HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 04/14/1986 DEPUTY CITY CLERK
• NOTE: THE CITY COUNCIL WILL BE MEETING AT 6 :00 P.M. FOR THE
PURPOSE OF INTERVIEWING PLANNING COMMISSION AND
BOARD OF APPEALS APPLICANTS.
AGENDA - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting
ATASCADERO ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
FOURTH FLOOR, ROTUNDA ROOM
APRIL 14, 1986
7 :30 P.M.
** PROCLAMATION - The Month of April Designated as Child Abuse and
Neglect Prevention Month
** ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS, STAFF MEMBERS AND CITIZENS ARE REMINDED **
PLEASE SPEAK DIRECTLY INTO THE MICROPHONE
Call to Order
Pledge of Allegiance
• Invocation
Roll Call
City Council Comments
A. CONSENT CALENDAR
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. Thee will be no separate discussion of these items. if
discussion is required, that item will be removed from the Consent
Calendar and considered separately. Vote may be roll call.
1. Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of March 24, 1986
2. Authorization for Mayor to Enter into Agreement with County of San
Luis Obispo for Alternate Work Program
3. Resolution Number 35-86 - Prohibiting Parking on South Side of
Solano at E1 Camino, Extending Easterly
4. Resolution Number 34-86 - Establishing a Stop Sign on San
Fernando Road at ��
• 5. Resolution Number 33-86 - Establishing a Left Through and Right
Only Lanes at Intersection of Curbaril and E1 Camino Real
6. Award of Bid 86-37 - Herbicide Spraying at Various Locations -
Satellite Extermination Company
1
• 7. Acknowledgement of Administrative Policy on Distribution of
Commercial Literature to City Employees
8. Authorization to Enter into Agreement with Communication Resources
Corporation for Telephone Consultant Services
9. Acceptance of Final Lot Line Adjustment 3-85 - 12650 San
Cayetano - Charnley/Twin Cities Engineering
10. Acceptance of Final Lot Line Adjustment 16-85 - 7125 Sycamore
Vaughn/Cuesta Engineering
11. Acceptance of Final Lot Line Adjustment 13-84 - 14405 Santa
Lucia - Tenneco Realty Dvmt/Cuesta Engineering
12. Authorization to Sell Unclaimed Property by Police Department
B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES, AND REPORTS
1. Appeal by Gary Mulhullond of Planning Commission Requirement
of 10-foot Sidewalk - RMF/16 Project - 5550 Traffic Way
2. Proposed General Plan Amendment 1A-86 and Zone Change 1A-86- 18-00
• E1 Camino Real - Leonard Brazzi
A. Proposed Resolution 29-86 - Amending General Plan from Single
Family Suburban Residential to Retail Commercial
B. Proposed Ordinance 122 - Amending Atascadero Zoning Maps
from Residential Suburban to Commercial Retail (FIRST READING)
3. Proposed General Plan Amendmenmt 1F-86 and Zone Change 6-86
4155 Carrizo Road - Jaime Lopez-Balbontin
A. Proposed Resolution 30-86 - Amending General Plan from
Single Family Suburban Residential to Moderate Density
Single Family
B. Proposed Ordinance 123 - Amending Atascadero Zoning Maps
from Residential Suburban to Residential Single Family,
Medium Density (FIRST READING)
4. Pavilion Committee Report on Status and Policy Position of
Committee (Request by Mike Arrambide) (Verbal)
C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
• 1. Authorization to Enter into Agreement with Ross, Levin, and
Mac Intyre for Architectural Services for Police Facility
and Establishing Design Perimeters
2
• 2. A. Proposed Resolution 36-86 - `Appointment of Planning Commission
Vacancy (1 vacancy)
B. Proposed Resolution 37-86 - Appointments to Building and
Construction Board of Appeals
D. NEW BUSINESS
1. Report by Staff on Formation of Central Business District
Redevelopment Agency
2. Discussion Regarding Proposed Breakfast Meeting with State
Assemblyman Eric Seastrand - 8:00 A.M. , May 15, 1986 (Verbal)
3. Proposed Resolution 28-86 - Authorizing New Position of
Senior Building Inspector
4. Acquisition of Property on Morro Road Adjoining Atascadero Lake
Property
5. Appointment of Alternate Representative to San Luis Obispo
County and Cities Planning and Coordinating Council
•
E. ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT (ACSD)
(Council will recess and convene as the Atascadero County
Sanitation District Board of Directors)
1. Authorization for Public Works Director to Advertise for Bids to
Assessment District Number 3 - Marchant Way Sewer Extension
(The Board of Directors will adjourn and reconvene as City
Council)
F. COMMUNITY FORUM
G. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION
1. City Council
2. City Attorney
3. City Clerk
4. City Treasurer
5. City Manager
• ** NOTE•
MEETING IS ADJOURNED SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING REGARDING
FISCAL REVIEW AND 1986/87 BUDGET SESSION ON APRIL 21,
1986, AT 7:00 P.M. , ROOM 306, CITY ADMINISTRATION
BUILDING
3
7
#!!_// AG
T�DA �D /�/ITE '
• MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting, March 24, 1986
Atascadero Administration Building
The Regular Meeting of the Atascadero City Council was called to
order at 7:30 p.m: by Mayor Nelson, followed by the Pledge of Alle-
giance.
ROLL CALL
Present: Councilmembers Handshy, Mackey, Molina and Mayor Nelson
Absent: Councilwoman Norris
STAFF
Mike Shelton, City Manager ; David Jorgensen, Admin. Services Director ;
Robert Jones, City Attorney/City Clerk; Bud McHale, Police Chief; Mike
Hicks, Fire Chief; Henry Engen, Commun. Devel. Director ; Paul Sensi-
baugh, Public Works Director; Cindy Wilkins, Deputy City Clerk.
COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS
Mayor Nelson announced Councilwoman Norris is absent due to a recent
death in her family.
• Councilwoman Mackey commended the services of the Atascadero Police
Dispatchers to the City.
Councilman Molina asked the Council to reactivate the ad hoc fee com-
mittee to restudy the Lewis Ave. Bridge fees; Council consented, and
Mayor Nelson directed Paul Sensibaugh, Public Works Director, to fol-
low up.
Police Chief McHale introduced Jeff Fredericks, new Police Officer who
joined the APD on February 19th.
Mayor Nelson read correspondence from Carolyn Bresley requesting he
declare April 16th Atascadero Literacy Day, as part of Atascadero' s
volunteer (in coordination with nation-wide) effort to help adults
learn to read. In addition, he read correspondence from Atascadero
Friends of the Library requesting he proclaim the observance of April
6-12 as National Library Week.
A. CONSENT CALENDAR
At Mayor ' s direction, Mike Shelton, City Manager , summarized Item #4,
the Employee Recognition Program.
Councilman Molina requested Item #5 be pulled for separate vote.
• 1. Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of March 10, 1986
2. Approval of City Treasurer ' s Report - February 1-28, 1986
1
MOTION: By Councilman Molina that Council concur with the Planning
Commission' s recommendation to deny the request for zone
change, seconded by Councilwoman Mackey; passed unanimously,
with Councilwoman Norris absent.
2. Public Hearing on General Plan Amendment 1I-86 and Zone Change
9-86 - Steil, Roberts, Jagger, City of Atascadero - Colorado Study
Area
Henry Engen, Commun. Devel. Director, gave staff report.
Mayor Nelson read a letter from Gary A. Power , 10705 Atascadero Ave. ,
expressing his opposition to the proposed zone change due to density
issues.
Public Comment
Sandra Jagger , co-applicant, read a letter from herself and the
Roberts explaining that the Neals (owners of property to the south of
area proposed) have removed themselves as co-applicants, reducing the
size of the study area, and that Mr. & Mrs. Steil are no longer co-ap-
plicants, feeling that, by concentrating on a smaller study area, the
concern of residents should be reduced; Ms. Jagger then reviewed the
revised proposal and spoke in support of it.
Alice Roberts, co-applicant, spoke in support of the zone change.
Roseann Alderson, owner of parcel directly across from the Roberts' s,
presented a letter to Council from Ron & Susan Sullivan (vacationing
and unable to be present) expressing opposition to zone change based
on density concerns, and she expressed strong opposition based on her
desire to maintain the present character of the neighborhood.
Chuck Hazelton, 10610 Colorado, expressed his feeling that Council
should consider the general slope in the area proposed, noting that
there' s a considerable watershed problem; he is opposed to the zone
change.
Roland Hickerson, 10620 Colorado (directly across from applicants) ,
spoke in opposition to the zone change due to the watershed problem,
which he noted is evident at this time, both in and around his home.
Nancy Hyman, 10760 Colorado, expressed strong opposition to the zone
change due to the considerable watershed problems in the area, in ad-
dition to her desire to see the rural character of the area preserved.
Sue Herring, 10810 Colorado (bordering Steil' s property) , spoke in
opposition- due to increased traffic concerns which would result from a
zone change. She read a letter from Mike & Anna Marquez, who own
property in the area proposed, expressing their opposition to the zone
change based on their desire to preserve the rural character of the
neighborhood. (Mrs. Herring presented the letter to Council. )
3
Steve Dirkes, 10800 Colorado, expressed his feeling that Council need
to consider the concerns of the neighborhood, noting that the Robert
can still build one house on their property, and a decision denying a
zone change would not totally deprive them.
Roger Cook, 10600 Colorado, spoke in opposition to the zone change due
to .the drainage problem which already exists from the Roberts's prop-
erty; he thinks the property should remain as it is and not be split.
Strape Zanartu, 10618 Colorado, expressed opposition to the subdivi-
sion for all the reasons previously stated by area owners.
Mark Lawall, 10755 Colorado, expressed opposition to the zone change;
he owns horses and is concerned that eventually, if the area starts
becoming subdivided, the rural character will be threatened as will
having horses or other animals (people may begin to complain) .
Nell Isom, 10775 Colorado (20-year resident) , spoke in opposition to
any zone change.
Discussion came back to Council; Councilman Molina asked that the
agenda for the upcoming Council/Planning Commission Joint Meeting
(Thursday, 3/27) be expanded to include discussion of possibly taking
a look at the five-year cycle of the General Plan, noting Mr. Engen' s
earlier mention of (18) applications for GP amendments, in addition to
numerous other concerns expressed by people; Mayor Nelson noted this
various subcommittees which are working on such things as the tre
ordinance, a hillside standards ordinance, multiple-density zoning,
the subject of architectural review and population projections (in-
cluding schools) , concurring with Councilman Molina's concern for dis-
cussion; Council concurred, and Mayor Nelson directed Mr. Engen to add
the topic to the joint meeting agenda..
Paul Sensibaugh, Public Works Director , noted that his staff will look
into the watershed problems in their upcoming drainage study.
MOTION: By Councilman Molina to uphold the Planning Commission' s
recommendations, denying the zone change, seconded by Coun-
cilman Handshy; passed 4 :O, with Councilwoman Norris absent.
COUNCIL RECESSED FOR A FIVE-MINUTE BREAK.
C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Selection/Recommendation for Architectural Services - City Police
Facility (Cont'd from 1/27/86)
Bud McHale, Police Chief, gave staff report and responded to questions
from Council; Mike Shelton, City Manager , made additional comments
relating to the fiscal impact of and financial approach to this pro
ject.
4
Public Comment
Terril Graham, 6205 Conejo Rd. , accused the Council of foregoing the
public's choice in the last election (of whether or not they want a
new police facility) right into the planning phase. (Councilman
Molina removed himself from the Council podium during Mr. Graham' s
comments) .
Mr. Shelton, in response to Mr . Graham' s comments, expressed the
importance of providing a facility in which the Police Dept. can func-
tion efficiently, suggesting the decision for acquiring/providing a
facility for the staff is appropriately a City Council decision.
Debra Kankiewicz , 11455 Viejo Camino, relayed that she has questioned
some Atascadero police officers, and she relayed their concerns over
the fact that the present facility would not be safe in the event of
earthquake, and safe parking is a necessity due to recurring vandal-
ism; she spoke in favor of providing an adequate facility. She in-
quired as to the cost of blueprints for a new facility; Chief McHale
responded that it will be contingent upon the estimated cost of con-
struction (the square footage is not known yet, which is part of the
architect' s task) , and is considered 8% of the architect's total cost.
Terril Graham addressed Chief McHale, recalling a conversation between
the 'two of them 3-4 months ago relating to the consideration for a new
police facility.
Maggie Rice, speaking as a resident, encouraged (as at two previous
meetings) the City Council to allow the Police Department to grow with
the community, without further delay, feeling that the single-most
important issue prior to incorporation, other than autonomy, was ac-
quiring a police department. It' s her opinion the City property (just
north of the armory) would be the best site.
MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey to approve staff recommendation to
contract with Ross Levin & McIntyre, with the stipulation
that, within the next month, Council will make a decision on
whether to hold public hearings to determine site selection
or to let the architects determine a site; if the City makes
the site selection, staff will bring back a counter-proposal,
and the architect will not be paid for the service of site
selection. Motion seconded by Councilman Molina; passed 4:0
by roll-call vote, with Councilwoman Norris absent.
D. NEW BUSINESS
1. Discussion on Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting
Scheduled for March 27, 1986
Mike Shelton, City Manager, gave staff report.
MOTION: By Councilman Molina that Council authorize up to $300 to
cover the out-of-pocket expenses of Mr. Milton Farrell for
his travel from Sacramento, seconded by Councilwoman Mackey;
5
passed by 4:0 roll-call vote, with Councilwoman Norris ab
sent.
MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey to recess as Council and convene as
the Atas. County Sanitation District Board of Directors,
seconded by Councilman Molina; passed unanimously, with
Councilwoman Norris absent.
E. ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT (ACSD)
1. Ordinance No. 121 - Amendments to the Sewer Service Fees (SECOND
READING) (Cont'd from 3/10/86)
Paul Sensibaugh, Public Works Director, gave staff report, reviewing
proposed fee structure and responding to question (from last meeting)
of possibility for early pay-off on original sewer bond (see report in
agenda packet) .
No public comment.
MOTION: By Director Handshy to read Ord. 121 by title only, seconded
by Director Molina; passed 4:0 , with Director Norris absent.
Mayor Nelson read Ord. 121 by title only.
MOTION: By Director Handshy that this constitutes the second readin
and adoption of Ord. 121, seconded by Director Mackey; passe
by 4:0 by roll-call, with Director Norris absent.
MOTION: By Director Mackey to recess as ACSD Board of Directors and
reconvene as City Council, seconded by Director Handshy;
passed 4:0, with Director Norris absent.
F. COMMUNITY FORUM
Cecile King, 8830 Curbaril, requested the replacement of two benches
on the sidewalk of Sunken Gardens fronting E1 Camino Real, presenting -
a petition containing about 58 signatures supporting that request.
Paul Sensibaugh, Public Works Director , responded that staff intends
to locate the benches and anchor them down (to prevent vandalism) .
G. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION
No comments.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9 :45 P.M. TO 3/27/86 FOR JOINT MEETING WITH PLAN-
NING COMMISSION AND TO 4/14/86 FOR INTERVIEW OF PLANNING COMMISSION
AND BOARD OF APPEALS APPLICANTS (PRIOR TO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING) .
6
,NTEE A"A
TO: City Council \ April 14 , 1986
FROM: Mike Shelton, City Manager
SUBJECT: ALTERNATIVE WORK PROGRAM PROPOSAL
RECOMMENDATION:
City Council authorize the Mayor to enter into "Alternative Work
Program" agreement with the County of San Luis Obispo.
BACKGROUND:
The County Sheriff' s Department is implementing an alternative
work program, as an alternative to incarceration in County
• detention facilities, for persons sentenced to jail that qualify
to work their sentences. The type of work proposed in the pro-
gram relates to public works projects such as pulling . weeds,
picking up trash, etc.
The Public Works Department feels the City could benefit from
this program, and requests the Mayor to sign the agreement in
behalf of the City.
FISCAL IMPACT•
There is no cost for tis program.
MS:kv
File: MWork
A G R E E M E N T
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered _this 14TH of APRIL, 1986,
by and between the County of San Luis Obispo, hereinafter referred to
as "County" , which term shall be synonymous with the Sheriff-Coroner
of said county, and the City of Atascadero, hereinafter referred
to as "City"
W I T N E S S E T H
WHEREAS, the County administers an Alternative Work Program for
the placement of county jail inmates, hereinafter referred to as
" inmates" in a work program for public works projects; and
WHEREAS, City desires that such inmates be placed with it for
voluntary work under the direction and control of City;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
1 . The Count lace
Y may P inmates with City, the number of
inmates to be coordinated between the County and City.
2. On placement of inmates by the County with City, the work
of the inmates will be under the direct supervision and control of
City.
3. The work performed by the inmates shall be as determined by
City, with the understanding that the project must be in the light
of public works.
4. City shall not provide any security guards and the
employees of City will not physically restrain any such inmates
that might leave the work area. The County will be notified during
the regular reporting cycle of any missed working assignments.
5. The inmates shall be responsible for their own transportation
to and from the work site, and shall be responsible for any meals .
0
6. City employees will provide safety instructions , explain
the work to be done, and direct the work of the inmates.
7. In the event that a claim for industrial injury is filed by an
inmate working under this program, the County will be responsible for
the administration of the claim in the same manner as if the inmate
was a County employee.
8. City shall indemnify, hold harmless, and defend the County,
its agents and employees, from any and all actions, claims or suits of
every name, kind, and description, which may be asserted by any person
including any inmate placed by the County with City, arising out
of, or in connection with, any action by an employee of City.
9. The County shall indemnify, hold harmless, and defend the
City, its agents and employees, from any and all actions, claims or
suits of every name, kind and description, which may be asserted any
person, including any inmate placed by the County with City,
arising out of, or in connection with, any action by an employee of
the County.
10. This agreement shall become effective upon its execution by
both parties hereto. This agreement may be terminated at any time. .
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have caused this
agreement to be executed by their duly authorized officers, the
day and year above written.
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
OFFICE OF SHERIFF-CORONER
By:
George S Whiting, Sheriff
City of Atascadero
By
ROLFE NE 0
Mayor, City of Atascadero
,y
• MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
tM� .
THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Paul Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
SUBJECT: Resolution Prohibiting Parking on South Side of Solano
Road from El Camino Real easterly to a point beyond
the end point of the curve as determined by the City
Traffic Engineer.
DATE: April 8, 1986
Recommendation:
The Traffic Committee recommends that Council pass Resolution
No. 35 -86 establishing a no parking zone on the southerly side of
Solano Road from E1 Camino Real as described.
Background:
• Council previously established a no parking zone on the northerly
side of Solano and 20 ft. on the southerly side, based upon a
Traffic Committee Recommendation. The Committee at the timerealized
that it might be necessary to restrict parking on the southerly side
but wanted to see the effect of the restriction on the northerly
side before making a commitment.
Discussion:
After 4 months of observation by the Traffic Committee and
after receiving both written and verbal concerns, the Committee
acted to recommend the above action.
Fiscal Impact:
The cost for this improvement will be approximately $50
to be paid out of the street budget.
PMS/vjh
•
& A1
• MEMORANDUM
TO: Council
THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Paul Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
SUBJECT: Resolution 34 -86 establishing a stop sign on San
Fernando at Del Rio Road
DATE: April 8, 1986
Recommendation:
The Traffic Committee recommends that Council adopt Resolution
34 -86 establishing a stop sign on San Fernando Rod on the westerly
side of Del Rio Road.
Background:
San Fernando itself is a non-city maintained street that is for
the most part sub-standard from Del Rio Road to Balboa Road. The
intersection at Del Rio, however is not only within the right-of-way
g y
of Del Rio, but the San Fernando approach is built to standards.
San Fernando was paved through a maintenance district.
Discussion:
The intersection is considered hazardous without any traffic
control and many "near misses" have been reported. Although the
signing of San Fernando has liability implications, it seems
appropriate that traffic be controlled as it enters Del Rio, which is
city-maintained.
Fiscal Impact:
The cost to the City is approximately $75 and can be paid out
of the maintenance district fund. out of the street fund.
PMS/vjh
is
RESOLUTION NO. 34-86
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ATASCADERO DESIGNATING A STOP
INTERSECTION ON SAN FERNANDO ROAD AT MONTEREY ROAD
WHEREAS, Section 4-3. 801 et sequence of the Atascadero Municipal
Code allows the City Traffic Engineer to determine the location of
STOP intersections, and to place and maintain appropriate signs or
markings indicating the same; and
WHEREAS, the Atascadero Traffic Committee has recommended that
establishing a STOP intersection at San Fernando Road and Monterey
will alleviate a hazardous traffic condition.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Atascadero
directs the City Traffic Engineer to place and maintain appropriate
signs or markings indicating a STOP intersection at San Fernando
and Monterey Roads.
