HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 04/25/1983 • AGENDA - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting
April 25, 1983 7 :30 p.m.
Atascadero Administration Building
Call to Order
Pledge of Allegiance
Invocation
Roll Call
PROCLAMATION DECLARING APRIL 29, 1983 SPECIAL OLYMPICS DAY
Public Comment
City Council Comments
A. CONSENT CALENDAR
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
All matters listed under Item A, Consent Calendar, are considered
to be routine and will be enacted by one motion in the form listed
below. There will be no separate discussion of these items. If dis-
cussion is required, that item will be removed from the Consent Calen-
dar and will be considered separately. Vote may be by roll call.
• 1. Minutes of the regular meeting of March 28, 1983 (RECOMMEND
APPROVAL)
2. Minutes of the regular meeting of April ll, 1983 (RECOMMEND
APPROVAL)
3. Audit Agreement for Fiscal Year ending June 30 , 1983 (RECOM-
MEND APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT WITH ROBERT M. MOSS ACCOUNTING
CORP. )
4. Transfer of $900 from Contingency Reserve to Fire Department
Account for vehicle damage repair (RECOMMEND APPROVAL)
5. Transfer of $4 ,000 from Contingency Reserve to Building Main-
tenance Account for emergency repair of Fire Station roof
(RECOMMEND APPROVAL)
6. Resolution No. 19-83 accepting Llano, Puerta and Lomitas
Roads (RECOMMEND ADOPTION)
7. Acceptance of Lot Line Adjustment LA 821228 :1, 9301, 9311
Musselman and 10245 El Camino Real, Merele Wahlenmaier, Carl
Stewart, Ben Hoff (Hilliard) (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION)
8. Road Exception EX821124 :1, 6625 Santa Cruz Road, Elwood Gar-
lick (Daniel J. Stewart) to allow waiver or modification of
conditions on Tentative Parcel Map AT 820318:1 (Garlick/Stew-
art) relating to construction of road improvements along the
AGENDA - ATASCADERO0TY - 0 COUNCIL APRIL 25, 198!"'
property frontage and back to the nearest improved section of
Santa Cruz Road (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION •
RECOMMENDATION)
B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES AND REPORTS
1. Appearance of Robert Dollahite regarding animal control and
spay/neuter programs
C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Capital Improvement Plan - continued
2. Ordinance No. 61 relating to the removal of weeds, rubbish,
and similar materials - second reading
3. City-wide road maintenance district
4. Sand and gravel mining in the Salinas River Sycamore Road
Pit
5. Fees for animal raising permits to fund enforcement costs
D. NEW BUSINESS
1. San Luis Obispo-Atascadero bus service recommendation to COG
2. Ordinance No. 64 regarding discharge of firearms and danger- •
ous weapons - first reading
3. Request from Boy Scouts for land to construct multi-purpose
building
4. Consideration of moratorium on game machine and arcade busi-
nesses
5. Consideration of San Luis Obispo resolution opposing SB 259,
unwarranted intrusion into local affairs by single purpose
legislation involving a local matter
E. ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
(Council will recess and convene as the Atascadero County Sanita-
tion District Board of Directors)
1. Ordinance No. 63 amending Ordinance No. 54 regarding sewer
service charges - second reading
2. Resolution No. 20-83 approving Satisfaction of In Lieu As-
sessment Agreement with Ray and Karen Spear
3. Status of Wastewater Collector Grant -Project No. C-06-2927
(The Board of Directors will adjourn and reconvene as City Coun- •
cil)
2
AGENDA - ATASCADERO 0TYCOUNCIL5- APRIL 2 , 198s
F. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION
1. City Council
2. City Attorney
3. City Clerk
4. City Treasurer
5. City Manager
NOTE: There will be a closed session for personnel matters.
