HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 09/23/1985 • NOTE: THERE WILL BE A CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS LABOR
NEGOTIATIONS IN THE CLUB ROOM AT 7 :00 P.M.
AGENDA - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting
SEPTEMBER 23 , 1985 AT 7 :30 P.M.
ATASCADERO ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
** PROCLAMATION - Proclaiming October 6-12, 1985 as Fire
Prevention Week
A. CONSENT CALENDAR
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
All matters listed under Item A, Consent Calendar, are considered
to be routine, and will be enacted by one motion in the form listed
below. There will be no separate discussion of these items. If
discussion is required, that item will be removed from the Consent
Calendar and will be considered separately. Vote may be by roll call.
• 1. Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of September 9, 1985
2. Treasurer ' s Report - August 1 - 31, 1985
3. Finance Director ' s Report - August l - 31, 1985
4. Motion Setting October 4 as Nblic Hearing for Amending Business
License Ordinance Ov�x '
5. Tentative Parcel Map 23-85 - 5495 Traffic Way (Lot 13, Admin-
istration Park) - Carroll/Stewart - Create 2 lots where 3
lots now exist
6. Dial-A-Ride - Authorization to Make Application for State Grant
Funding for Purchase of Equipment
7. Claim by Theodore Holley in the Amount of $1, 750 (RECOMMEND
DENIAL)
8. Claim by Castle Development Company (unspecified amount)
(RECOMMEND DENIAL)
9. Claim by Louis Martin Cava (unspecified amount) (RECOMMEND DENIAL)
10. Claim by James T. Berger (unspecified amount) (RECOMMEND DENIAL)
• 11. Proposed Resolution 110-85 - Approving Memorandum of Understanding
between the City of Atascadero and Atascadero Sergeant' s
Bargaining Unit
1 ;
',
. . .-.- R
", l
`:_ �
� { i.
,,
,,
B ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
(Council will recess and convene as the Atascadero County
Sanitation District Board of Directors)
1. Public Hearings on the Following Proposed Annexations into the
Atascadero County Sanitation District:
A. Continuance of Scheduled Public Hearing on Annexation
of Lots 66-72, Santa Rosa to October 14, 1985 (Cont'd from
9/9/85)
B. Continuance of Scheduled Public Hearing on Annexation
of Lots 73-87, Marchant Way to October 14, 1985 (Cont'd from
9/9/85)
C. Proposed Resolution 109-85 - Initiation of Proceedings for
Annexation of Lots 11-16, Santa Rosa into the Atascadero
County Sanitation District and Set a Public Hearing on
October 14, 1985
D. Proposed Resolution 107-85- Annexing Parcel A, Lot 1,
Block JB, Ardilla Avenue (Cont'd from 9/9/85)
• E. Proposed Resolution 106-85- Annexing Lots 29 & 30, Block
KB, Ardilla Avenue (Cont'd from 9/9/85)
(The Board of Directors will adjourn and reconvene as the City
Council)
C. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES, AND REPORTS
1. Extended Weed Abatement:
A. Proposed Resolution 105-85 - Confirming Cost of Weed
Abatement
B. Weed Abatement Appeals - Public Hearing
D. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Proposed Resolution 108-85- (Amending Resolution 6-85) Revising
and Establishing Business License Fees
2. Planning Commission Recommendations on Architectural Review
(Cont'd from 6/10/85)
3. Status Report on Development Fees - Establishing Task Force
!I,
•
•
E. NEW BUSINESS
1. Establish a Joint Meeting with Planning Commission and Review of
Proposed Agenda
F. COMMUNITY FORUM
G. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION
1. City Council
2. City Attorney
3. City Clerk
4. City Manager
•
•
- ;
f
i
•
CITY OF ATASCADERO
PROCLAMATION
FIRE PREVENTION WEEK
WHEREAS , the week of October 6-12 , 1985 , has been designated
as Fire Prevention Week nationwide; and
WHEREAS , Fire Prevention Week is held in commemoration, of
the anniversary of the "Great Chicago Fire" ; and
WHEREAS , the Atascadero City Fire Department and firefighters
nationwide symbolize Fire Prevention Week as a time to stress the
importance of fire prevention and education to the public.
NOW, THEREFORE, I , ROLFE NELSON, Mayor of the City of
• Atascadero, do hereby proclaim the week of October 6-12 , 1985 ,
as Fire Prevention Week and urge all citizens to make a commitment
to fire prevention and home fire safety and to visit the Fire
Station and become familiar with the many aspects of the fire
service.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this
23rd day of September, 1985.
ROLFE NELSON, Mayor
City of Atascadero, California
•
MINUTES - ATASCADERO 0Y COUNCIL 0
Regular Meetina, September 9 , 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.
ROLL CALL
Present : Councilmembers Handshy, Mackey, Molina, Norris and Mayor Nelson.
Absent: NONE
STAFF
Mike Shelton, City Manager; Grigger Jones , City Clerk/Int. City Attorney;
Henry Engen, Planning Director; Paul Sensibaugh, Public Works Director/City
Engineer; Dick Anthony, Int. Asst. to City Mgr. ; Cindy Wilkins , Deputy City
Clerk.
COUNCIL COMMENT
At the request of Councilwoman Norris, Mayor Nelson announced there will be
a closed session at conclusion of tonight ' s meeting in order to discuss per-
sonnel matters .
Councilman Handshy related he had attended a meeting at the County level ,
where it was announced that local bridge projects would be delayed. Mayor
Nelson announced a letter of protest has been sent to the County regarding
• such delays.
Two new employees were introduced:
Bob Maxwell , Maintenance Worker I - Streets
Dick Anthony, Interim Assistant to City Manager
A. CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Nelson announced the addition of Item #13 to the Consent Calendar.
1 . Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of August 26 , 1985 (RECOMMEND
APPROVAL)
2 . Claim by Pacific Bell for Damages to Equipment Totaling $444 . 60
(RECOMMEND DENIAL)
3 . Proposed Resolution 101-85 - Adopting Position Classification of
Administrative Services Director
4. Ordinance Number 112 - Establishment of Traffic Committee (SECOND
READING) (Cont 'd from 8/26/85)
5. Proposed Resolution 91-85 - Approving Application for State Grant
Funds for the Atascadero Lake Pavilion
6. Tentative Parcel Map 20-85 - 9100 La Paz Lane (Lot 46 , Block 66) ,
Cini/Kennaly Engineering - Division of 5 . 44 acs. into 2 parcels
. of 2 . 72 acs. each
r
COUNCIL MINUTES - 9/9�
PAGE THREE
At the request of Councilwoman Norris , newly-appointed City Attorney
Grigger Jones gave his legal opinion regarding any Council action on
this appeal.
Public Comment
Mary Middlecamp , 5705 Venado (which lot is diagonally attached to the
lot where condominiums proposed to be located) , requested 20 minutes
in order to speak on behalf of a aroup (approximately 20 present , ac-
cording to show of hands) of neighborhood residents who oppose the
proposed project; she was granted 10 minutes by Mayor Nelson, during
which she reviewed the numerous issues upon which their appeal is
based.
Edith Uhl, 8525 Casanova, read, on behalf of the Homeowners Association' s
Executive Board, a brief note expressing their opposition to the pro-
posed project based on their concerns that it is not consistent with
the goals of the General Plan.
Lester F. Cunningham, Arroyo Ave. resident since the Korean Saar , spoke
in opposition of the proposed project based on the premise that dense
living conditions are not condusive to raising children into responsible
citizens and often lead to behavorial problems for the youth.
John Moss , 5020 Ardilla, commented that the emotional outcries from the
public warrant the preparation of an environmental impact statement for
review.
Robert Berg, 5764 Venado, which lot is directly in back of the proposed
development , agreed with the comments of the previous speaker with re-
gard to the "inappropriate Negative Declaration on the EIR" , and he
spoke in opposition of the project.
David Maine , 8940 San Gabriel , Architect , expressed his concern about
life-safety issues at the site of the proposed project: Access road is
fairly steep as well as narrow; no clear staging area from which fire
crews could set themselves up to fight a fire; the proposed grading is
excessive , and he foresees drainage problems.
Kurt Janowicz , 5615 Vega, who lives directly across from the proposed
site , spoke in opposition of the project and in favor of an environ-
mental impact report.
Jayne Sacks , 5170 Ardilla, spoke in opposition of the project based
on the already crowded traffic conditions at nearby intersections and
drainage problems; she favors an environmental impact study be done
to evaluate the affects on the community as well as on Ardilla.
John McNeil , 8765 Sierra Vista, inquired of Planning Director , Henry
Engen, (1) what follow-up will be done to insure that the Planning
Dept. ' s 22 conditions of approval will be met , and (2) will there be
40 a bond for in the event the conditions are not met. Mr. McNeil also
appealed to Council that they aren't bound to a specific, inexorable
interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance in this matter.
COUNCIL MINUTES - 9/9/85
PAGE FOUR
Mr. Engen responded to Mr. McNeil ' s inquiries., with additional com-
ment from Paul Sensibaugh, Public Works Director, regarding the
impact to the sewer system (Condition #20) .
Dorothy McNeil, 8765 Sierra Vista, spoke in opposition to the project
based on the lack of recreational area for children and the absence of
room for landscaping.
Mike Bewsey, 5700 Dolores , spoke in favor of the project , feeling the
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance have been met , and the concerns
of the neighbors will , hopefully, be addressed in the 22 conditions of
the precise plan. He feels that persons appealing this project should
pursue changing the Zoning Ordinance in the entire area of concern as
opposed to waiting until a particular project comes up again which they
might appeal.
Bill Carroll, 5360 Ensenada , former Planning Commissioner, wondered
where were the rebuttals when the property zoning was under consider-
ation and the Commission was advertising for public input.
Richard Shannon, 8160 Los Osos Rd. , associate developer of the project ,
stated the engineer, architect and builder are all present to answer
any inquiries the public, staff or Council might have. He responded to
some of the issues raised by the appellants.
Shirley Summers, 8120 Azucena, spoke in support of the appeal based o
her view as a former Planning Commissioner and member of the Atascadero
Advisory Committee prior to incorporation, as well as a member of the
1975 General Plan Committee. She feels the City should take more ad-
vantage of the environmental impact report/process available.
Norman Norton, Santa Margarita Rd. resident and local business-owner ,
former Planning Commissioner and Advisory Committee member , spoke in
support of the many good contractors in the community and in support
of the City' s staff, who are very thorough and assure that development
is in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and the City ' s laws.
Arloda Berg, 5764 Venado , spoke in opposition to the project based on
her feeling that the General Plan has not been met by the Zoning Or-
dinance , and this in a consistent manner; it becomes more and more
obvious that this precise plan has been an example of lowering the
standards set forth by the General Plan.
Allen Campbell , Civil Engineer representing proponents , responded to
some of the concerns expressed by the appellants regarding drainage ,
access drive & turn-around area and grading; in addition, the propo-
nents have indicated they would not mind a condition which would state
that the units will become condominiums to be lived in by their owners
which may relieve some of the neighbors concerns.
Gary Harcourt , local Architect , feels landscaping, erosion control an
traffic studies at Ardilla & Traffic Way have been gapped in this sub-
• •
COUNCIL MINUTES - 9/9/85
PAGE FIVE
mittal. Perhaps this particular site is not compatible with the pro-
posed use and may be a case in point which should be reviewed by an
ARC commission or a laycommittee as a precedent for establishing some
guidelines.
Buz Hinkley,, San Gregorio Rd. resident, expressed concern that to not
deal with the precise plan would be setting a very dangerous precedent
for property owners and developers in the area; the current zoning and
General Plan would be completely unreliable from the property-owner ' s
standpoint , City-wide.
Michael Sherer , long-time resident , noted the long hours of public hear-
ings addressing the zoning of specific lots when the land-use map was
being drawn up for the Zoning Ordinance , contrary to Mrs. Middlecamp 's
earlier comment that the zoning was done by committee with no public
input. Mr. Sherer spoke in favor of the proposed project.
Terrie Graves , 5580 Ardilla, spoke in opposition of the project , read-
ing from Title 9 of the zoning regulations.
Joe Elkins, Architect, stated he has been asked to become a part of
the team developing this project. One of his conditions of acceptance
to that invitation was that he be allowed to do design work in order
to improve the quality of the present design. This project does not
have to be a disaster as is being implied and can be a good development.
Terri Hood, Cascabel resident , spoke in opposition to the project as it
seems to be in direct conflict with the guidelines in the General Plan.
She feels the project , at this point in time , should comply with the
Subdivision Map Act.
Mr. Engen responded to Mrs . Hood' s inquiry regarding the (4) findings
of the Subdivision Map Act that must be complied with before a sub-
division map for condominiums could be approved.
A Mr. Stiles , 5140 Ardilla, criminal conspiracy investigator , expressed
his concern about the City's liability, specific vs. general. He sug-
gests the City Attorney conduct a seminar for the City Council on that
subject , citing a case - U.S . vs. Prince George ' s County, Maryland -
in which a pattern was used to prove a criminal conspiracy. He further
advised Council to consult an individual with a depth of political ex-
perience to assist them in these kinds of problems.
Dwight McCurdy, 5655 Venado , spoke in support of the appeal as proposed
by Mrs. Middlecamp.
David Graves , 5580 Ardilla, spoke in opposition of the project.
Geraldine Salzbury, 5225 Ardilla, spoke in opposition of the project
based on her desire to preserve Atascadero ' s rural character.
Mary Middlecamp inquired, in order to clarify the State ' s Subdivision
P4ap Act in relationship to condominiums , why the State law doesn't
0 i
COUNCIL MINUTES - 9/9/85
PAGE SIX
prevail over the City ordinance; Mr. , Engen .responded_ that the Map
Act will, as mandated, come into play when the applicants file for
a condominium.