On Motion by ,and seconded by
, the foregoing Resolution is hereby adopted in its
entirety on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ADOPTED:
ATTEST:
ROBERT M. JONES, City Clerk ROLFE NELSON, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED A5 TO CONTENT:
ROBERT M. JONES, City Attorney PAUL M. SENSIBAUGH
Director of Public Works/
City Engineer
EM
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Paul Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Resolution No- 33-86 Establishing Left-Thru Lane
and Right Only Lanes on Curbaril
DATE: April 8, 1986
Recommendation:
The Traffic Committee recommends that Council adopt Resolution
No. 33-86 allowing the marking of left-thru lanes and right only
lanes on both the eastbound and westbound sides of Curbaril Avenue
�at El Camino Real.
Background:
Previous action by council established left only lanes on
• Curbaril based on the recommendation of the Traffic Committee.
The recommendation was based upon the correction of logical conflicts
normally associated with similar State-maintained, signal
installations.
Discussion:
The City Traffic Engineer after studying the phasing diagrams for
the signal at this location learned that the County and not the State
designed the signal and that the opposite exclusive left turns work
independently and not congruently, and the detector loops which
actuate the same would have to be modified in the ground as well as
the controller to facilitate the left only movement.
Conclusion:
The only logical arrangement without expending large sums of
money, which are not warranted, is to place a left-thru and right-
only movements, which will be very similar to the present layout.
The red curb previously authorized is still appropriate.
Fiscal Impact•
The cost of this improvement will be the cost of pavement marking
• and labor which is estimated at $250 to be paid out of the street
budget.
-
T
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council L�&A ,
THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Pau],,Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
SUBJECT: Bid No. 86-37
DATE: April 7, 1986
Recommendation:
It is recommended that Council award the contract for
Herbicide Spraying to Satellite Exterminating of Atascadero.
Council previously authorized staff to prepare specifications and
advertise for bids of various Public Works projects.
Background:
The Herbicide Spraying project is done on an annual basis
at various locations determined by the Public Works Super-
intendent. Specifications are mailed to firms that have sub-
mitted bids in the past.
Fiscal Impact:
Funds are available for this project in the F.Y. 1985-86
budget.
Attachment:
Bid Spread Sheet
PMS/vjh
•
ANG`7/
AGENDA
CfATE �d�v ITEM#
•
TO: City Council May 14 , 1986
FROM: Mike Shelton, City Manager
SUBJECT: POLICY REGARDING DISTRIBUTION OF COMMERCIAL LITERATURE
TO CITY EMPLOYEES
RECOMMENDATION:
City Council acknowledge staff Administrative Policy regarding
commercial literature advertising services and products being
made available to City employees.
BACKGROUND:
Recently, a local business marketing representative contacted
myself, requesting to provide their brochures to City employees.
I approved the request, and they were distributed to employees,
with no City endorsement, with the April 2, 1986 paycheck. I
felt distribution of commercial discount offerings (particularly
by local businesses) to government employees, is a common
. practice.
Since that time, the practice of distributing commercial offer-
ings by employee paychecks was discussed in the Department Head
Staff Meeting, inwhich other viewpoints were reviewed.
As a Department Head team, the staff defined policy on this issue
that the City will continue accepting commercial offerings, ex-
cept that the method of distribution be altered from including
them with the employee paycheck to providing available literature
for employees in non-work areas and appropriate employee bulletin
boards.
MS:kv
File MLit
DAU / /
• ME M O R A yN D U M
TO: City Council
THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager
FROM: David G. Jorgensen, Administrative Services Director
SUBJECT: Authorize Contract for Telephone Consultant with
Communication Resources Company
DATE: April 8, 1986
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Citv Council authorize the Mayor
to sign a telephone consulting contract with Communication
Resources Company (CRC) .
DISCUSSION
In the 1985-1986 Fiscal Budget the Council authorized $5,000 to
hire a .consultant to analyze our current telephone system to
determine if it is the best system for our city. This appropriation
was made in response to both employee and citizen complaints
regarding the viability of our current telephone system.
The proposal from CRC outlines a 24 step plan for analyzing the
City' s needs in regard to a telephone system. They specifically
address two main areas of concern. The most important aspect
of their analysis will be how to better serve the citizens of
Atascadero through a telephone system. Secondarily, they will
look at the need for more specific management controls involving
the cost of the current system.
The time frame for the analysis phase of the work will be 60 -
90 days.
FISCAL IMPACT
The amount for the analysis phase of the contract is $4950. This
is $50. 00 under the amount appropriated by the Council in the
current fiscal budget. The contract also includes two additional
phases (bid and installation) which will be part of the 1986-1987
budget requests in the amount of $8355 for both. The contract for
these two phases is contingent on: 1. need; 2. the Council
• appropriating the funds; and 3 . the results of Phase I. We are
in no way obligated to continue with Phases II and III.
Communication Resources Company
505 W.OLIVE AVENUE,SUITE 120,SUNNYVALE,CALIFORNIA 94086 • (408)738-2922
RECEIV =D
y X986
April 7, 1986
ATAXACrRO
/`-Ty Ott"
Mr. David Jorgensen
Director, Admin. Services
City of Atascadero
6500 Palma
Atascadero, CA 93423
Dear Mr. Jorgensen:
The enclosed agreement supersedes our previously offered
agreement which was presented with our proposal on March
28, 1986.
The current agreement reduces the fee for Phase I from
$5,415 to $4,950, based upon your willingness to provide
90% ($4,455) upon acceptance of this agreement and 10%
($495) upon presentation of the Phase I report.
Upon execution of the agreement and receipt of the initial
fee, a project manager will be assigned to your project
and work will begin. We look forward to providing you
with professionalism and expertise that CRC has become
well known for.
Sincerely,
W.W. Dettman
Consultant
WWD•ce
Enclosures
r ,
coecAgreement No. 0-4431
TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONSULTING AGREEMENT
AGREEMENT is hereby made between the City of Atascadero (hereinafter referred to as „CLIENT"), and
COMMUNICATION RESOURCES COMPANY, -with principal offices at 17155 Newhope Street, Suite N, Fountain
Valley, CA 92708 (hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT").
The CONSULTANT will analyze the CLIENT'S telecommunication services for the purpose of providing the
CLIENT with appropriate recommendations to assure that satisfactory telecommunication services are
provided for CLIENT'S facility at 6500 Palma d remote sites, Atascadero, California. The CONSULTANT will•
perform all functions necessary to determine which communication services offer the CLIENT maximum cost
effectiveness and best service arrangements. The scope of CONSULTANT'S functions will include; all
reports, studies, planning, and analysis as detailed within the Communication Analysis Plan Proposal
dated March 1986 which is a part of this AGREEMENT by reference.
The CONSULTANT will submit a report addressing the findings approximately ninety (90) days after the date
this agreement becomes:ieffective. Foll6wing,,CLMT acceptance of this report, the CONSULTANT shall
proceed as directed by CLIENT. Responsibility for final decision making shall, at all times, remain with
the CLIENT. CONSULTANT shall act upon decisions as made by and in behalf of the CLIENT. 0
By means of periodic observation of services and installation, CONSULTANT will endeavor to guard the'
CLIENT against defects and deficiencies in the work of the system supplier, but nothing in this- AGREEMENT
or in CONSULTANT'S periodic observation shall constitute, or be construed as a guarantee of performance .
of any contracts or a guarantee against defects or deficiencies.
The CLIENT agrees to pay the CONSULTANT a fee for its services, as described in detail in the
Communication Analysis Plan Proposal, in the amount of:
PHASE 1 - THE ANALYSIS............................................$4,950
and, if elected PHASE II - NEW EQUIPMENT ACQUISITION...............................$4,730
followed by PHASE III - IMPLEMENTATION SUPERVISION..............................$3,625
Upon execution of the AGREEMENT, $4,455.00 shall be paid to the CONSULTANT. ,All remaining amounts due
under this AGREEMENT $495.00 shall be billed and paid upon presentation of the Phase I report. Payments
are due upon presentation of invoice and become delinquent 30 days thereafter. Penalties will be
assessed on late payments at the rate of 1 1/2% per month.
• • t
Should the CLIENT desire to expand the study, cover other locations, or require additional activities
beyond those stipulated, In this- AGREEMENT and/or in the Communication Analysis Plan Proposal, such
activity will be considered an addition to this AGREEMENT and billed at the rate of $95 per hour, subject
to prior CLIENT approval.
The CONSULTANT anticipates that the entire project will be completed within approximately one (i) year
from the date this AGREEMENT becomes effective. If the project is delayed or extended beyond the,
anticipated completion date, for reasons over which the CONSULTANT has no control, extra charges may be
Incurred. Further, in the event the CONSULTANT'S work should be indefinitely delayed or entirely stopped
through causes over which the CONSULTANT has no control, the CONSULTANT shall receive from the CLIENT an
amount commensurate with the work and time expended by the CONSULTANT to be billed at the rate of $95 per
hour.
It is agreed that, during the period of this AGREEMENT, CLIENT will not authorize or accept from any
other party any other telephone related studies, reports, or similar studies, unless both the CLIENT and,
the CONSULTANT agree to or request such reports or studies in advance.
CLIENT shall pay CONSULTANT all costs and expenses (including reasonable attorney's fees to the extent
permitted by law) incurred by CONSULTANT in enforcing the provisions hereof or in exercising any of
CONSULTANT'S rights and remedies hereunder.
The CLIENT agrees to provide the CONSULTANT with a letter of authorization permitting the CONSULTANT to
contact the serving telephone company on the CLIENT'S behalf, and permitt ig ;the CONSULTANT access to
telephone billing statements, personnel and present telephone equipment durinj normal business hours.
This instrument represents the entire AGREEMENT between the two parties.
CLIENT CONSULTANT
CITY OF ATASCADERO COMMUNICATION RESOURCES COMPANY
BY:
BY:
SIGNED: SIGNED:
1
DATE: DATE:
ji
• DING
E"A # 9
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council April 14 , 1986
VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Acceptance of Final Lot Line Adjustment 3-85
LOCATION: 12650 San Cayetano
APPLICANT: Brian Charnley (Twin Cities Engineering)
• On August 26, 1985, the City Council approved Lot Line Adjustment
3-85, subJ ect to certain conditions and in concurrence with. the
recommendation of the Planning Commission. The required condi-
tions have been complied with and the final ma is recommended
P P
for approval.
HE:ps
cc: Brian Charnley
Twin Cities Engineering
i
MEETING AGENDA
D yom� ITEM#�2-----
•
II
•
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council April 14, 1986
VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Acceptance of Final Lot Line Adjustment 16-85
LOCATION: 7125 Sycamore
APPLICANT: Donald Vaughn (Cuesta Engineering)
iOn January 27 , 1986 , the City Council approved Lot Line Adjust-
ment 16-85, subject to certain conditions and in concurrence with
the recommendation of the Planning Commission. The required con-
ditions have been complied with and the final map is recommended
for approval.
HE:ps
cc: Donald Vaughn
Cuesta Engineering
N� A
I-TEM
•
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council ,A_ April 14, 1986
VIA: Michael Shelton, City -Manager
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Acceptance of Final Lot .Line Adjustment 13-84
LOCATION: 14405 Santa Lucia
APPLICANT: Tenneco Realty Development (Cuesta Engineering)
• On March 25,1985, the City Council approved Lot Line Adjustment
13-84, subject to certain conditions and in concurrence with the
recommendation of the Planning Commission. The required condi-
tions have been complied with and the final map is recommended
for approval.
HE:ps
cc: Tenneco Realty Development
Cuesta Engineering
•
,raj
• _ ITEM
• TO: CITY MANAGER MIKE SHELTON AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: CHIEF OF POLICE
SUBJECT: SALE OF UNCLAIMED PROPERTY (ITEM FOR COUNCIL
CONSENT CALENDAR)
DATE: APRIL 9, 1986
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the police department to offer for public sale on
Saturday, April 26 , 1986, lost and unclaimed property (primarily
bicycles) in keeping with all applicable Civil and Government
Code procedures.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
By motion, authorize the sale of unclaimed property as indicated
above.
BACKGROUND:
At the present time, the police department has a large accumulation
• of property which may now be disposed of within the guidelines of
the law.
As we have not had a property sale for approximately two years,
our property/evidence room is overflowing.
The police department will coordinate the sale as was the case
previously, and we will enlist clerical assistance from our
finance department.
FISCAL IMPACT:
This sale will be conducted within existing financial constraints,
and the City will obtain revenue from the proceeds.
R� -
RICHARD H. McHALE
RHM: sb
•
2�P
�r�.
oa1' ' 0
JTEAA
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council April 14 , 1986
VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Appeal of the ten foot sidewalk requirement for a
project in the RMF/16 zone.
LOCATION: 5550 Traffic Way
APPELLANT: Gary Mulholland
BACKGROUND:
This appeal was first considered by . the City Council at your
November 12, 1985 meeting. At that time, the Council continued
consideration of the appeal and instructed staff to prepare a
study of sidewalk requirements along the entire length of Traffic
Way. The background analysis of that study is now complete and
can be utilized ' in response to the appeal filed by Mr. Mulholland.
'RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the appeal.
STAFF COMMENT:
As will be discussed, the study of Traffic Way sidewalks indicates
that a minimum sidewalk width of ten (10) feet should be required
on both sides of the street in the area around the parcel in ques-
tion. This conclusion was based on an analysis of: (1) traffic
counts; (2) speed surveys; (3) pedestrian (adult and juvenile)
census; (4) traffic accident data; (5) extent of existing improve-
ments; and (6) projections of future activity levels.
The full study of Traffic Way sidewalk improvement standards should
be scheduled for consideration by the Council in the near future.
HE: SLD:ps
•
J�
October 11, 1985
City of Atascadero
Planning Department
6500 Palma Ave.
Atascadero, CA 93422
ATTN: Planning Dept. and City Council Members
This letter is written as a request to appeal a decision set down
by the City Engineers Dept. regarding their recommendation of
a ten foot sidewalk at 5550 Traffic Way. Listed below are several
reasons why I do not agree that a ten foot sidewalk should be required.
After consulting with two engineers , an architect, two contractors
and the Planning Dept. , it is our opinion that a six foot sidewalk
is a sufficient width. Please consider the following information
in your decision to approve a six foot sidewalk at 5550 Traffic Way.
1. The most logical reason to construct a six foot sidewalk would be
to follow continuity with the existing six foot sidewalk to the West.
There is no sidewalk to the East.
2 . :Normally ten foot sidewalks are not found in residential areas .
This width of sidewalk is generally found in front of commercial
pro ert
yr (as per City and County Policy. )
)
3 . An additional four foot cut into the hillside , (because of a
ten foot sidewalk) , would increase the size of cut and retaining walls
considerably. This would add great expense to this project that is
not necessary.
4 . A ten foot sidewalk may contribute to future drainage , erosion
and maintenance problems .
5 . Practically speaking, I wouldrefer to minimize the height of
P .,
the retaining wall along the sidewalk area. If you drive by and
look at the property next door , (to the west) , you will see what I
mean.
6 . Last but not least, the pedestrian traffic alona that portion
of Traffic Way does not warrant a ten foot sidewalk. A six foot
sidewalk will more than address the current and future pedestrian
needs .
In closing I would like to thank the Planning Dept. and City Council.
Members for considering this appeal . If I can be of anv assistance
in expediting this matter, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Gary �mlullholland
(Please copy and forward to each council member prior to hearing. )
E M 0 R A N D U M
TO: PAUL SENSIBAUGH
FROM: ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF 10 ' SIDEWALK DESIGN STANDARD ON TRAFFIC WAY
THE CITY OF ATASCADERO PUBLIC WORKS AND PLANNING DEPARTMENTS
CAME TO A JOINT AGREEMENT, 4 YEARS AGO, CONCERNING THE SIDEWALK
WIDTH OF TRAFFIC WAY BETWEEN OLMEDA AND ROSARIO AVE.
IT WAS DECIDED THAT FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS A TEN FOOT
SIDEWALK IS NOT ONLY JUSTIFIED BUT NECESSARY TO CONDUCT FOOT
TRAFFIC SAFELY ALONG TRAFFIC WAY.
1. THE EAST SIDE OF TRAFFIC WAY IS INDUSTRIAL AND HAS NO
SIDEWALKS AS WELL AS NO REQUIREMENT FOR SIDEWALKS.
2. HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY ZONING ON THE WEST SIDE}
OF TRAFFIC WAY WILL BE GENERATING SUBSTANTIAL FOOT
TRAFFIC ONCE IT IS FULLY DEVELOPED.
3. THERE ARE MANY CHILDREN WHICH ALREADY WALK THIS WAY
TO GET TO AND FROM THE JUNIOR HIGH AND LEWIS AVENUE
ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.
4. THE SPEEDS AT WHICH VEHICLES TRAVEL ALONG TRAFFIC WAY
ARE SUCH THAT WE WANT TO PREVENT PEOPLE FROM WALKING
IN THE ROADWAY AT ALL COSTS. THIS INCLUDES WALKING
AROUND OTHER PEDESTRIANS , BICYCLES, FIRE HYDRANTS, ETC.
WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY DENIED A SIMILAR REQUEST, ALSO ON TRAFFIC
WAY AT THE CORNER OF ROSARIO, FOR THE IVERSON PROJECT.
FOLLOWING IS A LIST OF PROJECTS THAT HAVE EITHER BEEN CONDI-
TIONED TO INSTALL OR HAVE ALREADY INSTALLED A TEN FOOT SIDEWALK.
ADDRESS APPLICANT
5070 TRAFFIC WAY installed JACK ERB
5020 TRAFFIC WAY installed GENE WHITE
5700+TRAFFIC WAY installed G.D. SPRADLIN
5400 TRAFFIC WAY installed JOE HAFLER
5690 TRAFFIC WAY approved plans DR. MORGAN
5350 TRAFFIC WAY approved plans GARY MORITZ
5000 TRAFFIC WAY approved plans IVERSON RES. CARE
? TRAFFIC WAY conditioned projects HAMLIN (MOBILE
5550 TRAFFIC WAY conditioned projects GARY MULHOLLAND
INDUSTRIAL SIDE OF TRAFFIC WAY - NO SIDEWALKS
SLOCO MEATPA
COM NY
ICE HOUSE corner of Via
MINI STORAGE
r i PIan3�i Depai tsrz.t:�_ ��
N
I
f •i
tSG
T o r a
tv
40
L •{- yea / � {`�' ^'�.
.� .T - - s t ~�,}�/ a\.✓\<t a' 4\t1 ql/ Q,1 -- f( i k �'.� ` r
,� >• 2r yv -%a�'ld\0 ia.vjC;."'•1� �/`/ �•Jd'• \ l.s• !� `l�� _ .�
Vt
;:;.k •_-i - ti:a;s''s\ Wa <n`f'+„p<<• c ���'��:�'s'`rF� 4 a �..�`txiEk��i fid'1,•\\�•/r'.S�T\ � F
.a � �• �� ._.a r�'� . T3•.,/ �,,:`' -���•r asr-A/:E.'.�.3�.'s>�`Z -! �T sem. ,•a 1g �� ,s i
�'���� ����/:f,�\>'<�€',�iyt•V1'>'°S.yi�}// `�il�".�r'i b�•Z5F•�^'�•,o a+'ice •a.sas
4 ,, 1•' ryQ+tt �s /
- ���V�'•.1r°bc_y� �! !3�L E` �r• ar+s ¢_%
�si. , >\ .'`°°-yam= !` s ra+ ytf ss eo It 58\•••���1'S o -t�� s+ •.,.1• _i�._s
' - '�� 9 1' �+ a yS _ /? so •5z' at� e� u N �wo ♦-- Yi
3,-7
+
\ ) `�, arab .. r + .h 5�- '>, k�I,�� •L i�• ��\\��,nT� Y y:5
`� _ r•,. ��• a `• / -w,>'+. ! !\s a+/f`' • s-4�`„ -:.s� �\ " al'S+ 1 c -
\.Y \ .> r. r v• T'Oi' `"'s �7.�1..+fir +a��'�Fr.:C-� �s''s +,m. .r V� ar �i \•�```` 'x'C '�;�- .fy, 'aw, I II's
.iy.,� - - y�i"'rte i 5. •sor `+ >av�. �.��� / k;TlT..�l..r .•s.'e�{ . t �+°�'-4° JasS o t -5x'FaI Y,•t a.s _'c ---f -
+,Ii
+ ! -_� ”- Yl2f �r �� k` ,�` �t •"• aava '�I�
u�+r• / s-
... I. 4/,r ._ •aT+r< r. h/� t ,(� 1°/i+r/ ,.\tPr\ \•-2a\ .�. �'^
- � �4.i, l� 1rra r�, �,_� w�'.,w t.T'+r,�A/� �i� y'tir�:'.ilr�Y�`.� . ``,➢y lv+tkFP�l�y.a�,�•• dYIL, RSF
• I•;,\^`•,+ Y '�,R-OS. aaa 'v,..� /,,+r ra 'Y,•sri�a+y, ej� ' +o_ C`�,��'.`��' R� ,•.� .�"' �k.• j -
1\ i'��- \� rare. (f�F`c,,�r � 4 .'i S�r sui��,l'��J>r,-P;k= ,"•(��,� �'�c��\:._e�.,�, v`�'y-s
s1j�{Js�;, `'1//�'Sl �' Y ,, ../i,.•r f ;,/�. .: �� �.\' o� Cis:
' /�� %��.�T��.>4 wy�c�`.� •_J .s��/ � __.I � _.SA:r�#•z���/ar,/ '�>/tee ! ; � gyp\ �1j ays _-.