3
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING CITY ATTORNEY
POST OFFICE BOX 747 POST OFFICE BOX 749
ATASCADERO,CALIFORNIA 93423 ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93423
PHONE: (805) 466-8000 PHONE: (805) 466-5678 -
CITY COUNCIL ~
CITY CLERK .POLICE DEPARTMENT
CITY TREASURER POST OFFICE BOX 747
CITY MANAGERINCORPORATED JULY 2, 7979 ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93423
FINANCE DEPARTMENT PHONE: (805) 466-8600
PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT
RECREATION DEPARTMENT 6005 LEWIS AVENUE
ATASCADERO,CALIFORNIA 93422
»� PHONE: (805) 466-2141
PROCLAMATION
SPECIAL OLYMPICS DAY
WHEREAS, Special Olympics contributes to the physical, social
and psychological development of the developmentally disable peo-
ple in our county; and
WHEREAS, the Special Olympics experience helps developmental-
ly disabled people gain confidence and build a positive self-
image associated with success rather than failure; and
WHEREAS, Special Olympics provides year-around training in
gymnastics, frisbee, wheelchair events, basketball, volleyball,
floor hockey, swimming, diving, softball, bicycle events and
track and field for the developmentally disabled; and
• WHEREAS, Special Olympics helps the public better understand
the developmentally disabled and the problems as well as the
abilities these people have; and
WHEREAS, this year over 350 San Luis Obispo County partici-
pants will be involved; and
WHEREAS, Special Olympics is fully sanctioned by all major
professional organizations of special educators, recreators,
coaches and athletes and nationally involves one million disabled
people; and
WHEREAS, the San Luis Obispo County Special Olympics Area
Meet will be held for the first time in Atascadero at Atascadero
High School.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, ROLFE NELSON, Mayor of the City of Atasca-
dero, do hereby proclaim Friday, April 29, 1983 as SPECIAL OLYM-
PICS DAY in the City of Atascadero and urge all residents to at-
tend the Special Olympics Area Meet which will be held at Atasca-
dero High School, in support of these very special athletes.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this
19th day of April, 1983.
i
t "t✓
ROLFE NEL. N, Mayor
City of Atascadero, California
1
MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
• Regular Meeting
March 28, 1983 7 : 30 p.m.
Atascadero Administration Building
The meeting was called to order at 7 :30 p.m. with the Pledge of
Allegiance. Councilman Mackey gave the invocation.'
ROLL CALL
Present: Councilmen Mackey, Molina, Stover, Wilkins and Mayor Nelson
Absent: None
STAFF
Present: Murray Warden, City Manager; Allen Grimes, City Attorney;
Barbara Norris, City Clerk; Steven Rizzuto, City Treasurer;
Patsy Hester, Deputy City Clerk; Ralph Dowell, Finance
Director; Mike Hicks, Fire Chief; Larry Stevens, Planning
Director; and Richard McHale, Police Chief.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
1. Sidney Sandlin requested that a business license for Bob
Lawrence be denied and handed out copies of a petition
. objecting to the issuance of a business license and operation of a
video arcade at its present location or relocation.
Bob Lawrence, owner of Star Station 101, stated he would like
to move his existing business to a larger location.
MOTION: Councilman Mackey moved that the business license be held
until the next Council meetina in order to study the matter.
The motion was seconded by Councilman Wilkins. After further
discussion, the motion was withdrawn.
Mr. Grimes commented that it would be better legally to grant the
license unless there was a valid reason to hold it up, and then go
through an appeal process.
COUNCIL COMMENTS
1. Councilman Mackey inquired about the mobilehome rent stabili-
zation ordinance. Mr. Warden stated that negotiations are
still being conducted and he will give an up-date at the next Council
meeting.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Minutes of the regular meeting of March 14 , 1983 (RECOMMEND
APPROVAL)
•
MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL - MARCH 28, 1983
2 . Recognition of the Atascadero Sergeants Service Organization
(RECOMMEND ACCEPTANCE OF PETITION AND BY-LAWS)
3. Proposals for appraisals of Atascadero Lake property
(RECOMMEND CONTRACT FOR APPRAISALS BE AWARDED TO DENNIS E.