MOTION: By Councilman Handshy that Council concur with Planning Dept.
and Planning Commission recommendation (as outlined in staff
report) , seconded by Councilwoman Norris ; passed 3: 1 by roll-
call vote, with Councilwoman Mackey voting NO and Councilman
Molina not voting.
COUNCIL RECESSED FOR 'FIVE-MINUTE BREAK.
Council discussion regarding Zoning Ordinance Standards (refer to p. 7 of
the Planning Dept. ' s staff report) ; Council concurred to have staff review
hillside standards and the strengthening of findings for precise plans and
report back with guidelines to be discussed at future Council meetings be-
fore getting into formal hearings ; in addition, Planning staff was directed
to study how the Zoning Ordinance & General Plan might be condensed in order
to clarify their contents.
2. Proposed 1985-86 Revenue Sharing and Budget
A. Revenue Sharing Public Hearing
B. Budget Public Hearing
C. Proposed Resolution 92-85 - Adopting the City of Atascadero Fisca�
Year 1985-86 Budget and Appropriating Funds Thereof
Mayor Nelson reviewed the follow-up summary from the Budget Study Ses-
sion which was held on Saturday, Sept. 7 , 1985 . (see agenda packet)
No additional requests for revenue sharing monies were made.
MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey to adopt Res . 92-85 , seconded by Councilman
Molina; passed unanimously by roll-call vote. Council commended
staff on the teamwork that went into putting together the budget.
Mayor Nelson invited anyone interested to pick up a copy of the
budget from the City Manager 's Office.
C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1 . Community Development Block Grant - Review of Grantee Performance Re-
port , FY 1984/85 , and Consideration of Time Extension and Agreement
Amendment (cont ' d from 8/26)
Henry Engen, Planning Director , gave staff report.
Public Comment
Judy Young, the applicant, wondered if there ' s some way to simplify
these draw downs on the grant , to which Mr. Engen responded that the
agreement had to be amended before any draw downs could be considered!
COUNCIL MINUTES - 9/9/85
PAGE SEVEN
MOTION: By Councilman Molina that Council direct the Planning Director to
request the consideration of time extension on this agreement ,
seconded by Councilman Handshy; passed unanimously.
D. NEW BUSINESS
1 . Status Report on Trash Removal at Atascadero Lake Park
Mike Shelton, City Manager , gave brief status report recapping the
discussion of this subject at last Saturday' s Budget Study Session.
MOTION: By Councilman Molina that Council direct Councilwoman Mackey and
Councilman Handshy to form a committee of two and see that trash
cleanup is expedited, seconded by Councilwoman Norris; passed
quickly and unanimously.
MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey that Council recess and convene as the
Atascadero County Sanitation District Board of Directors , seconded
by Councilwoman Norris; passed unanimously.
E . ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
1. Proposed Resolution No. 93-85 - Approving the 1985-86 Fiscal Year
Atascadero County Sanitation District Budget and Appropriating Funds
Thereof
No public comment.
MOTION: By Director Molina to adopt Res. 93-85 , seconded by Director
Mackev; passed unanimously by roll-call vote.
2. Proposed Initiation of Proceedings for Annexations into the Atascadero
County Sanitation District:
A. Proposed Resolution 102-85 - Establishing Assessment District
Boundaries - Lots 66-72 , Santa Rosa and Setting a Public Hearing
for September 23 , 1985
No public comment.
MOTION: By Director Molina to adopt Res. 102-85 and set 9/23 hearing date ,
seconded by Director Mackey; passed unanimously by roll-call vote.
B. Continue Approved Resolution 86-85 (Establishing Assessment Dis-
trict Boundaries - Lots 73-85 , Marchant Way) to Public Hearing
on September 23 , 1985 -
No public comment .
MOTION: By Director Mackey to continue this item to Public Hearing on
9/23 , seconded by Director Handshy; passed unanimously by roll-
call vote.
COUNCIL MINUTES - 9/9/85
PAGE EIGHT
3. Proposed Sewer Service Annexations (Connections) to the following
locations :
A. Proposed Resolution 95-85 - Lot 56 , Block 12 Mountain View
No public comment.
MOTION: By Director Mackey to approve Res. 95-85 , seconded by Director
Handshy; passed unanimously by roll-call vote.
B. Proposed Resolution 96-85 - Parcel A, Lot 1 , Block JB Ardilla Ave.
(Public Hearing for 9/23 Requested)
No public comment.
MOTION: By Director Handshy to adopt Res. 96-85 , setting 9/23 hearing date ,
seconded by Director Mackey; passed 4 :0 by roll-call vote , with
Director Molina not voting due to possible conflict of interest.
C. Proposed Resolution 97-85 - Lots 29 & 30 , Block KB Ardilla Ave.
(Public Hearing for 9/23 Requested)
No public comment.
MOTION: By Director Handshy to adopt Res. 97-85 , setting 9/23 hearing da
seconded by Director Norris; passed 3 : 1 by roll-call vote , with
Director Molina not voting due to possible conflict of interest.
D. Proposed Resolution 98-85 - Parcels A, B & D, 22-PM-97 Cayucos and
Lobos Avenues
No public comment.
MOTION: By Director Handshy to adopt Res. 98-85 , seconded by Director
Mackey; passed unanimously by roll-call vote.
MOTION: By Director Mackey that Board recess and reconvene as Atascadero
City Council, seconded by Director Handshy; passed unanimously.
F. COMMUNITY FORUM
No public comment .
G. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION
City Council - Councilwoman Mackey requested a review of the Historical
Society ' s lease of the Lower Rotunda Room, referring to the Society
having been served recently with a 10-day notice of eviction. In
addition, Councilwoman Mackey requested the City to consider a 3-year
lease instead of 1-year. Council concurred to bring the subject of
the eviction notice back for discussion at next meeting.
COUNCIL MINUTES - 9/910
PAGE NINE
City Attorney/City Clerk - Grigger Jones requested Council, as per cor-
respondence received from League of California Cities , to designate
a voting delegate for the League ' s annual conference in San Francisco.
Mayor Nelson designated himself as delegate , with Councilman Handshy
as alternate.
City Manager - Mike Shelton read a memorandum from Police Chief Bud
McHale , addressed to Mr. Shelton and the City Council, commending
his staff personnel on their coordination of the recent investigation
of alleged cult-related homicides , with special recognition and thanks
to Administrative Sgt. Bill Watton, Acting Police Chief in Chief
McHale ' s absence on vacation during the investigation. The memoran-
dum also noted that the APD received an additional 100 hours of
assistance from the Atascadero Fire Dept. Reserves and Public Works
Dept. employees and expressed thanks to those individuals.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11 :20 P.M. TO A CLOSED SESSION IN ORDER TO DISCUSS PER-
SONNEL MATTERS.
RECORDED BY.•
,_l
v
R$BERT M. JONES , City Clerk
PREPARED BY:
CINDY WILKINS, Deputy City Clerk
CITY OF ATASCADERO DAT
TREASURER'S REPORT
AUGUST 1, 1985 TO AUGUST 31, 1985
• RECEIPTS
TAXES
Property Tax 13, 278.05
Cigarette Tax 6,793.04
Motor Vehicle "In Lieu" 29,870.96
Sales & Use 110, 000 .00
Livestock-Head Day Tax 63.84
Occupancy Tax 4 ,324. 80
State Trailer In-Lieu 9,347.77
LICENSE/PERMITS/FEES 72,290.19
GAS TAX 20, 534.46
RECREATION FEES 5, 527.75
RETURNED FROM LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND
AND MATURED TIME DEPOSITS 95,000.00
GRANTS 18.72
STREET ASSESSMENT 10. 50
. TRANSPORTATION SB-325 24 ,967.60
MISCELLANEOUS
Rents/Concessions 612.05
Sale Maps/Publications/Reports 285.80
Special Police Services 87.00
Fines & Penalties 546 .28
Planning Permit Deposits 14,357.68
Performance Bonds 9 ,250 .00
Bails/Bonds 1, 580.00
Traffic Safety 5, 310 .34
Weed Abatement 735.07
Reimbursement from Sanitation District 24,899. 69
Reimbursement to Expense 1,490.80
Traffic Safety Officer 6 , 262. 67
P.O.S.T. 1,134.92
Narcotic ' s Officer 2, 666 .49
Appeals 100 .00
Rebates 6 .75
Refunds 3,966.75
TOTAL $ 465, 319. 97
1
•
• SEPTEMBER 17, 1985
To All Council Members:
The breakdown detail on all accounts is available
for your viewing in the Finance Department.
Ray Cassidy
Interim Finance Direct r
3
•
l�
CITY OF ATASCADERO
FINANCE DIRECTOR' S REPORT
AUGUST 1, 1985 TO AUGUST 31, 1985
EXPENSE LISTING
PAYROLL DATED 08/07/85 CHECKS #34263-34364 63, 844. 72
PAYROLL DATED 08/21/85 CHECKS #34365-34463 65,761.66
VOID CK#25321 CK. REG. DATED 07/18/85 (10.55)
VOID CK#25509 CK. REG. DATED 08/01/85 (251. 00)
TOTAL 129,344.83
5
i �
•
TO: City Council Members September 23, 1985
FROM: Michael Shelton
SUBJECT: BUSINESS LICENSE ORDINANCE PUBLIC HEARING
RECOMMENDATION:
City Council set October 13 , 1985 as a public hearing date for amend-
ing the Business License Ordinance. (Action sets October 13, 1985 as
a hearing date only.)
BACKGROUND:
On your September 23 , 1985 agenda, staff is recommending adoption of
Resolution 108-85, revising the Fee Schedule and increasing the
Business License tax rate.
. The current Business License Ordinance was adopted by adopting the
former County Business License Ordinance. Updating of the ordinance
is necessary to codify in the City' s Municipal Code. An update of the
present Business License Ordinance language is necessary to delete
terms unique to the County and insure compatability between the ordin-
ance and the proposed new fee schedule.
MS:kv
File: MBsLic2
•
�1
• M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council September 23 , 1985
VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel Map 23-85
APPLICANT: Bill Carroll (Dan Stewart)
LOCATION: 5495 Traffic Way
REQUEST: To allow the creation of two lots where three now exist in
the Industrial Park zone.
On September 3, 1985, the Planning Commission conducted a public hear-
ing concerning the above matter and, upon review, unanimously approved
the application subject to the findings and conditions contained in
• the staff report with the addition of Condition #10 to read:
"10. The proposed lot lines shall be altered to provide the
proper Uniform Building Code setback for a building without
a fire wall; or the existing building located on the proposed
property line shall be brought into conformance with Uniform
Building Code wall protection requirements; or the building
shall be moved or relocated to satisfy this requirement:"
There was brief discussion among the applicant and Commission concern-
ing the existing access width and compliance with U.B.C. setbacks for
a building without a firewall.
No one else spoke on the matter .
HE:ps
cc: Bill Carroll
Daniel J. Stewart
•
r
Tentative Parcel Map 0-85 (Bill Carroll) •
Creek.
11. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration
C. ANALYSIS:
In the IP zone, there are no minimum lot size standards under pro-
visions of the zoning ordinance.
Current lot line configurations show the existing meat packing
plant to occupy the two smaller lots which front on Traffic Way.
One of these existing buildings is built across this property
line. The proposed parcel map would eliminate the property line
which bisects the building.
The current back parcel is a flag lot which slopes down to Atas-
cadero Creek. The proposed parcel map would provide the back
parcel a larger workable building area.
The submitted parcel map shows a 35 foot access easement across
the front parcel to the back parcel. Staff, and particularly the
Fire Department, has concerns with this representation on the map.
A site check reveals that there is a utility pole, gas pump and
parking strip obstructing this proposed access at this time.
If the accessory building located along the proposed property line
does not conform to Uniform Building Code wall protection require-
ments, staff would have concerns regarding its location.
The creation of two lots where three previously existed ensures
that the existing buildings will not be located on any lot lines
and that any new use will be on a separate legal lot. Staff feels
this tentative parcel map does not conflict with any City policies
or ordinances.
D. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Tentative Parcel Map 23-85 based on
the findings and conditions of approval contained in Exhibit A.
MM:ps
ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Findings/Conditions of Approval
Exhibit B - Location Map
Exhibit C - Parcel Map
2
Tentative Parcel Map 0085 (Bill Carroll •
)
EXHIBIT A - Tentative Parcel Map 23-85
Findings/Conditions of Approval
September 3, 1985
FINDINGS:
1. The creation of these parcels conform to all applicable zoning and
the General Plan.
2. The creation of these parcels in conformance with the recommended
conditions of approval will not have a significant adverse effect
upon the environment, and preparation of an Environmental Impact
Report is not necessary.
3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development that
is proposed.
4. The site, is physically suitable for the proposed density of
development.
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 subdivison or the type of improvement will not
conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large for ac-
cess through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision;
or that substantially equivalent alternate easements are provided.
7 . The proposed subdivision complies with Section 66474. 6 of the
State Subdivision Map Act, as to methods of handling and discharge
of waste.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. A preliminary soils report shall be prepared by a registered civil
engineer. If tests indicate critically expansive soils or other
soils problems, corrective measures shall be taken.
2. Water shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water Company
and water lines shall exist at the frontage of each parcel or its
public utility easement prior to recordation of the final map.
3. All existing and proposed utility easements, pipelines and other
easements are to be shown on the final map. If there are other
building or other restrictions related to the easements, they
shall be noted on the final map.