'J i-� �-1� '" •r!' //ra 1fir\oy tl G•y�ti'w/,��� `V.af" Y�i.Y'•�`svi> :Tc.� F r��s C4 � J�-'� �, �J�`a����. ,� _
.� �( �4 tiv a swv � �. L:�?,�a a�9r,.`��:�I it"�Ss \(((( ���s,a � ,. ter' �p`'C/ 11 \ o •- a
z. ,�"�'•�T,.' •My.+ �� , «v C � !��\1 Y �1 �tsa, �h'S,'��y��'air'F`i:a`1+.Y� Y ry s I' .('��•.3 �l,\�\'r`�. .� !.`� -„
_ ��tl � �.J/`� G�� S a,•4 /�'��./� 4� '.��7.7 r�:�llc! li� r � i `'0 - \F \y J� a�+i
-� ji?{�,�''Y�7 ��i J�: t` au �1 -wr+ ��+r rO���QA .tie ,'t;'' �-? r� •y,�.' ,�.{,� Y �•,'�jz _
�• •Yv i! �a,a a.s� aoay '� )� � «,s t^i!� X 'e .,�y ()/:_ .+i S;�J\'T.� r��. -
j � -- M,if aC•'•• ra ,� - ./ j •is��::��� �o • ' -
.•'4 'Y/. •. a0 to �a/
w �" ^%r'/\� { � �Y � A 9 . •r > �5 +ice ,r•+ rn� � �.��('_r. I �\<.+1� �o�� .
'I ,.�", YCj/=a �' ;i \\ 1°• r a� w"rW� r ,sf�' •>•'7�`;!+'ir�,a ...f s�jY Sb \\a
•� - �✓ •y t044� '.arra 1 a ..� �Y/n -> 1��•' �•� \\
vrs ^,:fes -/?'mow"• 17 � x',,. e• $• smc • '�.� ,/ d��•,`ati a- p- � �. y� ; \\�\ _
17
LJ7.-' `Y-;7. $c!/. ��:�,nr �iH. `.ri 'f�'F'\r \� � •. ''}/t tr,a - �„ ` ..' .
(X� a'�. .a �>� ,-',.7 g � 5•� sKo,r+ �r%l y' L ils s� sr s p,��'k /^ �� 1• •N \t,�/J•/�yJ�yj/ ai r•
l�JZ•y(;,,�1y'���J.',•{V'r�� r �w•.m "� C alb �i ok) \r �� �. � ,r iib _
- `�sl C,'l'\ Jl '7�L.dL�•l,'_• .."O o• na I'a,TCFi s a 14 ',,, y��' 3>.n�\��., �/a. az . . V��-T1 -> -
4�s
�ar•� .Fes`..- � �= aa, �� ». � ' •, 4, -_ '\ �"�, z.
.a `✓na����4•d:/:v`s!l� r6� ..p i w^ •a s.•g y}wS s Sz, �1,•S: \7?� 1 'l./� r ! _ ..
9-,�2 t3; 'A `GA < _r"ti /'' cn\� /A ��S!s5 '' \s�S . !1 �,d.�y eQf l.v�/`` ��r\ c•t'• _
-'�"'�7 z �/ �,~1• •`��'a>i '� /'3�/, q+8-� �s�\'.s !n Ss}5y si s s�o ,yaa w'!>!�' ar /-4�n '�'@/l� 1:��
V51,a,,, - .... .*' M.. • .:" mss ,M�,._.J
31
��'h1'/'+n ��:s >+.�y •r• �� �sl • Isa 5� , av a w sa _ - ,
A ,'.F\�l3'�,, 'V -
ra;
s,aS sa f az 8� d a�•./ CZ! -*-"4,- '
� �.� '\ /1 l- � N�•�X•�6 (epi L� � /// V.Srr'> �J� I. '� •0 rf14' `.�/! / \
• °`;tit,'! �� 6 ��!:.,/ '��� '�\�Y s+r.'.o '}haa��s��: a\ ���Sl� �•� �.`�a
. . .CR y :'�.•e��c�����1 v�.`..`',�� 'noaAt��-\\lx�F. R�r-- �L.;: a/.' �'j�a�4\`•�` �/ �i�jrf���
F W�'. .Y.o.f- 1� .H•i1' .{,. y .� �' r Z. ,Sy,.!%'�/' r /` \.��7� L �L.�►
�•"•„flaw• r J r�!'y ._! e1 J`. ",�11 ,•,sys•v� ` 1' -�*_ `./ / / -
' RMF/16
< :'1.. •` . a :' '�•�,`3,1. ��� +�.�1�+7.�'`,.� Ics;r�-Tt�' �;7,.' _4
• \',.:y r a\ � /y' /"C"Ai+• nv r'J ss><-1<�. ��• , �` ,sS �s
l�4aP� w —
if
s /
LA
.. , ...• ;��•��.ry'Y IC ,`��` ��� � ---^r a!L—.-
. 16 _._1V y\\f `.f ',Ci-+.-y/ .,Is ra...1`!u•;•,rT�[u i'...`..'�a�^wrw -
L a—
. ELcr" f1 r, �•r•w •o..•.o•�T ��•�� ay.�,•. v -- — -- - 7n11TlJ-liil�,
� r � •'
IL
fit
It
LU
17
71,
s• ut ooss:
w�aH r Lfl-ft-Killill,
`�. �� -- ._ - T4311 fj -
.•. .. ss►h-�'1,tt/ttYf!►t1C , i •ri.a�
9464
9 12 Y . • ,
m
tnuvl
''3 T35 a
w
%moi-•�► �_ �- '' �. , �x� . .. 'y ,'� I
� a/jam yes..y_ _�� . ~� pi�', �L. \ a, -e i ;'*�•�.•'
i .
_• _ — � c .� - _y 1 it , r - �
• it I'"'�`�, .1�:�f•v'n"'rr`�1 •1 t1 � ,5 Z 1 r 1 1 I
_
• a
c "
��__ wv. y �• i to 8mm .�' ---dS-- -
�� `� --- o - '�' � '�` 'fir'\•_ t�. �. �- >' 'II R
uj
on
r7---= _
o Via. I
i%Y. �.�a..•i. 1 1 \ t .�,T^ 7j -`; t 5 0` 5�\;III Q. C:f-.
s T E
-
r y I�:i s .tx' t \ , i:t •I Ilct\ y'—y`z �o�."s t +�`A\ :' 1.
`4 ' I 7 fj --�r'S7 _ 27 6 0l -.\ I Y'C •\r T.rz �. ; \.- I 11 '
.1'd -
.'ftrF:Yi t t \ tiL...• 1 I �\ -, .' +j>jT.SY T Y T \+ -11q
1 1
- i t T. „� F•���5 h°t Y\r{�� :t.:�"•.:.•1 at�\,•-sll`n \t. �` I�I11.1 111..
l L !q E';r'`{.5....� -5 1 I 1 .I .iY llll i9 :7zt. `•� \ rl ` \ _ ,I1I1 I y.,
�' 14�.k( Y.T�'�'ti3o�:iiia..k � -y.�.�l ;\f:l�1 • .-�a \�fi- �} \� \ \ J III I ,
II � ,. ! I F,t E ,ett.11 i I I _ -�, •f F Y �\ �i \ "aw r.,�1 n \ I
. ,� -.__.a +i ., 1, `� �c a„ y tF 1• \ 1 n k� �Y \- F , \.._ \ �I I `
T-• i �ll� �-}�{�f 1� I ,\1 - ,° •' e t�f 1 { I k t-O \ l i l .:.:.ia
-
I 1 I -•U i �•- 1 et Y tT, tl 111 �
�,.� 4- 5\ �f11 \' 1 `
�� w• � � a o ,III ..
0
v ti
um I( ° ffi m � ema m o
WE N 3 "A
TZ y �,� .-V #
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council April 14 , 1986
VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment 1A-86/Zone Change 1-86
LOCATION: 1800 E1 Camino Real
APPLICANT: Leonard Brazzi
REQUEST: To revise the existing general plan from Suburban Single
Family to Retail Commercial and zone change from RS to CR.
BACKGROUND:
This request was considered by the Planning Commission at their meet-
• ing of March 3, 1986 . There was public testimony and discussion by
the Commission concerning this matter as referenced in the attached
minutes excerpt.
RECOMMENDATION (Planning Commission) :
On a 5 :1 vote, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the
general plan amendment and zone change, as 'outlined in attached Reso-
lution No. 29-86 and Ordinance No. 122, respectively.
RECOMMENDATION (Staff) :
Staff had recommended denial of the two requests based on the. findings
contained in the attached staff report.
STAFF COMMENT:
Staff is concerned that approval of this request for a new type of
zoning on north El Camino Real beyond the Urban Services Line could
commit the whole corridor to a new land use trend that may be nega-
tive. The rationale when the Council approved the rezoning of proper-
ty to CN (Commercial Neighborhood) at 1875 El Camino Real was to
square off the existing zoning and not to invite additional strip com-
mercial development, especially in an area where much of the existing
commercial zoning was undeveloped.
• HE:P s ,
;f
City of Atascadero Item: B-3
STAFF REPORT
FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: 3/3/86
BY: Joel Moses, Associate Planner File No: GP 1A-86 and
ZC 1-86
Project Address: 1800 E1 Camino Real
SUBJECT:
General Plan Amendment 1A-86 and Zone Change 1-86 to revise the gen-
eral plan from Suburban Single Family to Retail Commercial and related
Zone Change 1-86 from RS (Residential Suburban) to CR (Commercial
Retail) .
BACKGROUND:
The applicant has submitted requests for both a general plan amendment
and zone change for a site on north E1 Camino Real. The zone change
requests a change in the present zoning designation of RS to CR.
The applicant has proposed and has a commitment to establish a sales
yard on the site. In addition, the existing residential storage area
that has been the focus of a nuisance abatement process would be re-
moved. During the last general plan cycle, the Planning Commission/
Planning Agency reviewed a request for an interpretation of the gen-
eral plan to expand the existing commercial area across El Camino Real
(Zone Change 4-85) thaapproved the expansion of the existing CN
Commercial Neighborhood)ei hborhood
g ) area.
Notice of public hearing was published in the Atascadero News on Fri-
day, February 21, 1986 and all property owners of record located
within 300 feet were also notified on that date.
A. LOCATION: 1800 El Camino Real (Lots 3,4 , Block 48)
B. SITUATION AND FACTS :
1. Request. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .To revise the existing general
Plan from Suburban Single Family
to Retail Commercial and zone
change from RS to CR.
2. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Leonard Brazzi
3. Site Area. . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. 5 acres
4. Streets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .El Camino Real (arterial
0 undivided)
0
General Plan Amendment 1A-86/Zone Change 1-86 (Brazzi)
5. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RS (Residential Suburban)
6. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Residential
7. Adjacent Zoning and Use. . . . . .North: RS
South: CN
East: U.S. Highway 101
West: RS
8. General Plan Designation. . . . .Suburban Single Family
9. Terrain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Level/sloping to freeway
10. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration
C. ANALYSIS:
The applicant' s proposal is based on the site ' s location between
E1 Camino Real, U.S. Highway 101, and just north of the Del Rio
Road overpass. The applicant feels that the site is unsuited for
single family residential use and is more suited for commercial
uses. The applicant presently has a commitment for use of a por-
tion of the property for a commercial use needing freeway exposure
and easy freeway access.
The applicant has also submitted approximately 16 letters from
neighbors indicating their support or lack of opposition to the
redesignation.
The applicant' s request is for a redesignation of the subject
property from Suburban Single Family to Retail Commercial with a
a zone change from CR (Commercial Retail) . As noted in the gen-
eral plan. Several categories of commercial uses are combined as
retail commercial. Those categories noted as general retail,
downtown, neighborhood and tourist commercial can be equated to
zoning of CR (Commercial Retail) , CT (Commercial Tourist) , CN Com-
mercial Neighborhood) and potentially CS (Commercial Service) or
CP (Commercial Professional) . In light of the possibilities, a
review of commercial retail requires a multitude of items to be
considered as a part of this application.
The general plan land use element lists several "problems" that
are also common to other cities (pages 64 and 65) . These include :
Commercial properties strung out inordinately along El Camino
Real; and
Commercial properties are sporadically developed and mixed with
incompatible uses operating in substandard buildings. These are
conditions leading to blight.
It is obvious that a two-edged argument could be made here. The
problem of commercial property strung out is also balanced by the
site' s somewhat blighted condition. The proposed revision would
2
General Plan Amendment lAn.$6/Zo -ChAnge 1-86 (Brazzi)
solve one problem but then add to another.
The general plan acknowledges that the City of Atascadero' s gen-
eral commercial retail area is a strip commercial development and
thus notes that the most acute problems include:
-. Vehicular movements on, off, and across El Camino Real severely
limit the capability of the roadway.
- Each business requires a separate sign large enough to be seen
by the motoring public: this can create a condition of visual
chaos and confusion.
The general plan continues on to list several keys to optimum
commercial development in Atascadero. These include three of six
that could be considered as a part of the overall evaluation of
this proposal (page 65) :
11
2) Provision for areas for heavy commerce and commercial ser-
vices outside the Central Business District (CBD) , but with
convenient access. "
113) Provision of areas for daily shopping needs convenient to
residential neighborhoods. "
11
5) Encouragement of the concentration of compatible businesses
to the exclusion of inharmonious uses. "
In reviewing this proposal in light of these criteria, the appli-
cant' s proposal could be plausable. The proposal would locate
heavy commercial uses outside the CBD, if used for neighborhood
commercial (not proposed at the present time) ,' and the proposal
would expand an existing concentration of potential commercial use
focused on the intersection of Del Rio and El Camino Real.
The general plan lists two policies concerning general retail that
could apply:
113. Commercial uses shall be developed in clusters to encourage
concentrations of compatible retail trade service. Each
cluster shall be developed in a coordinated architectural
design. The signing and identification of the stores in each
cluster shall be combined, thus reducing the confusion
clutter . "
114. Commercial uses outside the Urban Services Line shall be ex-
amined and reviewed, on an individual basis, to insure that
there is no conflict between the intensity of the land use
and minimum parcel sizes. Sewage disposal shall be a prime
factor for consideration. "
Of these two policies, clustering has previously been mentioned.
The second policy notes that each application should be taken
individually and examined as to conflict between the intensity of
the adjoining land uses on parcel size, with sewage disposal being
3
• •
General Plan Amendment 1A,-§6/ O ,Change 1-8fi' (Brazzi)
a
prime factor. The site is not within the Urban Services Line and
sewer expansion is not foreseen into this area nor is it included
as part of the proposed general plan amendments covering the
expansion of the Urban Services Area (GP 1L-86) . Attached is a
copy of a memo from the City Engineer concerning sewer expansion.
In considering sewer, the site is considered severe for septic
suitability, but commercial uses have normally smaller demands on
septic systems.
Of the remaining criteria of lot size and intensity of uses, in-
tensity of use is of note. Due to the site's location between the
freeway and El Camino Real, it is part of an area that is mixed
(e.g. , included in the area is an existing bar , several deterio-
rating residences, a rest home, a nonconforming veterinary hospi-
tal) . Adjoining the area are the present designations of commer-
cial neighborhood and multi-family, partially developed. It would
appear that the area is clearly in transition but as to when the
area will be needed for commercial uses by the citizens of Atasca-
dero is not known. Further, a simple designation of CR would be
inconsistent with the neighborhood characteristics envisioned for
this area at the present time.
In reviewing an adjoining request for rezoning (ZC 4-85) , the City
considered and approved a change to CN to "square-off" the exist-
ing zoning. This proposal would again. extend this designation to
create a "tail" extending down E1 Camino Real. The proposal for
CN was also based on the area' s intensive commercial neighborhood
type use. Staff also noted concerns over further intrusion into a
residential area and that no demonstrated need existed for addi-
tional commercial land.
Overall, the proposal could be found partially consistent with the
general plan, but the overriding considerations of vacant land
existing in the area, potential conflicts of developing in a leap
frog fashion make the proposal questionable. Consideration of
this proposal at some future time along with a full review of
North E1 Camino Real appears to be a more appropriate
recommendation.
D. RECOMMENDATION•
Staff recommends denial of General Plan Amendment GP 1A-86 and
Zone Change 1-86 based on the findings contained in Exhibit D.
JM:ps
ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Existing General Plan Map
Exhibit B - Existing Zoning Map
Exhibit C - City Engineer ' s Memo
Exhibit D - Findings for Denial
4
r.,
.... :::::::: ::
i ........................
,.
... SITE
:: .- GP : lA: 86 - BRAZZI ••
1800 EL CAMINO REAL {
:.:....... :::::.........::::::: :::: :::::::: L
................... _
.....
:'
: '1
� 11)11
•
: ...........: ::: G~v�1CPVIL PLIh'1U A4U"CMkg f 71A E
::........:::. :::......"....": ::::::::: ::::.. :::......:::: ZD�IE G�l`mXiE ZE I Y
..................:::...... LOCAL )
..... =...::. :::: ::::::::::............:::::::: :: �SD AJ& G�DUt✓�Jit, RAN �/t�'(' :...
. ...
::::::::: :::::::::: ::::: ..... .<::: :::
::::::::::
o ATAy CADER0
I �
CT AT. '-j'-qAL PLAN -M-AP
LAND USE AND CIRCULATION
w HIGH DENS MULT FAM. HEAVY CO"MERCIAL AGRICULTURE
_= LOW DENS MULT. FAM. RETAIL CC`•1MERCIAL RECREATION
HIGH DENS. SNGL. FAM. COMMERCIAL PARK SPECIAL RECREATION
MOD DENS SNGL FAM. I SPECIAL COMMERCIAL ARTERIAL Drv!CED
LOW DENS. SNGL.FAM •.••.. PROFESSiCNAL OFFICE 'ARTERIAL uyav,CEO
••••............. CCLLECTCRS
I SUBURBAN SNGL. FAM. >' INDUSTRIAL PARK JRBAN SERVICES LINE
PUBLIC 1 INDUSTRIAL URBAN RESERVE L.%E `�?
AT
X\ AT EI :Sh — 1
Xx
\\N
\Y�
/f i \I�
42 g •3 of g 1 8`ted ILS 7:7 1 2?2 j \� •� RL'F
� } \
TX1'6
A 11 10 Is 14 1 Ire , �\
11� RMF116
'I15 10
I \11141 `� O� 1 •�'1 . 09 \ ♦\\\ \//�o is 395.. le
i
LZ�\ 13 t 800
7(/ CAMlVUO ZM,L
t- \ 1,0
23 `,(.?♦ ��52° \ �✓. 1L�L�' / [,` -
S2-t: .) \`:f\ .\ �' :••c.=• / r do \\�.`
`xo 6\ los_ •\r\.d `~-'40 `' 1h .ts�a;o•.�i�\ 23 •' 8 �� �\
C \\ r I .S.'•. �.l
2S S ♦ ` °s .\// \ -�� by �.� \\ o.'• \`\ \ `'�•` .\ ,- %,1:949.
�`-32•C 1 ws ],
RS .'\ °o I 1'. 2e"° 47 4�
\\ \ /T\ ,y O�.b
y 0
32'A -\• \ /�� \,..�•'y'N/ 28 % r\ SJ •\ yep0
40 , \ 49 ` •�H
•' v S2 33,D ° \\\\ $g \ v� ' Svc \� /�q ..,`\ SO
---="' f •\\ •>,�',� i' . 'y was \ �--�� \, / `\' `,v,, %
79 \ 51
- ..
37
34
31- SS•i /'� / ,T \ /Tw15° y35/ i3 /32 I �_
�.:0/120
\. 31
\`\ 31,,.o e s S / ` � ( �,� � �g.Ql— �` /'_�1 •...+° y ` -�•. . \,9s ��L ��\ J is 1'\u i
t� 50-F
^p
1L4 A �•�'\i+�<•\\\�, / a,d•/� ° j 1 �•, \dfo�\
16 %
\s.1.n 1 17 \ems 11 �1:�\•\\\ �t+'a I I �5aey •\ 21 �o .�
�10Iz EXP
•`.\
N IE)IT TF,7
-Cif ME
21 ZZA ZZ-1
Al
e '
l` �.•
-J ,`\;f l- Pla,nni g, Beparti1-1,-
M E M O R 9 N D U M
TO: Henry Engen, Director of Community Development
FROM: Paul Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
SUBJECT: Sewer Study & Fees
DATE: February 25, 1986
Just a note to address the recent sewer study with respect to
General Plan changes.
While the study doesn't pick and choose specific locations it
is understood that these changes will increase the number of sewer
lines that will be surcharged, so will improvements inside the I.D.