GREEN AND CO. , IN THE AMOUNT OF $2 ,800 AND APPROVAL FOR
TRANSFER FROM CONTINGENCY RESERVE)
4. Resolution No. 13-83 applying for land and water conservation
grant for park development funds (RECOMMEND ADOPTION)
5. Resolution No. 14-83 denying General Plan Amendment GP
820325 :1 concerning a requested change in land use designation
from Low Density Multiple Family Residential within the E1
Camino Real - Montecito Residential Study Area (PREVIOUSLY
ACTED UPON BY COUNCIL - RECOMMEND ADOPTION)
6 . Resolution No. 15-83 denying General Plan Amendment GP
820930 :1 concerning a requested change in land use designation
from Suburban Single Family Residential to Moderate Density
Single Family Residential within the Colima - E1 Camino Real
Residential Study Area (PREVIOUSLY ACTED UPON BY COUNCIL -
RECOMMEND ADOPTION)
7. Resolution No. 16-83 denying General. Plan Amendment GP
820930:2 concerning a requested change in designation from
Moderate Density Single Family Residential within the Coromar
Residential Study Area (PREVIOUSLY ACTED UPON BY COUNCIL -
RECOMMEND ADOPTION)
8 . Resolution No. 17-83 approving General Plan Amendment GP
821206:1 amending the text of the Open Space Element concern-
ing specific standards for creek setbacks (PREVIOUSLY ACTED
UPON BY COUNCIL - RECOMMEND ADOPTION)
9 . Business license for Big John Strong Circus, San Anselmo
and El Camino Real (RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS)
10. Business license for circus, Atascadero Improvement Corpora-
tion/Carson & Barnes Circus, San Anselmo and El Camino Real
(RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS)
11. Council policy limiting Council meeting time (RECOMMEND
APPROVAL OF LIMITING COUNCILMEETINGS TO NO LATER THAN 11 : 00
P.M. UNLESS EXTENDED BY MAJORITY VOTE OF COUNCIL)
Mayor Nelson reviewed all items on the Consent Calendar. Mr.
Warden noted a correction on the Minutes of the Larson motion.
Councilman Mackey requested Item A-8 and Councilman Molina requested •
Items A-3 and A-11 be removed for discussion.
-2-
MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL - MARCH 28, 1983
MOTION: Councilman Wilkins moved to approve the Consent Calendar with
the exception of Items A-3, A-8, and A-11. The motion was
seconded by Councilman Mackey and unanimously carried.
A-3 Proposals for appraisals of Atascadero Lake property (RECOMMEND
CONTRACT FOR APPRAISALS BE AWARDED TO DENNIS E. GREEN AND CO. ,
IN THE AMOUNT OF $2 ,800 AND APPROVAL FOR TRANSFER FROM CONTIN-
GENCY RESERVE) ,
Councilman Molina asked why the firm with the lowest bid did not
get the contract. Mr. Warden stated that the lowest bidder did not
meet the requirements specified in the Request for Proposals.
MOTION: Councilman Mackey moved to approve Item A-3 of the Consent
Calendar. The motion was seconded by Councilman Wilkins
and unanimously carried.
A-8 Resolution No. 17-83 approving General Plan Amendment GP 821206 :1
amending the text of the Open Space Element concerning specific
standards for creek setbacks (PREVIOUSLY ACTED UPON BY COUNCIL -
RECOMMEND ADOPTION)
Councilman Mackey stated that she did not agree with the setbacks
and opposed the resolution.
MOTION: Councilman Molina moved to approve Item A-8 of the Consent
Calendar. The motion was seconded by Mayor Nelson. After
further discussion, the motion was withdrawn.
Mr. Stevens stated that if no action is taken on Resolution No.
17-83 at this time, then Resolution Nos. 14-83, 15-83, and 16-83
should be rescinded.
MOTION: Councilman Wilkins moved to bring back Resolution No. 14-83,
15-83, 16-83, and 17-83 and consider them at the next meeting.
The motion was seconded by Councilman Mackey and unanimously
carried.
A-11 Council policy limiting Council meeting time (RECOMMEND APPROVAL
OF LIMITING COUNCIL MEETINGS TO NO LATER THAN 11 : 00 P.M. UNLESS
EXTENDED BY MAJORITY VOTE OF COUNCIL)
Councilman Molina suggested that the meetings be adjourned to
other evenings until agenda items are caught up.
Mr. Grimes stated that he could not attend adjourned meetings
if held on Tuesday evenings.
-3
MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL - MARCH 28, 1983
MOTION: Councilman Wilkins moved to approve Item A-11 and to review is
the agenda at 10 :45 p.m. in order to extend or adjourn the
meeting. The motion was seconded by Councilman Mackey and
unanimously carried.
B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES AND REPORTS
1. Draft Zoning Ordinance, Chapter Three - continued
Larry Stevens reviewed lot size criteria in the RS and LSF/RSF
Zones and also reviewed the Planned Development Overlay Zone. - He
requested the hearing be continued to April ll.
MOTION: Councilman Wilkins moved to continue the hearing to April 11,
1983. The motion was seconded by Councilman Mackey and
carried with Councilman. Molina voting no.