3
Tentative Parcel Map 0-85 (Bill Carroll) •
4. Drainage and erosion control plans, prepared by a registered civil
engineer, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Plan-
ning Department prior to issuance of building permits in conjunc-
tion with installation of driveways, access easements or
structures.
5. Plan and profile drawings of proposed individual driveways and
driveway easements shall be submitted for approval by the Planning
and Public Works Departments in order to determine average grade
and appropriate improvement requirements.
6. Plans showing driveway access in detail shall be submitted for re-
view and approval by the Fire Department prior to approval of the
final map.
7. All conditions herein specified shall be complied with prior to
filing of the final map.
8. 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.
9. Approval of this tentative parcel map shall expire two years from
the date of City Council approval unless an extension of time is
granted pursuant to a written request prior to the expiration
date.
4
r
k�N �S�..P '-�/ i Y� \' � a,.•. sv..,•1 —�,1�� ���, T
.�+•n ti .Y��r,.. h�\�-J�`J�,J��AYf �•�� ' _RX
_� c iI �/ r r},�a,���/it• s y9 •� �!�� s. "n. at• ''�, ty��Q' rs�i �kc _a I �� �
ss��ao�gg 4p'l;-/'rp 7r=�r:Y'�I �:/ 3ra atGO \•��r;•`o`•a"�^�°,'=y` •t;:J •`s . .t' - ~�,,•L
:.`_WQ� �/. .,,orr.;7�7��'1., '� a'n� :` a:`r of Iw,.c, �ta�ya•� �)\^.„� �s•7.1 .� ` ..,':.: ,�(
♦ }� /.'ti rl , ���,--.�^�•�'� 2 ,f' \ y Syt�t ! to+� r iIt
fir,` ,1, �>hz>14* ry, as a• S .. 51:cL i�.� ��`� l ,�a'�'��`��a-�,y� S+ss' / 13
• �, r s r S
"Sa /
` �t hr I•r,,. ^r >• "�y /� `r\\ t%r...s•.F a\ S s l 1
.b
r„s�],4U�.+r.�i*= F ti'y Kp -I' a• �Vhate '' �,a, {^5 r ` .1 / / ,�.j .
/.' 7•ao�j(�, .�7 f .T. •.� .+. i.I r-� +w.. .1 !->_' ti� � % \` �\\ `( �11�.S'.'.•�. :�[2 � ', I( -
s; .V e.,•,iz �„"rte .<< v,'� j��(// •/ .a` `1 \a'
04-
•v� �c,6�ytr.�S:,4Tati�
taa•C\I"\\' , os;'4<1M fi'`'r /�; Y "1 ' d•(,V/`L a 'p1�� \ ' w-O•;•.�.(:���'•'•,�5
,X' t > �' ti.. 'S1 `ff l hlit 'a!/'�!+ P. •'i\ ` •�,�"f Ij
I� P to � a/ ✓'�./ S. S,1 f�y' r ! v• ,f + �..:•` It� .w.1\\ .s>�•a y 1
,r"y�}'��� /�� �Afr.�•:.•t�rlla /a'°i//�^a1>•.i l k�`'O \ �l�.C�°� ., ��.•4 -�
C�,r5 Y •y'•.`
\\�ISat-\i�y yfYa C,ti',r.`. �� . �:• ..^��. \ , �+ .,r
� 4R,�•.�Y a" \�yl. ,!:'�`:` 1i.a' .rI GC�-r''f Y `:� •`r y��_Y a;p, \� '•.orf Il��
,•'\ a, „\t,«�t a�l/'r a F:9 nn.Cq�i a).� -1 ,� �1 \` •s./ .1'•yl. _s '
� g r 'I�=o• ror t° /la^.�•����R,,r, „s1 '� t^`7 � Y''y� _ ~;` \.�° �tSt�/ ,�� Y �'7
u•. ',t� ao•8\•� Ir er.M TN.� 3�� i � :a. i J.w,SL_ 11rr� n,a��`,;� �,�y),r �,y.�'.. -•; ��(1/ �,
1 I /ae• r.P to Y� .�`: i5 �' 1'("��� S�A�a'��\Z-'s_ Ilj (n
,q f, r 5 'ao h '�• a.,la .jai///, \ � /.
'101 �t0•• +alp•r ' � a1 I� � O •eI��� 1>t, 7 R' '.�,\I +i��\� S�-•Y)`
•�. �44� � •'� smt �. �\ o, ,q N ♦ ',R r° �" YJ i •E:Zt` J �.�._ �U�- '' f rt •�•y r
;Iff 'a0 „' S,'iG ,• 1T �£4l0
1.7 e 1�
R(FH)
s;s _• '' 'sems :k ,
�'' as .f'*;�'=/ >z:='• ,�vf�!'' �A-.�. _'f�*.•.•,���'..
✓� `J�a \'��'�11,�o r�r.,��g •\; _ !/'�'ri?�,tea,•' /�•ia.;�� `�� \.\
ol
.yy"r`\9 as 1 tF'0 � �i.•>'./�S. ., y •' ,.71?':,ti( rar ��� `J(f J:J `r° :`:-• 1��.�-;�,
:i �iY �- � K� %��.f'c�,o��, >i ow y• Cls r"; 6.:�� "" • �1fo> a �tiw"°'. U ,..r
p3 a a•// at.,f�jr� J 9� �'• t:.f :'•' `�� :/r
��� a/ u4'\ ( �J-Sr.�e�:� r .d,., 4�.�i i' tj), ra•-- _� is./,.P/ ,', r�. sir�.i, "^!
y i ."' tt v a a0 a � � a 1 /tY ` , `` F��i!•."v /'�` E/,.�•. .t�,.. .
�•�, � -,_ � S r C`` r'�,l� ; \, � .;.-� X71
:1 LSf -r � � C It •a.1+s � r .., :,'• nrls
tfL r ,} 'kD t�•'Cy2y••\rY••g; �'CgjY /. •L.. rr` .��'� :��. • , �'r! �/ ��1> /) ^Jr
�._•.(\ t,• w F 1 E �ly,.=T Y ''SYS/ f f ra_1 l ..! ` L.� \µms ! ` �f lib e fir.,.'•: a•. f- `,.}�' ' Y
, Y r� ��' _ f1fL° > �. �j. I t_�' I '!s•` ( /, ,s°��I• vt /\�y�.�• •I iso /
�\• ` • f� S7^� .,Y 1 „> , I -'r/ !!`.11 tr• . r e.a <r �//
! e1 \.f`i1•�`•�• ��,."'Jc!. 4.5�f '."� x,71. a�F�t` 1 1?�� ,Dri./,a'•~ �7 ��a,�,5 4 la � � a\/
\+>a ��• ��CV���,,:,. ���sri-a- +�% /y � _ /,ii' 4,..'•l:,,i�^�'��-'�,��;'' F:Y,.°I ''�.}/'
>' �\� p p,r>s�:5-,j ! S,'!�t7i;1...^,�r ss Cc>.•'u-���I: / r !•' � x J,tia. • 'r Y. as Y
/ / (.' '-ry 10 STS J J`7-••. J r \fin//
•v:> �! %Fo.P,` C/ •rc'.f- siy. L._'i r F .'s• �`,''�• `//( //}f �•' .J'� '°_., a ./ \':'/
� i, 1���j�,el. � \�,°'`�i �.,•J:�,.�. ��•'�:�� �<♦•r rra
` s.F� cJr `i7'a,'S%. 1 �.Ig �C• :,•jl'\\`�-ly.`s�„x � I��S;r � y �{ 6 .r �``♦
ti�/�o/ P.l., � f"y^�'-�y� A Crit�`�.ft �� T \t,;s'•° Li i-/'�,• .�'~' +,..�^ � I
rjX".
�, ,.. ;•
• .. V'=.�"�ia,'�' `•`a �}:q.C_t�!F:S•_wn,�.7� \•�I','..., 12 1 1 r�"�'rr
?
ut\
i ��f7� i �� err; , '<;�:.' �:• .RMF%S `
�.��! �� .,��+ `iii; \�•�� \ 1
IN
<
—cj U
CR
l:
�o• a vooy
. o Ac
! tom. A
.. ti� ser• @ .•.^C
411`C. A• t'� 41
r c
MAC
k
I�i Y*
^�b a
W i `q�p T eti tii?� $ zp 11(5,
b
y t
t-alis
. MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council n rti
THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Paul M. Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
SUBJECT: Dial-A-Ride Grant
DATE: September 17, 1985
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that Council authorize staff to apply for
80% State, 20% City match grants to replace the 1979 and one 1981
Dial-A-Ride Busses.
Background:
The City of Atascadero has been awarded a $32, 000 maximum,
80-20 allocation grant for a 14 passenger bus for which only an
official application is lacking. Another similar grant for 1985-86
• is also earmarked for the City. Additionally, State Discretionary
Funds are also available for busses, parts, shelters and computers
for dispatching purposes. A total of three busses are possible
within this fiscal year.
Discussion:
The current budget has earmarked $20,000 for replacement of
vehicles (depreciation) which could be used for our match. High
mileage and major repairs justify the need for replacement busses.
The 80% grants will come at an appropriate time.
PMS/vjh
•
r N . �
0
/x-
M
E M O R A N D U M
TO: The Honorable City Council
FROM: Mike Shelton, City Manager
SUBJECT: Theodore L. Holley - Claim
DATE: September 16 , 1985
RECOMMENDATION
The City Council reject claim submitted by Theodore L. Holley
in the amount of $1 ,750. 00 .
BACKGROUND
• Mr. Holley alleged auto damage due to road construction. The
claim has been reviewed by the City ' s adjustors , Carl Warren &
Co. , and they recommend your rejection.
DEA/cw
•
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: The Honorable City Council
FROM: Mike Shelton tk._ .
SUBJECT: Castle Development Co . - Claim
DATE : September 18 , 1985
RECOMMENDATION
City Council deny the claim submitted on behalf of Castle Devel-
opment Company.
BACKGROUND
Castle Development ' s claim relates to the accident at San Gabriel
• Rd. & Carmelita on August 25 , 1984 , in which Edna Jackson (de-
ceased) failed to yield right-of-way. The claim has been reviewed
by the City ' s adjustors , Carl Warren & Co. , and they recommend
denial.
I)EA/cw
•
•
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: The Honorable City Council
4
FROM: Mike Shelton
SUBJECT: Louis Martin Cava - Claim
DATE : September 18 , 1985
RECOMMENDATION
City Council deny the claim submitted on behalf of Louis Martin
Cava.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Cava' s claim relates to the accident at San Gabriel Rd. &
• Carmelita on August 25 , 1984 , in which Edna Jackson (deceased)
failed to yield right-of-way. The claim has been reviewed by
the City' s adjustors, Carl Warren & Co. , and they recommend de-
nial.
D;,A/cw
•
M E M 0 R A N D U M
TO: The Honorable City Council
FROM: Mike Shelton
SUBJECT: James T. Berger - Claim
DATE: September 18 , 1985
RECOMMENDATION
City Council deny the claim submitted on behalf of James T. Berger.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Berger ' s claim relates to the accident at San Gabriel Rd. &
Carmelita on August 25, 1984 , in which Edna Jackson (deceased)
failed to yield right-of-way. The claim has been reviewed by the
• City ' s adjustors , Carl Warren & Co. , and they recommend denial.
IAEA/cw
,r
•
f
NO A
RESOLUTION 170-85
• RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
APPROVING A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AND
THE ATASCADERO SERGEANTS SERVICE ORGANIZATION
WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero has met and conferred in good
faith with the Atascadero Sergeants Service Organization for the
purpose of discussing wages, benefits, and other conditions of
employment; and
WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero and the Atascadero Sergeants
Service Organization Bargaining Unit have reached an agreement regard-
ing said wages, benefits, and other conditions of employment for the
term of Fiscal Year 1985/86; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Atascadero City Council
hereby approves the Memorandum of Understanding between the City and
the Atascadero Sergeants Service Organization for Fiscal Year 1985/86 ,
and authorizes the City Manager, as the Employee Relations Officer , to
enter into said agreement on behalf of the City.
• On motion by Councilperson and seconded
by Councilperson , the foregoing resolution is
hereby adopted in its entirety on the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ADOPTED:
CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA
By:
ROLFE NELSON, Mayor
ATTEST:
ROBERT M. JO S, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
• Vl
MICH L SHELTON, City Manager
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE
CITY OF ATASCADERO AND THE
ATASCADERO SERGEANTS' SERVICE ORGANIZATION
(POLICE SERGEANT' S BARGAINING UNIT)
This Memorandum of Understanding is made and entered into
between the Employee Relations Officer of the City of Atascadero,
hereinafter referred to as "City", and the Atascadero Sergeants'
Service Organization, hereinafter referred to as "Association",
pursuant to California Government Code Sections 3500 et seq. ;
City of Atascadero Ordinance No. 24, dated July 14, 1980; and
City of Atascadero Resolution No. 12-80, dated July 14, 1980, and
subsequent amendments hereto.
The parties have met and consulted in good faith regarding
employment terms and conditions for members of the Police
Sergeants' bargaining unit as recognized by the City of
Atascadero on March 28, 1983, and having reached agreement as
hereinafter set forth, shall submit this Memorandum to the City
Council with the joint recommendation that that body resolve to
adopt its terms and conditions and take such other or additional
action as may be necessary to implement its provisions .
Section 1 . 0 Purpose.
It is the purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding,
hereinafter referred to as "MOU", to promote and provide for
continuity of operation in employment through harmonious
relations, cooperation and understanding between management and
the employees covered by the provisions of this Agreement and to
set forth the understanding reached between the parties as a
result of good faith negotiations on the matters set forth
herein.
