 86 Block JC , Atascadero Colony A.P.i1. Lot 87 Block JC , Atascadero Colony A.P .74 — Section 3. The Atascadero County Sanitation District Board shall file a certified Map of this Resolution together with a map or plat of the new boundaries of the Improvment District as required by Section 54900, 54901 and 54902 of the Government Code. Upon such filing, the annexation of the territory of the Improvement District shall be effective. On motion by Board Member and seconded by Board Member , the foregoing Resolution is adopted in its entirety by the following role call vote: AYES• NOES: ABSENT: DATE: ATTEST: MIKE SHELTON, Secretary ROLFE NELSON, Chairman APP AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ROBERT M. JONES, City Attorney PAUL M. SENSIBAUGH Director of Public Works/ City Engineer Now J F< ui I n ° z Q b 1 lu W �\ � • r 3 Z z e z w � ° Oi I y � T r v '� '` QO S • i Y � x i aF o m x i ! 0 Do vy O � L Oj Ll �O JJJ 9 •O9/ 1 y s j 1' �nrvan� 'lbrvans F II l AVA 00C - l MARCHANT SEWER ASSESSMENT DISTRICT Rall Number Owner Preliminary Assessment �$) 1 APN 31-381-07 Stubbs, E. et al 9450 Marchant Atascadero, California 93422 - � 2' 34 5 2 APN 31-381-07 Kirkendall, J.J. & E.W. 180 Island 8 yoo_ Morro Bay, California 93442 3 Kelley; F.A. 9480 Marchant Avenue ��3 O¢ Atascadero, California 93422 4 APN 31-381-20 Little, E.H. & Arlys 9530 Marchant Avenue Y00 Atascadero, California 93422 5 APN 31-381-32 Reeves, E.C. & M.E. 9500 Marchant Avennc' Al.i:., :,J, t ,,, l%,I il �,t1, L, ')34Z1 6 APN 31-381-35 Kirkendall, J.J. & E.W. 180 Island /Z £yC7U f 3 5 ¢`► Morro Bay, California 93442 7 APN 31-381-36 McMurray, N.C. & M.J. et al 7995 Santa Rosa co Atascadero, California 93422 / 8 APN 31-381-41 Romero, Lucille R. et al 8015 Santa Rosa 4L1� Atascadero, California 93422 9 APN 31-381-43 Pesenti,V.P. & T.R. et al 9490 Marchant Avenue7 Atascadero, California 93422 !� /'U �C� 7� L 10 APN 31-381-44 Odell, William R. & Moneata 8005 Santa Rosa Atascadero, California 93422 11 APN 31-381-46 Phi I I ips, W. I?. P. 0. Box 597 Atascadero, California 93423 �n 1IARCIIANT SEWER ASSESSMENT DISTRICT, page 2 Preliminary Roll Number Owner Assessment 12 APN 31-381.-51 Lownes, C.R. & G.M. Y 2- 9550 Marchant Avenue Q 7— Atascadero, California 93422 13 APN 31-381-52 Pierce, C.K. & D.N.. 3 1979 Ninth Street 7000 73 96 Los Osos, California 93402 14 APN 31-381-53 Riesau, Shirley M. 2S 9570 Marchant Avenue Atascadero, California 93422 15 APN 31-381.-55 Hay, Harold R. 2424 Wilshire Boulevard �,3 6 ao— Los Angeles, California 90057 16 APN 31-381-56 Moser, E. T. & D.M. / 797.5 Santa Rosa /! 17 APN 31-381-59 Templeton Saloon Limited C/o J. Doherty e�- 2015 Vineyard Templeton. California 93465 18 AI'N 31-381-60 Montague, Jack D. & Shirley M. 73 13415 Forty-first Street 300 &4 7 Yuma, Arizona 85365 19 APN 31-381-61 Edwards, E.G. & L.A. 8035 Santa Rosa 7 JC7O Atascadero, California 93422 20 APN 31-381-62 Mae, Floyd B. 8025 Santa Rosa S � Atascadero, Calitornia 93422 21 APN 54-151-18 Doerfler, G.L. & .1. I. 80/0 ti:int:i It��:;:i �� �ry00 Atascadero, California 93422 t1 MARCIIANT SEWER ASSESSMENT D[STIUCT, page 3 Preliminary Roll Number Owner Assessment 22 APN 54-151-18 Moench, K.L. , 13030 Santa Rosa Atascadero, Califoruia 93422 23 APN 54- 15'_-23 Bunton, Harry Jr. & Maria A 8050 Santa Rosa Atascadero, California 93422 24 APN 54-151-27 Duvall, Bryan P. & Patricia E. Q P. 0. Box 625 Atascadero, California 93423 25 APN 54-151-28 Sutton, Everett E. & Alberta 8000 Santa Rosa ?(d 3QQ Atascadero, California 93422 26 AFN 54-151-47 Topham, Barton H. & Michele R. 7984 Santa Rosa Atascadero, California 93422 27 APN 54-151-48 Deschutes Development Company c/o W. Warner P. 0. Box 1302 Santa Maria, California 93454 28 APN 54-151-49 Peyton, Robert E. & Katherine 7988 Santa Rosa Z 6 �5 Atascadero. California 93422 29 APN 54-151-50 Nelson, R.E. & E.G. 8070 Santa Rosa ,j(© 2-00 Atascadero, California 93422 30 APN 54-151-51 Nelson, Ronald E. & Ella G. 8070 Santa Rosa 4571 Atascadero, California 93422 31 APN 56-351-14 Mongolo. W.T.& L.A. P. 0. Box 1294 3 > /00 Atascadero, California 93423 - oq MARCHANT SEWER ASSESSMENT DISTRICT, page 4 Preliminary Rol] Number Owner Assessment 32 APN 56-351-18 Duty, Z.J. 8092 Santa Rosa Atascadero, California 93422 33 APN 56-351-22 Taylor, G.C.& G.D. P. 0. Box 2229 ZZ Atascadero, California 93423 34 APN 56-351-26 Williams, G.R. & D.H. G P. 0. Box 484 Atascadero, California 93423 35 APN 56-351-27 Berndt, E.F. et al c/o C Herman P. 0. Box 10/9 1 200 Atascadero, California 93423 36 AFN 56-351-36 Gaskell, Alberta S. et al Itt)X M18 Atascadero, California 93423 , v 37 APN 56-351-37 Dykstra, Matthew H. et al 246 Longden Drive ��� /gip/ Arroyo Grande, California 93420 38 APN 56--351-41 Lalande, Aime P. 0. Box 1539 /0' 0 GO Atascadero, California 93423 39 APN 56-351-42 Lyon, George P.M. & Bonnie L. 2325 El Camino Real 1371106 -- Atascadero, 37 110(f -- Atascadero, California 93422 40 APN 56-351-43 Mulder, Cornelis D. & Gerry A. 8250 Sant Rosa /22 Atascadero, California 93422 II'I 1 Ili, MARCHANT SEWER ASSESSMENT DISTRICT, page 5 Preliminary Roll Number Owner Assessment rpt' APN 31-381-47 Thompson, Alvin H. -7 307 Vista Trucha �'�®� `'w g-2 Newport Beach, California 92660 /42' j APN 54-151-41 Smith, George M. & Maskow i 7960 Santa Rosa 9 qd 0 Atascadero, California 934- 1- APN 54-151-43 Andrews, M.L. & M.A. 7950 Santa RosaQ 7' Atascadero, California 93422 APN 31-381-23 City of Atascadero 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, California 93422 � Z u, �Q J (LJ =t ' �o t~P a W -15 ai o N N Q z~ 1� — v `uZ 0 W � Q Ij J J r d 4 Z J o Q Q E 4 s ' J Q i 2 l� Z \ y1 I_ r nI=I a 'v I`XlI g VV V t f �nh�nd lv"a"w I � . JEW MARCHANT SEWER ASSESSMENT DISTRICT Roll NumberPreliminary Goner Assessment ($) 1 APN 31-381-07 Stubbs, E. et al 9450 Marchant '? Atascadero, California 93422 2 APN 31-381-07 Kirkendall, J.J. & E.W. 180 Island Morro Bay, California 93442 3 Kelley, F.A. 9480 Marchant Avenue ` Atascadero, California 93422 4 APN 31-381-20 Little, E.H. & Arlys 9530 Marchant Avenuep0 '5' I _ Atascadero, California 93422 S �5 7 5 APN 31-381-32 Reeves, E.G. & M.E. 9500 Marchant Avenue (:,I i I ur11 1:1 93422 6 APN 31-381-35 • Kirkendall, J.J. & E.W. 180 Island Morro Bay, California 93442 0 7 APN 31-381-36 McMurray, N.C. & M.J. et al 7995 Santa Rosa . %c��¢� 2 9 Atascadero, California 93422 8 APN 31-381-41 Romero, Lucille R. et al 6 8015 Santa Rosa ,¢��0 . ;f' / L3 Atascadero, California 93422 �C 9 APN 31-381-43 Pesenti,V.P. & T.R. et al 9490 Marchant Avenue 7 c7O w ?3Q4 3S Atascadero, California 93422 10 APN 31-381-44 Odell, William R. & Moneata 8005 Santa Rosa 800 O Atascadero, California 93422 7 ] 1 APN 31-381-46 I 1 ips, W,E. & R.L. Z`7 Y. 0. Box 5979 7 Atascadero, California 93423 �4 0 0 �LIRCHANT SEWER ASSESSMENT DISTRICT, page 2 - -- Roll Preliminary Number Owner Assessment 1.2 APN 31-381-51 Lownes, C.R. & C.M. --rr�� 2 9550 Marchant Avenue /3L_v S Z Atascadero, California 93422 13 APN 31-381-52 Pierce, C.K. & D.N.. -7 9 � 1979 Ninth Street 00 Los Osos, California 93402 14 APN 31-381-53 Riesau, Shirley M. r� q 9570 Marchant Avenue '/,,¢ �QJa � c� '- Atascadero, California 93422 1 15 APN 31-381.-55 Hay, Harold R. '3 2424 Wilshire Boulevard 13 &aO y 3 Los Angeles, California 90057 16 APN 31-381-56 Moser, E.J. & D.M. 7975 Santa Rosa l� �( � ��/( 3 AI nr. "aclr , (:,.1 I fern I:i 17 APN 31-381-59 Templeton Saloon Limited c/o J. Doherty G?G 2015 Vineyard Templeton. California 93465 18 APN 31-381-60 Montague, Jack D. & Shirley M. 13415 Forty-first Street p 300 Yuma, Arizona 85365 19 APN 31-381-61 Edwards, E.G. & L.A. 8035 Santa Rosa 7 00 Si�� 7 29 Atascadero, California 93422 20 APN 31-381-62 May, Floyd B. 8025 Santa Rosa �� Atascadero, California 93422 21 APN 54-151-18 Doerfler, G.L. & J.I. 8040 Santa Rosa Atascadero, California 93422 \`L h1AftClIANT SEWLR ASSESSMLN'r DISTRICT, page 3 -- - Preliminary Roll Number Owner Assessment 22 APN 54-151-18 Moench, K.L. !!�� 8030 Santa Rosa Atascadero, California 93422 23 APN 54- 15'_-23 Bunton, Harry Jr. & Maria A 8050 Santa Rosa 2�p - Atascadero, California 93422 24 APN 54-151-27 Duvall, Bryan P. & Patricia E. Q P. 0. Box 625 d&X00 Atascadero, California 93423 25 APN 54-151-28 Sutton, Everett E. & Alberta 8000 Santa Rosa 2 -AV Atascadero, California 93422 26 AFN 54-151-47 Topham, Barton H. & Michele R. 7984 Santa Rosa 44 2��Q Atascadero. California 93422 27 APN 54-151-48 Deschutes Development Company c/o W. Warner P. 0. Box 1302 Santa Maria, California 93454 28 APN 54-151-49 Peyton, Robert E. & Katherine 7988 Santa Rosa 2-0 Atascadero, California 93422 29 APN 54-151-50 Nelson, R.E. & E.G. ,,�1 8070 Santa Rosa S� 2 0O Atascadero, California 93422 30 APN 54-151-51 Nelson, Ronald E. & Ella C. _ 8070 Santa Rosa Qs. IdD Atascadero, California- 93422 31 APN 56-351-14 Mongolo. W.T.& L.A. P. 0. Box 1294 Atascadero, California 93423 - MARCHANT SEWER ASSESSMENT DISTRICT, pate 4 Preliminary Bull Number Ounier Assessment 32 APN 56-351-18 Duty, Z.J. 8092 Santa Rosa S� Atascadero, California 93422 33 APN 56-351-22 Tailor, C.C.& G.D. P. 0. Box 2229 Atascadero, California 93423 34 APN 56-351-26 Williams, G.R. & D.H. GG P. 0. Box 484 Atascadero, California 93423 35 APN 56-351-27 Berndt, E.F. et al C/O C Herman P. 0. Box 1079 2 O Atascadero, California 93423 36 AFN 56-351-36 Gaskell , Alberta S. et a] Atascadero, CaJifornia 93423 37 APN 56-351-37 Dykstra, Matthew H. et al 246 Longden Drive Arroyo Grande, California 93420 38 APN 56--351-41 Lalande, Aime P. 0. Box 1539 0, QQC Atascadero, California 93423 39 APN 56-351-42 Lyon, George P.M. & Bonnie L. 2325 E1 Camino Real Atascadero, California 93422 40 APN 56-351-43 Mulder, Cornelis D. & Gerry A. 8250 Sant Rosa !22 Atascadero, California 93422 MARCHANT 5iEWER ASSESSMEN'f DISTRICT, page 5 Preliminary Rol I Number Owner Assessment 44- APN 31-381-47 Thompson, Alvin H. 307 Vista Trucha ���(� `' 2 � 64 �� Newport Beach, California 92660 APN 54-151-41 Smith, George M. & Maskow 7960 Santa Rosa / 9 900 Atascadero, California 93422 A5-4-z- APN 54-151-43 Andrews, M.L. & M.A. 7950 Santa Rosa0 Atascadero, California 93422 443 APN 31-381-23 City of Atascadero 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, California 93422 \l .,1 I z r F- p,1 '_e W - _ 9 i j O5 Z ZF- 7, o�� Q E Z : v 3 �Lt+j v 4 s 8 Qac J � .szf M r z L T Z Y Z 1 © � or PoR L O \ \/ O Y v b t ryan'd 1IW 3'A 4 L rt �A MARCHANT SEWER ASSESSMENT DISTRICT Roll Number Preliminary Owner Assessment ($) 1 APN 31-381-07 Stubbs, E. et al 9450 Marchant t12- Atascadero, California 93422 I 2 APN 31-381-07 Kirkendall, J.J. & E.W. 180 Island + Morro Bay, California 93442 ' t 3 'Kelley; F.A. 9480 Marchant Avenue Atascadero, California 93422 ?� 4 APN 31-381-20 Little, E.H. & Arlys 9530 Marchant Avenue j yoo v S `l3 Atascadero, California 93422 5 APN 31-381-32 Reeves, E.G. & M.E. 9500 Marchant Avenue �� ii,)r n 1:, 9 3 4 1 1 6 APN 31-381-35 Kirkendall, J.J. & E.W. 180 Island /'P- 7 2 Morro Bay, California 93442 3�7 7 APN 31-381-36 McMurray, N.C. & M.J. et al 7995 Santa Rosa Atascadero, California 93422 C7,���I 44 8 APN 31-381-41 Romero, Lucille R. et al 8015 Santa Rosa 4CO X*1C2 Atascadero, California 93422 9 APN 31-381-43 Pesenti,V.P. & T.R. et al 9490 Marchant Avenue 2-t.7 Atascadero, California 93422 r 10 APN 31-381-44 Odell, William R. & Moneata 8005 Santa Rosa Soo Atascadero, California 93422 ] 1 APN 31-381-46 P. 0. Box 597 Atascadero, California 93423 � \� MARCHANT SLWiat ASSESSMLNT DISTRICT, pale 2 —` Preliminary Roll Number Owner Assessment 12 APN 31-381.-51 Lownes, C.R. & C.M. � � 9550 Marchant Avenue Atascadero, California 93422 13 APN 31-381-52 Pierce, C.K. & D.N. 1979 Ninth Street 7000 s'� — Los Osos, California 93402 14 APN 31-381-53 Riesau, Shirley M. •9570 Marchant Avenue /•d Atascadero, California 93422 15 APN 31-381.-55 Hay, Harold R. 2424 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90057 16 APN 31-381-56 Moser, E.J. & D.M. 7975 Santa Rosa ru, ('.i 1 1 fern 17 APN 31-381-59 Templeton Saloon Limited C/o J. Doherty 2015 Vineyard Ej 33 (�O Templeton, California 93465 18 APN 31-381-60 Montague, Jack D. & Shirley M. 13415 Forty-first Street 300 -2- 61 Yuma, Arizona 85365 1y APN 31-381-61 Edwards, E.C. & L.A. 8035 Santa Rosa �C- X73 Atascadero, California 93422 9�0 �2 -�' 40 APN 31-381-62 May, Floyd B. 8025 Santa Rosa Atascadero, Califurnia 93422 IV�ZJ� 21 APN 54-151-18 Doerfler, G.L. & .J.I. 8040 tiontn Rusa 15742-1 �0 O Atascadero, California 93422 L �r� MAKCIIAN'r SEWER ASSESSMEN'r DISTRICT, page 3 Preliminary Koll Number Owner Assessment 22 APN 54-151-18 Moench, K.L. , 8030 Santa Rosa Atascadero, California 93422 23 APN 54- 151_-23 Bunton, Harry Jr. & Maria A , 8050 Santa Rosa ��. . Atascadero, California 93422 24 APN 54-151-27 Duvall, Bryan P. & Patricia E. P. 0. Box 625 Atascadero, California 93423 25 APN 54-151-28 Sutton, Everett E. & Alberta 8000 Santa Rosa Atascadero, California 93422 26 AFN 54-151-47 Topham, Barton H. & Michele R- 7984 Santa Rosa 4.¢ Z� Arasc ;idcro, Cal ifornia 93422 27 APN 54-151-48 Deschutes Development Company c/o W. Warner P. 0. Box 1302 �1. Santa Maria, California 93454 28 APN 54-151-49 Peyton, Robert E. & Katherine 7988 Santa Rosa Z 0 Atascadero, California 93422 "1 APN 54-151-50 Nelson, R.E. & E.G. 8070 Santa Rosa Atascadero, California 93422 30 APN 54-151-51 Nelson, Ronald E. & Ella C. 8070 Santa Rosa Atascadero, California 93422 31 APN 56-351-14 Mongolo. W.T.& L.A. P. 0. Box 1294 3Ej �(TQ Atascadero, California 93423 - HARCHANT SEWER ASSESSMENT DISTRICT, pale 4 Preliminary troll Number Owner Assessment 32 APN 56-351-18 Duty, Z.J. 8092 Santa Rosa Ji� Atascadero, California 93422 33 APN 56-351-22 Ta"lor, G.C.& G.D. P. 0. Box 2229 Atascadero, California 93423 34 APN 56-351-26 Williams, G.R. & D.H. P. 0. Box 484 � Sao- i Atascadero, California 93423 35 APN 56-351-27 Berndt, E.F. et al C/o C Herman P. 0. Box 10/9 f/ 2 Atascadero, California 93423 36 AFN 56-351-36 Gaskell , Alberta S. et al I'. U. Ist)X 7018 Atascadero, California 93423 3/ APN 56-351-37 Dykstra, Matthew H. et al 246 Longden Drive 16110 Arroyo Grande, California 93420 38 APN 56--351-41 Lalande, Aime P. 0. Box 1539 Atascadero, California 93423 39 APN 56-351-42 Lyon, George P.M. & Bonnie L. 2325 El Camino Real / Q Atascadero, California 93422 40 APN 56-351-43 Mulder, Cornelis D. & Gerry A. 8250 Sant Rosa 122 Atascadero, California 93422 1 • MARCHANT SEWER ASSESSMENT DISTRICT, page 5 Preliminary Itoll Number Owner Assessment �4Y� 1 APN 31-381-47 - Thompson, Alvin H. 307 Vista Trucha �4c� "— Newport Beach, California 92660 �4 APN 54-151-41 Smith, George M. & Maskow i 7960 Santa Rosa Atascadero, California 93422 ,l Z APN 54-151-43 Andrews, M.L. & M.A. 7950 Santa Rosa .30, Atascadero, California 93422 44 ? APN 31-381-23 City of Atascadero 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, California 93422 • Z li ui Eq e13 a Q :3• 1 L� !v��O il / W 4 r Yfl r Y a� W z IL� J 1 r_ £ a Y Z £ V o G z 4 8 / OO\ p d � 1 0 � E z � r Z E Q U v 1 �` B a40 g la O x I qr y ^ 1 O I m00 r n� ? r� �✓I R � e � � —i m , Y f -3n N3�`d �VN3/�p 4 O 1 /LS( L� "V LJ�`� `.Y` � 1 L � /•{`J J T • Y � y 3 �j W MARCHANT SEWER ASSESSMENT DISTRICT Roll Number Owner Preliminary _Assessment ($) 1 APN 31-381-07 Stubbs, E. et al 9450 Marchant Atascadero, California 93422 r 2 APN 31-381-07 Kirkendall, J.J. & E.W. Z 180 Island Morro Bay, California 93442 3 .Kelley; F.A. 9480 Marchant Avenue _ Atascadero, California 93422 ' / 4 APN 31-381-20 Little, E.H. & Arlys 9530 Marchant Avenue ! -71Atascadero, California 93422 y�0 r S 4 5 APN 31-381-32 Reeves, E.G. & M.E. 9500 Marchant Avenue /' _ L Ata: u ccadut , (,;,I i turn 4 la 93422 0 9 r 6 APN 31-381-35 Kirkendall, J.J. & E.W. 180 Island /Z goo`., _ 4-? Morro Bay, California 93442 7 APN 31-381-36 McMurray, N.C. & M.J. et al 7995 Santa Rosa I Z Atascadero, California 93422 l q-Zr�o r 8 APN 31-381-41 Romero, Lucille R. et al 8015 Santa Rosa ZZ Atascadero, California 93422 r 9 APN 31-381-43 Pesenti,V.P. & T.R. et al 9490 Marchant Avenue 2_d0 !a2 Atascadero, California 93422 4 ' t 10 APN 31-381-44 Odell, William R. & Moneata 8005 Santa Rosa Atascadero, California 93422 r ` - r ] 1 APN 31-381-46 Phi11ip5, W.G. & R.L. „71 P. 0. Box 597 7'I00 �_LO -- Atascadero, California 93423 7 r �� NAKCHAN'1 SEWER ASSESSMENT D ISTIUCT, page 2 Preliminary Roll Number Owner Assessment 12 APN 31-381-51 Lownes, C.R. & G.M. f 9550 Marchant Avenue 3 1 6 0 Atascadero, California 93422 13 APN 31-381-52 Pierce, C.K. & D.N. 1979 Ninth Street ��� Los Osos, California 93402 14 APN 31-381-53 Riesau, Shirley M. '9570 Marchant Avenue 3? Atascadero, California 93422 J 15 APN 31-381.