2 . Public hearing on Tentative Parcel Map AT 821108:1; 7805
Santa Cruz Road; Frank Mecham (Associated Professions) ; to
allow division of a 5.44 acre parcel into two parcels -
continued
Mr. Stevens presented conditions for well approvals.
Frank Mecham requested approval of the division and the well.
Mike Hicks stated that the best source for fire protection is
from the Mutual Water Company system.
MOTION: Councilman Molina moved to approve the lot split under
findings and conditions of the March 9, 1983, memorandum,
and to preclude the private well for domestic purposes.
The motion was seconded by Councilman Mackey and carried
on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Mackey, Molina and Mayor Nelson
NOES: Councilmen Stover and Wilkins
Mr. Stevens stated that policies should be formalized regarding
domestic wells.
3. Public hearing on appeal of Planning Commission decision to
conditionally approve Tentative Parcel Map AT 820504 :1;
Donald Saueressig and others, appellant; James Haun (Stewart)
applicant; behind 7275-7425 Carmelita; to allow division of
8.43 acres into four parcels
-4- i
MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL - MARCH 28 , 1983
Mr. Stevens stated that this request is to allow division of
8. 43 acres into four parcels. He stated that since the General
Plan has been amended to delete the 50 foot setback, the matter
has been rescheduled to hear the appeal by the surrounding property
owners.
Grigger Jones, attorney for James Haun, desired to have the
matter resolved soon.
James Haun stated that it would be unreasonable to deny his
request for a lot split.
Donald Saueressig stated that the 50 foot setback is legitimate
and that the matter should be settled soon.
MOTION: Councilman Mackey moved to continue the hearing to April 11.
The motion was seconded by Councilman Wilkins and carried
with Councilman Molina and Mayor Nelson voting no.
C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Volunteer Coordinating Committee - Mayor Nelson
Mayor Nelson requested this matter be continued to the next
. Council meeting.
2. Report from 4th of July Committee - Mayor Nelson
Mike Hicks presented a report from the 4th of July Committee.
General consensus of the committee was to continue with the celebra-
tion. He stated the . committee recommended establishing a review
board appointed by the Council to oversee the 4th of July celebration.
Mr. Warden read a letter from the Atascadero Jaycees indicating
their withdrawal of support for the 4th of July celebration.
Ken Ono, member of the Atascadero Jaycees, stated that his
organization cannot take a lead in the celebration.
Mike Molina and Jerry Pickard presented an outline of a plan
for the 4th of July celebration. They stated. that there are
organizations other than the Jaycees who should be able to sponsor
the event. They also requested the Council to adopt an ordinance
to enforce their plan.
Mr. Grimes advised that Council present the plan to staff for
their recommendations.
Donna Harris noted that the use of high school buses was approved
based upon having the Jaycees as the sponsoring organization.
-5-
MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL - MARCH 28, 1983
is
MOTION: Councilman Mackey moved to review the matter and to bring
it back at the next Council meeting. The motion was seconded
by Councilman Wilkins and unanimously carried.
RECESS 9 :35 p.m. RECONVENE 9:40 p.m.
3. Priority list - Mayon Nelson
To be discussed in conjunction with the Capital Improvement Plan.
4 . Ordinance No. 60 amending PERS contract - second reading
MOTION: Councilman Wilkins moved to read Ordinance No. 60 by title
only. The motion was seconded by Councilman Stover and
unanimously carried.
Mayor Nelson read Ordinance No. 60 by title only.
MOTION: Councilman Wilkins moved to approve Ordinance No. 60. The
motion was seconded by Councilman Mackey and unanimously
carried by roll call vote.
D. NEW BUSINESS
1. Ordinance No. 61 relating to the removal of weeds, rubbish,
and similar materials - first reading
Mr. Warden stated that this ordinance is the foundation upon
which to have the annual weed abatement program.
Mr. Grimes suggested including an administrative charge sufficient
to meet the cost of operating the program.
Council agreed to change the wording of 6-13.12 to extend the
first year until the next tax year.
MOTION: Councilman Wilkins moved to read Ordinance No. 61 by title
only. The motion was seconded by Councilman Molina and
unanimously carried.
Mayor Nelson read Ordinance No. 61 by title only.
MOTION: Councilman Wilkins moved that this constitute the first
reading of Ordinance No. 61 with the noted changes. The
motion was seconded by Councilman Molina and unanimously
carried.