Section 2 . 0 Full Understanding, Modifications, Waiver.
This MOU sets forth the full and entire understanding of the
parties regarding the matters set forth herein. Any other prior
or existing understanding or agreement by the parties, whether
formal or informal, regarding any such matters, are hereby
suspended or terminated in their entirety, if in conflict with
this Memorandum.
Section 3 . 0 Salaries .
3 . 1 Salaries in effect on August 30, 1985, shall be
increased by six (6%) per cent effective August 31, 1985.
3 .2 The City will continue to pay the employee' s seven (7%)
percent PERS contribution for the term of this agreement.
- 1 -
0 0
3 . 3 The City and Association agree to convert the existing
salary plan to a five step salary plan. Current employees shall
be converted to the new plan effective January 4, 1986; and
employees hired after August 1, 1985, shall be placed on the five
Step plan.
a. Trainee, Qualified and Fully Qualified salary rates
shall be converted to steps A, C & E respectively.
b. New steps B & D shall be created by establishing
the mid-point between steps A & C and C & E.
C. Newly hired employees shall normally be placed at
Step A. Advanced step hiring may be approved by
the City Manager.
d. Movement between steps shall be twelve month
intervals and subject to satisfactory performance.
The initial step movement after hiring, however,
shall be after twelve months or after completion of
probation, whichever occurs later.
e. Effective January 4 , 1986, current employees at
salary rate Fully Qualified shall be placed at Step
E.
f. Effective January 4 , 1986, current employees with
eighteen months or more service time at the
Qualified salary rate shall be advanced to Step E.
g. Effective January 4 , 1986, current employees with
less than eighteen months service at the Qualified
salary rate shall be placed at Step C of the new
salary plan. Thereafter they shall be eligible for
salary step advancement at twelve month intervals .
h. Current employes at Trainee salary rates shall
proceed to the Qualified or Step C salary rate in
accordance with the rules of the existing salary
plan. Thereafter, they shall be eligible for Step
Advancement at twelve month intervals .
i . The parties acknowledge that the above contains
their conceptual agreement as to the salary plan
conversion and that more detailed personnel rule
language will be needed to fully implement the
salary plan. Draft personnel language will be
forwarded to the Association for review, and, upon
request, joint meetings, prior to its adoption.
2 -
Section 4 . 0 Medical/Dental Benefits .
4 . 1 City agrees to pay for all medical and dental benefits
for each police sergeant employee at the rate and coverage
prevailing under the City' s medical and dental program as it now
exists through the City' s agreement with the New England Life
Insurance Company as established by the agreement of the Joint
City/Employee Medical Insurance Committee.
4 . 2 City agrees to pay up to, but not more than, $59.25 per
month, per employee, toward the monthly medical and dental
insurance premium for all eligible employee spouses, children or
dependents as defined by the insurance agreement . For those
employees without dependents or who do not choose to enroll their
dependents in the City plan, the $59.25 per month shall be paid
to the employees as an addition to his/her regular salary.
Section 5 . 0 Holidays .
5. 1 City agrees that Association members shall continue to
receive one (1) holiday as provided for by City Resolution No.
52-82 dated November 8, 1982, to be known as a "floating
holiday" . Said floating holiday shall be one (1) day per year
based upon the employee' s birthday. Employee may take such
holiday at his/her choice of time consistent with the scheduling
needs of the City and subject to approval of the Department Head.
5 .2 Unit members shall be allowed to accrue 32 holiday
hours prior to required payoff.
Section 6. 0 Term Life Insurance.
6. 1 City shall continue to provide a term life insurance
policy for each employee in a total amount of FIFTEEN THOUSAND
DOLLARS ($15, 000 . 00) and shall pay all premiums for such policy
during the term of this agreement.
6.2 Effective July 5, 1985, the City shall maintain a term
life insurance policy for each dependent of each unit member in a
total amount of One Thousand Dollars ($1, 000 . 00) per dependent
and shall pay all premiums for such policy during the term of
this Agreement .
Section 7 . 0 Work Schedules .
Shift employees (excluding administrative and investigative
personnel) shall work eight (8) consecutive hours . A one-half
(1 .2) hour lunch period may be taken during the shift if the work
load permits and as authorized and scheduled by the shift
supervisor. Employees shall be considered to be on-duty during
the lunch period and shall answer calls as assigned. In addition
to the work schedules called for above, shift sergeants will
3 _
report to work at least fifteen minutesrior to the beginning of
P g
their shift to allow for a briefing period. It is mutually
understood and agreed that Unit members are agreeing to this
briefing period, and that improvements in overtime compensation
(Section 8 . 0) are being provided in return for the briefing
period.
Section 8 . 0 Overtime.
Overtime for police sergeants on forty (40) hour work week
schedules is authorized for time worked in excess of forty (40)
hours in a work week schedule consisting of seven (7) consecutive
days . Such overtime pay shall be calculated at the rate of one
and one-half (1-1/2) times the hourly base rate of pay. All
overtime work which is less than a one (1) hour increment in a
work shift shall be compensated for in the following manner.
1 to 15 minutes, overtime compensation 0
16 to 30 minutes, overtime compensation 1/2 hour
31 to 45 minutes, overtime compensation 3/4 hour
46 to 60 minutes, overtime compensation 1 hour
Any overtime increments worked over one (1) hour shall be
compensated as in the above-referenced increments . Compensatory
time in lieu of overtime shall be computed at a time and one-half
rate of the base salary and shall be granted to employees at the
mutual convenience of the Police Department and the employee and
subject to the accumulation provisions as specified by City
Resolution No. 12-80 dated July 14, 1980, Personnel Rules and
Regulations . Effective July 1, 1984, the compensatory time
accrual maximum shall be increased to thirty-two (32) hours .
It is further agreed, however, that overtime will not be
paid for hours traveling, studying, or evening classes, etc. ,
when an employee is attending an out of town school.
Section 9. 0 Probationary Period.
The probationary period for newly hired employees shall be
eighteen months . The probationary period for employees promoted
to a higher classification shall be twelve months in the new
classification.
4 -
Section 10 . 0 Standbym
Compensation.
Employees may be placed on standby status by the Chief of
Police. Standby Duty shall not be considered as hours worked for
the purpose of computing overtime .
Compensation for police sergeants on standby assignments
shall be at the rate of two (2) hours straight time compensation
for every four (4) hours of actual time in a standby assignment,
prorated for more or less than four hours . Minimum compensation-
will be for one (1) hour of straight time unless the sergeant is
called to duty during the first hour of standby status. In the
event that the sergeant is called to duty during the first hour
of standby status the provisions for standby compensation shall
not apply; rather the normal overtime provisions of Section 8 .0
of this MOU shall apply.
The sergeant in a standby status must provide the police
dispatcher with a telephone number where he or she can be reached
directly and be able to respond to the predetermined duty
assignment in twenty minutes or less from the time of
notification.
Section 11 . 0 Management Rights .
The authority of the City includes, but is not limited to
the exclusive right to determine the standards of service;
determine the procedures and standards of selection for
employment and promotion; direct its employees; take disciplinary
action for "just cause"; relieve its employees from duty because
of lack of work or for other legitimate reason; maintain the
efficiency of governmental operations; determine the methods,
manning and personnel by which governmental operations are to be
conducted; determine the content of job classifications; take all
necessary actions to carry out its mission in emergencies;
exercise complete control and discretion over its organizations
and the technology of performing its work; provided, however,
that the exercise and retention of such rights does not preclude
employees or their representatives from consulting or raising
grievances over the consequences or impact that decisions on
these matters may have on wage, hours and other terms of
employment .
5 _
i •
Section 12 . 0 Peaceful Performance.
During the life of this agreement no work stoppages,
strikes, slowdowns, or picketing shall be caused or sanctioned by
the Atascadero Sergeants' Organization, and no lockouts shall be
made by the City of Atascadero.
In the event that any employees covered by this agreement,
individually or collectively, violate the provisions of this
article and the Atascadero Sergeants' Service Organization fails
to exercise good faith in halting the work interruption, the
Association and the employees involved shall be deemed in
violation of this article and the City shall be entitled to seek
all remedies available to it under applicable law.
Section 13 Litigation.
In the event of a final Court judgment awarding any or all
Unit members salary adjustments, then said adjustments shall be
calculated using the salary scale prevailing at the time of the
disputed events .
Section 14 Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Association and City understand the pendency of the
issuance of Fair Labor Standards Act Regulations . It is agreed
that the lack of accurate information makes it impossible for the
City to implement all elements of the Fair Labor Standards Act at
this time. The City reserves the right to take all steps
necessary to implement the Fair Labor Standards Act when
information is available. Upon request, the City will meet with
the Association to meet and confer on the implementation.
Section 15 Acting Pay
Employees in the classification of Police Sergeant who are
assigned to work as Acting Chief shall receive out of
classification pay after working ten (10) cumulative shifts as
Acting Chief in any fiscal year. All other provisions of the
Personnel Rule Regulations regarding payment of out of
classification pay remain unchanged.
Section 16 Term and Effect of Agreement
This MOU shall be effective July 1, 1985, and shall remain
in effect to and including June 30, 1986.
6 -
Section 17 Applicability of Personnel Rules and
Regulations.
It is agreed and understood that in all other respects
except as specifically enumerated by the MOU, the rules
regulations and conditions of employment of the City of
Atascadero as established by Ordinance No. 24 dated July 14,
1980, Resolutions No. 12-80 dated July 14, 1980, Resolution No.
31-81 dated October 12, 1981, and Resolution No. 52-82 dated
November 8, 1982, shall remain in full force and effect .
ATASCADER SERGEANTS' CITY OF ATASCADERO
BARGAI NG UNIT
1 ,
Jon C. Lovgre
•
September 19 , 1985
DATE DATE
•
7 -
19 Li IDA
MEMORANDUM /
•
TO: Board of Directors ,
t t
THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager '
FROM: Paul M. Sensibaugh, Director of Pubic Works/City Engineer
SUBJECT: Addition to the Santa Rosa Sanitary Sewer District
DATE: September 18, 1985
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that Council adopt Resolution No. 109-85 (item lc)
to set a hearing for October 14 and to continue items IA and 1B
to that date.
Background:
Council has been previously presented two resolutions to set
a hearing for the purpose of establishing a Sewer Improvement District
to bring the Cease and Desist areas along Marchant Way and Santa
• Rosa into the public sewer system.
As staff had hoped, however , there are another twenty plus lots
that would like to be considered in the proposed district. These
residents along Santa Rosa (South side) have shown an interest to
the tune of greater than 51%.
A district boundary can now be delineated for the entire area
which should reduce the unit cost of construction.
Discussion:
At the October 14 meeting, staff will provide an overall
boundary map, a preliminary cost estimate, a breakdown of assessments
per parcel and a composite resolution to form the district.
Plans and specifications and authorization to bid will be
presented for approval at a later date. After construction is
complete and the total actual costs are knows, a resolution will
be presented establishing assessments and providing for inclusion
on the tax rolls prior to August 10, 1986.
Fiscal Impact:
While there is not anticipated cost to the City at this time,
• there may be a staff recommendation prior to 1986 that would suggest
a contribution from the ACSD that would assist the many Cease and
Desist areas equitably.
0 •
iPtn. Lot 13 Block 13, Atascadero Colony
A.P.N. 56-351-22
Ptn. Lot 13 Block 13, Atascadero Colony
A.P.N. 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.N. 54-151-18
Ptn Lot 14 Block 13 , Atascadero Colony
A.P.N. 54-151-19
Ptn Lot 15A Block 13 , Atascadero Colony
A.P.N. 54-151-28
Ptn Lot 15A Block 13, Atascadero Colony
A.P.N. 54-151-52
Ptn Lot 15A Block 13 , Atascadero Colony
A.P.N. 54-252-53
Ptn Lot 15 Block 13 , Atascadero Colony
A.P.N. 54-151-48
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 Block 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
Section 3. A hearing shall be held at Atascadero City Hall, .
on Octoberl4, 1985 at 7: 30 p.m. on the proposed annexation of the
aforesaid property to be annexed into the Atascadero County Sanitation
District.
Section 4. Any interested person desiring to make written
protest against such annexation shall do so by written communication,
containing the signature and street address of the protestant, and
shall be filed with the Clerk of the Atascadero County Sanitation
District, P.O. Box 747, Atascadero, CA 93423 not later than 7 :30
p.m. October 14, 1985.
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:
klc'� 0
MIKE SHELTON,Secretary ROLFE NELSON, Chairman
APP 0 A TO FOP..
BERT Mo JONES
City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT :
PAUL M. SENSIBAUGH
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
REEK RESNo 9 Or
r 3�srrq 7 .r (MORRO HWRDAD) N0. 466 1
A +.
02
�
`. r('r0
�,�.�• ,
ell
uT°F 1 fit.
e
'J S.
vC 7 a �r °o /Tv
'n
193
" l ✓r�H
- 7es
O
'� O a X090a_oe 1 N
/!;"✓',i���'�__$sEel_`'.Jtizzr ��. "' i:."'�IpOn�.f�`✓�/� f : ..z'�
I 1 �°/ r - w �- .1 s_. n l/00/17!✓-,d��
oso
J
Es�' 'i,`CgYl r s_-✓s=_. L i �y�70t
no
/l5gg6i �� ��lg5i �0T
n \
CITY COUNCIL OF ATASCADERO SUBJECT: SEDERS
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 Iluenal Rvenue.
We would petition the city for the option of paying all sewer costs
including engineering by assessment on city tar roils, 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
i
8150 22 Taylor
8140 36 Gaskell
vocant lot 37 Dykstra />
9170 27 27 Berndt
8150 26 Williams ' %?