No. 1 that evolve due to normal buildout. No one knows exactly
where growth will hit next except that the south side, of course,
is now showing much activity.
Our policy will be first-come, first-serve, but pay your way
as you go to provide for line and plant adequacy.
The sewer fees now being proposed cover the buildout of I.D.
No. 1 as per the Wallace Study and the buildout of the ACSD (or
USL) . The fees do not address areas outside the USL and if such
line is extended different fees or mitigation may be necessary to
provide adequate service. We can, however, address those cases
seperately and individually by use of the new computer program
provided with the study.
If you have any questions, please notify me.
EXHI&T C
CzL'�i��11t, �l.P(Y�J A�tGyU'dY�t Gk1C` GP I i1-�
Bt�YkZZI
9 0
General Plan Amendment 1A-86/Zone Change 1-86 (Brazzi)
EXHIBIT D - General Plan Amendment 1A-86/Zone Change 1-86
Findings
March 3, 1986
FINDINGS:
1. The proposed general plan amendment would encourage development
which would be inconsistent with existing general plan policies
pertaining to the establishment of commercial areas outside of the
Urban Services Area.
2. The proposed general amendment is considered premature and should
be considered as a part of an overall study of commercial property
and the north E1 Camino Real corridor .
3. The designation of this site as CR (Commercial Retail) would be
inconsistent with the existing and proposed land use intensities
in the area.
5
Minutes - Atascadero P1aaning,,gooTqmir;,sion - March 3 , 1986
-MGTZQN: _ Made by Commissioner Michielssen, seconded by Com
Tione�_Kennedy and carried unanimously ove Condi-
tional Use Fe -86 subjec ._temfindings and condi-
tions contained in ort with modification to
Condition to permit native and #9-a and
to_ clarify option to bond for futu ril
improvements) .
2. General Plan Amendment and Zone Change 1-86 :
Request submitted by Leonard Brazzi to revise the general
plan from Suburban Single Family to Retail Commercial and
related zone change from RS to CR. Subject property is loca-
ted at 1800 E1 Camino Real, also known as Lots 3 and 4 of
Block 48.
In presenting the staff report, Mr. Moses noted that 16 letters of
support the request have been submitted by surrounding property
owners. He noted staff recommends denial of the request citing
lack of sewer, existence of vacant commercial zoning, inconsisten-
cy with the neighborhood' s character . It was felt that this ap-
plication is premature at this time.
Leonard Brazzi, applicant, spoke in support of the request and
explained that if the property is designated commercial in nature,
he would be starting a mobilehome sales business.
Gordon Wilbur, 1865 E1 Camino Real, explained that this area is
undesirable as residential and spoke about the large amounts of
traffic which use the Traffic Way access to Del Rio Road and
pointed out the various small businesses which have operated along
this strip of El Camino Real.
Chairman LaPrade stated that the large areas of Atascadero that
have industrial zoning are along the Traffic Way corridor and
once these properties have been developed, he felt that Del Rio
Road is going to bear the brunt of this traffic which would
result.
There was discussion concerning the possibility of considering an
overall study for the north El Camino Real corridor. Chairman
LaPrade asked about the status of the Rochelle property. Mr.
Moses stated this property has been annexed into the City based on
LAFCO action and explained the zoning designations for this
property.
MOTION: Made by Commissioner Kennedy and seconded by Commis-
sioner Bond . to deny General Plan Amendment 1A-86 and Zone
Change 1-86.
Commissioner Michielssen stated he would like to see another al-
ternative considered or have a larger study area. Commissioner
Bond stated his opposition to considering a small piece of proper-
ty at a time and felt that a commercial designation would be war-
ranted in this area, but would also like to see a larger study
3
f-
` Minutes - Atascadero Plawling, C, mission - March 3 , 1986
area. Chairman LaPrade concurred- with Commissioners Bond and
Michielssen.
In reviewing the Gerneral Plan concerning retail commercial, Com-
missioner Hatchell referenced a section of the Plan regarding
commercial retail areas which still remain to be developed and
stated that this does not seem to hold true now as it did when
thxe section was written.
Further discussion ensued.
The motion was defeated with a roll call vote, as follows:
AYES: Commissioner Kennedy
NOES: Commissioners Hatchell, Michielssen, Nolan, Bond, and
Chairman LaPrade.
MOTION: Made by Commissioner Hatchell and seconded by Commis-
sioner Nolan to recommend approval of General Plan Amend-
ment 1A-86 and Zone Change 1-86. The motion carried with
a roll call vote, as follows:
AYES: Commissioners Hatchell, Nolan, Bond, Michielssen,
and Chairman LaPrade
NOES: Commissioner Kennedy
Staff will bring back proposed language for approval.
Mr. Engen pointed out that the Commission could, at the next gen-
eral plan amendment cycle, initiate an amendment which would con-
sider a larger overall study area for this north El Camino Real
corridor.
4. General Plan Amendment 1C-86 and Zone Change 3-86 :
Request submitted by Norvell and Stella Warren to revi the
neral plan from Low Density Single Family to Density
Mu ' le Famly and related zone change from RSF to RMF/10.
(Applic t is requesting RMF/4) . Subject p erty is located
at 5800 Ve o, also known as Lot 15 of ock LB.
Mr. Moses presented the aff report noted that this request
is based on the fact th the my had previously zoned this
property multi-family resident He provided a background on
the history of the proper and ed staff ' s recommendation for
denial of the request.
Ron Von Feldon, orney representing the app l ' nt, stated that
several neig rs of adjoining property between th ite and Santa
Lucia app to be in favor of the request and may joi on their
own submit an application to change the general plan their
pr erties. He felt that in view of the recommendation, he e-
uested that the matter be continued to the next cycle. He state
4
RESOLUTION NO. 29-86
A RESOLUTION OF THE ATACADERO CITY COUNCIL
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN LAND
USE MAP CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION AT
1800 EL CAMINO REAL FROM SINGLE FAMILY SUBURBAN
RESIDENTIAL TO RETAIL COMMERCIAL (GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT 1A-86 : BRAZZI)
WHEREAS, a request to amend the City of Atascadero General Plan
has been received as follows:
General Plan Amendment 1A-86 :
Request submitted by Leonard Brazzi to change the General Plan Land
Use Map designation from Suburban Single Family Residential to Retail
Commercial. Subject property is located at 1800 E1 Camino Real,
also known as Lots 3 and 4 of Block 48. Negative Declaration to the
provisions of CEQA is to be certified.
WHEREAS, this request was considered by the Planning Commission at
a hearing held on March 3, 1986 and was recommended for approval; and
WHEREAS, such amendment to the General Plan was considered by the
City Council during a public hearing; and
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65323 provides that a general
plan be amended by the adoption of a resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Atascadero finds as follows:
1. A General Plan Land Use designation of Retail Commercial is
consistent with the policies of the General Plan.
2. The proposed general plan amendment will not have a signifi-
cant adverse impact upon the environment, and preparation of
an Environmental Impact Report is not necessary.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does resolve
to approve General Plan Amendment 1A-86 to change the 1980 Atascadero
General Plan Land Use Map as shown on the attached Exhibit entitled
GP 1A-86, 1800 E1 Camino Real.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Atascadero, California, held on the day of ,
1986.
CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA
By:
0 ROLFE D. NELSON, Mayor
ATTEST:
i
ROBERT M. JONES, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
MICHAEL SHELTON, City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM: .
ROBERT M. JONES, City Attorney
PREPARED BY:
HENRY ENGEN, Community Development Director
- ::.......................
SITE
GP: 1A: 86 - BRAZZI
,� :•:.. _
1800 EL CAMINO REAL
lb`s' 1
6r�G1A4 ;.
.:. .:. •.: •.-. ......-. ...........� ''�••
.:. .•......:. .. ��•�' .: :.:... ......
• ::. : :::::.. ::•.: -:.::::::::::::• . .......•. ::::::::::: .:::
..... ::.: :.... : :::::.... .. .
::::::::: = ::::: X.
:. ::: . ................:..: ::::::: CXIIIgIT A `=
:...
:. ...... :::: :::: :...............'.:: Gt�IJCQ�'L FLM k AILIT P-IA -U
::::...:::::::::: ::. :: ::: :: . : Z041E 7£ I Yr
:::::: :: :..:. ::::: ::::: .......... - -
:::: :::::.:: :::::...::::::: ::::: :::::- � '
...
.......:
c� I
G �T E'�,A� PT AT 11�P
I� LAND USE ATAT D CIRCULATION
HIGH LENS 'CULT FAM i HEAVY CO"ti'ERCIAL AGRICULTURE
LO'N DENS MULT. FAM RETAIL COMMERCIAL RECREATION
HIGH DENS SNGL. FAM. � ( CC.MmERCIAL PARK SPECIAL RECREATION
MOD CENS SNGL FAM I i SPECIAL CC`•1MERCIAL aRrFQIAL CIVTED
LOW GENS. SNGL FAM ..' PROFESSIONAL OFFICE � �' � ARTER'AL =AvCED
SUBURBAN SNGL. FAM INCUSTRIAL PARK CCLLECTCRS ^
,JRBAN SERv+CES LINE 'I
PUBLIC �� iN'DUS T RIAL .-.-.-.• UR91ry RESERvE L.1E '--
ORDINANCE NO. 122
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ATASCADERO AMENDING SECTION MAP NUMBER 4 OF THE
OFFICIAL ZONING MAPS OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO BY
REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTY AT 1800 EL CAMINO REAL
FROM RS (RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN) TO CR (COMMERCIAL
RETAIL) (ZONE CHANGE 1A-86 : BRAZZI)
WHEREAS, the proposed zoning map amendment is consistent with the
General Plan as required by Section 65860 of the California Government
Code; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment is in conformance with Section
65800 et seq. of the California Government Code concerning zoning reg-
ulations; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment will not have a significant ad-
verse impact upon the environment and preparation of an Environmental
Impact Report is not necessary.
WHEREAS, the Atascadero Planning Commission held a public hearing
and has recommended approval of Zone Change 1A-86.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does ordain
as follows:
Section 1. Council Findings.
1. The proposal is compatible with the surrounding land use and
zoning.
2. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan.
3. The proposal will not result in any significant adverse en-
vironmental impacts and preparation of an Environmental
Impact Report is not necessary.
Section 2. Zoning Map.
Map Number 4 of the Official Zoning Maps of the City of Atascadero
on file in the City Community Development Department is hereby amended
to reclassify Lots 3 and 4 of Block 48 from RS to CR as shown on the
attached Exhibit "A" which is hereby made a part of this ordinance by
reference.
Section 3. Publication.
The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published once
within fifteen (15) days after its passage in the Atascadero News, a
newspaper of general circulation, printed, published, and circulated
in the City in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code;
shall certify the adopting and posting of this ordinance and shall
cause this ordinance and this certification together with proof of
posting to be entered into the Book of Ordinances of this City.
Section 4. Effective Date.
This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and ef-
fect at 12:01 a.m. on the 31st day after its passage.
The foregoing ordinance was introduced on and
adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on .
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
CITY OF ATASCADERO
By:
ROLFE D. NELSON, Mayor
ATTEST:
ROBERT M. JONES, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
� c
MICHAEL 8TiELTON, City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROBERT M. JONES, City Attorney
PREPARED BY:
HENRY ENGEN, Community Development Director
S
\ — l
AT B
\�\ ,xz�,
Nl�j
tail ' i� �\�. •.�.,\;.I� _ j
44
a 'III.�� _y -r-.sem--• �� ��,� \Y\ _ . . .._.—.._
f \T 1'�11��L- tl ;II`i1 1 711 ILS 7� 2 1�
it 1z IT°•
i• �1 , �• IS 1♦
-- : RM X16
ID
�� � '.•�' \, / -` `,\\ � \/��� � .Tyr• op / \ \
Zc
EL
21 -% \.
32-t: r T o ��•
jr `\°'°`1 \as ',rte•`~.',4° c �4« -\.+sc;1.°/it\ 23 '� e
.23-1 �S • O `^ ~ •^���\`�.
y •. l
!2•D 1 37 a,\��\, gel\ \� �;^i 5� \ `y .:�,_ �
.3 1
/ �•' 2E��• .� Yoo `� V' ze,°o \ 4734
.S•c .
MIO I4•« \\ "!\\4- \\ \ >� Or /, -
y \ 4 •y• t7 �� \ 4ywO `\[\/7'1�� � .d 'b
---�? )3-C \\ a `�.+.\�� /�'• \\ \ I erg
32 a \, \� /'T \C ,« ze 4D ^\ 49
\ \ \.� �• � �'' � '\ / i \•\ yam^/,
14
315 33'= / 'Y 39 h w _
\� .3D-i ' y
oy s• '�� \
\CT;��'�?t�\�
l22
u
11` rI•f J1\ \ NSS \\`•\
12 Ef"IIy FF A
v° \
• � � �- ,,�,� � �'= - '°�/' �` Z11rvE C.H��ZLtX�ctdC�Ur A•�
1 i
21
EEA ZZ-1
r 10
CITY Or, ATA Al
1'la.nni nom' p�L't371.'tlt, . \�/ ..,•�..�... .._ _ _ ��
AJJET!N3 Z11 -NDA
AGz
17 EM
• M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council April 14, 1986
VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment 1F-86/Zone Change 6-86
LOCATION: 4155 Carrizo Road
APPLICANT: Jaime Lopez-Balbontin
REQUEST: To revise the existing general plan land use designation
from Suburban Residential to Moderate Density Single Fam-
ily and related zone change from RS to RSF-Y.
BACKGROUND:
This request was considered by the Planning Commission at their meet-
ing of March 3, 1986 . There was public testimony and discussion by
the Commission concerning this matter as referenced in the attached
minutes excerpt.
RECOMMENDATION (Planning Commission) :
On a 6:0 vote, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the
general plan amendment and zone change, as outlined in attached Reso-
lution 30-86 and Ordinance 123, respectively.
RECOMMENDATION (Staff) :
Staff had recommended denial of the two requests based on the findings
contained in the attached staff report.
STAFF COMMENT:
Staff is concerned that this single lot change is a "spot" action con-
trary to the overall neighborhood character . Such a density change
should only be undertaken as part of a larger action after analysis of
the overall neighborhood.
HE:ps
• Enclosures: Planning Commission Staff Report —March 3 , 1986
Minutes Excerpt - March 3, 1986
Resolution No. 30-86
Ordinance No. 123
CC : JAIME LOPEZ-BALBONTIN
c
M 0
General Plan Amendment 1F;-86/Zone Change 6-86`
5. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RS (Residential Suburban)
6. ExistingUse se. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Single family residence
7. Adjacent Zoning and Use. . . . . .North: RS
South: RS
East: RS
West: RS
8. General Plan Designation. . . . .Suburban Single Family
9. Terrain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Generally level with an upslope
to rear of the site away from
Carrizo Road.
10. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration
C. ANALYSIS:
The applicant is proposing the general plan amendment based on the
existing land use patterns (lot size) and a desire to construct a
new residential unit in the area. Staff has reviewed the lot
sizes in the area and has developed the following information:
Average lot size within 600 feet 1.78 acre
Average lot size within 2, 400 feet 2.75 acre
Residential property in Block 49 2. 24 acre
(excluding multi-family/commercial lots)
The average lot size in the immediate area of the proposed revi-
sion is definitely below the 2 1/2 to 10 acre minimums set forth
by the general plan, but as one expands the area, the lot size
expands to above the minimum. A review of a "best" situation lot
size calculations shows the following:
Distance from center of community (12,000-14, 000 ' ) . 40
Septic suitability (moderate) .75
Average slope . 50
Condition of access .40
Neighborhood character (1.5 X .2) .30
Minimum lot size "best" situation: 2.35 acres
The proposed lot size would not conform to the existing standards
set for determining lot sizes.
The general plan notes several policies that are applicable to the
proposed amendment. General Plan Land Use Element Policy No. 3
(page 57) notes that properties outside the Urban Services Line
shall be evaluated for lot sizes based on the Suburban Residential
range (2 1/2 to 10 acres) until sewer is available. The proposed
revision is not included within the Urban Services area and is not
envisioned to be served or included in the proposed revision of
the Urban Services area (GP 1L-86) . The City Engineer has pro-
2
l _
0 •
General Plan Amendment 1F-86/Z2ne Chznge 6-86'
vided a memo noting City policy as- to expansion of sewer facili
ties in the future. It should be noted that review of the site
soils septic suitability indicates a moderate rating.
Additional policies in the general plan also potentially bear on
the proposed request. These policies include: residential den-
sity shall decrease as one moves outward from the core. . . (Policy
No. 5, page 62) ; lot splits shall be thoroughly evaluated and be
in accordance with community plans and principals. . . " (Policy No.
10, page 62) . In both cases, the proposal would not conform to
existing policies of the general plan.
The proposal would be an island of higher density within a lower
density designation. The general plan and zoning ordinance pro-
vide for one intervening designation of low density single family
(1 1/2 to 2 1/2 acre) designation. Even with this designation,
the proposed redesignation would be an island (spot designation) .
D. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of General Plan Amendment 1F-86 and Zone
Change 6-86 based on the findings contained in Exhibit H.
JM:ps
ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Existing General Plan
Exhibit B - Existing Zoning Map
Exhibit C - Property Ownership Map
Exhibit D - Developer 's Statement
Exhibit E - Distance from Center of Community
Exhibit F - Sewer Map
Exhibit G - City Engineer ' s Memo
Exhibit H Findings
3
ol
C5 it�F 2-i^ikr��f da..+ �-. �. `a* ' 1 . h , i hi:'''�" ��� •�
00
.."' :ria k` • ,.
`
GP• 1F:86 'LOPE S/BALLBOIV=
` .• '` TIN
=`
4155. CARR I ZO ROAD • cit
r a p' • -:�
r ... ..
�• -Y.Y'.'. • •• •.
.\y .
5
I l
1.
• •.,.rte• '►O�: •:v:
•-+t — ..+.•:}: is.
a :. :r: ,.
:..
', .a
c
G�
I
G)
r Ka i�. � •:�:::
�r
.i
y
'Y YR:.••
EX I IFS
11155 CAER= QO�p
FLW AMCI,JDl111M Cf.IF•f,
.. ZO�,aC CW �E ZC-� B�
O r_ ATA S CA.DE ROco
�q
G NE-R L PLAN
i1 -MIAP
LAIND- USE AND CIRCUL �
ATIOl 7
^;M HIGH DENS. MULT FAM. HEAVY COMMERCIAL —� Y
LOW DENS. MULL FAM. I RETAIL COMMERCIAL —� AGRICULTURE ;
� .. L_� RECREATION
yGL. FAM. COMMERCIAL PARK I t ` „u fFasr
HIGH GENS. SI I SPECIAL RECREATION
.::.:
M00.DENS. SNGL. FAM. SPECIAL COMMERCIAL
. SNGL.FAM. PROFESSIONAL OFFICE ARTERIAL omoEo
LOW DENS
' ��..� �� ARTERIAL utiOrv10E0
SUBURBAN SNGL. FAM. INDUSTRIAL PARK """'•"•'• COLLECTORS
'� URBAN SERVICES LINE
PUBLIC INDUSTRIAL l RRAN RFCFwvC I %f:. -
..,S.+l:...F .. .... ._.jc C,.•.. �: .7t .Y 1. ... ... N�. ..'�`. l' ii:�l_u
AL
GAP:IF b
GITT7
9.4
1 �i`�j'� —RMF/1 so
# q ��
•2 .} �3 M w � � ILy 751271j$ \ OF
Irs � � -
a , e 14 -+s--�
,•• I RMFI16to
eo
S
ct
\1 u,.2 \11` 17 `, ,i•' //\(��.•$ ( '•Og ,\\`c:s �..\ n•.:�.�+iv.$°
{, ,,,,\\•1 IS \',�\ ., �S.T. \ 9'2' , r
12
72t: 33 \\' `~/ - 'y ' 2/'� `•� / \ �a \ % `�+aol \ `' s*f ''r'\i'�.i 9. j is
tiv�i\
)"'�_ fo°\C•A\ 1 0�• •+� °i3�\�• \ \ \ 33 •`\ vs°5 \J� 44 ^a•.
52.0 33& ,`4\ >-J° (•UL' U SS•A}(a. }' 49
to
32•41 �� "�\// 23 9
�1t 32•C ,I_ir! / ai iE�s/. !/_,�/C 34 \ \� Aicl
. �` '��\\\ ' A 0.'+°, , '•s/ j \•/ \vv/ 4 9'•
at
060
33-C 40 43
le
32A as
32 37 s \\ 46 '�•p \Ve^N /i'29••" , 4\\. "`b"
51
39
82
34
- 33•r
•s bN\n,
32
31� � t4 �` \/ N't 32t%�-rs• �•-=_1�
��•SO•/ 304y` t` ' ,� %GIA(/�- i/ ' • \k•-�� S 1,%P.
13
Irlj :••..I • ''
12
•• �_ �� /1 to -�
��• � � 12 S%tet\\� S J -,yti�/ � ° � ////j .