2 . Consideration of Five Year Capital Improvement Plan 1983-1988
-6-
MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL - MARCH 28 , 1983
Mr. Warden reviewed the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) .
Council discussed the CIP in conjunction with the Priority List.
Councilman Mackey suggested that some of the projects should be
street sweeping, street light at Santa Rosa and E1 Camino, street
widening on El Camino south of Santa Rosa, and additional left turn
lanes.
Doug Lewis suggested wheelchair ramps at the sunken gardens.
Mr. Warden stated that Mr. McPherson is planning on adding the ramps
as part of the maintenance plan.
Council agreed to wait for the police location report before
setting priorities and to bring back the CIP at the next meeting.
At 10 :45 p.m. , Council decided to continue with the meeting
past 11 :00 p.m.
MOTION: CouncilmanWilkinsmoved to proceed with the agenda and not
go beyond 11 : 30 p.m. The motion was seconded by Councilman
Mackey and unanimously carried.
3. Consideration of Kate Johns request for funding re: animal
spay-neuter program
Mr. Warden recommended that the matter be continued until the
budget hearings.
Kate Johns, President of AFAR, requested approximately $1,500
to assist in the spay-neuter program.
MOTION: Councilman Mackey moved to allocate $1 ,500 to AFAR to
continue the program for the remainder of the fiscal year.
The motion failed for lack of a second.
Council requested that Mr. Dolahite of the County Animal
Regulations to attend one of the meetings in order to receive
additional information.
4 . Consideration of Dal Caudill request for street improvements
Mr. Warden stated that this is a request to pave unimproved
sections of Sonora, Maleza, and Pinal and a request to form a main-
tenance district. Mr. Warden also stated that there is no Federal
money available for this project.
Dal Caudill requested that the maintenance district be continued
and to consider staffs ' recommendation.
-7-
MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL - MARCH 28 , 1983
MOTION: Councilman Mackey moved to proceed with the formation of a
maintenance assessment district subject to the property
owners ' ability to show agreement in the Sonora, Maleza,
and Pinal area. The motion was seconded by Councilman
Wilkins and unanimously carried.
5. Consideration of City of Morro Bay resolution requesting
extended .comment period for Lease Sale 73
MOTION: Councilman Mackey moved to endorse Resolution No. 35-83
from the City of Morro Bay. The motion was seconded by
Councilman Wilkins and carried with Councilman Molina voting
no.
6 . Consideration of PG&E request for resolution of support for
PG&E operation hydroelectric power plants
MOTION: Councilman Wilkins moved to endorse PG&E' s request for a
resolution. The motion was seconded by Councilman Molina
and carried with Councilman Mackey voting no.
7 . Ordinance No. 62 establishing a time period for judicial
review of certain City administrative decisions - first
reading
MOTION: Councilman Mackey moved to read Ordinance No. 62 by title
only. The motion was seconded by Councilman Molina and
unanimously carried.
Mayor Nelson read Ordinance No. 62 by title only.
MOTION: Councilman Wilkins moved that this constitute the first
reading. The motion was seconded by Councilman Mackey
and unanimously carried.
E. ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
MOTION: Councilman Wilkins moved that the Council recess and
reconvene as the Atascadero County Sanitation District
Board of Directors. The motion was seconded by Councilman
Mackey and unanimously carried.
1. Consideration of purchasing additional memory and ports for
computer
Mr. Warden recommended authorizing the expenditure from the
budget.
-8-
MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL - MARCH 28 , 1983
•
MOTION: Director Molina moved to authorize the purchase and spending
of funds for additional memory and ports for the computer.
The motion was seconded by Director Wilkins and unanimously
carried by roll call vote.
2. Modification of sewer charge - Danish Convalescent Home
Mr. Warden recommended approval of the revision to the sewer
rate structure and that the rates for the convalescent home be
adjusted accordingly.
MOTION: Director Wilkins moved .to direct staff to prepare an ordinance
stating rates be changed from $8. 24 per bed per month to $3.50
per bed per month. The motion was seconded by Director Stover
and unanimously carried by roll call vote.
Mr. Jensen of the Danish Convalescent Hospital agreed with the
decision.
MOTION: Director Wilkins moved that the Board of Directors adjourn
and reconvene as the City Council. The motion was seconded
by Director Mackey and unanimously carried.
F. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION
1. City Council
a. Councilman Mackey requested a Clean Sweep Clean-up
proclamation for April 9-16 , 1983.
b. Councilman Stover stated that he had taken an enjoyable
trip under the direction of the Recreation Department and that
Sandra Moffitt had done a good job.
C. Councilman Mackey stated that Rollin Dexter wished to
thank the Police Department for escorting their move to their new
church building.
2. City Attorney
Nothing
3. City Clerk
Nothing
4. City Treasurer
Nothing
-9-
MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL - MARCH 28 , 1983
5. City Manager
a. Mr. Warden stated that copies are available of the EIR
report of the California Men' s Colony expansion. Comments need to
be made by May 2, 1983, to the California Department of General
Services.
b. Mr. Warden announced a conference in April of the League
of California Cities in Fresno.
c. Mr. Warden stated that it appeared unlikely the city
would receive a grant for the sewer collector system despite the
Water Quality Control Board' s action in declaring the necessity
for a new collector system.
d. Mr. Warden stated that Edwin Morris was unable to accept
appointment on the Citizen Transportation Advisory Committee. The
alternate, Roger Cook, will be appointed.
e. Mr. Warden requested a closed session for discussing
litigation and personnel matters and that there would be no announce-
ments afterwards.
f. Mr. Warden stated that the Planning Commission suggested
a mutual meeting on Thursday, April 21, 1983, at 7 : 30 p.m. •
The meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m. to closed session and
returned to regular session at 11 :45 p.m. , at which time they
adjourned.
BARBARA NORRIS , City Clerk
By.
PATSY A. HESTER
Deputy City Clerk
-10-
• ►
MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting
• April 11, 1983 7 : 30 p.m.
Atascadero Administration Building - --- ---
The meeting was called to order at 7 : 30 p.m. with the Pledge
, of Allegiance. John Berry of the First Baptist Church gave the
invocation.
ROLL CALL
Present: Councilmen Mackey, Stover, Wilkins and Mayor Nelson
Absent: Councilman Molina
STAFF
Present: Murray Warden, City Manager; Allen Grimes, City Attorney;
Steven Rizzuto, City Treasurer; Patsy Hester, Deputy City
Clerk; Ralph Dowell, Finance Director; Mike Hicks, Fire
Chief; Larry Stevens, Planning Director; Richard McHale,
Police Chief; Larry McPherson, Public Works Director; and
Skip Joannes, Recreation Director.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
• 1. Arthur Armstrong stated that he is happy to live in this area
and that he would be willing to donate $100 towards a campaign
to continue the 4th of July celebration.
COUNCIL COMMENTS
None
A. CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Treasurer's Report, 3-1-83 to 3-31-83 (RECOMMEND APPROVAL)
2. Finance Director' s Report, 3-1-83 to 3-31-83 (RECOMMEND
APPROVAL)
3. Agreement between the State Department of Forestry and County
of San Luis Obispo for mutual aid (RECOMMEND APPROVAL AND
AUTHORIZATION TO SIGN)
4 . Transfer of $8, 303 from Contingency Reserve for litigation
expenses (RECOMDiEND APPROVAL)
5. Transfer of $6, 200 from Contingency Reserve for parking lot
acquisition (RECOMMEND APPROVAL)
MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL - APRIL 11, 1983
6. Tentative Parcel Map AT 810320: 2, 7000-7250 Santa Cruz Road,
Mike Yeomans (Twin Cities Engineering) to extend for one year
the time allowed to complete requirements for an approved
tentative track map (RECOM11END APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMIS-
SION RECOMMENDATION)
7. Acceptance of Parcel Map AT 820609 :1, between San Marcos and
Laurel Road east of the intersection of Laurel and Cenegal,
Dick Davis (Twin Cities Engineering) (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOM7MENDATION)
8. Resolution No. 14-83 denying General Plan Amendment GP 820325 :1
concerning a requested change in land use designation from Low
Density Multiple Family Residential within the El Camino Real -
Montecito Residential Study Area (PREVIOUSLY ACTED UPON BY
COUNCIL - RECOMMEND ADOPTION)
9 . Resolution No. 15-83 denying General Plan Amendment GP 820930 :1
concerning a requested change in land use designation from
Suburban Single Family Residential to Moderate Density Single
Family Residential within the Colima - El Camino Real Residen-
tial Study Area (PREVIOUSLY ACTED UPON BY COUNCIL - RECOMMEND
ADOPTION)
10. Resolution No. 16-83 denying General Plan Amendment GP 820930
concerning a requested change in designation from Moderate
Density Single Family Residential within the Coromar Residen-
tial Study Area (PREVIOUSLY ACTED UPON BY COUNCIL - RECOMMEND
ADOPTION)
11. Resolution No. 18-83 opposing the takeover of Pacific Gas and
Electric hydroelectric projects
Mayor Nelson reviewed all items on the Consent Calendar.