Val,ant lot 41 Var nold
-•snr
8220 42 Lyon
9250 43 Mulder
CITY COUNCIL Of ATRSCA DER 0 SUBJECT: SEWERS
The following property owners on Santa Rosa Road petition the city of
Atasc;adero to grant permission to place a sewer line from the
intersection of Santa Rosa Road and Marchant lUay, north on Santa
Rosa 'load to fluenal Avenue.
1111e would petition the city for the option of paying all sewer costs
including engineering by assessment on city tate rolls, or be able to
pa.0 costs outright, at the discretion of the property owner.
MRP SECTION 55-35-351 ,
r�ssr}:clr's
1DIn,0PESS LOT NAME SIGNHTURE
8050 10 !Duty
0002 10 [DutaD
8100 14 Mongolo
0150 22 Taylor
5140 36 Gaskell
vacant lot 0 L,kstr a ✓ �o,�; ¢ �d
a 17110 27 Berndt
iD l u0 26 U-1111ia[AS-
A
822:0 -112 ;_��cn
'F-1.U i d e r
i
CITY COUNCIL OF RTASCAOERO 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 Auenal Ouenue.
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 # NAME SIGNATURE
7950 43 Rndrews ,211 k412 2 71J-Ce—�
7960 41 Smith 2 212
7908 49 Peyton
7984 47 Topham
-vacant lot ol
7982 48 Weems
8000 28 Sutton
vacant lot parcel
8008 B Weems
vacant lot parcel
8010 C Weems
8014 Brunner -
80 a0 19 Moench x�
8040 l8 Doerfler ----
8050 23 Bunton
8070 51 Nelson
wacant lot
8080 50 Nelson
CITY COUNCIL OF RTRSCROERO 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 Ruenal Avenue.
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 31-30-381
Assessor's
ADDRESS LOT # NAME SIGNATURE
7975 56 Moser
7985 55 Hay '
7995 36 McMurray
0005 44 O'Dell
0015 41 Romero
0025 62 Kagel
0035 61 Jacobsen _
•
r•G
• MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of Directors
THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Paul M. Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
SUBJECT: Ardilla Sewer Annexations (Rehbock and Dunn)
DATE: September 18, 1985
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of items , lA and 1B which would
annex Parcel A, Lot 1 Block JB and Lots 29 and 30 of Block KB to
Sanitation Improvement District No. 1 of the ACSD.
Background:
Historically sewer annexations have been approved on a first-
come-first-served basis if sewer capacity is available and an EIR
is not necessary and if a negative declaration is made.
• Staff has made a finding, and is documenting it here, that a
negative declaration is made. Attached is a copy of the consulting
engineer ' s findings that the increase due to buildout development
for those lines that extend to the main trunk interceptor is in-
significant.
The main trunk interceptor is running about half full. Under
present conditions therefore the two developments combined will
have no significant impact on the trunk line.
Discussion:
The trunk line mentioned above as well as some trunk lines on
the south end of town are not of sufficient size to carry the amount
of effluent that will be produced at the buildout year. Additionaly,
there are other areas that should be provided for prior to buildout,
namely the Cease and Desist areas.
It should be recognized that in order to serve all the Cease
and Desist areas a great deal of time, money, cooperation and
willingness will be necessary. Some of the Cease and Desist areas
are not only out of Improvement District No. 1 but are outside .
the ACSD boundaries. Assessment districts will no doubt be necessary
and in some cases the Board may be forced to make a decision when
51% or more of the frontage opposed the district.
•
• s
RESOLUTION NO. 107-85
A RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
APPROVING EXTENDING PUBLIC SEWER SERVICE TO
PARCEL A, LOT 1, BLOCK JB
APN 30-271-03 AND INCORPORATING THE AREA CONCERNED
INTO THE BOUNDARIES OF THE SANITATION DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the Atascadero County Sanitation District is empowered
by Section 4741 of the Health and Safety Code to extend service to
areas outside of its boundaries; and
WHEREAS, Mrs. Caroline Rehbock owns the property described
in Exhibits A and B attached to this resolution; and
WHEREAS, said property, located on Ardilla Avenue
is contiguous with the existing district; and
WHEREAS, said property is within the Urban Services Line on
the City' s Land Use and Circulation General Plan Map and is con-
sistent with the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, it is in the interest of Atascadero County Sanitation
District to provide sewer service when consistent with t
General Plan; and � � �,� 1" d, � o
WHEREAS, the extension of utility tYervice toUan existing
private structure is from the provisions of
the California Environmental Quality Act (class 19) .
WHEREAS, Parcel A, Lot 1 Block JB will be required to design
and construct a sewer main extension at their expense prior to
connection and it appears feasible to do so; and,
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 such sewer service (Health
and Safety Code section 4830) ;
Section 2. The Board approves the extension of public sewer
service to the following parcels, subject to the payment of
appropriate fees as listed in the Atascadero County Sanitation
Code:
Parcel A, Lot 1, Block JB Atascadero Colony
f,
0 •
Subject to the following conditions:
a. Obtain all necessary plumbing and street encroachment permits
b. Payment of all connection extension fees as provided in the
Atascadero County Sanitation District Code.
Section 3. The area included in Parcel A, Lot 1, Block JB
is hereby incorporated into the boundaries of the Atascadero
County Sanitation District.
On motion by Board Member and seconded by Board
Member , the foregoing resolution is adopted in its
entirety by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
DATE:
ATTEST:
Mike Shelton ROLFE NELSON
Secr tear Chairman
APPROVE A TO FORM:
ROBERT M. JONES
City Attornev
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
PAUL M. SENSIBAUGH
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
2
co
c z
W
M o :rn i U
o
Q O <
I Q
yO
� G J
0 o a
'L Z
< sxs <
W d y
K
< MI
W
J N
O
2
y� J
U rm z
w
I
U)
i JLLJ
U)T-Lu
V)
m C
$.-
0 O
W W << LL r z '� ?
O W OCL
O
° > 3
(10
CL
� u N
r CL
N crCL
vii m
Z
LL
w
� ` N
UAl
CL
Q
° 3 Q
J'
�^ c m
17
7 \N%
0
N
oa,
O
M
\ r
Q � o,
s\ rc, ,cl u I
RESOLUTION NO. 106-85
A RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
APPROVING EXTENDING PUBLIC SEWER SERVICE TO
LOTS 29 & 30 OF BLOCK KB
APN 30-271-03 AND INCORPORATING THE AREA CONCERNED
INTO THE BOUNDARIES OF THE SANITATION DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the Atascadero County Sanitation District is empowered
by Section 4741 of the Health and Safety Code to extend service to
areas outside of its boundaries; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Wally Dunn owns the property described
in Exhibits A and B attached to this resolution; and
WHEREAS, said property, located on Ardilla Avenue
is contiguous with the existing district; and
WHEREAS, said property is within the Urban Services Line on
the City' s Land Use and Circulation General Plan Map and is con-
sistent with the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, it is in the interest of Atascadero County Sanitation
District to provide sewer service when consistent with the
General Plan; and '
WHEREAS, the extension 6f utility service to an existing
private structure is �t-r�^r„ 'l �r.+m �hrevisierrs of
the California Environmental Quality Act (class 19) .
WHEREAS, Lots 29 & 30 of Block KB will be required to design
and construct a sewer main extension at their expense prior to
connection and it appears feasible to do so; and,
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 such sewer service (Health
and Safety Code section 4830) ;
Section 2. The Board approves the extension of public sewer
service to the following parcels, subject to the payment of
appropriate fees as listed in the Atascadero County Sanitation
Code:
Lots 29 & 30 Block KB, Atascadero Colony
Subject to the following conditions:
a. Obtain all necessary plumbing and street encroachment permits
b. Payment of all connection extension fees as provided in the
Atascadero County Sanitation District Code.
Section 3. The area included in Lots 29 & 30 , Block KB
is hereby incorporated into the boundaries of the Atascadero
County Sanitation District.
On motion by Board Member and seconded by Board
Member , the foregoing resolution is adopted in its
entirety by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
DATE:
ATTEST:
Mike Shelton ROLFE NELSON
Secretary Chairman
APPROVE AS 0 FORM:
ROBERT M. J ES
Interim City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
PAUL M. SENSIBAUGH
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
r
2
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Lots 29 & 30 of Block KB, in the City of Atascadero, County of
San Luis Obispo, State of California, according to map recorded
October 21, 1914 in Book 4 page 39 of Maps, in the office of the
County Recorder of said County.
3 �
j;
N
c
e
•'1 Q
CD
O N u N
O a.
°
1
W
O
09 W O o
y a
Q
' .. rad i 1 •; - _ :.J
m �q .7.:'L • ICS i � ._ -.1,°-._.:? �'.'j
r i
u
. - ti• b.O � c - s T''moi
r71
JAO
- A
�- J
N .O
rya j �
} AVE
r
C)
cv
•D � n W 7�'
C7 O r.i
• _M_E_M_O_R_A_N_D_U_M_
DATE: 9-17-85
TO: Michael Shelton, City ManagertO—
FROM: Mike Hicks, Fire Chief
SUBJECT: Weed abatement extension
At the City Council meeting of 8-12-85 , Council approved an
extension of the weed abatement program to enable completion
of this program, delayed due to early fire activity.
As a result of the extension, 28 additional parcels have been
abated as indicated on the attached list. Abatement fees shown
on the list include the 40% administrative fee . Due to time
requirements , charges for abatement during the extension period
will not be included in the 1985-86 tax bills , but will be
included in the 1986-87 tax bills.
MIKE HICKS
MH:pg
•
• •
City of Atascadero
Weed Abatement Assessments (8-13-85 to 9-13-85 extension period)
Assessments to be included on 1986-87 tax listing:
Parcel number Total assessment
31-321-09-000 $ 84.00
31-321-16-000 42.00
31-321-17-000 28.00
31-331-05-000 70.00
54-141-05-000 224.00
28-051-30-000 70.00
28-051-52-000 42.00
28-051-51-000 42.00
28-141-11-000 98.00
28-151-34-000 70.00
28-161-07-000 70.00
28-172-13-000 70.00
28-172-15-000 98.00
. 28-271-13-000 70.00
28-292-13-000 98.00
28-292-14-000 84.00
28-291-04-000 84.00
28-301-33-000 98.00
28-332-09-000 42.00
28-332-08-000 28.00
28-332-27-000 28.00
28-332-03-000 56.00
28-332-01-000 56.00
31-111-01-000 84.00
28-411-23-000 58.80
28-412-08-000 39.20
55-031-40-000 156.80
55-031-39-000 156.80
TOTAL $2,147.60
a
P "IDA
A
TO: Honorable City Council Members September 23 , 1985
FROM: Mike Shelton
SUBJECT: BUSINESS LICENSE FEES REVISION
RECOMMENDATION:
City Council adopt Business License Fee revision, Resolution 108-85,
increasing business license fees to $50 per year plus $10 per each
full-time equivalent employee.
BACKGROUND:
On May 5, 1985 , a broad community based business committee (Special
Study Committee for a new city Business License Tax Fee Schedule)
recommended a new Business License Fee Schedule of $25 basic flat fee
• plus $5 per each employee.
Staff presented the schedule to Council at your June 10, 1985 Council
Meeting, concurring with the recommendations of the committee, but
recommending the basic proposed minimum fee be increased to $50 plus
$10 per employee effective January 1, 1986, and to $75 plus $10 per
employee effective July 1, 1986 . No Council action was taken and
staff has subsequently met with the Special Study Committee to review
additional comparative City Business License data and addressed other
issues of concern.
As a compromise position, the Committee recommends increasing the
Business License Fee to $50 annually plus $10 per each full-time
equivalent employee. No additional increase is recommended at this
time. The Committee recommends against the formulation of a annual-
ized increase pegged to an inflationary index, but requests any
future increase be restudied in the future and presented to the
Council, as may be necessary. The committee continues to recommend a
modified flat-rate fee charge based on category and number of
employees.
Attached is a comparative Business License Chart for cities in the
County and the City of Santa Maria. All cities charge a Business
License Fee. Three (3) cities utilize a Gross Receipt Business
License Schedule and four (4) cities use flat-rate fees or a modified
• (employee schedule) flat-rate fee. Threeimportant comparison results
are as follow:
1
FY 1985-86
1/2 Year at $15 and
1/2 Year at $50 + $10 per employee = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$42, 500
FY 1986-87
1 Year @ $50 + $10 per employee = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $70 ,000
To the extent enforcement efforts result in additional business
licenses issues, revenues will be increased.
MS:kv
File: BsLicFel
i
3
• •
RESOLUTION NO.108 - 85
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
A1%IENDING RESOLUTION NO. 6-35 REVISING AND E(STA�LISHIdG
BUSINESS LICENSE FEES FOR GENERAL AND SPECIFIC LICENSES
WHEREAS , the Atascadero Municipal Code provides that changes in
rates of license fees can be made by the City Council through the adoption
of a Resolution; and
WHEREAS , the City of Atascadero has previously adopted business
license fees pursuant to Resolution No . 6-35 ; and
WHEREAS , the Planning Department has analyzed the cost of
processing various types of business license fees and has determined that
the cost of processing applications and business license fees and the
enforcement thereof has increased since the adoption of Resolution 6-85 ; and
WHEREAS , this Council hereby finds that the recommended fees as
shown in Schedule "A" attached and incorporated by reference herein, are
for a valid regulatory purpose in accordance with Business and Professions
Code 16000;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED by this Atascadero
City Council that the following Fee Schedule in Attachment "A" incorporated
herein by reference is hereby approved and established.