-55 Hay, Harold R. 2424 Wilshire Boulevard /_3 6aO Los Angeles, California 90057 16 APN 31-381-56 Moser, E.J. & D.M. ,2Z 7975 Santa Rosa 17 APN 31-381-59 Templeton Saloon Limited c/o J. Doherty _ 2015 Vineyard 7� Templeton, California 93465 18 APN 31-381-60 Montague, Jack D. & Shirley M. Cts 13415 Forty-first Street Z _ 2•? Yuma, Arizona 85365 19 APN 31-381-61 Edwards, E.G. & L.A. 8035 Santa Rosa 7 Y00 -I 4 2-o -7 Atascadero, California 93422 20 APN 31-381-62 Ma\', Floyd B. 2 8025 Santa Rosa Atascadero, California 93422 i 11 APN 54-151-18 Doerfler, G.L. & .l. l. 8040 S:uita Rosi �jQQ Atascadero, California 93422 ��"f MAhCIIANT SE.WL''R ASSESSMEN`r DISTRICT, page 3 ` Preliminary Roll Number Owner Assessment 22 APN 54-151-18 Moench, K.L. 803U Santa Rosa '5'q .�'� ✓ �(4�13�3 S� Atascadero, California 93422 23 APN 54- 15_-23 Bunton, Harry Jr. & Maria A ,3 8050 Santa Rosa ./ '�U Atascadero California 93422 24 APN 54-151-27 Duvall, Bryan P. & Patricia E. P. 0. Box 625 d&!�?00 , Atascadero, California 93423 ' 25 APN 54-151-28 Sutton, Everett E. & Alberta 8000 Santa Rosa 2( ,300 ";r Atascadero, California- 93422 , 26 AFN 54-151-47 Topham, Barton H. & Michele R- 7984 Santa Rosa 44 Atascadero, Cal ifornia 93422 27 APN 54-151-48 Deschutes Development Company C/o W. Warner P. 0. Box 1302 (�( Santa Maria, California 93454 28 APN 54-151-49 Peyton, Robert E. & Katherine 7988 Santa Rosa Atascadero, California 93422 ") AI'N 54-151-50 Nelson, R.E. & E.G. 8070 Santa Rosa Atascadero, California 93422 30 APN 54-151-51 Nelson, Ronald E. & Ella C. 8070 Santa Rosa 45iao Atascadero, California 93422 31 APN 56-351-14 Mongolo. W.T.& L.A. r{, P. 0. Box 1294 Atascadero, California 93423 ��V MARCIiANT SEWER ASSESSMENT DISTRICT, page 4 Preliminary Roll Number Owner Assessment 32 APN 56-351-18 Duty, Z.J. 8092 Santa Rosa ��� /s ��0� S(` Atascadero, California 93422 / r 33 APN 56-351-22 Ta,>lor, G.C.& G.D. P. 0. Box 2229 .-- 00 Atascadero, California 93423 / 34 APN 56-351-26 Williams, G.R. & D.H. P. 0. Box 484 �¢ C,�•_ Atascadero, California 93423 35 APN 56-351-27 Berndt, E.F. et al c/o C Herman P. 0. Box 10/9 200 `it�'6'3 /3 C-3 Atascadero, California 93423 /• 36 AFN 56-351-36 Gaskell , Alberta S. cit al 2018 �311iP� Atascadero, California 93423 7� 3/ APN 56-351-37 Dykstra, Matthew H. et al 2425 Longden Drive ��� `:�r0 Arroyo Grande, California 93420 38 APN 56- 351-41 Lalande, Aime P. 0. Box 1539 /`a' 0 G - Atascadero, California 93423 39 APN 56-351-42 Lyon, George P.M. & Bonnie L. 2325 E1 Camino Real /3 7 �� Atascadero, California 93422 40 APN 56-351-43 Mulder, Cornelis D. & Gerry A. 8250 Sant Rosa 122 ,1410 Atascadero, California 93422 �n MARCHANT SEWER ASSESSMENT DISTRICT, page 5 Preliminary_ Roll Number Owner _Assessment �4-r- 44- APN 31-381-47 Thompson, Alvin H. p� 307 Vista Trucha /73L -- Newport Beach, California 92660 AT APN 54-151-41 Smith, George M. & Maskow U 7960 Santa Rosa Atascadero, California 93422 A-T 4-2 APN 54-151-43 ' Andrews, M.L. & M.A. 7950 Santa Rosa Atascadero, California 93422 ,44 _ ? APN 31-381-23 City of Atascadero 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, California 93422 i .. Z N PILI C ` V Z id r N i _Q N r a1 x -Y N rfl is \ W Q E > r �� z V � t j3 ui N � LJ 4 • a -p � Ali a �c Z G� nC' Q • 1 r. F o r 2 • � ® S_3 �; ® �Sr3 I J s Q E Z L Q 1 l oiAr _ v QO \ � I • ow! I� A l � � • o ' L r,nans �vr.13ny O T v r G` =,t om, a► u 0 - 2 z MARCHANT SEWER ASSESSMENT DISTRICT Roll Number Owner Preliminary Assessment ($) -1 1 APN 31-381-07 Stubbs, E. et al 9450 Marchant � _ ,�- Atascadero, California 93422 2 APN 31-381-07 Kirkendall, J.J. & E.W. 180 Island ? Morro Bay, California 93442 3 .Kelley, F.A. 9480 Marchant Avenue Atascadero, California 93422 1 4 APN 31-381-20 Little, E.H. & Arlys 9530 Marchant Avenue Ivo j "794 - Atascadero, California 93422 5 APN 31-381-32 Reeves, E.G. & M.E. 9500 Marchant Avenue Ata!;c;jjlL•ru, (:,,I i 1 urn 1a 93422 i 6 APN 31-381-35 Kirkendall, J.J. & E.W. 180 Island /2 cv,7 p) Morro Bay, California 93442 O r 7 APN 31-381-36 McMurray, N.C. & M.J. et al 7995 Santa Rosa C7 `1-7 Atascadero, California 93422 Z l 8 APN 31-381-41 Romero, Lucille R. et al 8015 Santa Rosa 3 Atascadero, California 93422 2134- 9 APN 31-381-43 Pesenti,V.P. & T.R. et al 9490 Marchant Avenue Atascadero, California 93422 �� 2-C70 r 10 APN 31-381-44 Odell, William R. & Moneata 8005 Santa Rosa �L 7 Atascadero, California 93422 11r APN 31-381-46 1'I�ill i{�5, W. H. & It.L. ;-7 P. 0. Box 597 — Atascadero, California 93423 d\ \ ' NARCIANT SEWER ASSESSMENT DISTRICT, pale 2 Preliminary R()11 Number Owner Assessment 12 APN 31-381-51 Lownes, C.R. & C.M.' C?o 9550 Marchant Avenue Atascadero, California 93422 13 APN 31-381-52 Pierce, C.K. & D.N.. 7 1979 Ninth Street 7OC)() c Los Osos, California 93402 ' 14 APN 31-381-53 Riesau, Shirley M. Z S 9570 Marchant Avenue Atascadero, California 93422 ' 15 APN 31-381.-55 Hay, Harold R. 2424 Wilshire Boulevard /3 �-j 3d Los Angeles, California 90057 ' 16 APN 31-381-56 Moser, E. T. & D.M. - 7975 Santa Rosa 17 APN 31-381-59 Templeton Saloon Limited c/o J. Doherty y5 2015 Vineyard Templeton. California 93465 18 APN 31-381-60 Montague, Jack D. & Shirley M. 79 13415 Forty-first Street r 43f� Yuma, Arizona 85365 19 APN 31-381-61 Edwards, E.C. & L.A. I� 8035 Santa Rosa 7 .700 2 V4 Atascadero, California 93422 20 APN 31-381-62 Ma-v, Floyd B. 8025 Santa Rosa 7 S4 Atascadero, California 93422 21 APN 54-151-18 Doerfler, G.L. & j. 1. 38 8040 Santa Rust C: Atascadero, California 93422 j �- IIS h1AIKCIIANT SI-.WE.R ASSLssm wr I1 o-rtza i,, p0ge 3 Preliminary Kofi Number Owner Assessment 22 APN 54-151-18 Moench, K.L. 8030 Santa Rosa 14 � /►J 3 Atascadero, California 93422 23 APN 54- 15_-23 Bunton, Harry Jr. & Maria A 2�p y�'', � �.�� 2-75 7 8050 Santa Rosa A9 Atascadero, California 93422 1 24 APN 54-151-27 Duvall, Bryan P. & Patricia E. 96P. 0. Box 625 �0� ' Atascadero, California 93423 25 APN 54-151-28 Sutton, Everett E. & Alberta 8000 Santa Rosa ?(rte Atascadero, California 93422 26 AFN 54-151-47 Tnpham, Barton H. & Michele R. Z 7984 Santa Rosa 4-4 `- Atascadero, California 93422 ► 27 APN 54-151-48 Deschutes Development Company c/o W. Warner Z P. 0. Box 1302 Santa Maria, California 93454 ` 28 APN 54-151-49 Peyton, Robert E. & Katherine g' 75 7988 Santa Rosa 2-01��� Atascadero, California 93422 ` 29 APN 54-151-50 Nelson, R.E. & E.G. 8070 Santa Rosa Atascadero, California 93422 i 30 APN 54-151-51 Nelson, Ronald E. & Ella C. 8070 Santa Rosa IU 2- -Z - Atascadero, California 93422 31 APN 56-351-14 Mongolo, W.T.& L.A. P. 0. Box 1294 Atascadero, California 93423 - n MARCHANT SEWER ASSESSMENT DISTRICT. page 4 Preliminary Roll Number Owner Assessment 32 APN 56-351-18 Duty, Z.J. 8092 Santa Rosa S� /1� Z 51 Atascadero, California 93422 33 APN 56-351-22 Taylor, G.C.& G.D. P. 0. Box 2229 1� �Q� �(,�4- Atascadero, California 9342.3 � 34 APN 56-351-26 Williams, G.R. & D.H. P. 0. Box 484 s�3z -- Atascadero, California 93423 35 APN 56-351-27 Berndt, E.F. et al c/o C Herman P. 0. Box 1079 /Q azo ¢36,0 IS Atascadero, California 93423 / 1- '36 AFN 56-351-36 Gaskell, Alberta S. et al r. n. Box 2018 Atascadero, California 93423 37 APN 56-351-37 Dykstra, Matthew H. et al 4-z- 246 Longden Drive �3 �76 Arroyo Grande, California 93420 t 38 APN 56--351-41 Lalande, Aime P. 0. Box 1539 Q, Atascadero, California 93423 39 APN 56-351-42 Lyon, George P.M. & Bonnie L. 2325 El Camino Real 127 AJO Atascadero, California 93422 40 APN 56-351-43 Mulder, Cornelis D. & Gerry A. 8250 Sant Rosa /22 ViV0 Atascadero, California 93422 MARCHANT SEWER ASSESSMENT DISTRICT, page 5 Preliminary Rall Number Owner Assessment yr 44- APN 31-381-47 Thompson, Alvin H. 44 307 Vista Trucha go 307 I � — Newport Beach, California 92660 APN 54-151-41 Smith, George M. & Maskow3..'�-� 7960 Santa Rosa Atascadero, California 93422 9 �1 �Z APN 54-151-43 Andrews, M.L. & M.A. 7950 Santa Rosa Atascadero, California 93422 Z .3 �+ 43 APN 31-381-23 City of Atascadero 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, California 93422 1 r. low z lu iz ,r IL e Z to a Q •; � �$)O �� • 0.1 .'.:r Q lu L ii Q ® O v; I " 9C ii � Z y ..r� y !{� • Q d o a �� l m R � � (JIB � I • r oj" r !1 ` I fr <�!�l � 'sl a � I � • a /' • n ° OS , � U �/ FSU 't' i' c� ' 0 j O> Ulp� V `�jF II• t, J o r 7nHi�d 1r N31�p F i i F; MARCHANT SEWER ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 75FA/A, Preliminary Roll Number Owner Assessment ($) 1 APN 31-381-07 Stubbs, E. et al 9450 Marchant Atascadero, California 93422 1,939.81. 2 APN 31-381-07 Kirkendall, J.J. & E.W. 180 Island -Morro Bay, California 93442 1,436. 89 3 Kelley, F.A. 9480 Marchant Avenue Atascadero, California 93422 1 ,293.20 4 APN 31-381-20 Little, E.H. & Arlys 9530 Marchant Avenue Atascadero, California 93422 1293.20 5 APN 31-381-32 • Reeves, E.G. & M.E. 9500 Marchant Avenue Atascadero, CaliFornin 93422 1 ,867.96 6 APN 31-381-35 Kirkendall, J.J. & E.W. 180 Island Morro Bay, California 93442 2,083.50 7 APN 31-381-36 McMurray, N.C. & M.J. et al 7995 Santa Rosa Atascadero, California 93422 1,580.58 8 APN 31-381-41 Romero, Lucille R. et al 8015 Santa Rosa Atascadero, California 93422 1580.58 9 APN 31-381-43 Pesenti,V.P. & T.R. et al 9490 Marchant Avenue Atascadero, California 93422 1 ,652.43 10 APN 31-381-44 Odell, William R. & Moneata 8005 Santa Rosa Atascadero, California 93422 1,796. 12 11 APN 31-381-46 Phillips, W.R. & R.T.. P. 0. Box 597 Atascadero, California 93423 1,293.20 MARCHANT SEWER ASSESSMENT DISTRICT, page 2 Preliminary Roll Number Owner Assessment 12 APN 31-381.-51 Lownes, C.R. & G.M. 9550 Marchant Avenue Atascadero, California 93422 1,221.36 13 APN 31-381-52 Pierce, C.K. & D.N. 1979 Ninth Street Los Osos, California 93402 1,149.51 14 APN 31-381.-53 Riesau, Shirley M. 9570 Marchant Avenue Atascadero, California 93422 2,299.03 15 APN 31-381.-55 Hay, Harold R. 2424 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90057 2,227.68 16 APN 31-381-56 Moser, E.J. & D.M. 7975 Santa Rosa Atascadero, California 93422 1 ,867.96 17 APN 31-381-59 Templeton Saloon Limited c/o J. Doherty 2015 Vineyard Templeton. California 93465 1 ,005.83 18 APN 31-381.-60 Montague, Jack D. & Shirley M. 13415 Forty-first Street Yuma, Arizona 85365 1,077.67 19 APN 31-381-61 Edwards, E.G. & L.A. 8035 Santa Rosa Atascadero, California 93422 1 ,293.20 20 APN 31-381-62 Mav, Flovd B. 8025 Santa Rosa Atascadero, California 93422 1 ,580.58 21 APN 54-151-18 Doerfler, G.L. & J. I. 8040 Santa Rosa Atascadero, California 93422 15,302.91 MARCHANT SEWER ASSESSMENT DISTRICT, page 3 Preliminary Roll Number Owner Assessment 22 APN 54-151-18 Moench, K.L. 8030 Santa Rosa Atascadero, California 93422 5,675.73 23 APN 54-151-23 Bunton, Harry Jr. & Maria A 8050 Santa Rosa Atascadero, California 93422 4,310.68 24 APN 54-151-27 Duvall, Bryan P. & Patricia E. P. 0. Box 625 Atascadero, California 93423 14,297.09 25 APN 54-151-28 Sutton, Everett E. & Alberta 8000 Santa Rosa Atascadero, California 93422 4,310.68 26 AFN 54-151-47 • Topham, Barton H. & Michele R. 7984 Santa Rosa Atascadero, California 93422 7,256.31 27 APN 54-151-48 Deschutes Development Company c/o W. Warner P. 0. Box 1302 Santa Maria, California 93454 7,543.69 28 APN 54-151-49 Peyton, Robert E. & Katherine 7988 Santa Rosa Atascadero, California 93422 3,376.70 29 APN 54-151-50 Nelson, R.E. & E.G. 8070 Santa Rosa Atascadero, California 93422 9.,267.96 30 APN 54-151-51 Nelson, Ronald E. & Ella G. 8070 Santa Rosa Atascadero, California 93422 7,471 .84 31 APN 56-351-14 Mongolo, W.T.& L.A. P. 0. Box 1294 Atascadero, California 93423 5,96_31 '. J MARCHANT SEWER ASSESSMENT DISTRICT.. page 4 Preliminary Roll Number Owner Assessment 32 APN 56-351-18 Duty, Z.J. 8092 Santa Rosa Atascadero, California 93422 6,034.95 33 APN 56-351-22 Taylor, G.C.& G.D. P. 0. Box 2229 Atascadero, California 93423 3,664.08 34 APN 56-351-26 Williams, G.R. & D.H. P. 0. Box 484 Atascadero, California 93423 4,095.15 35 APN 56-351-27 Berndt, E.F. et al c/o C Herman P. 0. Box 10/9 Atascadero, California 93423 3, 161 .17 36 AFN 56-351-36 ' Gaskell, Alberta S. et al P. n. Box 2018 Atascadero, CaJifornia 93423 8,836.89 37 APN 56-351-37 Dykstra, Matthew H. et al 246 Longden Drive Arroyo Grande, California 93420 10,058.25 38 APN 56--351-41 Lalande, Aime P. 0. Box 1539 Atascadero, California 93423 18, 176.70 39 APN 56-351-42 Lyon, George P.M. & Bonnie L. 2325 El Camino Real Atascadero, California 93422 22,631.07 40 APN 56-351-43 Mulder, Cornelis D. & Gerry A. 8250 Sant Rosa Atascadero, California 93422 20, 116.50 MARCHANT SEWER ASSESSMENT DISTRICT, page 5 Preliminary Roll Number Owner Assessment 41' APN 31-381-47 646.60 ,4APN 54-151-41 3,233.01. �Z APN 54-151-43 5;029. 13 l MEMORANDUM • TO: City Council November 12, 1985 VIA: Mike Shelton, City Manager 0_ , FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director .