MOTION: Councilman Wilkins moved to approve Items A-1 through A-11
of the Consent Calendar. The motion was seconded by Councilman
Stover and unanimously carried.
B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES AND REPORTS
1. Resolution No. 17-83 approving General Plan Amendment GP
821206 :1 amending the text of the Open Space Element concerning
specific standards for creek setbacks
Larry Stevens presented two resolutions, one approving the General
Plan Amendment, and the other denying it. He stated that if the
approval of the General Plan amendment was not passed, then the three
items concerning General Plan Amendments on the Consent Calendar shoulc
be pulled.
•
-2-
0 i
MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL - APRIL 11, 1983
MOTION: Councilman Wilkins moved to adopt Resolution No. 17-83 .
The motion was seconded by Councilman Stover and carried
on the following roll call vote:
AYES : Councilmen Stover, Wilkins and Mayor Nelson
NOES: Councilman Mackey
ABSENT: Councilman Molina
Herb LaPrade commented that there should not be any regulations
governing creek setbacks but that the Planning Department should
consider each case individually.
Don Saueressig believed that there should be specific setback
requirements along the creek bank.
2. Draft Zoning Ordinance, Chapter Three - continued
Larry Stevens reviewed portions of Chapter 3 regarding the Planned
Development Overlay Zone and minimum lot size in the RS, RSF and LSF
Zones. He stated that this should conclude the draft hearings.
Council contended that they did not request an alternate draft for
0 farm animals.
Mr. Grimes stated that Council requested a draft based upon the
density principal. He further commented that concern of residents
should be favored over concern for animals .
Councilman Mackey suggested fees be established for animal raising
which would be put in an abatement fund to process animal complaints.
She requested this matter be put on the next agenda.
MOTION: Councilman Wilkins moved to accept the draft for Chapter 3 and
to deny the new draft for farm animal raising and accept the
original draft. The motion was seconded by Councilman Stover
and unanimously carried.
3. Public hearing on appeal of Planning Commission decision to
conditionally approve Tentative Parcel Map AT 820504 : 1; Donald
Saueressig and others, appellant; James Haun (Stewart) appli-
cant; behind 7275-7425 Carmelita; to allow division of 8 . 43
acres into four parcels - continued
Mr. Stevens stated that the applicant is requesting the division
of four lots in a parcel which basically includes a strip leading from
Carmelita to Atascadero Creek Reservation No. 6, as well as approxi-
mately 60 feet of Lots 5, 6, 7, and 8 .
-3-
MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL - APRIL 11, 1983
He stated that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
the Tentative Parcel Map subject to the 23 conditions contained in
the staff report dated December 6, 1982.
Grigger Jones, representing James Haun, requested that the appeal
be denied.
Don Saueressig stated that if the sub-division is approved that
the conditions be changed to include a paved street to serve the
sub-divided lots .
Jim Haun stated that he owns a 60 foot strip of land and would
like to use it as a roadway.
MOTION: Councilman Wilkins moved to deny the appeal on Tentative
Parcel Map AT 820504 : 1 and to accept environmental determina-
tion findings and the 23 conditions as recommended by the
Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Councilman
Stover and carried with Councilman Mackey voting no.
4 . Report from Planning Director on A-Jay excavating complaint
Mr. Stevens stated that there has been much controversary concern-
ing the operation of sand and mining in the Salinas River in the
vicinity of Sycamore Road. He presented a preliminary background
report, principally in conjunction with a previous county review of
this operation. It has been determined to be a nuisance and certain
conditions were imposed. He stated that there remains dissatisfaction
among some residents . Mr. Stevens requested this matter be continued
to secure additional information regarding the current status of the
operation and to make a recommendation as to whether or not there are
problems and issues that need to be resolved.
Frank Platz of the Atascadero Mutual Water Company stated that
the operation has been performing for a number of years and that it
is vital to the water company. He also stated that he would bring
the matter up at their next Board meeting and will discuss it at the
next Council meeting.