The City Clerk shall certify as to the adoption of this ResolutAlhn
and shall cause this Resolution and his certification to be entered in tip
Book of Resolutions of the Council of this City.
On motion of Council seconded by Council ,
and on the following role call vote , to-wit :
AYES:
NOES :
ABSENT:
The following Resolution is hereby adopted to be effective
1985 .
ROLFE NELSON, :Tavor
-�� CITY OF ATASCADERO `
ATTEST: j
-TICHAEL SHELTON
ROBERT M. JONES , City Clerk City -tanager
APPROVED AS TO F OR1,1:
ROBERT 11. J-ONES , City Attorney
it
File: BSLICFEE
BUSINESS LICENSE TAX FEE SCHEDULE
CATEGORIES AND FEES
CATEGORY FEE
Arcades. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 50
Each Machine. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1
Circuses, Etc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $150 (per day)
Vending Machines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 50
Each Machine. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 2
Taxicabs - First Vehicle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 50
J Each additional Vehicle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 10
licitors, Peddlers, Vendors
Principal and 1 Solicitor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 50 (per day)
. Additional Day. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 10
Profession & Services Oriented. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 50
Businesses, Assembly Line Plant and
Similar Businesses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 50
Each Employee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 10
Manufacturers, Wholesalers, Packing Houses, Farmers
Markets, and Similar Business. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 50
Each Employee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 10
Transfer (Trucking) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 50
Each Truck. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 10
Contractors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 75
(Out of Town Contractors - Each Job) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 50
(Out of Town Contractors - Yearly) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 75
Hotel/Motel - 1-3 Rooms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 0
4-10 Rooms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 50
Each Additional Room. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 2
1 -
Mobile Home Park - 1-3 Spaces. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 0
4-10 Spaces. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 50
Each Additional Space. . . . . . . . . . . .$ 2
Apartment Houses, Courts,
Boarding, or Rooming Houses - 1-3 Units. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 0
4-10 Units. . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 50
Each Additional Unit. . . . $ 2
Storage Units - 1-3 Units. . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 0
4-10 Units. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 50
a', Each Additional Uni]t. . . . . .$ 2
Home Occupation ' ' '
ccupation ' ole Propri for, hip) (No E ployees) . . .$25
Hospitals, Sanitariums, Rest Homes
Asylums - 1-10 Beds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 50
Each Additional Bed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 2
Rummage/Parking Lot/Garage/Yard Sale -
Limit of 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 0
2 2-day per year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 0
3 or after (2 day limit) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 50 per day
Auctions/Fire/Wreck/Bankrupt Sale. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 50 per day
(no permanent place of business)
Auctions/Commercial. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 50
(permanent place of business)
Each Employee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 10
Bingo/Other Organized Games of Chance (Non Profit) . . . .$ 0
Bazaars/Fairs (Profit Organization) -
1-4 Displays. . . . . . . . . . . . . o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 25 (2-days)
. 5 Plus Displays. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 50 per day
Festivals, Fairs, Bazzars (Non Profit) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 0
Non Franchized Public Utilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$100
Vehicle Deliveries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 50
Fee Per Sticker Vehicle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 10
All Other Businesses (non-category including
Retail Sales Business) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 50
EachEmployee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 10
Maximum Per All Licenses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $500
2 '1
I
1
I
,
f
I I
I- - -- +"- Tom_
k -
d �
!aa'i kl
,
i I
2 cid /�v�v
I I
-
I I ��
I
NI _ O! o
' pq j O;
_ - t�r_ 1 _
- Q` _ G �O ---1-- —
� �� �t � �- gym; I �--�—r�, —F r-� � J• �—a I—r-
�4
OD
�... i
- - - --f—
� I , � I I Imo—� �- 1—--�-I � V=�_•'_-� i-- --
O
- 40
o:
f It
�.� q p'
ri
in Cr-
at cy�
iL
� � � N • i Wz-� I --r- I -fr*�-
of
---- "ql. 4 J -- - Q
•'^ ^• � r •-+ ^• ^• �+ � �+ N
fin'
City of Atascadero
Fee Committee !
Recommendations Pertaining to City Business Licenses
May 1983
The following report deals with City business licenses without legal
counsel, administrative advice or political considerations and was
prepared by an independent committee composed of local businessmen
and community leaders. Itis the desire of this committee that the refine-
ment of the City business license ordinance berinacted equitably and
fairly as a revenue source for the City and not as a vehicle for the
harassment of existing businesses. We strongly recommend that the
business license ordinance be implemented so all existing and future
businesses feel an urgency to participate in the spirit of community
pride.
It is therefore the feeling of this committee that records, routine collec-
tions and renewals be handled through the City Clerk's office and that
enforcement of other ordinances be left to other departments.
Scope: All profit motivated enterprises doing business within the City
limits of Atascadero will have a business license.
Fees: I. $50.00 Annual Fee
A. Retail, wholesale and manufacturers
B. Contract service
1. General and subcontractors
2. Repair services
3. Answering services
4. Non-resident contractors
C. Professional services
1. Doctors
2. Lawyers
3. Accountants
4. Insurance offices
5. Sales offices
6. Financial institutions
7. Service - sales - solicitors
D. Amusement & recreational
1. Phvsical fitness
2. Dance studios
3. Gaming establishments
E. Multiple Dwelling Units
1. Apartment units (4 or more)
2. Mobile homes
3. Hotels, Motels
4. Boarding houses
11. $20.00 Annual Fee
A. Home occupations - (no employees, sole
proprietorships)
III. Specialty Fee
A. Special Events ($50.00 Per event)
1. Carnivals
2. Rodeos
3. Circus
*Note: Local or non-profit organizations should be exempt from special
event fees. This exemption shall not apply to any professional or sales
organization sponsored by any civic or non-profit group.
A
Specialty fees continued:
B. Electronic or Mechanical games
. 1. $50.00 per machine
C. Card tables
1. $300.00 per table
The cost of the implementation and administration of the business
license ordinance would be but a fraction of the additional revenue
generated.
We recommend that'City business license fee schedules have a fixed
ceiling for a period of 5 years.
We recommend penalties for non-compliance be assessed at 10% of
fee per month with a ceiling of 100% penalty per year.
Recommendations for other City fees will be forthcoming.
Respectfully submitted, May 23, 1983.
Fee Committee Members:
Tom McNamara,
Chairman
Harris Hesketh
E.B. Claud
Robert Sonne
George Molina
• M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council September 23 , 1985
VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager cCtWs�
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director '
RE: Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding Architectural
Review
RECOMMENDATION:
Acceptance of the Planning Commission' s recommendation and direct
staff to come back with a proposed ad-hoc committee of design profes-
sionals to evaluate and make recommendations on existing architectural
standards and criteria.
BACKGROUND:
The City Council, at their June 10 , 1985 meeting, requested a recom-
mendation from the Planning Commission on establishing an architec-
tural review process within the City. The Planning Commission consid-
ered the matter at meetings held July 15, 1985 and August 5, 1985 (see
attached minutes excerpts) .
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
Action of the Planning Commission was as follows: . . . "to recommend to
the City Council that the guidelines which already exist be published
for the builders with additions as needed, and to have the review at
the time of specific site review by the Planning Commission, and to .
change the wording of the General Plan accordingly. "
With reference to the General Plan amendment, the City' s General Plan
calls for the establishment of a design review committee. If it is
not the City' s intent to establish such a committee, the language
should be deleted from the General Plan.
Essentially, the Commission' s action is to recommend that the current
architectural standards of the City, with possible revisions, be fol-
lowed by the Planning Commission. They rejected the three alterna-
tives that were transmitted in the staff report (see attached) includ-
ing 1) architectural review commission; 2) architectural review com-
mittee; and 3) staff review. With respect to the latter point, the
Council, at their meeting of September 9th, requested staff to come
back with recommendations on possible zoning text amendments to
strengthen precise plan findings and provide for hillside development
standards. The Commission' s recommendation proposed that architectural
standards be implemented by the Commission on projects before that
body, e.g. , conditional use permits and, although not specifically
• 0
Minutes - Planning Commission - July 15, 1985
C. NEW BUSINESS:
1. Council request for recommendation Re: establishing an
architectural review process
Mr . Engen presented the staff report noting the City Council had
referred the matter to the Planning Commission for review and a
recommendation. He then proceeded to review the different areas
in the City of concern with conflicts with architecture and point-
ed out alternatives that are available to the City.
Chairman LaPrade felt that before any decision is made, that all
commissioners have the opportunity for input into the matter .
Commissioner Sanders felt there is a need for an architectural
review process because of the number of unsightly buildings that
continue to be built within the City.
Jerome Schulte, San Gregorio Road resident, stated that the commu-
nity is growing and that a close look should be taken as to how
the city will look 20 to 30 years from now. He noted his approval
of such a review process as it is important to look at the entire
picture and stated that the overall appearance of Atascadero is
beginning to deteriorate. Mr. Schulte cited a couple of projects
recently built that are quite attractive to the community and
pointed out that an economic outlook should also be taken with
regard to consumers buying in the City or going elsewhere where
they feel more comfortable.
Elizabeth Putnam, speaking for the homeowners association, read a
letter from the association in support of an architectural review
process and noted her concern with the way Atascadero is being
developed with a mish-mash of architectural styles.
Michelle Whitehead, area resident, expressed her concern with the
architectural integrity of the community. She stated that even
though it is important to have individual expression, it is also
important that the individual expression be pleasing to everyone
concerned. She expressed her concern that Atascadero is beginning
to be identified with low-cost construction and high profit
margins and expressed the need to have an architectural review
commission composed of various members of the community.
Terry Hood, Cascabel resident, spoke in favor of architectural re-
view as a regulatory body and that architectural review should be
based on principles of design, planning and aesthetics and felt
that people in the various fields of architecture, landscaping,
etc. would be best qualified to be serve on such a commission.
Debra Kankiewicz spoke in support of an architectural review pro-
cess and asked for a further explanation on how other communities
have dealt with this issue, and expressed some concern about time
factors related to initiating such a process.
6
! •
Minutes - Planning Commission - July 15 , 1985
Mr . Schulte suggested that before any more projects are approved
by the Commission, that a architectural firm be hired as an
advisory body.
Richard Shannon, 8160 Los Osos, feels the problem lies with the
General Plan in that if an area is zoned for commercial or indus-
trial buildings, those are the kinds of buildings that will be
developed.
Del Greenleaf, area resident, spoke about government stepping on
the toes of private property owners and felt that an architectural
review commission would most definitely improve the looks of com-
mercial developments.
Terry Hood addressed the government regulations and talked about
some of the projects that have been developed by responsible
people.
Commissioner Michielssen stated that since his appointment to the
Commission, he has heard more about the need of forming an archi-
tectural review process than any other issue. He noted his
support for such a committee.
Commissioner Hatchell stated he was in favor of the idea concep-
tually and felt that it may be difficult in establishing criteria
on which projects will be evaluated.
MOTION: Made by Commissioner Hatchell, seconded by Chairman La-
Prade to defer any more discussion on the matter until
the full commission is present. Commissioner Sanders
dissented.
Commissioner Sanders feels this motion would be important if the
Commission is chosen to serve on the body. Commissioner Kennedy
felt more input is needed from the community and noted that an
architectural review process is for community involvement. Com-
missioner Hatchell asked that if a recommendation was made to
appoint an architectural review committee, what would the time
frames be? Mr. Engen explained that it may take up to four months
for the whole process to be completed.
Michelle Whitehead asked if there is a way to let more of the com-
munity know of these hearings. Mr . Engen suggested that an adver-
tisement could be placed in the Atascadero News informing of the
August 5th meeting date and time.
D. PUBLIC COMMENT
Jerome Schulte expressed his concern with the high degree of fires
starting in this area especially on vacant land that is covered
with weeds, and spoke about his efforts for weed abatement on an
adjacent piece of property which he felt was endangering his
property. Mr . Engen noted that this matter would be before the
City Council at the July 22nd meeting concerning weed abatement.
7
Minutes - Planning Commission - August 5, 1985
"gentle to moderate slope" and Parcel 4 should be added as an are
esently used as an orchard.
MOT N: Made by Commissioner Michielssen, seconded by Com s-
sioner Kennedy and carried unanimously to approve Tenta
tive Parcel Map 17-85 subject to the findings an condi
ions contained in the staff report with in rporatio
o the wording "to prohibit cross lot drain ge" within
the conditions of approval.
Chairman LaPrad and Commissioner Sanders took th it places bac
on the Commission
2. Tentative Parce Ma 19-85:
Request submitte by Sevcik and Thoma to allow the creation
of two lots where hree lots now exist in the CR zone. Sub-
ject property is loc ted at 3600 E Camino Real, also know
as Lot 5 of Block 18.
In presenting the staff report Mr,✓Davidson spoke on the previous
approvals involved with the deve pment of this site and statedq
that one of the conditions of t use permit was to obtain a to
merger.
Commissioner Nolan asked i the width the easement would be
sufficient and asked what was involve in the participation of al
traffic light. Mr. Engen noted that there have been several use;
permit approvals which have involved thes conditions and that ak
study is being prep ed that will address these issues.
There was some d cussion concerning the amount of trees on the
site with regard o adequate provisions taken to assure protection'
of the trees./
/wit
representing the applicant, stated he was\\'in agree-
recommended conditions.
by Commissioner Michielssen, seconded by Commis-
er Bond and carried unanimously to approve Tentative
el Map 19-85 subject to the findings and conditi s
ained in the staff report.
3. Architectural Review Process: Continued consideration of
request by City Council for recommendation on establishing an
architectural review process within the City.
Mr . Engen provided a brief summary on the discussion and actions
taken at the previous meeting concerning this issue, and noted
that this is a public hearing item.