- Paul Sensibaugh, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Appeal by Gary Mulholland of the ten foot sidewalk require- ment for an RMF/16 project at 5550 Traffic Way RECOMMENDATION Denial of the appeal. BACKGROUND: On January 7 , 1985 , the City Planning Commission approved a 32 unit apartment complex on slopes greater than 30% at the subject location (see attached maps) . The zoning ordinance requires curb, gutter, and sidewalk for projects in RMF/16, multiple family zones with standards as required by the City Engineer . In this instance, a ten foot side- walk was required and Mr.Mulholland is appealing that requirement as permitted under Zoning Ordinance Section 9-4.159 (h) "Any person ag- grieved by the requirements of this Section shall have a right of appeal to the City Council. . . . " (see attached letter of appeal) . The applicant is requesting consideration of a six foot sidwalk. ANALYSIS: As indicated in the attached memorandum from the City Engineer , there has been a standing policy to require ten foot sidewalks along Traffic Way in this area across from an industrial zone where walks have his- torically not been required. There is approximately 8/10th of a mile of multiple family zoning extending from San Jacinto to the downtown area on the west side of Traffic Way. As noted in the City Engineer ' s memorandum, the higher standard sidewalk was determined appropriate due to high density residential development, student access to the junior high and Lewis Avenue Elementary schools, as compensation for the industrial side of the street not having a sidewalk, and due to traffic speed on Traffic Way. Enclosures: Letter of Appeal - October 11, 1985 Site Location Map Site Plan Revised Grading Plan • cc: Gary Mulholland E M O R A N D U M • TO: PAUL SENSIBAUGH 41 FROM: ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: APPEAL OF 10 ' SIDEWALK DESIGN STANDARD ON TRAFFIC WAY THE CITY OF ATASCADERO PUBLIC WORKS AND PLANNING DEPARTMENTS CAME TO A JOINT AGREEMENT, 4 YEARS AGO, CONCERNING THE SIDEWALK WIDTH OF TRAFFIC WAY BETWEEN OLMEDA AND ROSARIO AVE. IT WAS DECIDED THAT FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS A TEN FOOT SIDEWALK IS NOT ONLY JUSTIFIED BUT NECESSARY TO CONDUCT FOOT TRAFFIC SAFELY ALONG TRAFFIC WAY. 1. THE EAST SIDE OF TRAFFIC WAY IS INDUSTRIAL AND HAS NO SIDEWALKS AS WELL AS NO REQUIREMENT FOR SIDEWALKS. 2. HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY ZONING ON THE WEST SIDE} OF TRAFFIC WAY WILL BE GENERATING SUBSTANTIAL FOOT TRAFFIC ONCE IT IS FULLY DEVELOPED. 3. THERE ARE MANY CHILDREN WHICH ALREADY WALK THIS WAY TO GET TO AND FROM THE JUNIOR HIGH AND LEWIS AVENUE ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS. 4. THE SPEEDS AT WHICH VEHICLES TRAVEL ALONG TRAFFIC WAY ARE SUCH THAT WE WANT TO PREVENT PEOPLE FROM WALKING IN THE ROADWAY AT ALL COSTS. THIS INCLUDES WALKING AROUND OTHER PEDESTRIANS, BICYCLES, FIRE HYDRANTS, ETC. WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY DENIED A SIMILAR REQUEST, ALSO ON TRAFFIC WAY AT THE CORNER OF ROSARIO, FOR THE IVERSON PROJECT. FOLLOWING IS A LIST OF PROJECTS THAT HAVE EITHER BEEN CONDI- TIONED TO INSTALL OR HAVE ALREADY INSTALLED A TEN FOOT SIDEWALK. ADDRESS APPLICANT 5070 TRAFFIC WAY installed JACK ERB 5020 TRAFFIC WAY installed GENE WHITE 5700+TRAFFIC WAY installed G.D. SPRADLIN 5400 TRAFFIC WAY installed JOE HAFLER 5690 TRAFFIC WAY approved plans DR. MORGAN 5350 TRAFFIC WAY approved plans GARY MORITZ 5000 TRAFFIC WAY approved plans IVERSON RES. CARE ? TRAFFIC WAY conditioned projects HAMLIN (MOBILE 5550 TRAFFIC WAY conditioned projects GARY MULHOLLAND INDUSTRIAL SIDE OF TRAFFIC WAY - NO SIDEWALKS SLOCO MEAT COMPANY ICE HOUSE corner of Via MINI STORAGE �y �' a,I13ZI ,a E epar t� on > yCA "A IN, Miap:NO *> e 7 ,/\KIN9£y/ a_ ,[f \'✓ S'o .x`11 Aip/�4 'Al • ♦ } O�+Q�• � �N /�i. `��`�t:�*�:,`C q4;i�'"E`j0� '•� �\ t,e•i.,t`1 i�I-�P / L°.,.w.+�y � ti •lr tt •..Q+,> � i'°�/ �C r;,` `�`.7/�.>>'3!ay^-N(�l_';3,�Jl srJ.� � �\. sem. s t \g #���`.a r,. /, ..i�a� ��\"�i, �,T\\�/�'S\•�;,���^�"y�i•�``i{��t�Z�s�/"/r��vl�":�\�+ %`'�.Z�A `"�,- ':,+'•� .a.sss ,7 ?i• t 2 /` "V-- f ;, �.rr ,s \,tcq,�� 'ya2�,�. '^ rL.>•f :•-•,� - ��'`�-'TsO�y o�� !��.r\ ^r s tTrs �''r/•.. 3 NpO�\`C\ ��.r�rj� its a! red»a _ �� r )♦ __•.�.�< � e r.'Z t� -+.is ,e [• 5r\ 3•S, -� Q 's,,; r s _ 2`•... r, lirY. sqs/ a •y �t '•a \ \ 3.. =� KF ` 7 S/� �..�.° `' j � �\Fy ��,. Tt 3 4>,' ay, s \ •rT�a��•i• `�-.a�,\ a `i•�'T� ri.�a a�+>ss �\ rias++ :a s 1+ r / ,�'h SsR->"/�s,,� a- �° ° S� •L i`.S `\V\ •'Alps!-L�aj s� _ a•�:a �,�r -.> .',. t - s kr' r�,r �.•T'•'y i ' •� - • '• •�• \'i` ,t= c "t:'� \ (,5. .•ros s j -La / -r• a ,a xI +,e `j>t �t- 5 L-a3 y�. •sef - . �' /_•T•.. �r''L�'� '�;��?- nY_y a /•itri.;c>� ra� ��\\ \\\'sY �k�{ 1:�, a��•12 �-�T. lis-a or 1 T r. Ys �est �! 'as• t�O ani a / \ \`. i }\;.- ya LI a 1S/ t a ,ea y+D O..l1',.. < ,(/ -� to/�.o•. 1,1 \` \,•d�,S\ 1r3 �'�,o�a'.� iza re t Jeaay > c ,'nw.s "er ve F , 'tso �r�:.'_d,��t• s ` Z?1� RSF_ �;, }e> .>. r :tt / rf i +ie'y'-ei�_ry , �✓ �� 4 f ,�. r \ r_1 1 `A l:s�� ,.o ta. f/j�`��•.>s/s r• l(yy sLsi/ ti,j^�� r\� S.. \( �l \� �[ ( v y.i� . �':� i'`'i i.�.,``� �+•"•Ix�� .>��"/�4�'d\ Y\',. �s tJ .'?• s. •'f\ \Y� �✓feeGe:l�':.5: 3� ,i-_g >:1,,,,c �.� J ,r•rb>]. ,� �_.1 r. '>br St 1"I", _Q_ a 3�•c.4� I ,\`1\c, a�/ay' --_ \. uo- l4 900 •n^ Il aa\°y �.'•"'� \ - -j�h• C 1 ti T•� X ♦ . /`/y J�• e 'r' •ai L �\t[tr/�F� �/�•� .y__C1s_a nY»aV•' .j.+c y'\ •L��'7711I1 - t° �♦J � � CJ �/-f rI�rI•, � �r �� t� �� �' �r�t �,',\X�`�� • >n^ •.r �..c✓ ✓: G � �aas j1•Vr<rw Y�( .•aam s��tii-:f.�.� at$,r �,ts\ r•a'P ,a .e- y�.\� ��\) 1 � 2`? r a f rT( ,N ` = t t w �! SLP • u �'/ \>�m - �r k. 5't2 �f (• !' •.. �' w �ti ` � 1..w r s Mlo°.~ror to ,�•t1rw�a ,!/ s:h.:. r��' .'• p� •i�/�P.••'1�.' -_ _ s•'�J• y ..'n'" >t' ioaq � /� lL_�.» Ml t^ �i{. � a -{ � `•.>��:� Y `i' >• �..•G •s%.�� � '�y. ,,at* /ac°'^. •ao ra ��.L' 7 .�'`- "i /"lt`,'.����• \°}1 n � - i :!� s�.: a 4 g aw a.'., s,l. .i+^ oe tt•, rn, <� _ e'La aS- �` ..,a '•/7e !a�a�`%'�- ' G•'� ,,;`;'� '/��'yy -.yi �`� _3 o,• swst'-' i,� do :%�° - I "'- .�•i.�/s�°� :ss'� \\\�� . v�r .r:✓ \'IC= }^`„s >°ate ae� _ �• ' ,,o •/s s°`sa.! � I,q r: �`;\ 4, �J" t •.i [ r ~ ,a'va sog •ia •' �c�rjJ+-..t.t 't r t� r'l� �a sse'a�s�r°•'o�� w,*�tib - LJ!- ' •�5� �✓'• >z c��[n�a>'�'. �„ Ift �ri4 ��s,( ,��0 4s .� �t��� '�nr•a ��`�>- [. - . fX Ka:J`�.,., '1''r^; r• c ��r zK a:or =,��*•,i/*�� r,�s ;o 'D qr :> '.��'k �M )./a"r° .,�`, •• Ir nnL]j....// "� . `-.� r �.:> ��`jQ '� �"1-g:.7j v�,�3r r .., '>, �•'•�,§� ;,�r't'yl�' ��90 s?t - r`�p� • ,. +�• �/ , ` (�SAs�' �.-•2' �r.,.^r�V'�1�� i{G •�•�^'m r.'f3° r vy, na �Pr♦s.�t'f/>>oTLF t\s 1Q Tse, �h ].'a '_'�s._ar •.'y/J/`.[ .'-,,f •> Sia qa - `'' `.s �-+..L} X• w.. -+L Sa na �szi�".0 8� 4,se �� t/` L�,i''fF-',�.. r as:YS r4`c`�� ^F ^ �x'�i11 t./:� t�'•'• :.=o ;�, is e'L\ll ,�\.cya .'"•%�t :� . .:..� � !� ��� ,fit y^- � f; O '� >j1 s t�`t szLSS •q-,�! szs � �- \ t 1 �` t - ✓t d�wb�, �.far Es( /'`'•TL�7-4i'�' -`est T ��,•5 s;zS� 1T "a syr 3ty,•,i 3,♦`�//� ? � \ �'�� .. al, •a i.t• !•>��s>x}� '��[� q,a�y f,•?'° » S s s,.i^,boy ro ,zaa -' t Nti '��/ 'Sj �..Lr<.f' �`)f 's � .f .r �•� i '• � ,T u l:• � ! `y� .,t. ,moi` , •/•� tT'b J?` Y(lC• ��.ady ,i•d , =) ..w ,T 'til t5 aLt.� se t... 11_S ` sf`'a, A� h.`�'/;�ti,3 '>,'� S� _.�9�.. �\ „�� ,, �Krr' ra• " ,5,w Lk�tea .t s,a � ��s/ � - - .c;.• E`�7,•. ..1'31—i',T-C3 � Y\� \.. (' •Ca`'•�as� N t � `1t_ r••, IF tt\ '�; C I R� � �1' '�\\\° 3� ` -+'a'-''� 1/'^r s •rr . a•-�. t ��'77 t .��Fi�,��';t _ ra..lS `� q'' 91'. dna sr _s'`w. •ry'r�/ '� J,� a 7• - - 0 ' ��t.jt,>� �[rF:" ���.�...a\ � Zl1 i�� (,Y s'�y\�J�a�.r>^.fL. j\��.. •.a>�Sti \ a s\F" :.t=s��� !� �,� .n"\�-r?a tta''�l^ 3,.. ao I`Ft'A,nsi`a , ""- ,•a�'�1r�q° r�1 / \f�•/� Gl '�/ ••i,t �� S- ..�f.lo` (•+.t. S c, �/.�jf"�y - \ •rf� �iE ,(• 1,,-(` MGGA LT \t �j�;y_ t!� •5/ - a.r�t � � -/ CR a�.11e`-' ';' �tr,�i��r H� ��'.�/� a, �r-r`=r z •a,.s/�. / 1�(,�t♦���+.aa�'% e( Lam,. 3S, _�e� � RMF/16 • :\ �� � .� 1�\.4 j ry�.� ,�.���Jr�1�s..,r{-SYS. '�_7__�•> '.P�.4../`�"�:�/• \4i /ar••�;.\f o o ss�o I aw>b •,r�i. S /tI Gr �I-IIiT '' 3- ' .�,'„� •�+-.�^'` .$Ir ,C •'J�� �� '--Ar as IL1 *_Z5_611 PA•.r/'o%c p �;�,� ;�.+: X t�i,t`r'rs�1 +- ct �,:a'O CTn7• "„'�_�•t+,••r�+.;•r.��..'.. Ar�� - Jtt i,�IS-1- �.T`-.1 F•.+.a J1s w\ T,�F�' •=•,. 1.A � \ r '.hr-�-,'p-•< ��; �'•} ! i �'_ f V ...0 _.r. c•".”.�.'.";".rte. tl`r,rr,•.•r >�J/I�.Z.r�IL Ya�' ' �- 7 r. •.ill _f...�(:'•:••Y 4`-• .,e.. .`••`f,— RrrF/ro - E C Cr � •-- _ -1111b 'd•M0 li - '�� fflc Ms srct,3yJ 417 M.111 M«TJ'Ir•l/M.Y-M.s. wuwvaM I �I� _Do. w.v»-� 1 Ft %�'r • • I I _ I�� � Lpp ii ..u. OM1■11011 • N�� ���i. �111��� � Tr-fld 3t15 e Q 1 Y fir Y N N u 1 '1:' •4 v O J F- •1 .•� ' Q - In • )1 ;,. CIF i �� •. �'� �~/ 1, i � � � �' LLI -61 iVIt 1• ° � 1 B ,� •:•. .�, ;� �� `, `'.11'x+ F f � 1 1 1 - I - 1 4 I �•N �� 1 �I a ``..i � 1 i� � '�� ' 1 i 111 1 i _ ., .;. .. _ 1 , }•;;. •� o �.• .,��'•, ,� 111 1 ni z e I ( uj OA Zi 77 a A ! S"Y III i I W e 0 _jam✓ -s;_.;-.c.= a,.,�,.—�:..,. _ 4�� :' Z �` �''�, p,�\ �' �-s-'�`,\ �� I 11 1 r 1 ^-- r _r. \ \ \, \�\��•.('�\ �� - .i I;SII brm 'r /i�� it :\` t--`x. t. \ _ai \ \ \✓ \)\.fit ` C -ei \- \ �I _ t . tt � - rra_ 1'.'`--`� I ,.t..�r•Lt Y—_'-�...i(. 1 1 �\�\ l_ t 1'.t t\ o\\ \ \,Isb Q� - '� Pt- ylla ' I t I .5 - :- - - \ 1 1 't ;1�L� S 5 s Z7i•"5.t t"A'\ �t `-t : °5 frt Yi t f { .5.., � I : ,t t ' � EY 1 t � \•.�:I � \ m \ '� ` I Me ?r;lis1 °l` \ it It.i t� '' � ' (,, e�E , j•1"� , <\��� � ,/.,I _-�- - _�'',�- t � •�. ''��• , - -\ \ � {� Y. \\T tt i' � \a \ 11' 1111 II 1 m 2G a— � a I I• � I I I I I N 41 U I� ffi � �mm m m �T M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council November 12, 1985 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager G . FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Zone Change 6-85 LOCATION: City-Wide APPLICANT: Initiated by Planning Commission REQUEST: To revise the minimum lot size performance standards for- mula in the RS, RSF-Z and LSF-Z zones. Request also entails consideration of elimination of the 20% lot size reduction adjustment option. RECOMMENDATION: Adoption of Ordinance No. 113. BACKGROUND: On October 21, 1985, the Planning Commission conducted a public hear- ing on the above-referenced subject unanimously approving the amend- ment to the zoning ordinance as reflected in attached Ordinance No. 113. There was brief discussion among the Commission concerning this item. No public testimony was given. Enclosures: Staff Report - October 21, 1985 Draft Ordinance No. 113 Planning Commission Minutes Excerpt - October 21, 1985 HE:ps • 5) Generalized neighborhood character : This standard determines the average lot size of existing lots which are zoned for single family use within a certain radius from the subject property. Each of these five standards contains a breakdown of factors that are assigned from a worst case to best case (for development) basis. The sum of each of these lot size factors determines the minimum lot size. Adjustment to Minimum Lot Size: Under the zoning ordinance, the Planning Commission may reduce the minimum lot size determined by this section by an amount not to exceed 20% when considering an application for a land division. " (1) Application Requirements: A land division application, which requests the 20% adjustment, shall include the following, as well as any other information deemed necessary by an applicant to sup- port his request: (i) Proposed building sites, including average slope of the building sites; (ii) Proposed location of private sewage disposal system; (iii) Preliminary plan and profile of driveways including slope; (iv) Preliminary grading plan for building sites and driveways. (2) Required Findings: The Planning Commission shall approve an adjustment only if it finds that: (i) There are circumstances applicable to the property including shape, topography, location and surroundings which warrant use of specific site information rather than generalized area information in determining lot size. (ii) The specific site information submitted clearly demonstrates that the adjustment in lot size is warranted. (iii) The granting of the adjustment will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons, be materially detrimental to the public welfare, or be injurious to nearby property or improvements. This adjustment procedure is somewhat arbitrary in nature, and has be- come a routine request when conditions do not merit it. The intent of this reduction was to grant an adjustment when specific site informa- tion warranted it. This zone text change proposes to eliminate the 20% reduction and substitute specific site information on an individ- ual site basis. Q� Septic Suitability Factor : The Soil Conservation Maps used in determining septic suitability provide a broad perspective of soils in a particular area. They are not necessarily accurate on sites of less than ten acres. Over 95% of the soils in the Atascadero area are severe for septic suitability according to these maps. Percolation tests taken on individual sites often indicate a more suitable soil for septic systems, and many ap- plicants have submitted this information. In the past, staff has accepted these percolation tests as a part of the request for a 20% reduction. However, there are now five approved parcel maps which have incorporated the favorable percolation rates, in addition to the 20% reduction, in effect, amounting to greater than a 20% reduc- tion from ordinance standards. These decisions include Dunham (La Paz) , Peterson (San Gabriel) , Miller (San Marcos) , Cini (La Paz) , and Curtis (Atascadero Road) . At the July 15, 1985 meeting, the Commission approved Tentative Parcel Map 18-85 (Miller/San Marcos) and directed staff to prepare a 20% re- duction and accept site specific information in its place. This zone change is an attempt to clarify what has become a confusing situation for all. Impacts of the Zone Change: Substituting percolation tests for the Soil Conservation Services data is seemingly the only area where site specific information can be ap- plied. The factors of distance from the center of the community, average slope, condition of access, and general neighborhood character are clear-cut in nature. The major impact of this change will be to create larger minimum lot sizes in these areas. The five previously cited requests could not have been approved under this proposed new language of the ordinance because these approvals substituted percola- tion rates and were granted the 20% reduction. The minimum lot size in the RS (Residential Suburban) zone is 2 1/2 to 10 acres depending on the sum of these lot size standards. It is ap- parent that the intent of the ordinance is to assess the septic suita- bility factor a larger proportionate share of the total lot size. A severe rating yields a 1. 50 factor in an area where the minimum lot size is 2. 50 acres. This is more than half the total minimum lot size. Likewise, in the RSF-Z and LSF-Z zones, a severe rating is a factor of . 70 in an area where the minimum lot size is 1 1/2 to 2 1/2 acres. This nearly half the total minimum lot size. Staff will con- tinue to use the generalized soils data, but the new language will allow the substitution of favorable percolation rates. As shown in the following resolution and exhibit, the following lan- guage is proposed to be placed in the septic suitability factor sec- tion of the RS, RSF-Z, and LSF-Z zones: "Percolation tests may be substituted for the Soil Conservation Ser- vice Reports. These shall be prepared by a registered engineer or licensed sanitarian. The following conversion chart shall be used to determine the appropriate lot size factor: i 0 0 PERCOLATION RATING MINUTES PER INCH well-suited less than 20 moderate 20 to 39 slow 40 to 59 severe greater than 60 Staff feels that this change will result in less confusion by elimin- ating the 20% reduction possibility of the ordinance. Staff will con- tinue to use the Soil Conservation Service Maps, unless percolation rates are submitted. These are to be prepared by a registered civil engineer or licensed sanitarian and converted to a lot size factor using the previous chart. This further clarifies the standards to be used in determining lot size. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Zoning Ordinance Text Change 6-85 as con- tained in the attached draft ordinance to the City Council. DGD:ps ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Draft Ordinance Exhibit B - Zoning Ordinance Excerpt 0 ORDINANCE NO. 113 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT RELATIVE TO REVISING THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FORMULA IN THE RS, RSF-Z, AND LSF-Z ZONES (ZONE CHANGE 6-85) WHEREAS, the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment proposes stand- ards consistent with the General Plan as required by Section 65860 of the California Government Code; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment is in conformance with Section 65800, et seq. , of the California Government Code concerning Zoning Regulations; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment will not have a significant ad- verse effect upon the environment and preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not necessary; and WHEREAS, the Atascadero Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 21, 1985 and has recommended approval of Zoning Ordinance Text Change 6-85. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does ordain as follows: Section 1. Council Findings. After conducting a public hearing, the City council finds and determines that: 1. The proposed zoning text amendment would be in compliance with the City of Atascadero' s General Plan Housing and Land Use Elements. 2. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, the negative declaration granted the project by the Community Development Director is appropriate. Section 2. Zoning Text Change: Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment 6-85 is approved to change the text of the Zoning Ordinance to read as follows: 1. Section 9-3.144 (a) (2) (RS) is modified to read as follows: (2) Septic Suitability: Using generalized soils data from the Soil Conservation Service Reports, the lot size factor based on this performance standard shall be: SCS RATING LOT SIZE FACTOR Well suited 0. 50 Moderate 0. 75 Slow 1. 00 Severe 1. 50 1. Refer to map maintained in Community Development Department. Percolation tests may be substituted for the Soil Conserva- tion Service Reports. These shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer or licensed sanitarian. The following conver- sion chart shall be used to determine the appropriate lot size factor : PERCOLATION RATING MINUTES PER INCH Well-suited less than 20 Moderate or slow 20 to 39 Slow 40 to 59 Severe greater than 60 2. Section 9-3.144 (c) Adjustment to Minimum Lot Size shall be deleted. 3. Section 9-3. 154 (a) (2) (RSF-Z) is modified to read as follows: (2) Septic Suitability: Using generalized soils data from the Soil Conservation Service Reports, the lot size factor based on this performance standard shall be: SCS RATING LOT SIZE FACTOR Well-suited 0. 30 Moderate or slow 0. 50 Severe 0.70 1. Refer to map maintained in the Community Devlopment Department. Percolation tests may be substituted for the Soil Conserva- tion Service Reports. These shall be prepared by a regis- tered civil engineer or licensed sanitarian. The following conversion chart shall be used to determine the appropriate lot size factor : PERCOLATION RATING MINUTES PER INCH Well-suited Less than 20 Moderate 20 to 39 Slow 40 to 59 Severe Greater than 60 i 4. Section 9-3.154 (c) Adjustment to Minimum Lot Size shall be deleted. 5. Section 9-3.164 (a) (2) (LSF-Z) is modified to read as follows: (2) Septic Suitability: Using generalized soils data from the Soil Conservation Service Reports, the lot size factor based on this performance standard shall be: SCS RATING LOT SIZE FACTOR Well-suited 0. 30 Moderate or slow 0.50 Severe 0. 70 1. Refer to map maintained in the Community Development Department. Percolation tests may be substituted for the Soil Conversa- tion Service Reports. These shall be prepared by a regis- tered civil engineer or licensed sanitarian. The following conversion chart shall be used to determine the appropriate lot size factor : PERCOLATION RATING MINUTES PER INCH Well-suited less than 20 Moderate 20 to 39 Slow 40 to 59 Severe greater than 60 6. Section 9-3.164 (c) shall be deleted. Section 3. Publication. The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published once within fifteen (15) days after its passage in the Atascadero News, a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published and circulated in this City in accordance with Gov- ernment Code Section 36933; shall certify the adoption of this ordi- nance; and shall cause this ordinance and certification to be entered in the Book of Ordinances of this City. Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall go into ef- fect and be in full force and effect at 12:01 a.m. on the thirty-first (31st) day after its passage. On motion by and seconded by , the foregoing ordinance is hereby adopted in its entirety by the following roll call vote: AYES: I�� NOES: ABSENT: DATE ADOPTED: CITY OF ATASCADERO ROLFE D. NELSON, Mayor ATTES U�L= ROBERT M. JONES', City Clerk APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: MICHAEL SHELTON, City Manager A/PP/ AS O CONTENT: ROBERT M. , City Attorney PREPRED BY: HENRY ENGEN, Community Development Director 1 ADOPTED JUNE 27, 1980 (2) Business support services (3) Libraries and Museums EXE H3tt $ (4) Offices ZC_ - L _ F (5) Personal services RS (6) School - business and vocational 9-3 . 144. Lot Size. The minimum lot size in the Residential Sub- urban Zone shall be two and one-half (2 1/2) acres and may range_ up to ten (10) acres depending upon conformance with performance standards established in this Section. (a) Performance Standards: The following performance standards shall be evaluated for each lot in determining its minimum lot size. (1) Distance from the Center of the Community: Using the Atascadero Administration Building as the center of the Community, the lot size factor based on this performance standard shall be 1 DISTANCE LOT SIZE FACTOR 0 - 8000 ' 0 . 20 8000 ' -10 ,000 ' 0.25 10 , 000 ' - 12,000 ' 0.30 12,000 ' - 14 ,000 ' 0.40 14 , 000 ' - 16, 000 ' 0 . 50 16, 000 ' - 18 ,000 ' 0. 60 18 , 000 ' - 20, 000 ' 0.75 20 ,000 ' + 0 .90 1. To be measured as radial distance using map maintained in Planning Department. (2) Septic Suitability: Using generalized soils data from the Soil and Conservation Service Reports, the lot size factor based on this performance standard shall be: 1 SCS RATING LOT SIZE FACTOR Well suited 0 . 50 Moderate 0 .75 Slow 1. 00 Severe 1. 50 1. Refer to map maintained in Planning Department. DD LA All GyA G= C AND CHAk7 PCR 3-8 i ADOPTED JUNE 27, 1983 WIN (3) Average Slope: Using the Basic, Sectional or Contour Measurement Method, the lot size factor based on this performance standard shall be: SLOPE , LOT SIZE FACTOR 0 - 10% 0.50 11 - 20% 0.75 21 - 25% 1.00 26 - 30% 1.25 31 - 35% 1.75 36 - 40% 2.00 40% + 2.25 (4) Condition of Access: Using the road right-of-way with the shortest accessible distance between a lot and an improved collector road, the lot size factor based on this performance standard shall be: CONDITION LOT SIZE FACTOR City accepted road 0.40 paved road, < 15% slope 0.40 paved road, > 15% slope 0. 50 t , all-weather road. 0.75 < 15% slope all-weather road 1. 00 > 15% slope unimproved road 1. 25 < 15% slope unimproved road 1. 50 >. 15% slope (5) General Neighborhood Character : Using the average lot size of existing lots which are zoned for single family residential use (except that lots larger than 15 acres shall be excluded unless they constitute more than 25% of the total number of lots) within a 1500 foot ra- dius, the minimum lot size factor based on this perfor- mance standard shall be determined by multiplying the average lot size by 0. 2. (b) Determination of Minimum Lot Size: The minimum lot size shall be determined by the sum of each of the lot size fac- tors for the performance standards set forth in Subsection (a) of this Section. (1) The most current information shall be used to determine the lot size factor. - Where information is not avail- able, the Planning Director shall determine which lot size factor shall apply. 3-9 I�� ADOPTED JUNE 27 , 1983 (2) If more than one lot size factor can be applied to a .. lot, the less restrictive factor shall be used. (3) Lot size factors shall be based on conditions in exis- tence at the time of filing an application unless infor- mation is included with the application which will alter a lot size factor. L T (c) adjustment to Minimum Lot Size: The Planning Commission mai reduce the minimum lot size determined by Subse/�deemed ) of"his Section by an amount not to exceed 20% whenering,, an application for a land division. (1) pAplication Requirements: A land division apption, which requests the 20% adjustment, shallthe �911owing, as well as any other informatio necessary by an applicant to support his request: (i) Pro�osed building sites, including average slope of the 8u�ilding sites; i (ii) Propose location of private sewage disposal system; (iii) Prelminary an and profile of driveways including slope; �\ /�`. (iv) Preliminary grad-ing plan for `building sites and _ driveways. `\ (2) Required Findings: The 1alanning Commission shall ap- prove an adjustment only i it finds that: (i) There are circumstances pplicable to the property including shape, topography, location and surround- ings which warrant use of specific site information rather than generalized area information in deter- mining lot size. ." (ii) The specific site information submitted clearly demonstrates that the adjustment \in lot size is warranted. ( iii) The granting of the adjustment will riot adversely affect the health or safety of persons\,\ • be mater- ially detrimental to the public welfare ,, or be in- jurious to nearby property or improvements. ( iv) The granting of the adjustment will result in better utilization of the affected property. ` (v) The granting of the adjustment is consistent with the General Plan. 3-10 r ADOPTED JUNE 27, 198f • (d) killed Nursing Facility, where the number of residents under c e is greater than six (See Section 9-6 .134) (e) Resi ntial care, where the number of residents unde care is greate than six (See Section 9-6.135) (f) Organizati al houses (g) Pipeline (h) Bed and Breakfast (i) Caretaker residence ee Section -6.104) (j) The following uses where est lished in a residential struc- ture of historical imports a are satisfied. (1) Broadcasting stud.31:�(Os (2) Business support services (3) Libraries nd museums (4) Offices (5) ,_Personal Services ,(6) School-business and vocational �(k) Kennels (See Section 9-6 .111) R 5 F - 7 9-3. 154. Minimum Lot Size: The minimum lot size in the Residen- tial Single Family Zone shall be one-half (1/2) acre and may range up to two and one-half (2 1/2) acres. The size of a lot shall be consis- tent with the land use designation set forth in the General Plan and shall be indicated by the symbols set forth in the following chart, which shall be shown on the Offical Zoning Maps as provided by Section 9-3.104 (d) . SYMBOL MINIMUM LOT SIZE X one-half (1/2) acre y one (1) acre, when sewers are available one and one-half (1 1/2) acres, when sewers are not available Z one and one-half (1 1/2) to two and one-half (2 1/2) acres based on performance standards set forth in this Section. (a) Performance Standards: The following performance standards shall be evaluated for each lot which is appended with the "Z" symbol in determining its minimum lot size: �v (1) Distance from the Center of the Community: Using the 3-12 1 is+A ADOPTED JUITE 27, 190 Atascadero Administration Building as the center of the community, the lot size factor based on this performance standard shall be: DISTANCE LOT SIZE FACTOR 0 - 4000 ' 0. 08 4000 ' 6000 ' 0.10 6000 ' - 8000 ' 0.12 1. To be measured as radial distance using map main- tained in the Planning Department. (2) Septic Suitability: Using generalized soils data from the Soil and Conservation Service Reports, the lot- size factor based on this performance standard shall be: 1 SCS RATING LOT SIZE FACTOR well-suited 0.30 moderated or slow 0. 50 severe 0.70 `=ND Ct4,4K7- 14F%.' C 1. Refer to map maintained in Planning Departmen (3) Average Slope: Using the Basic, Sectional or Contour Measurement Method, the lot size factor based on this performance standard shall be: SLOPE LOT SIZE FACTOR 0 - 20% 0. 30 21 - 30% 0. 50 31% + 0.70 (4) Condition of Access: Using the road right-of-way with the shortest accessible distance between a lot and an improved collector road, the lot size factor based on this performance standard shall be: CONDITION LOT SIZE FACTOR paved with slope of 0. 15 less than 15% or City- accepted paved with slope of greater 0. 20 than 15% all-weather surface with 0. 25 slope of less than 15% all-weather surface with 0. 30 slope of greater than 15% �.J unimproved surface 0. 40 3-13 t • • ADOPTED JUPIE 27, 1983 (5) General Neighborhood Charac der: Using the average lot size of existing lots (except that lots larger than five (5) acres shall be excluded unless they con- L stitute more ,than 25% of the total number of lots) within a 1000 foot radius, the minimum lot size factor based on this performance standard shall be determined by multiplying the average lot size by 0. 2. (b) Determination of Minimum Lot Size: The minimum lot size shall be determined by the sum of each of the lot size fac- tors for the performance standards set forth in Subsection (a) of this Section. (1) The most current information shall be used to determine the lot size factor. Where information is not avail- able, the Planning Director shall determine which lot size factor shall apply. (2) If more than one lot size factor can be applied to a lot, the less restrictive factor shall be used. (3) Lot size factors shall be based on conditions in exis- tence at the time of filing an application unless infor- mation is included with the application which will alter a lot size factor. F (c) Adjustment to Minimum Lot Size: The Planning Commission may reduce the minimum lot size determined by Subsection of tnis Section by an amount not to exceed 20% when cons ' - ering `an application for a land division. (1) Appliddation Requirements: A land division app ica tion, which requests the 20% adjustment, shaXlinclude the following, as well as any other inform ion deemed necessary by�applicant to support his equest: (i) Proposed bur ding sites, including average slope of the buildiil� si ttest / (ii) Proposed location 'of privat-e/ sewage disposal system (iii) Preliminary. plan andpifile of driveways including slopes; / (iv) Preliminary grading plan for b_uilding sites and driveways. X X (2) Required Findings' The Planning Commission shall ap- prove an adjustment only if it finds that: -, (i) There ;are circumstances applicable to the"property inclkiding shape, topography, location and sur.round- ing"s which warrant use of specific site information_ rather than generalized area information in deter mining lot size. '\ 3-14 , t ADOPTED JUNE 27, 14 (i ' The specific site information submitted cle�x y onstrates that the adjustment in to a is war ted. (iii) The grantin the adjustment - il�f" 1 not adversely affect the healt r safet sof persons, be materially detrimental to the- blic welfare, or be injurious to nearby rop or improvements. (iv) The granting of-Ithe adjustment wig result in bet- ter utilization of the affected pro ' ty. (v) Th- ranting of the adjustment is consistent ' th e General Plan. /J 3-15 ADOPTED JUNE 27, 033 • (g) peline (h) Bed d breakfast ( i) Caretake residence (See Section 9-6.104) r (j) The following uses where established in a residential struc- ture of historical importance: 1 (1) Broadcasting studios (2) Business support--se - vices (3) Libraries ant? museums (4) Office (5) P sonal Services (6- School - b`[ `usiness and vocational L S I� — Z 9-3. 