10. it
to
12L--X6-}IgIT t3
• ♦. / CA
CZMC_ PLf(1J A(MOJDMaTf GP
\� 2' �' > %'" ry`' 4 ZU F cRmQ c ZG
CITY OriACFt:(PD 1)
SGA.DE o
PlaningDept1i :- - . rrit .
11
n
Y'
�o
qo
N
1Q
G5 m V N \
O ro
Ul
O
7C �r
r
w Z
-
��
p0L °fid �* O
v L�2
V Iv �lB O
Q 1
N Lb£
O N -n
-
�
n
u
�kw o n
w
N O N
n
CD '
y N N 51
y O v N m
n
c
y. cilrn
n wOa
�a a
� o
EXA IS IT Cl
ZWD
ss' QE1JMI, RW A'MGI WW lF6l
a l/EC.MW ZC' (0-Y6
T'IZPJl�I'm CJII utzG141 P 11 w
SEPT. TCS 1995
ATASCADERO PLANING DEPTO.
SIR: 0
As per your request, the following letter will justify our reasons
to request a change in zoning in the property at 4155 Carrizo Rd. ,
known as Lot 4 Block: 49, Assesor Parcel No. 049-052-01-000 3.
As you can see in the accompanying map of the area, most of the par-
cels located on Carrizo Fid. avenge slightly under an acre. Our parcel
in the corner of Carrizo Rd. and Traffic Way is 3. 9 acres. There is a
very small house in the North East corner of the property used at this
moment as a rental unit. It does not serve the purpose of housing my
family. We would like to build our permanent residence at this location.
We feel that granting our request will not change the configuration
of the neighborhood. Our purpose is eventually build a home in this
location. We are requesting a change to RSF-Y which would permit us
eventually, divide the parcel in two. Allowing us to do this, would
not change the characteristics of the area, and at the same time,
would permit us to improve the looks of the property.
After talking to members of the staff , we felt encouraged to go ahead
and present this request to you.
Hoping to obtain a "REQUEST GRANTED" from you:
Respectfully yours,
JAIME LOPEZ-BALBONTIN
E 4IgiT D
-11 5� ifwrZIM VIM)
1 GDEWL pJO,) N1KWTk ftT &Y I F tL
ZAE CN'Y(&C, ZC: b-fL
�i[IJ�ZU�YrS STI��Z'MCIV[" ,,
J• I �\ -r r ,/� y��, x 1• . �/e`er r •.r r � _'�S •
(9,/y��•- - f 1 - .�r .�i ':%! f.� _It.- .1 , =ter/'\ • .r� �� \. 1i�.. l.� -
• �/; '; `�r� � ' '':-1•�_ �y , ' %t�� /%r„�. i i�- .IYw.ki lyr�E _ 4• 1 �
' _ , s '• 7 ' �, i_`_ - 1' `A. w`I( � fc,�,' .CCL ki � , (••�••
e\ /• �' i` A _f \ �Y ,�a!' t---'ry��i -�_ _a �_`° •, 1111 1 i `F 4
.a y; � �`' �� ;.� .\ •�l��'�~ ���'�R ^. .r�/ `mss�°` —��f�' .}��/�' �\ ��i � I it \ .
� ( t'.� � ,• •, u� _+', \ �t`` i �,J� a�.p\ , �pr-���I =_/ � � -�i�:.. ��R,t�'�1e�'.C• ..f>< � I I• �I•!\\
/ \ �` '•✓/ .k: �� I- g �y_.. t�`,JY v. J/lam_' UUUU k;�.Lir. )�t y��'p„ �� ',I -
`�. .�' ' � i , •t, . Is� �J,/3�1I._1'v1:I' o ;jb,/D�,j,rt ra•{.=•� ” �
/��. i -- '$\• eT / /a � ' 1\I� Y = ).CY ••`�...777`I�. M ' t J
,ss` ,a-� �� ��` i ii���llY����'��,/��`t,' '(e\K= _ r �j= �✓�,. ''��n�' �dam. iT � Vii•�r��.��•!�'1-��D�11 -?/� -
--.� - ;J �,�-;'r ,•�• f��,\< �,�� ,��Y��� _ _-goo �ter, V ,? .y�._ _ .
+- }• k � \` � � ! rr�rr�`C`' 'I �}�,�.1y��4/�'/<A�_���6'� ' }� , �� { �,:,_ ',/{`� �.• y%- j/ie :.d
\ �/�` ; i}-"�4 \�'�� � �•�' I.�� '.:�°/a�`:�' y4Y �::- tr�F✓�''��'3�5~ -f '�+`S r��y� : ` /• '� �i ' `Y
\ ' r 1'• l f =: k�L = °�.a $ Ris
\•� I�\ �- +� a'_ •,•\,�/ •I 1C� y..- _ .:i.�,} ��'D�Yr�► ' ?�`h r�' `'_ ' Z
l o z
tIJ
1-31
zN
I 'TJI �/ J,� ,� �:,- •._� ` ,,=,i, it i. _/� r; = 1
/
C-D.NRL VLrOJ AMMWM COY-IF-M
VLSFAULC WW1 CeD,JT tW aVWIVM
�ytf e.L i z r Y .t St. ..:L a .r"" y � .C .. r ° •' �• � ��
bw-f `� .,' • 4 _' E - '.1' ,r • ., '� , � a r, �/ ' t r c C 1.-�, �
�
5� • OFF H4 s ��L. :.�/l -= 1- � t,��t0 •�%f�c_r L C_'
_.4 v o L� EkM Vi 1._+05 /Ah SOAA1�
moie• �i Q.1:- ` 11^�� s'%�c.•J\` F�' i y,
}r". .Z i� L t E e ` i_ —y fir,'+ c4 r`i �,,1,k.t'\'1 •p I
Cos-
1..t\� —a-N� .?c _� / rl p •"_\:'�.:a` •'�_ Y`� ` ?. o^ t"_'- � �j����/ �i'^„'J��}J y �Y, 'S � r:
�sil� d ' e �1 ��+. �� \ 1• _ I l L� ����4.N'�atly'�qr� /L� c
`"
R g�!_ a. I � =1 _ _� 6�1 ,`-� b T 'l:_ i $[_.i.� �bs�• ) _ � 'i.
\ c '• _ ter cU,• ' �W.h)' Ir a lrwci�I, _ '(o - u•'" �/.'\�'Q„�ay r ,
��+r, ./ t" i e\. •' � M a Y z 4'xK''\S �/ �'�'`I e� c�o'�\ _ e --e p'•' +l/�.�/'LIj`'
��+,�� � � '� \yam ./ :,tl O• n ---• .� r�.� �Q,a�- ���:�� cV�`��� r �'- �,_: ��< 'r};
>+.a�.y„ Y e e Y a \. •0 �:. �ll" IIG. :-fY x._ `'�� ♦ / r:.
"a••sr -S.�.1x '`\� E r �= s•s xi� � L�� {�a�}'�t,G ` i � ". / /cs�-- . � � c'
•1 1. y k,f' Y.Y,' >:° ♦r=��' .�;.t+cQ_'�.t1t:r�`��r,`Ti-...% �;� e-„ :-'r" )"� J_1Li t���!,���. t -„
1. ._! E Y �I'i—�,• M - _ 1 �\P' ` `r ;�� �•-iicr 3 •'y^+L »x •/, .:iii ii�.�..'�..r-''�;1'��.
•,iib R r y Y s�Y a /` r��x z" .�.�^^ F - r/:'• \m s c I .a1 ,.
•0 1
AD
�� E la �e.•T�l�'-'� t — �r t�'c � � �-.•c tl ,� m -� I �,'��' �` -
��1s r •r ��eei�� z :i � �.ril,y� 1..�/' ,�•_ 1�"1\`° b��'�' •` - .y i �-.a }- / _
* <x, :, `-\�!-��r E:1 y,t/7�,. It��'• �-�_�� � /`' � ;a � '��.:�.''" ty 'ems
a'• j\(/Io /rim Ci' :7)?
" >.�`� �/ /�� `ii. � o � ,�• - rte'' -�i /�`� �—a '
17
ov
a • I� t/ ' 6L ` JC�w
�� d Y tx r. a �V •[a l�� r 'F/f-""v"{'�^rc•-•- �y. �
2r i'& .. / - z �' ��• z/ � /'�`- z - ;r is :r+ o
r{i � +,,,�� �- •/+o/y �' - .•\z` a �✓ .may\ .dy - ..
.Ti r1 \..ls%J i 1•,. r. ^ %i.! / ij,i l i �i c+ 924�� c � '.
�'J,t z•� � ,r ~} i i !rr +,,..tr' 4� �y.•"'\s• rrr'�y
re,i �([.,� tcf.,,�-1r� ...,
n E Y 1 I IJI 1 F
7 � Y ..- ..Ja TrJ!h : r►•4 -M^•! ii r,p '�'`� i•• J �
�.. � \ ���f � "7 r� �� Ya r 1r�.J•�r'�'�j.t.��k i�a hss+z�t' t
u, ' 1 _{ Z .-:. ':r , - J Y• - JF ryiYG .) �+ t • S
4157
M= (Z N/U
.,,qtr:r.•w��*��r•'r^' y:�u . � ^x .x�' i 'fie�`M\ ...-a t .s*'t >:. �y i? ac',r+• 'Y, - �'i
,�.�c;• �:v4aa;.+j,.,.;c• �`",' 'ii•,- t '° s s.'Slsr ':. �.cn �et` +G#�'^.ee jt.5'.t of t •t" ,_,,,�•fr�C � �7,� � p� /�,��� �'\����y,'�- Wp C 4�
- -� r''.. i`. .. �-. '..{j;.'z3o-.. r3n1.�;�•i�:-'rr71r3'_'', . .'�'_ .rny>~'.�'x;-;�;r•},'- �xUUI/Y1111..r G U I IV/'11YUJNUYWUV 1 Ur7'11 "LI7
ZfiNJ- ERWbE ZC:G-M
-lo
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Henry Engen, Director of Community Development
FROM: Paul Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
SUBJECT: Sewer Study & Fees
DATE: February 25, 1986
Just a note to address the recent sewer study with respect to
General Plan changes.
While the study doesn't pick and choose specific locations it
is understood that these changes will increase the number of sewer
lines that will be surcharged, so will improvements inside the I.D.
No. 1 that evolve due to normal buildout. No one knows exactly
where growth will hit next except that the south side, of course,
is now showing much activity.
Our policy will be first-come, first-serve, but pay your way
as you go to provide for line and plant adequacy.
The sewer fees now being proposed cover the buildout of I.D.
No. 1 as per the Wallace Study and the buildout of the ACSD (or
USL) . The fees do not address areas outside the USL and if such
line is extended different fees or mitigation may be necessary to
provide adequate service. We can, however, address those cases
seperately and individually by use of the new computer program
provided with the study.
If you have any questions, please notify me.
915�G�17.0 �
6 DUN& PC.RCI`) YnOY�If G-P,i r t6
ZUVE LN' & ZC-G-bG
Cxi Y u I w EEVS ,>tiIkW 0
0 0
General Plan Amendment 1F-86/Zone Change 6-86
EXHIBIT H - General Plan Amendment 1F-86/Zone Change 6-86
Findings
March 3, 1986
FINDINGS:
1. The proposed general plan land use map revision would not be con-
sistent with existing policies contained in the general plan land
use element due to the proposed project' s inconsistency with the
need for sewer, decreasing density from the center of the commu-
nity, and density determination factors.
2. The proposed land use designation would be a spot designation and
would be inconsistent with existing land use patterns in the area.
3. The site is not within the sewer improvement district and sewer
services are not available to the site.
4
Minutes - Atascadero Pla in _QL
mis, ssion - March 3 , 1966
Commissioners Bond and Kennedy both concurred that the area shou
n be rezoned to the single family nature because of the con rns
expr sed in the public testimony. Chairman LaPrade note at it
has bee the Commission' s policy to grant requested co inuances.
Commissioner tchell stated he would not cohsid a continuance
at this time he felt that even with th ontinuance, the ap-
plication has to ch a any way. Mr. Eng added that the differ-
ence with this request is that a conti ance is being asked to
expand the study area. E with two lots that are suggested,
it would provide some linkag t Santa Lucia, but would be a
"finger" of land penetratin 'n the neighborhood and would trig-
ger some reasonable conc s on th art of the neighborhood.
Commissioner Michi ssen stated that the may already be too much
RMF/16 zoning the character of the town ould studied in this
light.
MOTIO Made by Commissioner Bond, seconded by missioner
Kennedy and carried unanimously with a roll ca vote to
deny General Plan Amendment 1C-86 and Zone Change -86.
Chairman LaPrade called a recess at 8 :55 p.m. Meeting reconven
at 9:08 p.m.
5. General Plan Amendment 1F-86 and Zone Change 6-86:
Request submitted by Jaime Lopez-Balbontin to revise the gen-
eral plan from Suburban Residential to Moderate Density Sin-
gle Family and related zone change from RS to RSF-Y. Subject
property is located at 4155 Carrizo Road, also known as Lot 4
of Block 49.
Mr. Moses presented the staff report and noted that this request
is based on the existing land use patterns (lot size) and a de-
sire to construct a new residential unit on the property. He
pointed out staff' s recommendation for denial of the request due
to overall neighborhood character and general plan policies.
Jaime Lopez-Balbontin, applicant, spoke in support of the request
and explained the history associated with this property.
Mr . Engen read a letter in opposition to the proposal from a res-
ident at 4200 Carrizo Road who would be unable to attend the
meeting.
Mac McGuinnes, 4255 Carrizo, sated he would not be against the
proposed change if the applicant would go ahead with his plans to
clean up his other property.
Commissioner Kennedy stated she has viewed the property and felt
the change would improve the property. She did not think this was
an unreasonable request. Commissioner Bond concurred with Commis-
sioner Kennedy' s statements but expressed concern over the way the
lot would be split.
6 ?
f
•
Minutes - Atascadero Pla 1DZS,( ig-sion - March 3 , 1986
Chairman LaPrade expressed concern relative to this property's
redesignation becoming an "island" of different density. He said
it would not be a liability to let this go through but expressed
reservations because of the zoning situation.
Commissioner Hatchell also expressed concern with the "island"
concept, but because of the existing use of adjacent properties,
this would not be a problem and would be in favor of approval.
Mr. Engen explained the Commission may want to consider continuing
this matter to the next general plan cycle when it could be con-
sidered as part of an expanded study area to change the designa-
tion of the other substandard lots of record on that corner on
both sides of the street.
MOTION: Made by Commissioner Bond, seconded by Commissioner
Kennedy and carried unanimously with a roll call vote to
recommend approval of General Plan Amendment 1F-86 and
Zone Change 6-86.
6. General Plan Amendment 1I-86 and Zone Change 9-86:
Request submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Neil Steil, Mr. and Mr .
David Roberts, Sandy Jagger (with expanded study area ini a-
ted by the City) to revise the general plan from Su rban
Residential to Moderate Density Single Family an related
one change from RS to RSF-Y. Subject property is ocated in
th area between Colorado Road, Atascadero' Road San Diego
Roa mind San Rafael Road (Colorado Study Area)
In presenting he staff report, Mr. Moses not he applicants are
basing their re est on the existing land us pattern (lot sizes)
in the area. He` ointed out that this a a is outside the Urban
Services Line and no d staff' s recommen tion for denial.
Dave Roberts, one of the pplicants, hanked the Commission and
staff for all the effort an& work at has been done. He noted he
purchased the property over t ears ago and noted his efforts
to split the property and s ted his desire to maintain the
aesthetic values for the ne ' hborh d. He spoke about the lot
sizes in the area and did of feel t -' s request was unreasonable.
Gary Powers, 10705 A scadero Avenue, sta d this area is very
beautiful and woul be reluctant to see an crease in the density
of the area, es p ially in relation to the ncrease of septic
systems in the area.
Sandra Ja er , one of the co-applicants, explained t t this re-
quest one from low density to moderate density. She stated
that total of four more residences could result if this edesig-
na on were approved. She then pointed out on the overhea pro-
' ctor other densities in the area that range from . 8 acres to 1.3
acres and noted that this request being asked to bring into co
TOrmity what already exists in the neighborhood.
7 ��r
RESOLUTION NO. 30-86
A RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN LAND
USE MAP CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION AT 4155
CARRIZO ROAD FROM SINGLE FAMILY SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL
TO MODERATE DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY (GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT 1F-86 : JAIME LOPEZ-BALBONTIN)
WHEREAS, a request to amend the City of Atascadero General Plan
has been received as follows:
General Plan Amendment 1F-86 :
Request submitted by Jaime Lopez-Balbontin to change the General Plan
Land Use Element Map designation from Suburban Single Family Residen-
tial to Moderate Density Single Family Residential. Subject proper-
ty is located at 4155 Carrizo Road, also known as Lot 4 of Block 49.
Negative Declaration to the provisions of CEQA is to be certified.
WHEREAS, this request was considered by the Planning Commission
at a hearing held on March 3 , 1986 and was recommended for approval;
and
WHEREAS, such amendment to the General Plan was considered by the
City Council during a public hearing; and
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65323 provides that a General
Plan be amended by the adoption of a resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Atascadero finds as follows:
1. A general plan land use designation of Moderate Density
Single Family is consistent with the policies of the General
Plan.
2. The proposed General Plan amendment will not have a signifi-
cant adverse impact upon the environment, and preparation of
an Environmental Impact Report is not necessary.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does resolve
to approve General Plan Amendment 1F-86 (Jaime Lopez-Balbontin) to
change the 1980 Atascadero General Plan Land Use Map as shown on the
attached Exhibit entitled GP 1F-86, 4155 Carrizo Road.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Atascadero, California, held on the day of ,
1986.
CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA
By.
ROLFE D. NELSON, Mayor
ATTEST:
ROBERT M. JONES, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
MICHAEL SHELTON, City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROBERT M. JONES, City Attorney
PREPARED BY:
HENRY ENGEN, Community Development Director
J
,.
., •. :I " TIN ,� I +�'
`•4 �r--CAR S
n.,415 SRIZ0 ROADi
.1I.
.. .;.
x
' ti-!•
., .,•
:•.::
j:
f
• •' . .
: ki�
�;:: •;
••�.r.••
:.:;.
,a ..
. `
:;.
�? C-C:
Q C :i }i'r?:..
Tiia<
X.
J i.
... EXHIL�ITq
'1155 CAT?TZ
IZD
Q0��
. CE�)EFAt_•TLW W
Cf,JD
YA
E7JC'
GF IF
.... ZO�,�C ZC
g
.SCADERO
co
l_RAL PLAIT TJAP
LATIT D USE AND CIRCULA �
f TIOIT
HIGH DENS. MULT FAM.
HEAVY COMMERCIAL AGRICULTURE
.u. LOW DENS. MULT. FAM. I RETAIL COMMERCIAL RECREATION
HIGH DENS. SNGL. FAM. COMMERCIAL PARKf
SPECIAL RECREATION
MOD.LENS. SNGL. FAM, I SFECIAL COMMERCIAL
LOW DENS. SNGL.FAM. •• . ARTERIAL OIV,DEo
PROFESSIONAL OFFICE ARTERIAL U�OIViOEO
SUBURBAN SNGL. FAM. INDUSTRIAL PARK • COLLECTCRS
L •••••••� URBAN SERVICES LINE ,.•I�'"'
PUBLIC � d I.:nl cTal•I —_-_�._._._.. URBAN
ORDINANCE NO. 123
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ATASCADERO AMENDING SECTION MAP NUMBER 4 OF
THE OFFICIAL- ZONING MAPS OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
BY REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTY AT 4155 CARRIZO ROAD
FROM RS (RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN) TO RSF-Y (RESIDENTIAL
SINGLE FAMILY, MEDIUM DENSITY) (ZONE CHANGE 6-86:
JAIME LOPEZ-BALBONTIN)
WHEREAS, the proposed zoning map amendment is consistent with the
General Plan as required by Section 65860 of the California Government
Code; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment is in conformance with Section
65800 et seq. of the California Government Code concerning zoning reg-
ulations; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment will not have a significant ad-
verse impact upon the environment and preparation of an Environmental
Impact Report is not necessary.
WHEREAS, the Atascadero Planning Commission held a public hearing
on March 3, 1986 and has recommended approval of Zone Change 1F-86.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does ordain
as follows:
Section 1. Council Findings.
1. The proposal is compatible with the surrounding land use and
zoning.
2. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan.
3. The proposal will not result in any significant adverse en-
vironmental impacts and preparation of an Environmental Im-
pact Report is not necessary.
Section 2. Zoning Map.
Map Number 4 of the Official Zoning Maps of the City of Atascadero
on file in the City Community Development Department is hereby amended
to reclassify Lot 4 of block 49 from RS to RSF-Y as shown on the at-
tached Exhibit "A" which is hereby made a part of this ordinance by
reference.
Section 3. Publication.