Maggie Rice, Vida resident, stated she had sought various people ' s
opinions on an architectural review process and noted that the
general consensus was that they were in favor of providing better
guidelines in the general plan and zoning ordinance but that most
people feared another form of government with rights being taken
3
Minutes Planning -
ng Commission August 5, 1985
away.
Whitey Thorpe, area resident, stated his opposition to such a pro-
cess and felt that the consumer ultimately ends up paying in the
end for, these types of controlling agencies and felt that the
market place should take care of the architectural situation.
Elizabeth Putnam, with the homeowners association, read aloud a
letter from the association in support of the review process and
repeated many of the same comments expressed at the previous meet-
ing. She stated she has talked with many people throughout the
community and felt the general consensus is that an architectural
review process is definitely needed. Ms. Putnam also added that
what happens in the community does have an affect on individual
property values.
Norman Norton stated that this should be a discretionary matter
and referenced the cities of San Luis Obispo and Paso Robles with
their architectural review committees and pointed out various
prob-lems that such a committee can present. He noted he is in
opposition to this type of review process.
Terry Hood, Cascabel Road resident, spoke on behalf of a group of
citizens in support of design review and presented the Commission
with a petition with 228 signatures and stated that there is com-
munity support for an architectural review process. She then
referenced the General Plan with regard to criteria contained in
the plan for design review. Mrs. Hood summarized comments she had
made at the previous meeting.
Sandy Overturf, Carmelita resident, stated that it is not only im-
portant to keep in mind the architectural considerations, but also
to maintain value systems in Atascadero incorporated within the
General Plan.
Richard Shannon, Los Osos Road resident, stated his opposition to
the design review and noted many similarities in some of the in-
dustrial and other types of stores in San Luis Obispo with Atas-
cadero, and felt that this type of committee becomes a powerful
entity.
Michelle Whitehead, spoke in support of an architectural review
process and felt this would develop accountability as well as dev-
elop pleasant surroundings. and noted her support of the archi-
tectural review commissions" in both San Luis Obispo and Paso
Robles.
Elaine Oglesby, 9195 Santa Lucia, stated she has been a resident
in Atascadero for 48 years and spoke about her experiences with
the various advisory committees and general plan committees and
the efforts taken to present a concise and complete general plan
that was adopted by the community people. Mrs. Oglesby further
stated that the provisions of the "Community Appearances and
Standards" portion of the General Plan were made in the interest
of the community to make it a good place in which to live and that
4
0 0
Minutes - Planning Commission — August 5, 1985
these provisions should be implemented.
Mr. Thorpe suggested that the matter be continued for another
two weeks as he would like to have the opportunity of presenting a
petition in opposition of the design review to the Commission.
Don Eddy, 9705 E1 Camino Real, felt that the City has good people
to look at the overall picture and expressed concern over comments
that have been raised relative to the Planning Commission not
being qualified to serve on such an architectural review process.
Mrs. Hazebrook, 7655 Balboa, noted that the San Luis Obispo Arch-
itectural Review Commission is a voluntary body. There are poor
buildings in San Luis Obispo that are upgraded when remodeled
buildings in the City near Tank Farm Road are better than the
County building.
Terry Hood clarified some points concerning the petition and the
signatures that were taken.
John Cole, 8710 Sierra Vista, stated that each issue is contro-
versial and that he is opposed to another level of bureaucracy.
Michelle Whitehead asked if it was the Planning Department' s role
to dictate or regulate the architectural design of commercial
building projects. Mr. Engen responded that the process requires
submittal of elevations but there is no criteria set in which to
change it, etc.
Norman Norton commented on a newly constructed store built by Rex
Hendrix and the fact that no architectural review was involved and
re-iterated that Atascadero has some very good people that are
capable of designing and building attractive buildings.
Herb LaPrade, 6480 Santa Ynez, expressed his feelings opposing an
architectural review process which could diminish the Planning
Commission' s role.
Terry Hood stated that she hoped that the testimony did not intend
to offend contractors and developers and also felt that Mr. Hen-
drix' s building was a very attractive one.
David Harrell, resident of San Luis Obispo, commented on his feel-
ing that San Luis ' s Architectural Review Commission has too much
power and cited an example of the different types of sidewalks in
front of businesses in the downtown district near the Mission.
Commissioner Bond felt that the Architectural Review Commission in
San Luis dictates what you can do or what you can' t do; that it
causes unnecessary delays for builders and tends to make people
want to develop elsewhere because of this agency. He suggested
screen planting along the Highway in order to buffer metal build-
ings, and felt that guidelines are needed and would like to see
some sort of subcommittee.
5
• •
Minutes - Planning Commission - August 5, 1985
Commission Nolan inquired as to why E1 Camino Real and Morro Road
were chosen but not Traffic Way. Mr . Engen responded that the
request was generated by many people' s complaints concerning the
more heavily traveled routes.
Commissioner Sanders stated this is the second meeting concerning
an architectural review process and does not wish to see this
issue continued again. She noted that there is a design review as
a part of the General Plan that should be utilized. She further
stated that there are many unattractive buildings in Atascadero
and that the Planning Commission has a responsibility to the com-
munity to assure pleasant surroundings for Atascadero' s future.
In response to prior comments concerning improper or poor zoning,
Chairman LaPrade referenced the many hearings involved with adop-
ting the zoning ordinance and noted that it is impossible to
please everyone. He expressed having reservations with an archi-
tectural review process and pointed out the problems the Century
Plaza has had over the past several years and the fact that it was
subject to design review by the County. He further commented that
he would support a concept in which prospective applications would
be reviewed more closely by staff and the Commission by using the
review process already being used with efforts made to make pro-
spective developers aware of what will be expected of them in the
way of design requirements.
Commissioner Michielssen concurred with Chairman LaPrade' s state-
ments and suggested published guidelines for development. He
stated that the planning commission and city council are elected
governmental bodies, therefore, it was his opinion that any design
review could be adequately handled by these bodies. He spoke
about an individual he knows whose plans have been in the design
review process with the San Luis A.R.C. for four months and com-
mented on delays experienced with the agency. He further pointed
out that the Paso Robles A.R.C. is comprised of planning commis-
sion members. Commissioner Michielssen stated he would be in op-
position to a strict architectural review commission but would be
in favor of the commission handling the work.
Commissioner Kennedy felt that guidelines should be written up so
that builders will know before they submit a set of plans what
will be required of them. She asked how this could be accom-
plished. Mr . Engen stated it would be difficult for staff, at
this time, to undertake this project in light of the many ongoing
projects currently taking place in the Department, but suggested a
subcommittee with staff assistance.
Commissioner Sanders stated that the criteria is already set forth
in the General Plan and felt the issue involved is who should be a
part of such a review, and expressed her feeling that concerned
people from the community with design experience should be chosen
for the design review.
6
0 •
Minutes - Planning Commission - August 5, 1985
Commissioner Bond agreed that guidelines are definitely needed and
hoped that people such as architects, landscapers, etc. would be
involved in preparing the guidelines.
MOTION: Made by Commissioner Bond to recommend to the Council
that a citizens committee of volunteers of builders,
architects, landscape architects, to prepare a complete
set of guidelines for the Community Development Depart-
ment to use, and if deemed necessary, to change the word-
ing of the General Plan to coincide with Alternative #3
of the staff report with some variations. Commissioner
Nolan seconded the motion.
Commissioner Michielssen asked for further clarification on the
motion. Commissioner Sanders reiterated that the guidelines al-
ready exist in the General Plan. Further discussion ensued con-
cerning the nature of the guidelines, the subjectiveness that
could result.
Commissioner Bond then withdrew his motion and Commissioner Nolan
withdrew his second.
MOTION: Commissioner Bond moved to recommend to the City Coun-
cil that the guidelines which already exist be published
for the builders with additions as needed, and to have
the review at the time of specific site review by the
Planning Commission, and to change the wording of the
General Plan accordingly. Chairman LaPrade seconded the
motion.
There was further discussion concerning cost factors with regard
to utilization of staff time needed.
The motion carried with Commissioners Kennedy and Sanders
dissenting.
C. PUBLIC COMMENT
Terry Hood expressed her disappointment in the discussion and
recommendation that was made to City Council regarding an archi-
tectural review process and stated her reasons for the objection.
D. VIDUAL ACTION AND/OR DETERMINATION
1. Planning ssion
Commissioner Nolan expressed�oncee n with the Colony Inn develop-
ment that is currentlyufrder construction_-_i�ith regard to the tree
on the site. D' ssion ensued on this issue'vi-th,._emphasis on in
Suring ate protection of the trees and the driplines during
g and excavation of new projects.
7
•
City of Atascadero Item: B-3
STAFF REPORT
FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: 7/15/85
& 8/5/85
BY: Henry Engen, Planning Director File: Architectural
Review
Project Address: City-Wide
BACKGROUND:
On June 10, 1985 the City Council considered the attached staff report
relative to the subject of establishing an architectural review pro-
cess within the city. The action of the Council was to refer the mat-
ter to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation. It was
the general consensus of the Council that should an architectural re-
view function be established in the city, that it be pursuant to
alternative #2 (i.e. an architectural review committee established
under the Planning Commission) but that the committee function in an
advisory capacity and not a regulatory one.
ANALYSIS•
Although the city' s general plan calls for the creation of a design
review commission, this has not been done. Elevations are required as
a pre-requisite for submitting applications for both precise plans and
conditional use permit approval, but language is limited with respect
to requiring re-designs or modifications to project design.
Although staff has no problems with metal buildings per say, there is
a strong possibility that the viewshed along El Camino Real will be-
come dominated in the years ahead by a lackluster standard plan metal
buildings.
Clearly, the major negative on architectural review is adding to the
the time it takes to obtain a permit and additional time that staff
would have to devote to whatever form of review process might be es-
tablished. As indicated in the report to the Council, it was suggested
that the geographic areas which should be the focus for any architec-
tural review process be limited to the viewsheds along E1 Camino Real,
Highway 101 and Morro Road. Should such function be established there
will be a need to adopt criteria so that applicants will know what the
city is looking for.
STAFF COMMENT:
Should the Commission recommend to the Council adoption of some form
of architectural review process, it should include regulatory powers.
Absent regulatory powers, we could have the worst of both worlds, i.e.
a good amount of time spent in trying to direct development towards
an agreed upon end but no assurance that anything will come of it.
9 •Re: Architectural Review
RECOMMENDATION:
Following review and discussion, report a recommendation on the archi-
tectural review process back to the City Council.
HE:ps
Enclosure: Staff Report - May 13, 1985
Council Minutes Excerpt - June 10, 1985
2
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council May 13, 1985
VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Henry Engen, Planning Director4V
RE: Architectural Review Report
BACKGROUND
Mayor Nelson has requested a report to the City Council on alternative
approaches that might be considered to establish an architectural re-
view process in the City of Atascadero. The purpose of this memoran-
dum is to provide an overview of approaches that could be used. Coun-
cil may wish to give policy direction to staff to come back with a
more detailed evaluation of the most promising approach.
GENERAL PLAN REFERENCES
The Atascadero General Plan clearly anticipated that there would be
some form of design review function incorporated in the City' s devel-
opment review process. Appendix D contains a "draft ordinance" for a
design review commission. Actually, Appendix D is more criteria to be
used by a design review commission than it is an ordinance creating
one. It did: not indicate the membership or powers, duties and appeals
rights, etc.- of a commission, for example.
With respect to the General Plan itself, there is the following quota-
tions from "Community Appearance and Standards, " Chapter XIII pertain-
ing to architectural review:
113. The architectural style of residential and commercial build-
ings shall harmonize with the environment. If fencing is
used, it shall be consistent with the style of the building. "
Industrial Parks: "6 . Building exteriors shall exhibit contin-
uity- of acceptable materials and designs. " 1113. All buildings,
signing- and landscaping designs shall be subject to review.
"Design Review. The jurisdiction of the Design Review Committee
(see Appendix D) shall include, but not be limited to, application
for .permits for :
1. Residential tracts
2. Industrial parks
A. Excavation and grading
4. Buildings on potentially unstable soil
5. Commercial signing
6. Street landscaping
Architectural Review Report
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PROCESS ALTERNATIVES
Broadly speaking, there appears to be three general approaches that
the City could consider to create an architectural review process:
1) Architectural Review Commission - some cities, including San
Luis Obispo, have established separate architectural review com-
missions which meet every other week to review virtually every
building permit being issued except for selected individual single
family homes in non-sensitive locations. The positive aspect of
this approach is that it provides a very strong quality control
to the development review process. It can even mitigate poor zon-
ing decisions by making buildings compatible with their neighbor-
hood. On the debit size of the ledger , this process is expensive.
In San Luis Obispo' s case, it requires a full time planner plus
support staff to do the work necessary to get the ARC process to
work. It also slows down the development review process which
adds to the cost of a project. Given Atascadero' s resources, this
approach would appear not to be practical at this time.
2) Architectural Review Committee - a subcommittee of the Planning
Commission could be established to review the architectural as-
pects of both precise plan and use permit projects. The City of
Paso Robles utilizes this approach wherein three planning commis-
sion members meet on the first and third thursdays of every month
from 3: 30 to 10 : 30 a.m. Typically, there are some seven agenda
items ranging from freestanding signs to planned developments.
Architectural review committee review occurs after a basic land
use entitlement has been approved by their planning commission.
Criteria for development review are included within their zoning
ordinance (which is currently under re-evaluation) . Advantages of
this approach include the use of the existing planning advisory
group to deal also with architectural issues.