164. Minimum Lot Size: The minimum lot size in the Limited Residential Single Family Zone shall be one-half (1/2) acre and may range up to two and one-half (2 1/2) acres. The size of a lot shall be consistent with the land use designation set forth in the General Plan and shall be indicated by the symbols set forth in the following chart, which shall be shown on the Official Zoning Maps as provided by Section 9-3.104 (d) . SYMBOL MINIMUM LOT SIZE X one-half (1/2) acre Y one (1) acre, when sewers are available one and one-half (1 1/2) acres, when sewers are not available Z one and one-half (1 1/2) to two and one-half (2 1/2) acres based on per- formance standards set forth in this Section (a) Performance Standards: The following performance standards shall be evaluated for each lot which is appended with the "Z" symbol in determining its minimum lot size: (1) Distance from the Center of the Community: Using the Atascadero Administration Building as the center of the community, the lot size factor based on this performance standard shall be: 1 DISTANCE LOT SIZE FACTOR 0 - 4000 ' 0. 08 4000 : - 6000 ' _0..10 6000 ' - 8000 ' 0.12 1. To be measured as radial distance using map main- tained in the Planning Department. 3-17 i` ADOPTED JUNE 27, 1983 (2) Septic Suitability: Using generalized soils data from the Soil and Conservation Service Reports, the lot size factor based on this performance standard shall be: 1 SCS RATING LOT SIZE FACTOR well suited 0.30 moderate or slow 0. 50 severe 0.70 �r �� CI-f/� 1- 14L-�,; 1. Refer to map maintained in Planning Department. (3) verage Slope: Using the Basic, Sectional or Contour Measurement Method, the lot size factor based on this performance standard shall be: SLOPE LOT SIZE FACTOR 0 - 20% 0 .30 _ 21 30% 0.50 31% + (4) Condition of Access: Using the road right-of-way with the shortest accessible distance between a lot and an improved collector road, the lot size factor based on this performance standard shall be: CONDITION LOT SIZE FACTOR paved with slope of 0.15 less than 15% or City- accepted paved with slope of 0. 20 greater than 15% all-weather surface with 0.25 slope of less than 15% all-weather surface with 0.30 slope of greater than 15% unimproved surface 0.40 (5) General Neighborhood Character : Using the average lot size of existing lots (except that lots larger than five (5) acres shall be excluded unless they con- stitute more than 250 of the total number of lots) within a- 1000 foot radius, the minimum lot size factor based on this performance standard shall be determined by multiplying the average lot size by 0 . 2. j 3-18 AG ADOPTED JUNE 27, 1983 (b) Determination of Minimum Lot Size: The minimum lot size shall be determined by the sum of each of the lot size fac- tors for the performance standards set forth in Subsection (a) of this Section. (1) The most current information shall be used to determine the lot size factor. Where information is not avail- able, the Planning Director shal determine which lot size factor shall apply. (2) If more than one lot size factor can be applied to a lot, the less restrictive factor shall be used. (3) Lot size factors shall be based on conditions in exis- tence at the time of filing an application unless infor- mation is included with the application which will alter a lot size factor. 3 EL I- (_ (c) Adjustment to Minimum Lot Size: The Planning Commisssion ,� may reduce the minimum lot size determined by Subsection �) of this Section by an amount not to exceed 20o when cons 'd- ering\an application for a land division. i (1) Application Requirements: A land division app ca- tion,'\,which requests the 20% adjustment, shal include the following, as well as any other information deemed necessaryby an applicant to support his request: f (i) Propos8d building sites, including average slope of the iYuilding sites; j (ii) Proposed location of private sewage disposal system (iii) Preliminary plan and profile-of driveways including slope; (iv) Preliminary grading plan for building sites and driveways. X (2) Required Findings: The Plan ing Commission shall ap- prove an adjustment only if it'I,,finds that: (i) There are circumstances applicable to the property including shape, topography, location and sur- roundings which warrant use. of specific site infor- mation rather than generalized area information in determining lot size. (ii) The specific site information submitted clearly demonstrates that the adjustment in lot size is warranted. ( iit) The granting of the adjustment will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons, be mater- ially detrimental to the public welfare, or be / 3-19 i ADOPTED JUNE 27, 1983 Injurious to nearby property or improveme tee_ (iv) The granting o-€._the adjustment result in bet- ter utilization of``bhe, of ed property. (v) The granting o e adjustment Js`c nsistent with the Gener lan. 3-20 �; L. _,' C% TING DATE : 11/4/85 Now *NDA ITEM: A-1 MIN S - ATASCADERO PLANNING COMMISSION Regula Meeting Monday, ctober 21, 1985 7 :30 p.m. Atascadero Administration Building The regular m ting of the Atascadero Planni g Commission was called to order a 7 : 30 p.m. by Chairman LaPrad Commissioner Ken- nedy led the Pledge o Allegiance. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Comissioners Sanders, Hatch 1, Michielssen, Nolan, Bond, Kennedy, and Chairman P de ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Henry Engen, ommunity D velopment Director ; Doug Dav- idson, Ass ' tant Planner ; d Patricia Shepphard, Administ tive Secretary I A. CONSENT CALE AR 1. Appr Val of minutes of regular meeting of Octo r 7, 1985 2. onsideration of staff report for Lot Line Adjust nt 10-85 at 1200 Garcia Road - James and Sylvia Dulitz (Skirl Moore) Approval of Resolution No. 9-85 denying Conditional Use er- mit 16-85 —Gifford Construction (J.D. Brannon) MOTION: Made by Commissioner Bond, seconded by Commissioner Nolan and carried unanimously to approve the Consent Cal- endar as presented. B. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Zone Change 6-85 : Request initiated by Planning Commission to revise the mini- mum lot size performance standards formula in the RS, RSF-Z , and LSF-Z zones. This specifically involves the substitution of specific site information in the septic suitability factor instead of using generalized soils data; and to consider elimination of the 20% lot size reduction adjustment option. Doug Davidson presented the staff report on this proposed text change and pointed out that this change would affect three of the zones, and spoke briefly on the five criteria used in determining minimum lot size factors as well as the 20% adjustment reduction. E; W • Minutes - Planning Commission - October 21, 1985 Commissioner Nolan asked why the RS zone had four ratings wherein the the RSF-Z and LSF-Z zones only had three ratings. There was discussion concerning this. Commissioner Bond stated that the information contained in the staff report is what the Commission had requested. Chairman LaPrade opened the hearing to the public and there was no testimony given. MOTION: Made by Commissioner Hatchell, seconded by Commissioner Nolan and carried unanimously to recommend approval of Zone Change 6-85 as reflected in the draft ordinance. 2. Tentative Parcel Map 26-85 : Request submitted by Catherine Davis (Guy Greene, representa- tive) to allow division of 8. 7 acres into three lots of 2 acres each. Subject property is located at 8870 San Gab el Road, also known as a portion of Lot 11 of Block 33. Mr. avidson presented the staff report and summarized t history relate to this project wherein a previous application or a three way lot lit had been denied by both the Planning Co ission and City Cou il. Mr. Davidson pointed out that th 20% reduction which was r uested in the first application d subsequently denied had no been requested in the present pr osal. Guy Greene, repre enting the applicant, conc rred with the recom- mendation in the s ff report. He noted t at this new map, in its redesign, had taken to consideration t many concerns previous- ly expressed by the ar neighbors, an briefly addressed some of the particular areas of oncern whic included drainage, grading, and septic locations. Robert Brown, 8850 San Gabrie oted that he and other neighbors were pleased with the cre ity in this new lot split request and felt that the condition of a roval contained in the staff report would assure that e neigh b rs' concerns would be met. MOTION: Made by Commi sioner Bond, conded by Commissioner Michielssen nd carried unanimo ly to recommend approval of Tentat ' e Parcel Map 26-85 sub ' ct to the findings and conditi s contained in the staff r ort. C. PUBLIC CO, T There w no public comment at this time. D. IN VIDUAL ACTION AND OR DETERMINATION: 1. Planning Commission 2 • -- F� //Z M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council November 12, 1985 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director d-' Meg Morris, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ZONING ENFORCEMENT HEARINGS: NUISANCE ABATEMENT BACKGROUND: In August of 1985 , the City began a review of all unresolved enforce- ment cases involving potential health and/or safety hazards. Each of these cases had originated from a public inquiry. This City-wide review exposed twenty-three cases which, in their present condition, would warrant nuisance abatement action. Preliminary correspondence and additional review eliminated eleven of these cases. • The first posting of the "Notice of Public Nuisance" included twelve properties. Five of these cases were eliminated or placed on hold from a second posting due to site compliance or diligent progress. There are six properties which have been posted with the second "No- tice to Abate Nuisance" . These properties were posted since they did not show diligent effort towards progress in bringing their site into compliance with current zoning ordinances. This second posting sets a hearing date with the City Council on November 12, 1985 to review further necessary action. EXISTING REGULATIONS: Chapter 8 of the Zoning Ordinance provides the City with the authority to require the removal of such conditions as are determined to be a nuisance (refer to attached ordinance excerpt) . A nuisance is defined as: - any condition so declared by State law or city ordinance - any public nuisance at common law or equity - any condition dangerous to human life, unsafe, or detrimental to • the public health or safety - any use of land, buildings, or premises established, operated or maintained contrary to the provisions of this Title In the event a subject case has been rectified prior to this City Council meeting date, staff will provide the Council with updated in- formation and the case need not be heard as a public hearing. ENCLOSURES: Abatement Reports "A" through "F" Zoning Excerpt: Enforcement Section ITEM A: NUISANCE ABATEMENT - ENFORCEMENT CASE E:82-45 LOCATION: 1800 El Camino Real OWNER: Leonard Q. Brazzi DATE: November 12, 1985 PRE-HEARING COMPLIANCE: Based upon a site check conducted on November 4, 1985, it was deter- mined that the nuisance on this site had been abated and further action is not necessary. ITEM B: NUISANCE ABATEMENT - ENFORCEMENT CASE E: 85-66 LOCATION: 5985 Rio Rita (Formerly 2455 E1 Camino Real) OWNER: Michael Frederick DATE: November 12, 1985 CASE BACKGROUND: On July 8 , 1983, building permit #1605 was issued for grading to be done at 2455 E1 Camino Real to Jerry Frederick. Drawings and grading plan were prepared by Daniel J. Stewart. Grading and erosion control plans were required per Tentative Parcel Map AT 810930 :1. Work done on the site did not conform to approved issued plans. The parcel map and building permit have now both expired. Grading has been reviewed as part of a General Plan amendment initiated by Gordon Hilchey which has not proceeded since the applicant has not authorized the solici- tation of proposals for an E.I.R. A soils report and site visits have noted that erosion has occurred on the site and the existing situation of the fill has created an unacceptable situation of unstable soils. On June 25, 1984 , the City sent Mr. Jerry Frederick a letter which noted that grading done on the site was not in conformance with the approved, issued plans. The files show no documentation of Frederick contacting the City to address the problem. On August 7, 1985, Michael Frederick, now listed on the assessor ' s tax rolls as property owner , was mailed a certified letter citing the problem condition with his site. No contact by Frederick has occurred in response to this letter , nor have revised grading plans been sub- mitted to date. On September 10, 1985 , the site was inspected and posted with a "Notice of Nuisance" . This posting gave the owner until October 10 , 1985 to either bring the site ' s grading into conformance with orig- inal plans approved by the City, or by submitting revised grading plans capable of resolving the existing problems. A second inspection was conducted on October 24, 1985 and it was determined at that time that the situation remained unchanged. A "Notice to Abate Nuisance" was posted setting a hearing date for Nov- ember 12, 1985 before the City Council. Video camera pictures were taken the day of this posting. Staff ' s determination of the subject site as a public nuisance was based on the zoning ordinance guidelines and specifically Section 9-4.146 . rl�` FINDINGS: 1. The property located at 5985 Rio Rita is being maintained in a condition that is hazardous and in a manner which violates exist- ing zoning regulations which indicate grading which is performed in violation of City ordinances or the Uniform Building Code shall be deemed a nuisance. 2. Insufficient progress has been made to correct the nuisance. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the above findings, the Community Development Department recommends that the property be posted with an "Order to Abate Nui- sance" giving the property owner 30 days from the date of the notice to abate the nuisance conditions as follows: 1. Either reactivate original grading permits and bring the site' s grading into conformance with these approved plans, or regrade the site according to a City approved, revised grading plan. 2. Property owner shall also comply with zoning ordinance sections pertaining to sedimentation and erosion control, if applicable. The Community Development Department further recommends that the Com- munity Development Director be authorized to abate the nuisance at the property owner ' s expense if the above is not complied with as specified. Enclosure: Site Location Map �w� ifl i 3 311► ir.as � y$o5. yqo5 .82 ` f s 37 36J, 351 32 A 31 3020 32 2 f1! • S � ,' Pte; '' i ` �� pta o� i ' 9E367 -R10 '(Z..1 TA s ,0 LOC/kT! N 9' � Ar OWMEa: M fCRrTEL 44- It . 