The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published once 0
within fifteen (15) days after its passage in the Atascadero News, a
newspaper of general circulation, printed, published, and circulated
in the City in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code;
shall certify the adopting and posting of this ordinance and shall
cause this ordinance and this certification together with proof of
posting to be entered into the Book of Ordinances of this City.
Section 5. Effective Date.
This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and ef-
fect at 12:01 a.m. on the 31st day after its passage.
The foregoing ordinance was introduced on and
adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
CITY OF ATASCADERO
By:
ROLFE D. NELSON, Mayor
ATTEST:
ROBERT M. JONES, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
MICHAEL SHELTON, City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROBERT M. JONES, City Attorney
PREPARED BY:
HENRY ENGEN, Community Development Director
`\
&7::I r bb
RS To �$F-
u-- Y _
�'T
%if i '�1I 'f2MF/1 _,AA1 1 n•:1{nt s 1%%4
2
�� ��'ft. • :) 43� .` w $ 1(,T'7 272
1 \�
8I
12
y 17 r7•A • 12-0
RM Xt6
\�
�i tt •, •? 'X /
RMF/16
`A
lbbb
.o i•fu,.2 ,1 11 � /� /+fib// •°S \,r.`Y. ` n• IN7;'• �\` -
23
jc
�� Y �\,a76\i,\rr`° �`/�• zt /• ��` :�`•\� 7 �� Ss h' ',, ``\ !`1 �2. � � • ,�\�'\�
Y1=e°'° tor_ \�1 1 c' ..rs;,'s°• i\,23 y
.ar�{ \ `"� `,/ � }b ✓ \ rr� °s / \ss\ v \•n.c ois ° '�. s•s� 44
=2-p 33-A 3.A�'' rd \ \ ,
-23
us
3
4
32-C .z
_`.
wte I.1• \\\ \ w 'Y/ / 4Y•ro !I 4Y b/�
27 •/
40 43
at
33-0 /wq�\ /'�i0
—.�,... r - �\ ' •Y �°/ a ;. `,FIs+c \ i 1``
39 51
315 -3!•- \ as \\•,••�\/ �,p /• ' �y@or, / J ` _ `\ 75�
31
�` !:-��'^ 33-� ' / .�' �/ ! •°° 4 - ]a yi a3 33 A 34
32
1 \ \\\� • �•, /y /20 /
`\ 31 eat 4 i ,1 ``.•�� o� �\ ^�• �• '\ •:� • '"
sor �' 3'��\�1 \\\_`j rte/ gf•../ i / \ \ + ¢ -.0 1-c i•e A;�` i.
.0 \ 12
V >a
12
22
0
10
12 -XHIE)IT
• `'\ • ^/ •`\```\ /"'`� \,\t`^Gi'l�r'',�/ -qL_J C 1VIl.'7-0 ZC!11''D
• \`�`� \
21 s \,ly,•_i � ��� '• � �A-T�1u�1�N- �7'ru.1U1JIVlrU,V/1 l�f -
zo 4 '.• \= 44 /s ZAU-CRMTS 1\ACEI- LG' l'w
�: :_ _�,� •�i CITY fll+, .TAS,t;A..i)EQ .��-�•::;: �l 1
TING y/� AGENDA
�Q !i EM
TO: City Council mA April 14 , 1986
FROM: Mike Shelton, City Manager
SUBJECT: COST FOR ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES FOR POLICE FACILITY AND
RECOMMENDATION REGARDING POLICE FACILITY SIZE AND COST
RECOMMENDATION:
1. City Council authorize Mayor to enter into agreement with the
Architectural Firm of Ross, Levin, and Mac Intyre in the
amount of $31,700 , less $2,987 if only one (1) site analysis
is required, and less $12,800 if Architect performs final
construction documents.
2. Architect design a Police Facility, not to exceed $950,000 ,
to accomodate current Police Department facility needs that
can be expanded upon in future years, as additional expansion
needs may be required.
DISCUSSION:
At the last Council Meeting, the Architect Selection Committee
• recommended the Council contract with the Architectural Firm of
Ross, Levin, and Mac Intyre to provide architectural services
for the proposed new Police Facility. Council concurred with the
appointment of the architectural firm, but directed staff to
bring back an amended agreement showing an alternate price, if
only one site analysis is required. The Architect has amended
the agreement, reducing the price by $2,987 if only one site
analysis is required.
Council also discussed concerns as to the cost of the new
facility and the City's ability to meet cost requirements.
Attached is a memo from Chief Mc Hale providing researched infor-
mation as to probable alternative costs and Police Facility size
based on industry standards and comparative data with other
Police Facilities in our immediate area.
It is desirable to define a Scope or provide perimeters for the
Arcitect to work in so as to avoid the cost of sending the
Architect back to the drawing board should an unacceptable design
be submitted. Limiting perimeters may be as follows:
1. Planning Guidelines - The size of the building will be
impacted based on planned future Department growth pro-
jections.
2. Facility Cost - Design should correspond to funding
is limitations, if imposed.
M E M O R A N D U M 0
.....E ,.- ,.
TO: CITY 14ANAGER MIKE SHELTON
FROM: CHIEF OF POLICE
SUBJECT: CONTRACT WITH ARCHITECTURAL FIRM OF ROSS LEVIN AND
MacINTYRE - POLICE FACILITY
DATE: APRIL 8 , 1986
Attached for your review and execution is a "standard form
of agreement between owner and architect" .
Project is to include the programming, site analysis and
schematic design of a new police service facility for the City
of Atascadero Police Department.
Please note that the fee is established as originally pre-
sented by R.L.M. at $31 , 700, and as an addendum, we have the
option of requiring only one site plan analysis versus three
analyses. Should we *choose to have only one site plan done,
we will deduct the sum of $2, 987 from the figure above. Addi-
tionally, the architect agrees to deduct $12 ,800 from the amount
shown if the City decides to contract the final complete con-
struction phase of the project.
Depending upon the above factors, initial cost of architectural
services will range between $15,787 and $31 ,700 .
For your consideration. . .
q�
RICHARD H. McHALE
RHM: sb
Attach:
*This alternative expires May 14 , 1986, at which time architect
would proceed with three site plan analyses.
t v oss Levif & MacIntyre
Architects
JOHN R. ROSS FAIA
RODNEY R. LEVIN AIA
KENNETH H. MACINTYRE AIA
HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE
May 1, 1985
Principal $ 55.00 per hour
Architect
Designing, Engineering and Production $ 40.00 per hour
Associate Architect $ 30.00 per hour
Draftsman $ 22.00 per hour
Steno and Bookkeeping $ T7.00 per hour
Field Supervision & Observation
Certified Architect $ 50.00 per hour
Consulting Engineers Cost + 5%
Consultation $ 300.00 per day
Travel $ .20 per mile + direct cost
Printing .30 per square foot
Specifications At Cost
Telephone, Long Distance At Cost
Greyhound, U.P.S. At Cost
ROSS LEVIN & MACINTYRE ARCHITECTS - LIABILITY POLICY
The Owner agrees to limit the Design Professional 's liability to the Owner and
to all construction Contractors and Subcontractors on the project, due to the
Design Professional 's professional negligent acts, errors or omissions such
that the total aggregate liability of each Design Professional to all those
named shall not exceed $50,000 or the Design Professional 's total fee for
services rendered on this project, whichever is greater.
1129 Marsh Street, San Luis Obispo, California 93401 (805) 543-1291
�_E
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: CITY MANAGER MIKE SHELTON �1 Y
FROM: CHIEF OF POLICE
SUBJECT: POLICE FACILITY UPDATE
DATE: APRIL 4 , 1986
Having completed the process of architectural services
selection, it now appears appropriate to address some concerns
voiced by Councilmembers regarding the breadth of the police
facility request.
As you know, I intentionally omitted any specific refer-
ence to square footage requirements in our Requests for
Proposals ("R.F.P. " ) which were sent to architectural firms.
Additionally, I did not mention a maximum dollar amount which
the project was not to exceed. As mentioned, this was by
design on the advice of city officials in other jurisdictions
who had completed similar projects. In my research, I was
cautioned against creating artificial benchmarks which are
without substantial foundation and which may be based upon
preconceived notions having no application to our particular
circumstances.
In an effort to clarify the parameters of the P.D. project,
I gathered some current information from the below sources
which recommend standards for law enforcement facilities :
1. National Criminal Justice Reference Service
U.S. Dept. of Justice, Mash, D.C.
2 . Operational Improvement Service
International Association of Chiefs of Police
Gaithersburg, Maryland
3. National Council on Crime and Delinquency
Paramus, N.J.
4 . Center for Studies of Crime and Delinquency
Rockville, Maryland
5. National Clearinghouse for Criminal Justice Planning
and Architecture
Champaign, Illinois
From these sources, general considerations affecting
facility cost are:
1. Structures should be designed for a minimum 7/5 year
life span.
2 . Proposed additions for future growth must be planned
��J
into original plan and must enhance the design.
3. Seismic design is a critical factor in P.D. facilities.
4. Other factors dictating special construction and
detail features:
a. Texture of the city including nature of
residential, commercial, industrial and schools.
b. Location/adjacent to other cities, courts,
jails, sheriff and other allied agencies.
C. Police criminal records - trends and enforce-
:Hent problems. How handled by staff.
d. Size of staffing (actual and needed) .
e. Communications center (combined police and
fire) .
f. Need for emergency operations center.
g. Record-keeping system, microfilm, computers,
other.
Through additional research, I learned that the parameters
addressing space needs versus staffing were fairly broad -
following are examples:
*Recommended square footage for police facilities : 250
square ft. to 330 sq. ft. per full-time police employee. This
formula, in our case, would suggest an immediate need of 7,750
sq. ft. to 10, 230 sq. ft. without consideration of room for
growth over a ten year projection.
Assuming our police department will continue to employ
a comparable ratio of police employees to the number of city
residents as we grow, the minimal needs are seen as follows:
Year **Population P.D. Staffing Level Space Needs
1985 19 , 600 31 7 ,750 sq. ft.
1990 23, 520 37 9 ,250
1995 28 , 224 45 11 ,250
2005 34, 150 54 13,500
It should be noted that the figures quoted are conservative,
minimal figures and that should city priorities change in the
future, the police staffing level could increase considerably
*Source: Criminal Justice Statistics, 1983 edition for Pacific
Coast 1,578 cities with populations of 10,000 - 24 , 999 .
*"Source: Atascadero Community Development Department and State
Department of Finance.
�r
placing us within the average staff/resident ratio in San
Luis Obispo County (see Police Annual Report - Staffing
Comparison - 1985) .
To insure we are dealing with current and valid infor-
mation, I again surveyed (March, 1986) city police agencies
in S.L.O. County which revealed the following facts:
Number of Total Sq. # of Sq. Ft.
Police Full-Time Footage Per Full-
Agency Personnel Allotment of P.D. Time Employee
*Arroyo Grande 20 4, 400 220
**Grover City 18 5 ,200 289
Morro Bay 22 4, 920 224
Paso Robles 27 5, 044 187
**San Luis Obispo 76 20,800 274
Pismo Beach 20 4,250 212
Atascadero 31 4, 000 129
County-wide average, excluding Atascadero, is 234 square
feet per police employee.
By way of comparison, it is interesting to note that
the S.L.O.P.D. moved into a new 10 , 000 sq. ft. facility in
1968 (population 22 ,000) and during 1985, with a population of
approx. 35 ,000 , that facility was expanded to over 20, 000
square feet of floor space.
All these figures can tend to make one dizzy, and it has
been said by some that "figures lie and liars figure" ! It
is not my intention to overwhelm anyone with statistics,
rather, I am attempting to clarify the matter in an effort
to assist Council in making a difficult decision!
On the basis of all data considered, I offer the following
estimated costs for our project alternatives :
A. Build P.D. for current, 1936 needs :
-7, 750 sq. ft. @ $100 sq. ft. = $775 , 000
-Built on City-owned land = (0)
***-Purchase land = estimate $65 ,000 to $200 , 000
depending upon location, zoning, etc .
-office furnishings: 20 ,000
*Now• in planning stages of new police facility.
**Recently constructed P.D. /remodel & add-on.
***According to my research, land requirements for a public facility
such as a P.D. are generally four times the building square
footage as an industry-wide benchmark.
B. Build P.D. for projected population in 1995 of 28 ,224.
-11,250 sq. ft. @ $100 sq. ft-. _ $1, 125 , 000
-Built on City-owned land = (0)
-Purchase land = estimate $65 , 000 to $200 ,000
depending upon zoning, etc.
-Office furnishings $20,000
It appears that alternative A comes closest to our current
and five-year projected financial means, and while certainly
it would seem prudent to build a facility to include (at mini-
mum) a ten-year growth factor, a fund could be established to
build an addition of approx. 4, 000 sq. ft. to the building in
later years.
Current available and anticipated funding as seen by
City staff is:
-Current P.D. "set-aside" : $150 , 000
VanderBerghe Apartment Project: 235 ,000
-F.Y. 1986-87 Police Dept. Develop-
ment Fees: 113,000
Actual Funds Available 1986-87
Fiscal Year: $498 ,000
-Other: (prioritized development
mitigation or R.S. funds) : 37 , 000
Projected available funds - four
years (four year police dept.
development fee income @
$113,000 per year) : 452 ,000
GRAND TOTAL $987 ,000
If facility is constructed during fiscal year 1986/87 ,
approximately one-half of the total cost must be funded
through debit financing.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends City direct the
architectural firm of Ross, Levin and MacIntyre to evaluate
alternative sites and make recommendation to Council as to
the most appropriate site and facility which will best serve
the needs of the police department (preferably over a ten-year
period) at a total construction cost not to exceed $950 ,000 .
RICHARD H. McHALE
RHM! sb
r
n CD
nn
CA
Go n �s >r ORQ r+ CC CD
° Q �z U- `� _ r
x
Or
r
r
7C1cno (n N 0 CrC + O rQ rr
Fr c toA n
to O drm pOi CA co Cw t2l
A A d A ` (�/� N�
o antro n yto
-nn 0r) r)r) -3 ty n
ooh � `e o a.eo nc °+ 0 .e ccCD cw 70 0-4— 11O
oro =-'c3 oy ° ncfo 1.6 � co � n �
H � w mY a
O � cD � Cr1 � p
CD
~
;.�N-' Ili
oD
Mill .
W
Ilijl
0z --i y OTI
o9 mm ~• =�
J
• '� ,yC ci, �J C� L" U nji :.1 �-' C. :C :'3 w '•Jys.�.� -Z;^r .0
V ^ � J J ^�f G �. U C 3 ✓ J ztV
r V J y u u r. i•� J J J y �J- r V C C
'U � j..� ,� � � � "� C � cam. .� � r, `�' •� +-, � ,� � 4J u, V ,� � ,�
4-0U J -�
•�J
:J: �. �_ .r'' L" rt,
�1 r •� L ,r C � � � , ^, � �.. � ter, � = �r.
72
4-j 71
.i•1 ¢ ^ y rYJ-. � � -- � .^ � � .� � .^ I C C � J ^J � � v J f "" y ^ •J J � "�
OI � � � '�; ._^. i., � � r � y 3 ti s X r `� ter. -+_. � .� ••, z.
'Al
Lj
CL
Z.
4N +: .r- � r ^� � L ,5-'., � v:. .,+"J, Ca-=. � '_' C^ .~�. V ••��" ^ � = � ,� � 3J. � � J �J
.n �r" � �' 3 � r. "'. � = � � � 3 J• i � = � = � � ter. U ,.. .� � f
= L J r-. r ^ U7; J r
J
zj
J' r 3 X V
EleZ:
oc
zi
••yi `7" J :� :J r- =. ^_ = .r... r �� �, a ;� �, .� r r r ,c ^ :J r L �, r
t—' .� J' ;, J ,• .^ =- L r-� T f L ..i J '' J ;� ^~.
U U V u U uIz
� � J r- r• J J � `� n � � J U � � � J / � r r .= :r L J � � � J ^ .."r-, r, •� r :J
zi
C'� .rr J J •U J _ f X r U J J J
�I J J f r % r i• ►'I}C/�I `� J = •�- :i 'r t' `� ;4 C ;j 'J
AGINDA
• M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: Cindy Wilkins, Deputy City Clerk
SUBJECT: City Council appointment of applicants for Planning
Commission and Board of Appeals vacancies
DATE: April 14, 1986
City Council, earlier this evening, interviewed applicants for
Planning Commission and Building and Construction Board of Ap-
peals vacancies. There is one (1) Planning Commission vacancy,
due to the resignation of Commissioner Carla Sanders; an appoint-
ment will be made to serve her unexpired term, which ends August
1, 1988. There are three (3) Board of Appeals vacancies as a
result of the expired terms of H. John Edens, Jr. (general con-
tractor) , Kenneth E. Lerno (specialty contractor) and David R.
Walters (general public member) ; Council appointments will be for
four-year terms, expiring ` ; 1990.
Applicants are as follows:
•
Planning Commission: Fernando C. Ebhardt
J. Donald Hanauer
Marjorie Kidwell
Richard J. Montanaro
Barbara C. Reiter
Randall G. Young (*)
Board of Appeals: Randall G. Young (*)
Donald C. Jensen
Attached is a ballot you may wish to use in selecting appointees;
additional copies of the ballot will be made available to you at
the Council meeting.
Attach.
(*) Applied to both bodies
•
! i
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council February 24, 1986
VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Building and Construction Board of Appeals Appointments
BACKGROUND:
In the course of researching the files for a Board of Appeals meeting
scheduled for February 25th, 1986, I have found that terms of three of
the members expired on February 9th and 22nd of 1986 . Hence, with a
five member board, we are lacking a quorum unless appointments are
made to said board.
The following are the members of the board whose terms expired and
their membership category:
H. John Edens Jr. - 2/22/86 - general contractor
Kenneth E. Lerno - 2/09/86 - specialty contractor
David R. Walters - 2/09/86 - general public member
g
Board members whose terms expire thereafter are as follows:
Michael Bewsey - 4/23/88 - general contractor
David Grummitt - 5/14/88 - civil engineer
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives appear appropriate:
1) Re-appointment - The City Council could re-appoint the three
incumbent members for four year terms expiring on 2/24/90 .
2) Continuance - The hearing scheduled for Tuesday, February 25th
could be continued to permit a formal recruitment process for
filling expired terms.
For the Council' s information, the board meets once a year to elect
officers and is on call to consider appeals. There have been an aver-
age of two meetings per year since 1983.
HE:ps
cc: Robert M. Jones, City Clerk
REVISED
ORDINANCE NO. 101
AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ATASCADERO AMENDING CHAPTER 9 OF TITLE 2 OF THE
ATASCADERO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE PLANNING
COMMISSION AND AMENDING CHAPTER 13 OF TITLE 2 OF
THE ATASCADERO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE
RECREATION COMMISSION AND DECLARING THE URGENCY
The Council of the City of Atascadero does ordain as follow -
Section Sections 2-9.01 through 2-9.07 of Chapte of Title 2
of the Atascade Municipal Code, relating to the Pla ng Commission,
are hereby repealed.
Section 2. Chapter 9`�.Reorganized) added to Title 2 of the
Atascadero Municipal Code, relating t he Planning Commission, to
read as follows: ��
CHAPTER 9. PLANN N COMMISSION (Reorganized)
Sec. 2-9.01. a 'o om o .
There ' s created a Planning Commission for the Clity which
shall sist of seven (7) members who shall not be of�ials
or ployees of the City, but who shall be residents of \
t .
Sec. 2-9.02. Members: Appointment: Terms of office.
The City Council shall appoint the members of the Plan-
ning Commission. Three (3) members shall be appointed for
terms which shall expire on August 1, 1986. Four (4) members
shall be appointed for terms which shall expire on August 1,
1988. Thereafter, all terms shall be for four (4) years and
shall expire four (4) years after August 1 of the date of the
appointment, except those appointments made after the commence-
ment of the term to fill a vacancy or removal, in which case
the term of office shall be for the balance of the unexpired
term.
ec 2-9 03 . Absence from meetings: Running for office -�
.oCity Council .
Absence of a member of the Planning Comms"ssion from three
(3) consecutive meetings;`-or ffro�our" (4) meetings during a
calendar year, without formal zoinsen.t.__of the Planning Commis-
sion noted in its off Gia—iinutes, shall___be reported by the
the Planning Direct-6r to the City Council for-consideration of
removal m-_'fice. If a member of the Planning Commission
f ' for election as a member of any elective City off,ice,__,
-1- AG:fr/3/29/85
4-
�� i
. ORDINANCE NO.
Page 2
' s term as Planning Commissioner shall terminate as --tK6
date iling.
Sec. 2-9.04 . _ tubers,' Re a from office.
A m o the Planning Co Cion may be removed by a
vote •f all of the members of t ^ uncil.
Sec. 2-9.05 . Vacancies.
A vacancy on the Planning Commission occurring by death,
resignation, removal, or any other cause before the expiration
of the term of the member shall be filled by appointment for
the unexpired term by the Council.
c - Expenses.
lanning Commission members shall be entitled to remuner
tion z expenses in accordance with the procedure approved
resoluti of the Council.