3) Staff Review - A third approach would -be to amend the zoning
ordinance to include criteria for architectural review. Precise
plan approvals would continue to be granted by staff and matters
going to the planning commission or city council would carry anal-
ysis and recommendations on architectural treatment with either
body dealing with that issue as part of the overall project.
Since architectural evaluation is a subjective process, it could
be argued that this approach, while more streamlined, would be
difficult to assign to staff.
RECOMMENDATION
Following review and discussion, refer the matter to the Planning Com-
mission for a recommendation back to the Citv Council on the concent
felt to hold the most promise.
3
ca u1 L /►�►►N u TSS EX fE12�f
6/10/85 CCTJIVC?L OUTES -_
PAGE EIGHT
Fiscal Year 1984/85 Audit Agreement - City of Atascadero
Mr. Shelt explains that, to date, the City has not eyed into
an audit agre mint for fiscal year 1984/85 , and recomMends contracting
with the firm ofert M. Moss Accounting Corpor on. He continues
that the City has---,utilized this firm several years with
outstanding results, and' els it is advaa gnus to continue contract-
ing with the firm.
It is noted that the propos, ontra t is for $3 ,175 , which isf
4.10% higher than the 1983/-8contract.
No public comment vas made on this item.
MOTION: Co�nciliman Handshy moves and Councilman Moli second
to APPROVE the 1984/85 fiscal year City of Atascade Audi
with Robert M. Moss Accountancy Corporation for
C-3 Architectural Review Report
Mr . Engen review possible alternatives to establish an architectural
design review process within the City of Atascadero. Alternatives
include:
1. Architectural Review Commission - Reviewing almost all propos
development except for non-sensitive areas, which could requi
full-time Planner and support staff.
2. Architectural Review Committee - A subcommittee of the Planning
Commission to review architectural aspects of Precise Plan and
Use Permit projects.
3. Staff Review - Amend the Zoning Ordinance to include criteria for
architectural review, which would apply to precise plans and use
permits going to the Planning Commission.
Candidate Locations for the the architectural review process would be
E1 Camino Real, the freeway corridor, and Morro Road.
Council discusses a possible negative reaction from the public related
to a regulatory type of architectural control, and indicates that
an informative approach may be more acceptable and hopefully create
less delay in permit processing.
Councilman Molina expresses his concerns related to proceeding with
the formation of an Architectural Committee without amending the
Zoning Ordinance and General Plan also. He also feels that the
Zoning Ordinance should resolve any architectural concerns that
may exist.
0
l
6/10/85 COUNCIL M TES •
PAGE NINE
Public Comment
Mr . Richard Shannonuestions the usefullness of such a committeec-1
q
as it is in the best interest of the builder to build an attractive,
structure.
Ms. Andrea Shultie states there is a need to control irresponsibility.
Prior to incorporation of such a committee, staff needs to research
surrounding cities as to their means of architectural review.
Mr. Jean Cole agrees with the need for some consistency between
structures related to design, elevation, and aesthetic value.
With experience in this area, he offers to donate his services
to the City.
No motion is presented on this item. However it is the consensus of
the Council to favor Alternative Number 2 comprised of a subcommittee
of the Planning Commission in a guidance but not regulatory role.
This item to be presented to the Planning Commission and returned
to Council with their recommendations-.
Fiscal Year 1984/85 Audit Agreement Atascadero Coun
anitation District
�No discu'sion is given to this item, as it relates to Item C-
MOTION: By Councilman Molina and Seconded by Councilwoman MackeyA
to APPROVE the 1984/85 Audit Agreement fpt' the Atascadero
County Sanitation District by'' Robert M. Moss Accountancy'
Corporation,,,for $2, 375 .
I
} "Community Forum
i
Mr. Terry Graham discusses the intent,of the public hearing process,
, the feeling of little influence,_pn elected officials by the public,'
#special interest groups speaking -at' Council Meetings, locations for
.elderly care facilities, possible #concerns related to the "Poe
!Project" which is presently ,being processed by the City of Atascadero,;
depressed feelings by the general public towards the Atascadero City]
.Council which causes them to move from this area, and Council' s desire
Ito vote on proposed projects against the citizen's desires.
r �
Ms. Cindy Bast presents Council with a petition to Mayor Nelson o
approximate ly'` 150 names who agree with the banning of, swimming i
Atascacerc,,-take but requests the re-opening of the wading pbol.
IMS. Maggie Rice expresses her desires for the wading pool to re
opened, providing safety improvements are done to the pool a a, ;.,,,
pecifically the slippery surface of the pool.
6e k` S-7,5
Cities and Counties with Design
or Architectural Review Boards #
Many of California's cities and counties use design review boards to assure
a project proposals ' conformity to local standards for design and
aesthetics. In some locales, such as Sonora, the board reviews proposals in
its downtown area with any eye toward how they follow the city's historic
theme. Other cities use standards that influence the design and location of
buildings to take advantage of solar energy, preserve natural vegetation,
and prevent other buildings from blocking scenic views. Following is a list
of jurisdictions with design review boards:
CITIES COVINA LA HABRA PASO ROBLES
CUDAHY LA MESA PATTERSON
ALTURAS CULVER CITY LA PALMA PETALUMA
ANDERSON CUPERTINO LA PUENTE PIEDMONT
A14GELS CAMP CYPRESS LA VERNE PITTSBURG
ANTIOCH DAVIS LAFAYETTE PLACENTIA
ARCATA DEL MAR LAGUNA BEACH PLACERVILLE
ARTESIA DEL REY OAKS LAKE ELSINORE PLEASANT HILL
ATWATER DESERT HOT SPRINGS LAKEWOOD PLEASANTON
AUBURN DIXON LINCOLN PORTOLA VALLEY
BAKERSFIELD D07WNEY LODI RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BALDWIN PARK DUARTE LOMA LINDA RANCHO MIRAGE
BANNING DUNSMUIR LONG BEACH RED BLUFF
BELLFLOWER EL CERRITO LOS ALAMITOS REDONDO BEACH
BELMONT EUREKA LOS GATOS REDWOOD CITY
BENICIA FAIRFAX MADERA RIALTO
BEVERLY HILLS FAIRFIELD MARINA RICHMOND
BRADBURY FERNDALE MARTINEZ RIO VISTA
BRISBANE FOLSOM MENLO PARK RIVERSIDE
BUENA PARK FORT BRAGG MILL VALLEY SACRAMENTO
BURBA11K FOUNTAIN VALLEY MILPITAS SALINAS
CALISTOGA FREMONT MONROVIA SAN ANSELMO
CAMPBELL FULLERTON MONTEREY SAN CARLOS
CAPITOLA GILROY MONTEREY PARK SAN DIEGO
CARLSBAD GRAND TERRACE MORAGA SAN DIMAS
CARMEL GREENFIELD MORGAN HILL SAN GABRIEL
CARPINTERIA GRIDLEY MOUNT SHASTA SAN JACINTO
CARSON CITY HALF MOON BAY P40UNTAIN VIEW SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO
CATHEDRAL CITY HANFORD NEVADA CITY SAN LUIS OBISPO
CERES HEALDSBURG NOVATO SAN PABLO
CHICO HERCULES OJAI SAN RAFAEL
CHULA VISTA HILLSBOROUGH ORANGE SAND CITY
CLARU40NT HUNTINGTON BEACH PACIFIC GROVE SANTA BARBARA
CLOVERDALE INDIO PALM DESERT SANTA CLARA
COACHELLA IONE PALM SPRINGS SANTA CRUZ
COLTON ISLETON PALMDALE _SANTA MONICA
COMPTON KING CITY PALO ALTO SANTA ROSA
CONCORD KINGSBURG PARADISE SANTEE
�1 CORONA LA CANADA- PARA40UNT SCOTTS VALLEY
COTATI FLINTRIDGE PASADENA SEASIDE
83
n-;
SEBASTOPOL TRINIDAD WILLITS MONO
SIGNAL HILL TUSTIN WILLOWS MONTEREY
SIMI VALLEY UPLAND WOODSIDE NEVADA
SOLEDAD VACAVILLE YOUNTVILLE PLACER
SONOMA VALLEJO PLUMAS
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE VENTURA SAN DIEGO
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 14ALNUT COUNTIES SANTA 3ARBARA
STANTON WALNUT CREEK SONOMA
SUSANVILLE WATSONVILLE AMADOR TRINITY
TEHACHAPI WEED CALAVERAS
TIBURON WESTMINSTER LASSEN
TRACY WHITTIER MARIN
84
•
C60) • •
DESIGN REVIEW
FOR
. NEW CONSTRUCTION ALONG HIGHHAYS 101 & .41, and EL CAtffNO REAL
WHERE.IS, THE ATASCAbERO GENERAL PLAN APPENDIX D, says,
"The Design Review Comm scion shall approve plans
for structures". . . .so - as -"the.;.,project shall contribute
to the,.'character and image .ot''the community as
a place ofbeauty". This section of The General Plan
has not been implemented by the planning commission
or c ti y council,
WE, THE PEOPLE OF ATASCADERO, urge the planning commission
and city council td-..immediately implement The People 's General Plan,
Appendix D. Spepifically;
i. Desig 4>Re,4ew shall be limited. to new construction
alont 'ghways.-.101 & 41, .and.,E1 Camino Real. Individual
aing' sily homes shall ;not=`be included in design
a 'revi,e
20, The . tasoadero General Plan, "A.ppendix D, "Criteria
a dor o d" daring`Plans",, `s#idjL,,be the criteria used in
�y r
aPproplans..-Vt
'
3. Reapn
sz ing-.they 'limited`-ftinancial resources of Atascadero,
The �Deign Review Commissio'if"shall consist of citizen
volunteers including, whenever possible, citizens with
professional design experience such as engineers,
landscape- architects, and architects.
4. To assure that the goals of The Atascadero General Plan,
Appendix D. are carried out, The Design Review Commission
shall have regulatory authority.
5. To ensure that plan approvals will be given in a timely
manner, The Design Review Commission shall meet at
least every 14 days.
NAME ADDRESS
&4� Ca."I.OLJeo a $ c,�o Sale, A0 le
• MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Paul M. Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
SUBJECT: Development Fee Task Force
DATE: September 18, 1985
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that Council establish an ad hoc Development
Fee Task Force to study the reasonable distribution of development
fees that would be designated for specific capital improvement
categories, recommend the amount of such fees and report back to
Council in November with its recommendations. Staff suggests that
the committee consist of six (6) people within the following
disciplines: developer , builder , real estate, business, and govern-
ment. A list of potential members will be provided to Council by
Staff on or before Monday night.
Background:
Council has directed staff to recommend development fees that
will specifically address capital improvements for drainage, traffic,
safety, bridges, etc. and then to concentrate on solving specific
problems initiated or aggrevated by growth.
Staff has been advised to prepare a fee structure that has
been legally sound and that will be fair and reasonable. A limit
on the total fee to be charged, including the present $. 50 per sq.
ft. development tax and other fees should be comparable to other
communities in the county.
The City of Paso Robles will be used as a guideline for
ordinance structure and the approach used. A committee was
established in Paso similar to that proposed herein. The special
development fees are charged in addition to the general tax for
development. „
Discussion:
The fees could be based on square footage, the average daily
traffic generated due to the development, the per capital increase
on police and fire demands or by other methods.
• It is interesting to note that the EIR just received for the
Bordeaux 400 unit apartment complex suggested spending the $ . 50 per
capita tax about five times over . There is a general impression
that the the tax was a cure-all, when in fact it has only touched
the surface of the capital improvement needs. •
The first step for the Task Force will be to review the five-
year and buildout needs of the City. Secondly, they will look at
the total fee that is reasonable, but which will accommodate real
needs, and finally will suggest specific fees for specific improve-
ments.
Conclusion:
It is hoped that by establishing an ad hoc committee of local
people with varied but pertinent interests, a more equitable and
less controversial recommendation will be forwarded to Council for
their consideration in November.
PMS/vjh
devfee
•
•
2
•
TO: City Council Members September 17,1985
FROM: Mike Shelton, City Managerc
SUBJECT: JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
RECOMMENDATION:
1. City Council hold a joint meeting w' th the Planning Commission
on October 10, 1985 (Thursday) at�,7� . . in the Club Room.
�
2. Council review proposed agenda - a � or delete, as deemed
appropriate and forward to Planning Commission for input.
BACKGROUND:
At the request of Mayor Nelson, Chairman LaPrade, Mayor Nelson, Henry
Engin and I met to create a tentative agenda for a Joint City Council
and Planning Commission Meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to �.
give an opportunity for Council to provide feedback to the Commission
and establish a communication vehicle between the Council and the
Commission. In discussing items on the agenda, it is not expected
that answers will be found for each issue. In fact, more questions 3
will probably be raised than solutions found. However , the process
will hopefully lead to direction to be given to staff and Commission,
with an opportunity for input. Again, the process, in this case, will
be as important as the outcome.
The proposed agenda is not presented in any priority or recommended
order . It is recommended that the Council and Commission use the
agenda as a tool to best meet the purposes of the two bodies.
MS:kv
File: MConPlan
•
1 �'
r
•
JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OCTOBER 10 , 1985 AT 7 : 30 P.M.
CLUB ROOM
PROPOSED AGENDA
General:
1. What is going well?
2. What does the Planning Commission need to do its job better?
3. What would you (Planning Commission) change if you had it in
your power?
4. What are some points of irritation or problem areas?
5. Any trends or areas of concern developing? •
6. What guidance do you (Planning Commission) want from the Council?
7. What guidance does City Council wish to give the Planning
Commission?
Specific:
1. Growth Policy Guidelines
2. Council/Commission Relationships
3. Financing Public Improvements - Project Review Implications
4. Special Study Priorities
5. Other
•
2