05 2 oy It YD 116 0 LA LA k dao Sg 9 leb S a ri Lp ti40 � SS6`so .. s:; A �. ITEM C: NUISANCE ABATEMENT ENFORCEMENT CASE E:85-102 LOCATION: 2100 E1 Camino Real OWNER: Del Rio Investments TENANTS: Phillip and Mary Simoneau DATE: November 12, 1985 CASE BACKGROUND: On September 13, 1982 the Atascadero City Council conducted a public hearing on a "Notice to Abate Nuisance" posted on property owned by Del Rio Investments and leased by Phillip and Mary Simoneau at 2100 E1 Camino Real. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Council determined and declared that the property was maintained in such a manner as to constitute a public nuisance. Staff posted an "Order to Abate Nui- sance" to be complied with by April 28, 1983. A satisfactory level of clean-up was eventually achieved. In August, 1985, staff re-opened the enforcement case at 2100 El Cam- ino Real due to the re-occurrence of the accumulation of discarded material and inoperative vehicles. A letter was sent to both the property owners and the tenants on August 7, 1985 requesting that they contact the City to discuss the accumulation of material on the prop- erty. Mrs. Theon Burt with Del Rio Investments contacted the City on August 14, 1985 and discussed working with the Simoneaus to remove the material being stored on the property. The site was inspected and posted with a "Notice of Nuisance" on Sep- tember 10, 1985 as no progress had been made in the clean-up of the site. Mrs. Simoneau phoned the City to say she was covering the cars with black plastic; she was told by staff that this action would not solve her problem and that she needed to remove material and cars from her site. This posting gave until October 10 , 1985 for the tenants and owners to remove the accumulated, discarded material from the site. A second inspection was conducted on October 24 , 1985 and it was determined at that time that the conditions still existed with little progress having been made to correct the condition. A "Notice to Abate Nuisance" was posted setting a hearing date of November 12, 1985 before City Council. Video camera pictures were taken the day of this posting. Mrs. Simoneau contacted the City after this second posting of the property and staff walked the subject site with her . Specific guide- lines for clean-up were discussed at that time. rill Staff ' s determination of the subject site as a public nuisance was based on consultation with the Fire Department and Environmental Health, as well as zoning ordinance guidelines. It was determined that conditions present on the site could cause hazardous conditions. FINDINGS: 1. The property located at 2100 El Camino Real is being maintained in a condition that is hazardous and in a manner which violates ex- isting zoning regulations which limit the amount of storage on residential property, thereby constituting a nuisance. 2. Insufficient progress has been made to correct the nuisance. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the above findings, the Community Development Department recommends that the property be posted with an "Order to Abate Nui- sance" giving the property owner 30 days from the date of the notice to abate the nuisance conditions as follows: 1. Reduce the exterior storage of discarded material, lumber and in- operable vehicles so that they do not occupy a land area greater than 200 square feet and which does not exceed five (5) feet in overall height. 2. Maintain said storage outside of required setbacks and screen it with a six (6) foot high fence if visible from the public street or adjacent property. The Community Development Department further recommends that the Com- munity Development Director be authorized to abate the nuisance at the property owner ' s expense if the above is not complied with as specified. Enclosure: Site Location Map n�. CD o s00 - , \ 6 FV lol � o:. � c o9. _ �' � 6a' 3 � �p ice• y' 00L� ,'•'. As Q ? iii:. '�+'�i �_. a \ rt Kx 2, 100 1 L C_A►tel IN O -OC-ATI I Q N4 OWNER: Dry !Zt0 imve-ST-M�NTS s \ i A t' S S \ TENH►,-r: S MO 1'4 EAU \ 078•x. J. s S \ fM 17. .r l . j oqc 6 4A pQ b 6'b NogT It' Oqb p co ITEM D: NUISANCE ABATEMENT - ENFORCEMENT CASE E:82-844 LOCATION: 4540 Hidalgo Road (APN: 28-042-03) OWNER: Walter Braffett, etal DATE: November 12, 1985 CASE BACKGROUND: In June, 1982, the City began enforcement actions with Mr . Walter Braffett, owner of the property located at 4540 Hidalgo Road. These actions were directed towards reducing the amount of accumulated mat- erial on the site. In August, 1985, the City re-evaluated this enforcement case. Site checks confirmed that there was excessive amounts of debris and dis- carded material on the site. On August 7, 1985 a certifed letter was mailed to Mr . Braffett citing the problem condition of the site. Mr . Braffett responded at that time and told the City he would be attempt- ing to clean up. On September 10 , 1985 the site was inspected and posted with a "Notice of Nuisance. " This posting gave the owners until October 10, 1985 to remove the accumulation of material from the site. A second site inspection was conducted on October 24, 1985 and it was determined at that time that the conditions still existed, unchanged. A "Notice to Abate Nuisance" was posted setting a hearing date of November 12, 1985 before the City Council. Video camera pictures were taken the day of this posting. Staff' s determination of the subject site as being a public nuisance was based on consultation with the Fire Department and Environmental Health Department, as well as as the zoning ordinance guidelines. It was determined that conditions present on the property could create hazardous conditions. FINDINGS: 1. The property located at 4540 Hidalgo Road is being maintained in a condition that is hazardous and in a manner which violates ex- isting zoning regulations which limit the amount of storage on residential property, thereby constituting a nuisance. 2. Insufficient progress has been made to correct the nuisance. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the above findings, the Community Development Department recommends that the property be posted with an "Order to Abate Nui- sauce" giving the property owner 30 days from the date of the notice � . to abate the nuisance conditions as follows: 1. Reduce the exterior storage of discarded material, lumber and in- operable vehicles so that they do not occupy a land area greater than 200 square feet of land area and which does not exceed five (5) feet in overall height. 2. Maintain said storage outside of required setbacks and screen it with a six (6) foot high fence if visible from the public street or adjacent property. The Community Development Director further recommends that the Commu- nity Development Director be authorized to abate the nuisance at the property owner ' s expense if the above is not complied with as specified. Enclosure: Site Location Map ' .�.,�;j�wc y3�rur t '�' ^�+..ai:t .j"' -_ ::tik t 1 •:- _y ` f r, .a.. ,-: t •Y a t,;+.t s kyr.Y14 C��,e Y tom' r P 4.... t r - / } r d1, i r �.t• 'i,.r-'�'ry a; ER� �: •+it-1� 1. i< a 4 1,7r �... y, .. `r � t}.? �p�' r � x {w 3 t^� ♦ �{ f 3: ;'i tr l Y 3M�r c F } S•tS-:27 Ct(yk�$ *' f ` t.-, tt' .». to*i� .1.d r,�• � ,. .-t �r.: .2 5 � �8�+ �3''. 1.k r`j�:�.: Sr rg.� r?'� •its" :`�1.t+ }i 1 r .rl,f.>~ y t d. `- x"Fr.. _ :< �a a' �.N �! 6Fe.', y5•cl ryr_�.,;t!•�rf !'t{�it••gr �' F.'a„�i jt,�. t '�.1� � Y-'.. r.r Yc!'G 4 ? >?'t 'a4Yfr.. _. i - - �,.�`�� .{ � +� y �r}"_w; r• .r � � _- � r 'R..� � ♦iii "�^.. t - .w J..,jt y r.i'� .['ie':. t �.. 1r � � + .. > >•..'.'" "•{ .rl,::;� �:: flr-•,. d.-1,. -wYnr�4� a#r.�F^}: k _4 i• '} �f, (J►�{�-�" 1(/�/ �--� DA L(vO �• i -r I o �4 t� • ` ;r r°C'�' ,v VYY��Gl�. WqL �Gwr�>� J n yr t 4 {,A. w �<, v�•, + - iJ(' 1'�. dS� .� valor. �y s '�., + Ak IF �' r'r�, r�� �la Yii sq t �i I,r+r� �• ; , -r �3�L,,�t ,'Y34.: }""C. F �{►y F � :nit � �' .� � '�" �- 7c"�- t• � '' r tx � 'r 4 ' �. � a ,fir. .> s ,.� >�� _''r '4•la��`(,+��} ? Y -,t�3 ��}}}} 4 �tJ� (u l t ;yr'•�. F.- s j��t���••'p K��K, �- � rF i� F.1. r�� -i+�,, �' � •.�` ' �c fi syyr• a: ` ` �.�� r Y�i.H• ,.; f +1 K.-.; � :�,j�.. f. '� L' -A. 1 �r �• t Y iipp '+}1A ♦d. -# � a _ � '" rg r Sir 5 r i}y,�'F"-+ ,ate'•, -7f/..T' ,, a., '��:`' -�•. ,�,� t� •r 1' ,�4 � ..� rya,: .`� r i. � t a 3 �7 r • Y ��t F'. �r^ � � - �M.. !. �Y rte• S '�r t'K:1�. s` S ).. r 0 r.PIA 14 r r � � 11 - ., 1• s w �cc Lia SSW • ids . .►l. - � �_ sac.- ITEM E: Nuisance Abatement - Enforcement Case E:81-75 LOCATION: 8555 El Corte (APN: 30-401-01 through 05) OWNER: William Poe DATE: November 12, 1985 CASE BACKGROUND: In 1981, the City began enforcement actions with a Mr . Bardi, then owner of the Santa Lucia Mushroom Farm located at 8555 El Corte. These actions were directed towards correcting discharge and drainage from the facility which posed a health hazard as well as violation of State Watercodes and laws. Enforcement actions also addressed the problem of the accumulation of solid waste on the site. The mushroom farm has ceased to be active; however , there still exists large amounts of solid waste and ebris as well as abandoned vehicles and dilipadated structures. In August, 1985, the City re-evaluated the enforcement case at 8555 El Corte. Site checks confirmed that there was excessive amounts of debris and discarded material at the site. On August 7, 1985, a certified letter was mailed to Mr . Poe, the new property owner , citing the unacceptable condition of the site. Mr. Poe agreed there was a problem and said there were plans for eventual clean-up. On September 10 , 1985, the site was inspected and posted with a "Notice of Nuisance This posting gave the owner until October 10, 1985 to remove the accumulation of debris and material from the site. At that time, Mr . Poe contacted the City and noted to staff that the site would be cleaned up by the end of the month. A second inspection was conducted on October 24, 1985 and it was determined at that time the conditions still existed. This inspection also discovered that there is a wholesale produce distributing busi- ness operating out of one of the structures on the site. As a result of this unapproved business, there are large amounts of fruits and vegetables being unproperly disposed of on the site. This situation was a blatant violation of health codes. A "Notice to Abate Nuisance" was posted setting a hearing date of November 12, 1985 before City Council. Video camera pictures were taken the day of this posting. Staff' s determination of the subject site as being a public nuisance was based on consultation with the Fire Department and Environmental Health Department, as well as the zoning ordinance guidelines. It was determined that conditions present on the property create hazardous conditions. FINDINGS: 1. The property located at 8555 El Corte is being maintained in a condition that is hazardous and in a manner which violates exist- ing zoning regulations which limit the amount of storage on resi- dential property, therefore, constituting a nuisance. 2. Insufficient progress has been made to correct the nuisance. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the above findings, the Community Development Department recommends that the property be posted with an "Order to Abate Nui- sance" giving the property owner 30 days from the date of the notice to abate the nuisance conditions as follows: 1. Reduce the exterior storage of discarded material, lumber, mach- inery, organic refuse and inoperable vehicles so that they do not occupy a land area greater than 200 square feet of land area and which does not exceed five (5) feet in overall height. 2. Maintain said storage outside of required setbacks and screen it with a six (6) foot high fence if visible from the public street or adjacent property. The Community Development Department further recommends that the Com- munity Development Director be authorized to abate the nuisance at the property owner ' s expense if the above is not complied with as specified. Enclosure: Site Location Map e!555 E CCFTL=� f TE LOCA 1-1 C,N ©WN Ek: Bi LL PCE N 0 gloo 0 ..\ O OL Y G�• �I o �� cP '' 6- � �`n dei ir 9 r' a w �e � 7r � `fit, P �� ` • v g� �D�1.1,' r OIL P w�° ✓ �� M ! e yL :ri•tP � ? 8 4v fo 00 i o g � Irl��'r?,��• �'1� •,� ��`�, � ~ 8 Q � � cp ITEM F: NUISANCE ABATEMENT - ENFORCEMENT CASE E: 81-116 LOCATION: 8405 Coromar OWNER: Harold Jr. and M. K. Sims DATE: November 12, 1985 CASE BACKGROUND: On December 19, 1984 the City received a complaint concerning a poten- tial zoning violation at 8405 Coromar Road owned by Mr . Harold Sims. Mr. Sims contacted the City and at that time, staff discussed with him the unacceptable condition on his site and the potential for nuisance abatement action if progress towards clean-up was not made. Mr . Sims said he was negotiating a move of his material and that he would have this information in writing to us within a week. The City received no further contact from Mr . Sims. The site was inspected and posted with a "Notice of Nuisance" on Sep- tember 10, 1985 and as no progress had been made towards the clean-up of the site. This posting gave until October 10 , 1985 for the owner to remove the accumulated, discarded machinery and material from the site. A second inspection was conducted on October 10 , 1985 and it was determined that the conditions still existed without any noticeable change. A "Notice to Abate Nuisance" was posted setting a hearing date of November 12, 1985 before City Council. Video camera pictures were taken the day of this posting. To date, there has been no contact from Mr . Sims. Staff' s determination of the subject site as a public nuisance was based on consultation with the Fire Department and Environmental Health Department, as well as the zoning ordinance guidelines. It was determined that conditions present on the property could cause hazard- ous conditions. FINDINGS: 1. The property located at 8405 Coromar }load is being maintained in a condition that is hazardous and in a manner which violates exis- ting zoning regulations which limit the amount of storage on resi- dential property, thereby constituting a nuisance. 2. Insufficient progress has been made to correct the nuisance. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the above findings, the Community Development Department recommends that the property be posted with an "Order to Abate Nui- sance" giving the property owner 30 days from the date of the notice to abate the nuisance conditions as follows: 1. Reduce the exterior storage of discarded material, lumber , mach- inery, and inoperable vehicles so that they do not occupy a land area greater than 200 square feet and which does not exceed five (5) feet in overall height. 2. Maintain said storage outside of required setbacks and screen it with a six (6) foot high fence if visible from the public street or adjacent property. The Community Development Department further recommends that the Com- munity Development Director be authorized to abate the nuisance at the property owner ' s expense if the above is not complied with. Enclosure: Site Location Map o ,le • ' J� 18y A tP �\Q � �' V hyo Vo`° p�P +'oma ' * •. 