Sec. 2-9..07 . powers _ duties, and functions.
.
The powers,'}duties, and functions of the Planning Commis-
sion shall be al1.\those powers, duties, and,-functions of a
Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Adjustment as provided
in Chapters 3 and 4 o€„ Title 7, commencing, with Section 65100
of the Government Code `bf the State (the-” and Zoning
Law) , as the same may be hereafter amended. The Planning Com-
mission shall perform such "Other duties and functions as may
be directed or designated by the Council not inconsistent with
State law.
Sec. 2-9.08. Chairman- Rules• Records and meetings.
As of August 1 annually, or as soon\thereafter as is fea-
sible, the Planning,. Commission shall elect_ a chairman and a
vice chairman from " among its members, shall-,,adopt rules for
the transaction ,of business, shall keep a public record of its
resolutions, transactions, findings, and determinations, and
J
shall hold a-ttleast one (1) regular meeting each month.
Sectio - Sections 2-13 .01 through 2-13 .12 of Chapter 13 of
Title 21,of the Atascadero Municipal Code, relating to the Parks and
Recreat-fon Advisory Board, are hereby repealed.
Section 4 . Chapter 13 (Reorganized) is added to Title 2 of�'the
tascadero Municipal Code, relating to the Parks and Recreation Com=tip
mission, to read as follows:
• s
RESOLUTION NO. 36-86
A RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
APPOINTING (1) MEMBER TO THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
WHEREAS, a vacancy has been created on the City Planning
Commission; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted Ordinance No. 101 re-
lating
elating to the establishment of a City Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, public advertisements soliciting interest in ap-
pointment to the Planning Commission have been published; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did receive six applications for
consideration; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did, on April 14, 1986, consider
six candidates for appointment to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, on April 14, 1986, the City Council did vote for
specific nominations to the Planning Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does
resolve to appoint to the Planning Commis-
sion to fill the unexpired term which ends August 1, 1988.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does
further resolve that this resolution shall take effect immediate-
ly.
On motion by and seconded by
, the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in
its entirety by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ADOPTED:
ATTEST:
ROBERT M. JONES, City Clerk ROLFE NELSON, Mayor
City of Atascadero, CA
r
1 ,�
t
ORDINANCE NO. 44
r
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AMENDING
SECTIONS 8.04.230 AND 8.04.130 OF TITLE 8 OF THE
ATASCADERO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO BUILDINGS AND
CONSTRUCTION AND ESTABLISHING A BOARD OF APPEALS
The Council of the City of Atascadero ordains as follows:
Section 1. Section 8.04.120 and 8.04.130 of Title 8 of the
Atascadero Municipal Code are amended to read as follows:
Section 8. 04.120. Board of appeals established.
In order to conduct hearings to determine the suitability of al-
ternate materials and methods of installation, and to provide for rea-
sonable interpretations of the provisions of this Code, there is here-
by established a Board of Appeals. The Board shall consist of five
(5) members, two (2) of whom shall be general contractors, one (1) one
whom shall be an architect or structural engineer , one (1) of whom
shall be a specialty contractor , all of whom shall be qualified by
experience and training, and one (1) of whom shall be a member of the
public who is not one of the foregoing. Members of the Board of
Appeals shall be appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the City
Council. The Building Official of the City shall serve as secretary
ex-officio to the Board.
In order to be eligible for appointment to the Board, the person
shall live within the City. Terms of initial appointment shall be for
a term of two (2) years for two (2) members , for a term of four (4)
years for three (3) members with four (4) year terms for subsequent
appointments . Each member of the Board shall be required to comply
with the applicable provisions of the Political Reform Act of 1974 ,
California Government Code Section 81000 , et seq.
_---_ he Board shall adopt reasonable rules and regulations, subject t
approv nd adoption by the City Council, for conducting its bil ' ess
which shall form to the requirements of the Ralph M. Br ct,
California Goverftment Code Section 54950 , et. seq. , a all render
all decisions and find-incls in writing with a co the appellant.
Section 8 . 04. 130 . A ealr du
Any person aggrieved becision of Planning Department re-
lated to any manner wi hTn the purview of this 't�t�.e, shall have the
right to appeal , ecision. The appeal shall be filedwith the
Building of.-ictal within fifteen (15) business days after t-he-render-
ing of---the decision affecting the aggrieved person. Grounds for--t'e
_-3.pfs al shall be set forth in writing. \,.
Ordinance No. 44 - Btrd of Appeals
The secretary of the Board shall set the time and place for a
hearing,.,on the appeal, and notice of the hearing shall be publishred in
a newspaer of general ciculation and shall be given to the ap 'llant
by mailin11 it to him, postage prepaid, at his last known addr ss , at
least ten 0) calendar days prior to the date set for hear ' g.
Any writtLen reports to be made to the Board shall b filed with
the Secretary 6f the Board and shall be made available to the Board
and to the publih, no less than three (3) working day prior to the
date set for the hearing. Any Department Head sha have the right to
be heard on any matter coming before the Board.
The decision of the Board on the appeal s all not become final
until ten (10) working days after the Board as made its determination
in order to allow time for an appeal to b made to the Council from
the Board' s decision.
Any party aggrieved byt deter ' nation of the Board shall have
the right to appeal its determinat,i,6n to the Council. Such appeals
must be filed with the City C1ei\k/within ten (10) working days after
the Board has made its determination.
The Council shall set app al fe&s to the Appeals Board and to the
City Council by resolution-,: There shill be no charge for city-
initiated appeals.
Section 2. The �:, ty Clerk shall cause, this ordinance to be pub-
lished once within fifteen (15) days after\�ts passage in the Atas-
cadero News , a n( cWspaper of general circulation, printed, published
and circulated .A this City in accordance wit Section 36933 of the
Government Code; shall certify the adoption and posting of this ordin-
ance; and s�'all cause this ordinance and its certification to be
entered i 'the Book of Ordinances of this City.
Se tion 3. This
ordinance shall go into effect nd be in full
force/and effect at 12: 01 a.m. on the thirty-first (316t) day after
pa,sS age and shall termination three (3) years from its ffective date
ari December 10 , 1981.
The foregoing ordinance was introduced on October 26 \ ,
1981, and adopted and ordered published on November-9-
1981,
ove er 1981, by the following vote:
AYES : Councilmen Highland, Mackey, Nelson, Stover, and Mayor
Wilkins
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
J
ROBERT J. WILKINS, JR. , Mayor
2
'r
RESOLUTION NO. 37-86
A RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
APPOINTING (3) MEMBERS TO THE BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION
BOARD OF APPEALS
WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted Ordinance No. 44 relat-
ing to the establishment of a Building & Construction Board of
Appeals; and
WHEREAS, the terms of three members of the Board of Appeals
have expired; and
WHEREAS, public advertisements soliciting interest in ap-
pointment to the Board of Appeals have been published; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did receive confirmation of inter-
est in reappointment from the three members whose terms expired,
in addition to two new applications for consideration; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did, on April 14, 1986, consider
the five candidates for appointment to the Board of Appeals; and
WHEREAS, on April 14, 1986 , the City Council did vote for
specific nominations to the Board of Appeals.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does
resolve to make the following appointments to the Board of Ap-
peals for terms of four (4) years from this date:
w„
1.
2.
3.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does
further resolve that this resolution shall take effect immediate-
ly.
On motion by and seconded by
, the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in
its entirety by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ADOPTED:
1 t�
0 0
(Resolution No. 37-86 )
ATTEST:
ROBERT M. JONES, City Clerk Rolfe Nelson, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROBERT M. JONES, City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
MICHAEL SHELTON, City Manager
i
2
�A�'ETdA►G �/�1��� A���A -
`� tTEM �
TO: City Council April 14 , 1986
FROM: Mike Shelton, City Manager
SUBJECT: CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
BACKGROUND:
At the March 27, 1986 Joint City Council/Planning Commission
Meeting, an extensive presentation was made on the need for and
merits of formulation of a Redevelopment Agency. Information
given was presented by myself and Milton Farrel, Executive
Director of the California Community Redevelopment Agencies
Association.
Redevelopment was presented as a tool to help a community take a
pro-active stance to revitalize and competitively compete to
maintain and enhance the prospects of a viable economic base.
Educational information was presented as to how redevelopment
works, what advantage it offers, and the formulation process.
Prior to the joint March 27, 1986 meeting, a group of
approximately 15 individuals met to discuss the concept of
utilizing redevelopment to revitalize the central business
district. Present at this and/or the Joint City Council/Planning
Commission Meeting included representatives from the B. I.A. ,
Chamber of Commerce, County, School District, former B.I.A.
formation representatives, Realtors Association, Contractors,
central business district owners, City staff and other
citizens at large knowledgeable of redevelopment.
It was the consensus of the City Council/Planning Commission
Meeting that staff bring back further recommendations at the next
regular Council Meeting to pursue formulation of a Redevelopment
Agency.
As explained at your joint meeting, by California Law all cities
in California have Redevelopment Agencies. These agencies are
dormant, however, until the City (or County) enacts the agency.
Attached is an illustrated schedule for activation of an agency.
The process of formulating an agency is a relatively simple
process. The agency, however, without a project, is a shell
only. It becomes the instrument to borrow an interest bearing
loan from the City to obtain working capital necessary to pay for
the cost of studies and planning leading to the establishment of
a project. The process of formulating a project is long and
arduous requiring over 50 steps including an Environmental Impact
Report (E.I.R. ) and numerous public hearings by both Planning
Commission and City Council.
•
RECOMMENDATION:
In accordance with the attached Agency Formation Schedule, staff
recommends City Council direct staff to bring back necessary
documents for public hearing and Council consideration to
formulate a Redevelopment Agency. Staff further recommends
Council consider loaning funds to the Redevelopment Agency for
project formation only after Council has the opportunity to
evaluate the 1986/87 Fiscal year Budget and prioritize the
expenditure of City funds for this purpose.
At Council directive, staff will notify community organizations
of Council action and make ourselves available to provide
informative presentations.
MS:kv
File:Mredev
•
•
f
2 ��'
Date Action
Month 2, Day 17 (d) Adopts personnel rules, including con-
flict of interest provisions.
Month 2, Day 17 (e) Requests the use of City staff services
for Agency purposes, if applicable.
Month 2, Day 17 (f) Authorizes execution of contract with
City to repay City for staff services pro-
vided Agency and to establish that Agency
operations are covered by City insurance.
(g) Authorizes execution of other contracts
with City, as applicable.
Month 2, Day 17 (h) Designates newspaper of general circu-
lation for official notices.
Month 2, Day 17 (i) Informs all persons engaged in planning
for redevelopment project of interest dis-
closure requirements and provides for such
disclosure. [H&SC S§33130 and 33130. 5]
Month 2, Day 17 (j ) Adopts Conflict of Interest Code.
[Government Code §87300 et seq. ]
Month 2, Day 17 (k) Authorizes filings with Secretary of
State and County Clerk for Roster of Public
Agencies. [Government Code §53050 et sec[. ]
(1) Authorizes hiring of consultants, as
necessary .
f�
I-4
ET NG
A07NDA
shy �
• M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council April 14, 1986
VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager IN(
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director
RE: Budget/Personnel Request: Building Division, Community Devel-
opment Department - "SENIOR BUILDING INSPECTOR"
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of Resolution No. 28-86 incorporating a senior building in-
spector job description into the City salary plan, initiating recruit-
ment for senior building inspector, and approving transfer of $5,200
from Contractual Services to Salaries/Benefits to fund the position`.
BACKGROUND:
The City is experiencing a record volume of construction activity (see
• attached chart) . Calendar year 1985 witnessed over $36 million in
valuation processed which was 30% of the total construction volume
over the City' s six year history. There were 501 permits for single
and multifamily units issued which represented 33% of the 1,538 dwell-
ing unit permits issued in the history of the City. By way of compar-
ison, over the same six year period (1980-85) , the average construc-
tion volume was $18 million and 256 dwelling unit permits per year.
During 1985, the City Council authorized supplementary appropriations
to maintain quality control in the plan checking and inspection pro-
cess while reducing what had become excessive turn-around time for
plan checks. At the end of December, 1985 a new chief building in-
spector, Bob Fielding, was hired, who brought to the job plan checking
skills which somewhat reduced our reliance on outside plan checkers,
but demands on his time limit the time available for plan checking.
Furthermore, we initiated a two week initial turnaround time goal for
single family permits and three weeks for larger projects which began
January 1. We have been able, thus far , to meet this City goal. How-
ever , maintaining this turnaround deadline is threatened by (1) the
inability of outside structural plan checkers to deal with unique
local needs such as grading and septic system plan checks; (2) Paso
Robles will be using the same outside plan checkers due to a key staff
retirement; and (3) the coming years appear to hold continuing high
levels of construction activity.
• The sketch on the attached page shows the present staffing of the
Community Development Department. With respect to the Building Divi-
sion, we have a chief building inspector , plan check engineer , one
full-time building inspector, and a building aide and clerical assis-
tant I . In addition, we have two part-time field inspectors.
0 O t/l v t.1 01 (n 1
v O 1
ro r N `D
N N C., P-1 111 I
O C: O O � i
r N C` r I N
CN co
en
C I O t
I N
t ro
I U <
7 i I I I C
I I 1 I 1 O
V I N N O
I O 4
# I E ro N
# N I CT n
# aj 1 -4 C1
4 U I U . ro
C) C) rrn .� I u N > .D
L•n r N O 1 U C rJ
y 0 N Ln N O I O
O 1.1 ~ .•I co i N •.I p ro
G I c
O a.+ E a
I •.t M U
I i b z w
I J-+ O G
I ro ro
C I 4J
t1 O O r •i 1 N C to u
O .-I O C' O fn 1 Gs.
HO 1 Ili (/] O
41 1 U y
Q
ro _ u
7 .-I co O Inr 1 > N U a
.i co en Ln .c r O N I w O E
ro U ro ro
co 1 p
C% 1 N
#
N : N C ro
# „ I d ro c
.-I U co .•i N r �p i 0 L �+
N O ao c0 co co '••1 to 1 O iJ
fX M ro•n •-1 ,--1 H H '.{ to C1 I u
C !n N N O 1 N N
1 U U
Y
1 N J-I O
I C) O
t U N
W U C C M � M to I 44 N W
I
O r1 (n m N r r co W
I w N E
a Q p y M M rn �p 1 0 7 N
.aI N O
H I ro w r O r ('7 Iu a
0. 7 (n -4 r v O 1 N 7
O p o H co In cor rn r n 1 U N rn
po ro 1 L 4.1 c
E+ C m > C' to N •.i
UW� rl I E
N
1 C N 7 M ro N 1 U QI .-1
In N W I b a
4 E
ta.1 O N Ln r co r M o tb i tn
a E N N Na'd .-1 N to
a Ea N a%
Q U i D 41 {1 N
1 ro 0 41 U
C .-I r N •-I N r I •'I 'O ro ro
O N 00 W to rn 1 N •••1 N •-1
41 ap V' to r O� d, 1 4-+ N.0 tU y
to c M W ID In C r 1 7 w N N
7 N co N -T c0 1 a C d N N
rt o O co r co I c O 41 roca 0 01
H
> In C ri rn I $ `y
N
N N 1 7 7 N 7
y 1 r-I .i C .-i ,•�
C E 1 C C ro C q
p N I t--I t•-t p H .7
N 1 p
1 �
/` O rll.•1 ch 1.-I vI.-1 Olth �Ir1 nI�
U rl. 4ujl
v ' N N C
a ILI
u a+ Ai
I 04
1 tv a� ro
1 .i •n •n E
N t ro O O Fa
y 1 -rI N N p
.,..I I U W LL W
VE N rn N r r I N C
rl. c0 N O to c0 m v t CJ -4 LI ►�
U)CI r•1 -4 '-1 '-I r N
a' .-1 o 1 O E N p
I U m p
I d
U
(a O N co co N w
ro o coOO o 0 0 0 > ro J% i # 7
C) O� CT C% •.� C) O I # # 0
Heretofor we have sought to handle constantly increasing work loads
with supplementary appropriations for part-time help and outside plan
checkers. This is an appropriate conservative response for short-term
work surges and avoids a committment to long-term permanent staffing
expenses. Should building volumes deline dramatically to a point
where revenue does not equal expenditures, it would be necessary to
cut back on staffing levels, beginning with the part-time inspectors.
An alternative would be to hire the Senior Building Inspector on a two
year contract basis, which may impair recruitment.
SUMMARY:
Creation of a senior building inspector position would reduce our
reliance on outside plan check services, increase the depth of staff
service available at the City, and not require any increase in budget.
HE:ps
Enclosures: Five Year Building Summary
Resolution No. 28-86 authorizing Senior Building
Inspector
Existing Organizational Chart
Future Organizational Chart
1
RESOLUTION NO. 28-86
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
AUTHORIZING A NEW POSITION OF "SENIOR BUILDING INSPECTOR" ,
AND APPROVING JOB DESCRIPTION, SALARY SCHEDULE,
AND BUDGET TRANSFER
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Atascadero wishes to expedite
efforts to strengthen the City' s ability to provide a timely service
for building and planning services.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero resolves as
follows:
Section 1.
Instruct the administrative Services Director to incorporate the
attached job description for Senior Building Inspector (Exhibit B) in-
to the job descriptions of the City of Atascadero and authorize re-
cruitment for a senior building inspector at the salary level of Asso-
ciate Planner.
Section 2.
Authorize the Admiistrative Services Director to transfer funds
in the FY 1985-86 budget as follows:
To: EX 1010 Permanent Salaries - $5 ,200. 00
From: EX 2240 Other Contract Services - $5 ,200 .00
On motion by and seconded by
the foregoing resolution is adopted in its entirety
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
DATE ADOPTED:
CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA
By:
ROLFE D. NELSON, Mayor
ATTEST:
ROBERT M. JONES, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
MICHAEL SHELTON, City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROBERT M. JONES, City Attorney
PREPARED BY:
HENRY ENGEN, Community Development Director
EXHIBIT "A"
CITY OF ATASCADERO
MARCH, 1986
CLASS TITLE: SENIOR BUILDING INSPECTOR
GENERAL STATEMENT OF DUTIES:
Under general supervision, in a lead capacity, reviews and approves
highly technical construction plans and specifications; assists in
reviewing codes and ordinances and recommend changes; performs diffi-
cult and complex field building inspections; may supervisor subordin-
ate personnel, and do related work as required.
EXAMPLES OF DUTIES PERFORMED:
(Any one position may not include all duties listed, nor do the exam-
ples listed cover all the duties that may be performed. )
Reviews building and grading plans to determine compliance with local,
state and federal codes and laws, including the various uniform codes,
city ordinances, state energy conservation and handicapped regulations
and applicable federal laws; interprets and explains construction
codes and regulations to contractors, public officials and others; and
makes field inspections where difficult problems are involved.
EMPLOYMENT GUIDELINES:
Knowledge of:
Uniform Building Code, Uniform Plumbin Code, Uniform Mechanical Code,
National Electric Code and related uniform codes; applicable federal
regulations governing building construction and practice; state build-
ing code and other applicable state regulations; proper methods of
construction work and inspection; the legal procedures in the enforce-
ment of building codes and ordinances; principles and practices of
supervision and training.
Ability to:
Deal tactfully, diplomatically and persuasively with the public; in-
terpret codes and ordinances; read and interpret plan specifications;
analyze situations accurately and to adopt an effective course of
action; maintain accurate work records and prepare comprehensive
reports.
Desirable Education and Experience:
Equivalent to completion of the twelfth grade. Possession of a Certi-
ficate of Registration as a Plans Examiner issued by the International
Conference of Building Officials or the State of California. At least
three years of field work and plans examining or directly related work
experience, or any combination of training 'and/or experience that
could likely provide the desired knowledge and abilities.
Special Requirements:
Possession of an appropriate California operator ' s license issued by
the State Department of Motor Vehicles.
Other Conditions of Employment:
Must be a permanent United States citizen or hold status of an immi-
grant "permanent resident."
Must be able to periodically pass a medical examination administered
by the City medical consultant.
EXISTING
CITY OF ATASCADERO
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
-ORGANIZATION-
CITY MANAGER
COMMUNITY DEVELOP.
DIRECTOR
HENRY ENGEN
-BUILDING DIVISION- -PLANNING DIVISION-
CHIEF BUILD. INSP. SENIOR PLANNER
Robert Fielding Steven DeCamp
ENGR. PLAN CHECK ASSOCIATE PLANNER
Cal Fernandes Joel Moses
- I I
. BUILDING INSP. ASSISTANT PLANNER
John Miller Doug Davidson
r BLDG. INSP. (3/5 TIME r ASSISTANT PLANNER
r. (FULL TIME)
Phil Wachtel Meg Morris
BLDG. INSP. (3/5 TIME
IBob Kelley J
BUILDING AIDE
Deborah Cini
CLERICAL ASSIST. I
Peggy Ertl
ADMIN. SECRETARY I
Patricia SheDnhard
I ' PERMANENT r 1
PART TIME
1/1/86
;t
FUTURE
CITY OF ATASCADERO
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
-ORGANIZATION-
CITY P-4ANAGER
COMMUNITY DEVELOP.