9-A s •� , do ir, s, h S 4 dd° / Qy� �Itry�1 'Q! 14\A / 13-C.10 lob , 5 t -FF 1-06 x4 -r l ON � p N r=c J R s.p, � N,F S i M v a qp � \ likkp �' 'mo25 o° to :'o C6 or IPy 9p 2L Y27 CIO /icel"a 61 28 9 to 34 00 � �1S''. r`' % th ''a6 4�.,/gyp �b P � � fir• r IZ \. Pit 31 m6 �� gr7s �s 9 TITLE 9 . .ZONING REGULATIONS Chapter 8. Enforcement. 9-8.101. Purpose: This Chapter establishes procedures for en- forcement of the provisions of this Title. The enforcement procedures set forth are intended to assure due process of law in the abatement or correction of nuisances and violations of this Title. 9-8. 102. Enforcement Responsibility: The responsibility for the enforcement of the provisions of the this Title is assigned as follows: (a) Atascadero Police Department: It is the duty of the Atas- cadero Police Department and of all officers of the City otherwise charged by law to enforce this Title and all itf provisions. (b) Enforcement Officer: The Planning Director, or designee of the Director, shall act as Enforcement Officer to enforce this Title and all its provisions. The Enforcement Officer has the following responsibilities and powers in the enforce- - ment of this Title: (1) To review with affected individuals the provisions of this Title through initiation of administrative remedies and other methods to achieve voluntary compliance with its provisions. (2) To issue citations for violations of this Title when he determines that voluntary compliance cannot be achieved. (3) To initiate all necessary proceedings to forfeit bond or cash deposits or similar guarantees. (4) To initiate proceedings to revoke approvals or condi- tional approvals granted under this Title. (5) To initiate and conduct nuisance abatement proceedings and to carry out additional abatement responsibilities regarding violations of this Title. 9-8 . 103. Citation: The Enforcement Officer may issue a citation to any person who violates any of the provisions of this Title. Issu- 1 ance of a citation shall be pursuant to Chapter4 of Title 1 of the Municipal Code (Citation of Violators) . Penalties for violation are ADOPTED JUNE 27, 1983 established by Chapter 3 of Title l of the Municipal Code (Penalty) Provisions) . 9-8.104. Enforcement Hearings: Hearings conducted for the pur- poses of revocation of approval or conditional approval, nuisance abatements, or appeals on the forfeiture of bonds shall be conducted as follows: (a) Hearing Body: A revocation hearing or forfeiture hearing shall be held before the Planning Commission; nuisance abate- ment hearings shall be held before the City Council. (b) Conduct of Hearing: The appropriate hearing body shall conduct an Enforcement Hearing as follows: (1) The hearing body shall hear sworn testimony and shall consider other evidence concerning the conditions con- stituting cause to revoke approval or conditional ap- proval, to forfeit bond, or to abate a nuisance. (2) Respondents to enforcement actions may be present at such hearing, may be represented by counsel, may present testimony, and may cross-examine witnesses. (3) The hearing need not be conducted according to technical rules relating to evidence and witnesses and may be continued from time to time. (4) The hearing body shall deliberate upon the evidence and make findings upon such evidence to support any action of the hearing body to revoke approval or conditional approval, abate a nuisance, or deny an appeal on the forfeiture of a bond. Thereafter, the hearing body shall issue its order to the respondent. (c) Notice of Hearing: Notices required under this Chapter shall be given by the Enforcement Officer as follows: (1) A copy of the notice shall be either served personally or by mail, postage prepaid, certified, return receipt requested, to the owner of the affected premises as shown on the last equalized assessment role, the permit- tee or tenant, a minimum of ten days prior to the hear- ing. If no address can be found or is known to the En- forcement Officer , then the notice shall be mailed to such person at the address of the premises affected by the proceedings. The failure of any person to receive the notice does not affect the validity of any proceed- ings taken hereunder. 8-2 ADOPTED JUNE 27, 1983 (2) A copy of the notice is to be prominently and conspic- N, uously placed upon the premises affected by the enforce- ment proceedings. (d) Content of Notice: Notices to revoke approvals or condi- tional approvals, abate- nuisances, or forfeit bonds shall contain the following: (1) A heading reading "Notice of Revocation Hearing, " "No- tice of Forfeiture Hearing, " or "Notice of Nuisance Abatement Hearing. " (2) A description of the violation which is causing the en- forcement action to be taken. (3) The date, time and place of the hearing. 9-8.105. Revocation of Approval and Forfeiture of Bonds: The Enforcement Officer may initiate proceedings to revoke the approval of any entitlement issued pursuant to this Title in any case where a use of land has been established or conducted in a manner which violates or fails to observe the provisions of this Title or to continuously comply with a condition, or conditions of approval. The Enforcement Officer may initiate procedures to forfeit all or a portion of a bond or cash deposit (Section 9-2.122 - Guarantee of Performance) . (a) Notification: The Enforcement Officer is to notify the property owner, permittee or tenant as provided by Section 9-8. 104 (Enforcement Hearings) . (b) Action to Revoke: If after the revocation hearing the Planning Commission finds that grounds for revocation have been established, the Planning Commission may: (1) Allow additional time to correct the violation or non-compliance. (2) Modify conditions of approval on the basis of evidence presented at the hearing; or (3) Revoke the approval or conditional approval. (c) Action to Forfeit Bond: If after the forfeiture hearing, the Planning Commission finds that grounds for forfeiture have been established, the Planning Commission may: (1) Allow additional time to correct the violation or non-compliance; or (2) Modify the conditions requiring the performance guaran- tee; or 8-3 `i ADOPTED JUNE 27, 1983 (3) Declare that the bond shall be forfeited. (d) Appeal: The decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed pursuant to Section 9-1. 111 (b) (Appeal Planning Com- mission Decisions) . Upon appeal, revocation or forfeiture does not take effect until affirmed by the City Council. In the absence of any appeal, a revocation or forfeiture is to take effect fourteen (14) days after the decision of the Planning Commission. (e) Use After Revocation: When any approval or conditional approval has been revoked, no further development or use of the property authorized by the revoked entitlement may be continued, except pursuant to approval of a new application. 9-8 . 106. Nuisance Defined: A nuisance is any of the following: (a) Any condition declared by a statute of the State of Califor- nia or ordinance by the City of Atascadero to be a nuisance. (b) Any public nuisance known at common law or equity. (c) Any condition dangerous to human life, unsafe, or detrimental to the public health or safety. (d) Any use of land, buildings, or premises established, oper- ated, or maintained contrary to the provisions of this Title. 9-8. 107. Abatement of Nuisance: The Enforcement Officer may initiate proceedings to abate nuisances (see Section 9-8.106) as follows: (a) First Notice of Nuisance: Upon the determination by the Enforcement Officer that a nuisance exists, a Notice of Nui- sance shall be prepared with copies thereof to be served either personally or by mail, postage prepaid, certified, return receipt requested, to the owner of said affected prem- ises as shown on the last equalized assessment role, or the tenant. If no address can be found or is known to the En- forcement Officer, then the notice shall be mailed to such person at the address of the premises affected by the pro- ceedings. The failure of any person to receive the notice does not affect the validity of any proceedings taken hereun- der. A copy of the Notice of Nuisance shall be prominently and conspicuously placed upon the premises affected by the nuisance proceedings. Where the Enforcement Officer has de- termined that the condition causing the nuisance is imminent- ly dangerous to human life or limb, or to public health or safety, the Enforcement Officer may include in the first notice an order that the property, building or structure af- fected be vacated pending correction or abatement of the con- 8-4 ADOPTED JUNE 27, 1983 ditions causing the nuisance. (1) Content of First Notice of Nuisance: (i) A legal description and street address, assessor ' s parcel number, or other description sufficient to identify the premises affected. (ii) A description of the condition causing the nui- sance. Where the Enforcement Officer has deter- mined that the condition causing the nuisance can be corrected or abated by repair or corrective action, the notice shall state the repairs or cor- rective actions that will be required and the time limit within which the nuisance must be corrected. (iii) An order to complete abatement of the nuisance ..,, within 30 days. (iv) A statement that if the nuisance is not corrected as specified, a hearing will be held before the Atascadero City Council to consider whether to order abatement of the nuisance and levy a special assessment, which may be collected at the same time and in the same manner as is provided for the col- lection of ordinary taxes pursuant to Section 25845 of the Government Code. Special assessments shall be subject to the same penalties, interest and pro- cedures of foreclosure and sale in the case of delinquency as is provided for ordinary taxes. (b) Notice of Nuisance Abatement: If, upon the expiration of the period specified in the First Notice of Nuisance, action to abate the nuisance has not been commenced, or, if it has been commenced, it has not been pursued with due diligence nor completed within the time specified, the Enforcement Officer shall prepare a Notice of Nuisance Abatement and serve such notice. The hearing shall be scheduled before the City Council at a stated time and place not less than 15 nor more than 30 days after service of the notice to show cause why stated conditions should not be found to be a nuisance and why the nuisance should not be abated by the Enforcement Officer. (1) Content of Abatement Notice: The Notice of Nuisance Abatement shall contain the following: (i) The information specified in Section 9-8 . 104d (l) • and (3) . ( ii) The information specified in Section 9-8 . 107a (1) (i) , (iii) , and (iv) . 8-5 ADO PTED JUNE 27, 1983 (c) Abatement Action: A decision to abate a nuisance shall be reached through a hearing (9-8.104 - Enforcement Hearings) . Upon the conclusion of the hearing, the Council may terminate the abatement proceedings or it may order the owner or other affected person to abate the nuisance prescribing a reason- able time (not less than 30 days) . for completion of abate- ment. The order may further provide that, in the event abatement is not commenced, conducted and completed in ac- cordance with the terms set by the City Council, the Enforce- ment Officer is empowered and authorized to abate the nui- sance. The order of the City Council shall be served by mail, postage prepaid, certified, return receipt requested to the owner of said affected premises as shown on the last equalized assessment roll. The time limits set by the City Council are to begin upon service of the notice. (d) Abatement Penalties and Costs: Upon expiration of the time limits established as set forth in Section 9-8 .107c, the En- forcement Officer shall acquire jurisdiction to abate the nui- sance and carry out the following as appropatie. (1) Disposal of Materials: Any materials in or constitu- ting any nuisance abated by the Enforcement Officer may be disposed of or, if directed by the Council, sold in the same manner as surplus City personal property is sold. (e) Account of Costs and Receipts and Notice of Assessment: The Enforcement Officer will keep an itemized account of the costs of enforcing the provisions of this Title and of the proceeds of the sale of any materials connected therewith. Upon completion of abatement, the Enforcement Officer shall prepare a notice to be served by mail, postage prepaid, cer- tified, return receipt requested, to the owner as shown on the last equalized assessment role specifying: (1) The work done. (2) An itemized account of the costs and receipts of per- forming the work. (3) An address, legal description, or other description sufficient to identify the premises. (4) The amount of the assessment proposed to be levied against the premises, or the amount to be refunded, if any, due to excess proceeds over expenses. (5) The time and place where the Enforcement Officer will submit the account to the Council for confirmation. The time and place specified shall be not less than 15 days after service of the notice. 8-6 ADOPTED JUNE 27, 1983 (6) A statement that the Council will hear and consider ob- jections and protests to said account and proposed assessment or refund. (f) Hearing on Account and .Proposed Assessment: At the time and place fixed in the notice, the Council will hear and con- sider the account and proposed assessment, together with ob- jections and protests thereto (Section 9-8 .104 - Enforcement Hearings) . At the conclusion of the hearing, the City Coun- cil may make such modifications and revisions of the proposed account and assessment as it deems just and may order the account and proposed assessment confirmed or denied, in whole or in part, or as modified and revised. The determination of the City Council as to all matters contained therein is final and conclusive. (g) Notice of Lien: Upon confirmation of an assessment by the Council, the Enforcement Officer is to prepare and have re- corded in the office of the County Recorder of San Luis Obispo County a notice of lien. The notice is to contain: (1) A legal description, address and/or other description sufficient to identify the premises. (2) A description of the proceeding under which the special assessment was made, including the order of the Council confirming the assessment. (3) The amount of the assessment. (4) A claim of lien upon the described premises. (h) Lien: Upon the recordation of a notice of lien, the amount E-1--aimed shall constitute a lien upon the described premises, pursuant to Section 25845 of the Government Code. Such lien is to be at a parity with the liens of state and county taxes. ( i) Collection with Ordinary Taxes: After recordation, the Notice of Lien is to be delivered to the County auditor, who will enter the amount of the lien on the assessment roll as a special assessment. Thereafter , the amount set forth is to be collected at the same time and in the same manner as ordinary county taxes and is subject to the same penalties and interest and to the same procedures for foreclosure and sale in case of delinquency, as is provided for ordinary county taxes; all lavas applicable to the levy, collection and enforcement of County taxes are hereby made applicable to such assessment. 9-3 . 108 . Interference Prohibited: person shall hinder , inter- fere :with or impede the Enforcement Officer in the performance of duties assigned by this Title or other Titles of the Municipal Code. 8-7 °� 3N ` "�� TO: Honorable City Council Members November 12, 1985 FROM: Mike Shelton, City Manager W - SUBJECT: PROPOSED JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA RECOMMENDATION: City Council approve agenda and hold a joint meeting with the Parks and Recreation Commission on November 21, 1985. BACKGROUND: At the request of Mayor Nelson, an agenda and meeting date has been proposed for the City Council to meet with the Parks and Recreation Commission. The proposed agenda results from a meeting attended by Mayor Nelson, Chairperson Kim Rizzuto, Bob Best, and myself. As you will note, there are two sections to the agenda, specific and general topics. As with the Planning Commission, it is recommended the agenda serve as a guideline and the joint bodies jointly establish items for discussion and their order at the meeting. Council is requested to finalize the tentative agenda and approve the meeting date. As proposed, the joint meeting will coincide with the Parks and Recreation Commission' s regular meeting, which starts at 7 : 30 p.m. The Parks and Recreation Commission will conduct their normal business at 7 : 30 p.m. with the joint City Council/Parks and Recreation Commission commencing at 8:00 p.m. i -2 T DATZ • MEMORANDUM TO: City Council THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager FROM: Paul Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Graves Creek Bridge Replacement DATE: November 6 , 1985 Recommendation: It is recomended that Council authorize staff to enter into an agreement with a private engineering firm to provide design services for the replacement of the Graves Creek Bridge on Monterey Road. Background: At the Council meeting of October 28th, Council authorized • staff to prepare a Request for Proposal and to send the request to three qualified engineering consulting firms. The consultants shall submit proposals to provide design engineering , detail construction plans and construction engineering service acceptable to the Department of Transportation and the City of Atascadero. Fiscal Impact: As the Proposals are not due to be received until November 8th, a verbal report will be given. PMS/vjh • • MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable City Council FROM: Michael B. Shelton SUBJECT: Agreement to Exchange Property Tax Revenues DATE: November 8 , 1985 RECOMMENDATION City Council adopt Res. No. 126-85 authorizing the Mayor to enter into agreement with the County of San Luis Obispo to exchange pro- perty tax revenues. BACKGROUND Council is familiar with the lengthening background and numerous meetings between the City and County to change the property tax rate received by the City. When the City was incorporated June • 5 , 1979 , Proposition 13 had recently been passed and new laws were impacting the manner in which the property tax split was to be computed. The County applied a number of assumptions and code sections of the law, which resulted in a low property tax trans- fer to the City. The City challenged the County on the property tax base enacted and engaged a consultant to assist the City in analyzing the law, formulas and assumptions utilized. Based on a number of meetings with the County , a negotiated set- tlement has been reached in which the County agreed to the follow- ing adjustments: 1 . Effective July 1 , 1985 , the County agreed to appropriate $295 ,000 in Fiscal Year 1985-86, which sum will be cred- ited to the City ' s one-half share of relocating the Atas- cadero Library to a new location. Per Council direction, the agreement specifically spells out the maximum not-to- exceed-contribution formula towards acquisition of the new library. The agreement omits any reference to City having future responsibility or maintenance responsibility for the future library. The City agrees to grant the do- nated property deed to the County. The City will receive interest credit for the appropriated $295 ,000 library con- tribution credit. • 2 . Effective July 1 , 1986 , the County agrees to adjust the property tax base transfer resulting in an annual increase RESOLUTION NO. 126-85 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TO EXCHANGE PROPERTY TAX REVENUE , TRANSFER OF APPROPRIATION LIMIT AND SETTLE AND RELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS. WHEREAS the City of Atascadero has disputed the property tax transfer by the County to the City upon incorporation on June 5 , 1979; and WHEREAS the transfer of property tax by the County resulted from assumptions , formulas and Government Code sections which were in a state of flux due to the passage of Proposition 13 ; and WHEREAS the City has contested the property tax base trans- fer was made under erroneous assumptions , formulas and Government Code sections; and WHEREAS the County disputes allegations by the City that property tax base was made in an erroneous manner; and WHEREAS the City and County have negotiated an amiable set- tlement to the disputed property tax transfer; and WHEREAS the negotiated settlement addresses other outstand- ing issues between the County and the City , including the funding of a new library to be constructed in the City of Atascadero as well as incorporation of the Sanitation District; and WHEREAS terms and conditions of the negotiated settlement are contained in an agreement between the City and County entit- led, "Agreement to Exchange Property Tax Revenues , Transfer of Appropriation Limit and Settle and Release of All Claims" ; NOW, THEREFORE , the Atascadero City Council authorizes the Mayor to enter into agreement with the County of San Luis Obispo to exchange property tax revenues , transfer of appropriation lim- it and settle and release of all claims . On motion by and seconded by , the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety by the following roll-call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: RES. NO. 126-85 Page Two ADOPTED: ROLFE NELSON, Mayor ATTEST: ROBERT M. JONES, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: tt �' � ---. MICHAEL B. SHELTON, City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROBERT M. JONES, City Clerk � f AGREEMENT TO EXCHANGE PROPERTY TAX REVENUE, TRANSFER OF APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT AND SETTLE AND RELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS THIS AGREEMENT is made this day of , 1985, by and between City of Atascadero, a Municipality of the State of California, (hereinafter referred to as "CITY") , The Atascadero County Sanitation District, and all subsidiary districts and entities controlled by City' s Council, and the County of San Luis Obispo, a political subdivision of the State of California, and all subsidiary districts and entities controlled by County' s Board of Supervisors (hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY") . The San Luis Obispo County Local Agency Formation Commission (hereinafter referred to as "LAFCO") shall be treated as a third party beneficiary of this agreement and shall be entitled to all of the benefits provided to County hereunder. WHEREAS, on June 5, 1979 the people of the Community of Atascadero voted in favor of changing the governmental structure of that community by reorganizing and dissolving several districts and incorporating the community's water, firefighting, lighting, and sanitation district services into City services to be provided by the City, in addition to any other services which cities are empowered to perform under the general laws of the State of California; and WHEREAS, said incorporation was being considered by LAFCO and eventually became effective during a period of some uncertainty in laws governing tax proceeds , due to the implementation of Article XIII(A) of the California Constitution; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 99(e) of the Revenue and Taxation Code, as it then read, County adopted Resolution No. 79-492, transferring to City $111,867 in tax base from the dissolved Atascadero Lighting District and the County' s General fund tax revenue to City; and WHEREAS, City has contended that City' s tax base transfer from said Lighting District and County should have been calculated under Government Code Section 54790.3, which contention County disputes ; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code Section 99(b) (as it then read) County adopted Resolution 80-218, and City adopted Resolution 15-80 accepting a negotiated exchange of property tax revenue from the Atascadero Fire Protection District to City; and WHEREAS, no dispute exists concerning said negotiated exchange of property tax revenue; and WHEREAS, the dissolved water district did not have a tax base to transfer; and WHEREAS, the Atascadero Garbage District was dissolved effective fiscal year 1982-83; and WHEREAS , City contended that it was entitled to a portion of the tax revenue attributable to said Garbage District, which contention was rejected with County' s adoption of Resolution 81-451 ; and -2- WHEREAS, the parties never formally concluded a negotiated exchange of property tax revenue for the Atascadero County Sanitation District; and WHEREAS, City has from time to time contended that County should have provided more, or better services to City under Government Code Section 35448, which County has disputed; and WHEREAS, City and County seek to have County remove the Free Library from its present location in City Hall, and cause a new library building to be constructed; and WHEREAS, the parties hereto are desirous of settling all matters related in any way to these various disputes . WHEREAS, Revenue and Taxation Code Section 99(j) allows renegotiation of property tax transfers; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 7904 appears to require transfer of appropriation limitations to accompany transfer of tax base. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the covenants , agreements and considerations set forth herein, it is agreed as follows : 1. In light of City' s desire to relocate the Free Library, branch from its present location to another location in City, and in recognition of County' s policy to require the recipient community to pay one-half the cost of such an improvement, it is agreed that County shall appropriate $295,000 in fiscal year 1985-86, which sum shall be credited toward City' s one-half share of the costs of said relocation project. -3- If the relocation project requires the construction of a new building, which is the most costly option under consideration, it is presently estimated that the maximum total cost of said project would be $990,000. City' s one-half share of said maximum total cost would be made up by a contribution of City-owned land known as the Polin site, worth approximately $140,000, $33,000 in donations from civic organizations from within City, $27,000 in City funds, together with the aforesaid $295,000 credit. County shall not be required to pay more than one-half of the costs of the relocation project. City agrees to provide County with a grant deed to the City contributed land upon County' s request. Upon County' s request, City also agrees to pay County such other funds as are necessary to make up City' s one-half share. County shall retain all sums for the project in a Project account and draw down on the account as debt is incurred for the Project. Interest shall be attributed from date of deposit, prorata to each party' s contributions to the account . If at the conclusion or termination of the Project, there are sums remaining in the account, then they shall be distributed between City and County in shares reflecting each party' s contributions to the account, together with the aforesaid attributed interest. 2 . County hereby transfers $295,000 of its General Fund property tax base to City, said transfer to be effective on July 1, 1986 , and thereafter. County also transfers such -4- portions of its general fund property tax increment to City as may be necessary to assure Cit a ratio of nineteen 19% for Y Y Y � ) each valid tax code area in City on July 1, 1986, provided that this percentage is subject to negotiation, or such other process as may be permitted by State law for any annexations or other jurisdictional changes after July 1, 1986 . 3 . County hereby transfers $295,000 of its General Fund appropriation limitation to City effective July 1, 1986. 4. City agrees to use due diligence to wind up the affairs of the Atascadero County Sanitation District and to dissolve that district. County shall continue to cooperate in City' s efforts in this regard. The parties understand that this agreement does not terminate the dispute which was the subject of Joint Resolution 3-80, but that City and Atascadero County Sanitation District, by and through the City Council, shall and hereby does assume all responsibility for the orderly winding up of the affairs and the termination of the Atascadero County Sanitation District in accordance with State law, the San Luis Obispo County Local Agency Formation Commission Resolution No. 79-1 and in accordance with said Joint Resolution No. 3-80. City and Atascadero County Sanitation District shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the County, its officers , agents and employees , and each of them, for all loss , expense or liability arising directly or indirectly from the delayed dissolution of the Atascadero County Sanitation District. -5- The foregoing indemnity shall not alter the rights or obligations of County or the Atascadero County Sanitation District under their joint powers agreement for construction of the sewer plant. 5. There shall be no tax base or tax increment transferred because of the dissolved water district. 6. City does hereby for itself, its representatives , officers, agents and employees, fully and forever release County, their representatives , officers , agents , employees , and each of them, from any and all claims , demands , actions or causes of action against them by reason of any occurrences or any damages , losses, or injuries whatsoever sustained by City, at any time prior to and including the date of this agreement, including, but not limited to, any and all claims or causes of action arising from the present disputes or any other matter regarding the incorporation of City including without limitation, the financing or servicing of said City by County. 7 . The provisions of this agreement shall be deemed to obligate, extend to and inure to the benefit of the successors, assigns , transferees, grantees and indemnitees of each of the parties to this agreement. 8. City and County agree to refrain from seeking any state legislative action which would vitiat any term or condition of this agreement. 9. Each of the parties to this agreement acknowledges and agrees that he has been represented by legal and financial -6-