DIRECTOR
-BUILDING DIVISION- -PLANNING DIVISION-
CHIEF BUILDING INSP. SENIOR PLANNER
. - 1
PLAN CHECK ENGINEER ASSOCIATE PLANNER
SENIOR BUILDING ASSISTANT PLANNER •
INSPECTOR
BUILDING INSPECTOR ASSISTANT PLANNER
(full time)
BUILDING AIDE
CLERICAL ASST. I
ADMINISTRATIVE
SECRETARY I
PERMANENT
�Al
A �
MEMORANDUM
April 8, 1986
TO: City Council
VIA: Mike Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Bob Best, Parks & Recreation Director t4d Aa4T
SUBJECT: Property Acquisition
Introduction:
As part of the 1985-86 Budget, Council approved $50,000 for acquisition
of property on Morro Road near Atascadero Lake.
Recommendation:
Authorize the purchase of the Donald Messer property, Lot 6 of Block JC
Amended Map, City of Atascadero, County of San Luis Obispo, for $50,000, adopt
Resolution No. 32-86, and authorize the City Manager to sign proper agreements
for the acquisition of this property.
Background:
The City presently ownstwo lots in front of Atascadero Lake Park between the
spillway and Logo Avenue. The third is owned by Donald Messer. He has expressed
his willingness to sell to the City.
The purchase of this lot would provide the City with complete ownership of
all three lots in front of the parking lot at the Lake Park. This area would
provide the City with the space to develop a public use facility.
The appraisal report has been completed by Dennis Greene, Inc. A copy of this
report is attached. According to the report, the subject property is estimated
to have a Fair Market Value of $50,000 (rounded of from $51,660) .
Fiscal Impact:
The total expense for this acquisition, at the above price, would be in ex-
cess of $50,000. The appraisal report could be paid for from the Parks Depart-
ment Budget.
•
April 1, 1986
Mr. Bob Best
Director of Recreation
City of Atascadero
6500 Palma
Atascadero, CA 93422
Dear Mr . Best :
RE: Appraisal of Vacant Lot on Morro Road
At your request and authorization I have appraised the above
referenced property known as San Luis Obispo County Assessor ' s
Parcel Number 31-361-05 whose owner of record is Donald Messer .
The purpose of this appraisal is to estimate the current
Fair Market Value of the fee simple interest subject to an all
cash basis .
The function of this report is to provide a basis for the
City of Atascadero to proceed with an offer to purchase from the
current owner. This appraisal could be also utilized for a
possible condemnation process .
The property owner was contacted on March 31, 1986, and was
invited to be present during the physical inspection of the
subject site. As evidenced by a letter in the Addenda of this
report, Mr. Messer did not need to be present during the site
inspection.
A thorough sales search along Morro Road provided the
appraiser with seven comparable sales .
After final consideration of available data, the subject
property as of March 31, 1986, is estimated to have a Fair Market
Value of :
FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS
$50`000
y�
Subject to the limiting conditions contained herein.
I hereby certify that I have inspected the
subject property; that to the best of my knowledge
and belief the statements of fact contained in this
report , upon which the analyses , opinions and
conclusions expressed herein are based , are true
and correct; that this report has been made in
conformity with , and is subject to , the
requirements of the Code of Ethics and Standards of
Professional Practice of the American Institute of
the Real Estate Appraisers of the National
Association of Realtors.
Respectfully submitted ,
- �..«C�LL�L 'SL-2 t�t-Vi��ii.:tcVGtCt6:Viv
Dennis E. Greene , MAI* , SRPA
*Currently Certified #6823
DEG/ld
c
ATAcOAQERO CREEK
RESERVATION NO.8 N
HI yWA�- • to fdo,.0
41
NO ,
.75':_ N( m o u
o I
516 4 -
!� in v m
a► p
0 glf�'Z 7 1 0 w sO
S N m _ 1}111,��.1 \7
�O 4 O O 1''jiU2 °'
• 1P0 .'i.'.01 02,17 074Gy
• - 1p
07
T rte: � jy I '' • �� � g ` O - �
a o m
4,
AV
-. rgo,p N m
F OE�I Ate ,,1 Sqe qO _ N
h,
7,00 'P O ye Zr� u L W
91.10 GS.21 m
05 -1Ub.o
\30
c
S A
Sqe S 89 r,
1 q0 w
r•
z
D
l 9
D =7 D In
O O n
C A
Z
y 1r'in
—
[//J W
RESOLUTION NO. 32-86
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY FROM DONALD
MESSER, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
APPROPRIATE DEEDS, AUTHORIZING THE RECORDING OF SAID
DEED, AND AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS.
WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero desires to purchase real property owned by
Donald Messer; and
WHEREAS, Donald Messer has expressed a willingness to sell his property to
The City of Atascadero;
NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does hereby resolve
as follows:
SECTION 1. The Council hereby authorizes the purchase of real property owned by
Donald Messer as described below:
Lot 6 of Block JC amended Map, APN 31-361-05, City of Atascadero, County
of San Luis Obispo.
Location: 9100 Block of Morro Road.
SECTION 2. The Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to enter into agree-
ment with Donald Messer for the expressed purpose of purchasing his property as
described above.
SECTION 3. The Council hereby authorizes a sale price of $50,000, payable
from Account 04-90-EX 5050 (Atascdadero Lake Land Acquisition) .
SECTION 4. The real property being acquired by the City of Atascadero shall
be used for public purposes.
SECTION 5. The deed relating to this property, being official business of
the City of Atascadero, is entitled to free recording under Section 6103
of the Government Code.
SECTION 6. The City aerk shall forward a copy of this resolution to Donald
Messer, 7450 Morro Rd. , Atascadero, CA 93422.
On motion by Councilman and seconded by
Councilman the foregoing resolution is hereby
adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ADOPTED: April 14, 1986
ROLFE NELSON, MAYOR
ATTEST:
ROBERT M. JONES, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
lq�
r- 1
MICHAEL SHELTON, ITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROBERT M. JONES, CITY ATTORNEY
CONTRACT OF SALE
CONTRACT OF SALE, dated April 15, 1986, between DON MESSER
(called "the selling party" in this contract) and CITY OF
ATASCADERO (called "the buying party" in this contract) .
The selling party agrees to sell to the buying party, and
the buying party agrees to purchase from the selling party, the
real property situated in San Luis Obispo County, California, and
located in the City of Atascadero, (called "the property" in this
contract) which is more particularly described in Exhibit A which
is attached to and made a part of this contract by this
reference, on the following terms and conditions :
ARTICLE 1
Purchase Price
1.01. Amount. The purchase price of the property is
$x`:, 000.00 payable by the buying party as set forth belou7.
1. 02. Decost_3nto_EscOn e,.ecution of this contract,
the buying party shall deposit with 11-1101ESTEAD TITLE,
tae sunt o $1,000. 00 to be applied to the purchase price at
the close of escrow as provided in Article 2 of this contract
(called "the escrow" in this contract) . TMJ sun shall be
payable by cash or check.
1. 03. Aclditionnl_Pay_1_nt_3nto_Escroy. Tile balance of t:ic
;purchase price, if any, shall be paid into escrow during business
1
i.
i
hours at least 5 days Before the close of escrow.
This sum shall be payable by cash or check.
ARTICLE 2
Escro.V
2.01. Qgening_o _Escro . Escrow shall be opened to achieve
the sale of the property according to the terms of this contract
at the office of HOMESTEAD TITLE at Atascadero, California,
within 14 days after the execution of this contract. written
escrow instructions in accordance with the terns of this contract
shall be prepared by each party, and the instructions shall be
signed by the parties and delivered to the escrow holder within
21 days from the date of the execution of this contract. The
buying and selling parties shall also deposit with the escrow
holder, within this same time period, the items specified in
Schedules 2.01-3 and 2.01-S, respectively, along with all other
information, instruments, and items, reasonably required by the
escrow holder to close the sale on the closing date specified
below.
2.02. Closing Date. Escrow is closed on the date the deed
is recorded. The closing date for this escrow will be June 30,
1986, unless the closing date is extended pursuant to the terms
of this contract; provided, however, that in no event shall
escrow close later than July 31, 1086.
If escrow does not close on July 31, 1986, or, if extended
pursuant to this contract on the extended date, then either party
may instruct the escrow bolder to cancel the escrow and return
2
i
all money and instruments field in escrow to the respective
depositors. A cancellation pursuant to a request under this
paragraph may be carried out by the escrow holder without notice
to or consent of the other party or the broker. A cancellation
pursuant to a request under this paragraph shall not prejudice
any legal right the parties may have against each other.
2.03. P eiimir�a y_Titie_R2p2 t. Within 30 days after the
execution of this contract, the selling party shall cause to be
prepared by HOMESTEAD TITLE and delivered to the buying party a
preliminary California Land Title Association report of the title
to the property and each document shown as an exception or
encumbrance in the report. This shall be done at the expense of
the selling party.
2.04. diti2ns_2t_Lscr2��. The close of escrow opened
pursuant to paragraph 2. 01, and the buying party's obligation to
purchase the property pursuant to this contract, are contingent
upon the satisfaction of the following conditions which are for
the buying party' s benefit only, except where specifically stated
that the condition is for the benefit of the selling party as
well or alone:
(1) The conveyance to the buying -)arty of good and
marketable title to the property as evidenced by a standard form
CLIA owner ' s title insurance policy In the full amount of the
purchase price issued by HO ESTEAD TITLE and showing title vested
in the buying party, subiact only to the exceptions set forth in
Schedule 2. 04 (1) to this contract (the "listed exceptions" ) , and
any other exception approved by the buying Darty provided that:
3
f:
! 0
(a) The approval of the buying party to any exception
other than the listed exceptions must he in writing; and
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision to the
contrary, the failure of the buying party to object in
writing to any exception shown on the preliminary title
report within 14 days after the report has been
delivered to the buying party shall be an approval by the
buying party of that exception.
The title insurance policy shall also include the
indorsements listed in Schedule 2.04 (1) to this contract.
(2) The delivery of possession of the property to the
buying party immediately on the close of escrow free and clear of
all uses and occupancies except those approved in writing by the
buying party.
2.05 . Prorations. -0n the date of the close of escrow, the
following will be prorated between the buying party and the
selling party on the basis of thirty-day months :
Real property taxes levied or assessed against the property,
as shown on the latest available tax bills. This a=mount shall
include taxes or charges levied for the furnishing of water or
sewage service to the property.
2. 06. Bonds_and Assessrmen s. Any bonds or improvement
assessmaents which are a lien on the property shall be paid by the
selling party on time date of the close of escrow.
2.07. 1-
r ions . Any and all commissions due to
real estate or otter brokers because of this sale of the property
shall be paid by the selling party.
2.08. Ex enses of Lscro�a. The e:.penses of the escrow
4
�Z
i�
opened pursuant to this Article shall be paid as follows:
(1) The cost of the title insurance policy described in
paragraph 2.04 (1) shall be paid by the selling party.
(a) The cost of the indorsements listed in Schedule
2.04 (1) shall be paid by the selling party.
(2) The cost of preparing, executing, and acknowledging any
deeds or other instruments required to convey title to the buying
party as stated in paragraph 2. 04 (1) shall be paid by the selling
party.
(3) The cost of recording the grant deed required to convey
title to the buying party shall be paid by the buying party.
(4) Any tax imposed under the Documentary Transfer Tax Act
on the conveyance of title to the buying party shall be paid 0
percent by the buying party and 100 percent by the selling party.
Any other local transfer taxes shall be paid 0 percent by the
buying party and 1.00 percent by the selling party.
(5) Any escrow fee, other than the cost of the title
insurance -Dolicy required by paragraph 2. 04 (1) , shall be paid 0
percent by the buying party and 100 percent by the selling party.
2 .09 . Vesting_o _Title. The buying party shall advise the
escrow :folder prior to the close of escrow oL the manner in which
title shall vest.
ARTICLE 31
ailure_o _Concli tionl_Zerloval_of_Defoct_�r_Feects
3. 01. Failuro_or_Condition. If any condition set forth in
5
12 1
• •
paragraph 2. 04 of this contract fails to occur �vitIiin the time
provided for the occurrence of that condition in paragraph 2.04
or on or before the date of closing specified in paragraph 2.02,
then there is a failure of that condition and the buying party
shall have the following power, which shall be exercised by
written notice (called "the termination notice") to the selling
party and to the escrow holder : the power to cancel the escrow,
terminate this contract, and recover the amounts paid by the
buying party to the selling party or the escrow holder
towards the purchase price of the property.
The exercise of this power shall not waive any other rights
the buying party may have against the selling party for breach of
this contract. The selling party shall instruct the escrow
holder, in the escrow instructions delivered pursuant to
paragraph 2.01, to refund to the buying party all money and
instruments deposited in escrow by the buying party pursuant to
this contract upon failure of a condition or conditions and
receipt of the termination notice as stated above; this
instruction shall be irrevocable.
The right of the buying party to tern -Mate this contract
pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 2. 04 shall control in the
event of any conflict between that paragraph and this paragraph
3. 01.
3. 02. Ref unc3_on_Terminafion. The selling party shall
instruct the escrow iioleer, in the escrow instructions delivered
pursuant to paragraph 2. 01, to refund to the buying party all
money and instruments deposited in escrow by the buying party
pursuant to this contract upon termination o this contract by
6
•
buyer. In the event of such a termination, the selling party
shall bear any costs and expenses of the escrow.
ARTICLE 4
rV a rran_t3 Ps
4.01. uryiya�_g __Varrant3��. All warranties and other
obligations of this contract shall survive delivery of the deed.
4 .02. Varrant1es_oI3ncZ_21arty. The selling party
warrants that :
(1) The selling party owns the property, free and clear of
all liens, licenses, claims, encumbrances, easements,
encroachments on the property fron adjacent properties,
encroach-ments by improvements or vegetation on the property onto
adjacent properties, and rights of way of any nature, not
disclosed by the public record.
(2) The selling party has no knowledge of any pending
litigation involving the property.
(3) There are no material defects in the property.
ARTICLE 5
laneous
5.01. Insurance. The :welling _arty shall cancel all
policies of insurance on the property as of ti-.e close of escrow.
The buying party shall be responsible for obtaining insurance on
7 l°
• •
the property as of the close of escrow.
5.02. The valid assignment of this contract shall
relieve the buying party of liability under this contract.
5.03 . T ,e_3__of t2e_Es=onco. Time is of the essence in
this contract.
5.04 . lotjcos. Any notice, tender, delivery, or other
communication pursuant to this contract shall be in writing and
shall be deemed to be properly given if delivered, mailed or sent
by wire or other telegraphic communication in the manner provided
in this paragraph, to the following persons or to such other
persons at other addresses as may be designated by written notice
to each other addressee below:
(a) If to buying party, original to :
CITY OF ATASCADERO
P. 0. Eos, 747
Atascadero, CA 93423
(b) If to selling party, original to:
DON MESSER
7393 Santa Ysabel Avenue
Atascadero, CA 93422
If sent by �imail, any notice, delivery, or other
communication shall be treated as being effective or as having
been given 48 hours after it has been deposited in the United
States mail, certified and postage prepaid, return receipt
recuested, in a regularly maintained receptacle for the deposit
of rail, and addressed as set forth above.
If sent by wire or other form of telegraphic communication,
any notice, delivery, or other communication small be treated as
3 {.
being effective or as having been given eight hours after it has
been deposited with Western Union, or other carrier, prepaid and
addressed as set forth above.
5.05 . Entire_ greer�ent. This contract and the attachments
constitute the entire agreement between the parties relating
to the sale of the property. Any representations or
modifications, written or oral, concerning this contract shall be
of no force and effect except for a subsequent modification in
writing that is signed by the party to be charged.
5.06. AttorneYs'_F_es_and_Costs. If an action or
arbitration, arising out of or relating to this contract, or a
breach of it, is initiated, then the prevailing party or parties
shall be entitled to receive from the other party or parties the
reasonable � p attorneys ' fees, costs and expenses incurred in the
�
action or arbitration by the prevailing party or parties.
5.07. 3ind3ng_Ltizct. This contract shall be binding upon
and inure to the benefit of the heirs, personal representatives,
successors, and assigns of the parties to this contract, except
as expressly provided above.
5.08. Coyerning_Law. This contract and the legal relations
between the parties shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with the laces of the State or California.
5.09. _Ieac�ingQ. The headings of the articles and
paragraLDhs of this contract are inserted for convenience only and
do not constitute part of this contract and shall not be used in
its construction.
5.10 . T-,aivar. The waiver by any party to this contract o
9
0
a breach of any provision of this contract shall not be teemed a
continuing waiver or a waiver of any subsequent breach of that or
any other provision of this contract.
5.11. 'Mutual_-Qontributiorus. This contract has been drafted
on the basis of the parties ' mutual contributions of language and
it is not to be construed against any party as being the drafter
(or causing the drafting) of this contract.
5.12. Autzority_of_Zuyiu,y~_ ioratior�. A certified copy of
the resolution of the City Council of buying party which
authorizes the signatories to this contract on its behalf to
enter into and execute this contract is contained in Exhibit 2
which is attached to and made a part o this contract by this
reference.
Executed on ---------------------- at Atascadero,
California.
SELLER:
----------------------------
DON iIESSER
LUYER:
CITY OF ATASCADERO
' --------------------------
iIC1' 11AEL SHELTON, City Manager
10
W
TING AGENDA
E ���/� ITEM �-S
T0: City Counci Me ers April 14, 1986
FROM: Mike Shelton, City Manager
SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATE REPRESENTATIVE TO SAN LUIS
OBISPO COUNTIES AND CITIES AREA PLANNING AND COORD-
INATING COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION:
Mayor recommend for Council motion action designating
alternate delegate representative to serve on the San Luis
Obispo Counties and Cities Area Planning and Coordinating
Council.
BACKGROUND:
Attached is a copy of the resignation letter submitted by
Councilperson Norris resigning as alternate delegate for the City
on the Area Planning and Coordinating Council.
By-laws of the Area Council request an alternate representative
in the event the regular delegate is unable to attend. By-laws
require the alternate to be a City Council member . Duration of
the appointment is open-ended unless specified otherwise by
Council.
Based on Council appointment, staff will advise the Area
Coordinating Council administrative staff, who will schedule
an orientation for the newly appointed member .
MS:kv
File:MSLOCOG
*ING� AGENDA �-S
E
•
TO: City Counci M�s April 14, 1985
FROM: Mike Shelton, City Manager
SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATE REPRESENTATIVE TO SAN LUIS
OBISPO COUNTIES AND CITIES AREA PLANNING AND COORD-
INATING COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION:
Mayor recommend for Council motion action designating
alternate delegate representative to serve on the San Luis
Obispo Counties and Cities Area Planning and Coordinating
Council.
BACKGROUND:
Attached is a copy of the resignation letter submitted by
Councilperson Norris resigning as alternate delegate for the City
• on the Area Planning and Coordinating Council.
By-laws of the Area Council request an alternate representative
in the event the regular delegate is unable to attend. By-laws
require the alternate to be a City Council member. Duration of
the appointment is open-ended unless specified otherwise by
Council.
Based on Council appointment, staff will advise the Area
Coordinating Council administrative staff, who will schedule
an orientation for the newly appointed member .
MS:kv
File:MSL000G
•
MVNG 4//
�t�N
• MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of Directors, Atascadero Sanitation District
THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Paul Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Authorization to Bid Assessment District No. 3
Marchant Way Sewer Extension
DATE: April 8, 1986
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the Director of Public
Works to advertise for Bids for the above project.
Background:
Assessment District No. 3 was formed by the Board to enable the
parcels along Marchant Way to take advantage of long term financing
to extend the sewer along their frontages. This is Cease -and Desist
Area F, which is rated the 3rd worse problem area in the City.
• Discussion:
A contract was awarded to Kennaly Engineering to design the
project. This firm has since gone out of business, but one of their
engineers, John Faulkenstein is finishing the project as Cuesta
Engineering. The Board will be asked to officially switch the
contract over to the new firm as soon as the City Engineer obtains a
release from Kennaly Engineering. The plans are being reviewed by
the City Engineer as they progress. The following schedule is
proposed for bidding the project.
April 14 (Monday) - Authorization to Bid
April 23 (Wednesday) - Advertise for Bids
April 25 (Friday) - Advertise for Bids
May 2 (Friday) - Advertise for Bids
May 5 (Monday) - Receive Bids
May 12 (Monday) - Award Bids
Fiscal Impact:
The City has not obtained financing for this project and will
not until the bid is awarded. There are several options available to
the ACSD, which we ' ll be outlined in a later report. The costs will
be shared by the parcels on an equal assessment basis. The City will
• pick-up the Engineering costs, now reduced to $15,000 , and will pay
for it' s lot at the southerly end of Marchant Way. The sewer fund
additionally will pick up any assessment costs greater than $4150 per
parcel.