Donna Porter stated that there is an increase in the operation and
believes it to be a nuisance. She requested Mr. Stevens to find out
how much sand is taken out of the river.
Dr. David Hixson recommended changing the hours of operation
between 9 : 00 a.m. to 2 : 00 p.m. He stated that there is an expansion
onto his property and requested that the operation be moved up the
river.
-4-
MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL —APRIL 11, 1983
F. J. Bailey, area resident, stated that there is an expansion
of the operation.
Council continued the matter to April 25.
5. Public hearing on zoning maps
Mr. Stevens stated that the Planning Commission conducted hearings
and made changes of Areas I, II , and III of the Citywide Rezoning
program. The Planning Commission recommends adoption of the maps
with the revisions as submitted.
Roy Luebbers requested that the map be changed to show the
property between Ferro-Carril and Estrada line as Residential Suburban.
Mr. Stevens stated that the Planning Commission established Lots
1 and 4, owned by Mr. Luebber, as zoned Residential Suburban and that
Lots 2 and 3, owned by Mr. Souza and Mr. Roselip, be zoned as Industrial.
Mr. Grimes suggested that the property owners be present to give
their opinions before making a decision.
The Council concurred with the Planning Commission' s recommendation.
Frank Platz requested that the parcels on El Camino between Glen
Oaks Plaza and Outlet Company be zoned Service Commercial.
MOTION: Councilman Mackey moved to refer this matter to the Planning
Commission for review and to include it in the final hearing.
The motion was seconded by Councilman Wilkins and unanimously
carried.
John Euphrat asked that no further expansion of industrial use be
permitted without minimum processing of a Conditional Use Permit.
MOTION: Councilman Mackey moved to refer to the Planning Commission
to consider the Conditional Use Permit and part of PD-4 and
to include it in the final hearing. The motion was seconded
by Councilman Stover and unanimously carried.
MOTION: Councilman Wilkins moved to accept the preliminary approval
of maps with modifications as indicated and to set for final
adoption hearings with proper notification. The motion was
seconded by Councilman Stover and unanimously carried.
Gary Larson of the Chamber of Commerce asked Council to be careful
in considering the Conditional Use process .
RECESS 9: 45 p.m. RECONVENED 9 : 50 p.m.
-5-
i
MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL - APRIL 11, 1983
C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Volunteer Coordinating Committee - Mayor Nelson
Mayor Nelson requested this matter be continued.
2. Report from 4th of July Committee - Mayor Nelson
Council did not support the event and has received numerous
letters against it. Lon Allen requested public opinion.
MOTION: Councilman Mackey moved that there be no organized 4th of
July event at the Atascadero Lake this year. The motion was
seconded by Councilman Stover and unanimously carried.
Helen Watson stated that if conditions of growth or other cir-
cumstances result in the need to change traditions, then some
traditional activities might have to be discontinued. She opposed
the 4th of July activities. She requested an ordinance be passed
to eliminate the use of the park after dark.
3. Priority list - Mayor Nelson
To be considered with the Capital Improvement Plan.
4. Assessment district procedures Amapoa-Tecorida
Larry McPherson reviewed problems and recommendations for long-
term and short-term improvements . He stated that he does not feel
there would be a great deal of support from the property owners for
an assessment district for drainage and that the total cost of a
project to solve the problems would be approximately $1 million.
Mr. Grimes stated that he has seen many failures in approving
assessment districts but that the people involved should petition
to have one in order to assure the Council of a serious commitment
by the people having to bear the costs .
Doug Lewis stated that long range weather patterns are improving
and that this should be considered.
MOTION: Councilman Wilkins moved in favor of an assessment district
if supported by the people with a petition. The motion was
seconded by Councilman Stover and unanimously carried.
5. City of Pismo Beach request of support for proposed County-
wide oil ordinance - continued
MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL - APRIL 11, 1983
MOTION: Councilman Wilkins moved to acknowledge receipt of information
and table. The motion was seconded by Councilman Stover and
unanimously carried.
6. Ordinance No. 61 relating to the removal of weeds, rubbish,
and similar materials - first reading
MOTION: Councilman Wilkins moved to read Ordinance No. 61 by title
only. The motion was seconded by Councilman Mackey and
unanimously carried.
Mayor Nelson read Ordinance No. 61 by .title only.
MOTION: Councilman Wilkins moved that this constitute the first
reading. The motion was seconded by Councilman Stover and
unanimously carried.
7. Capital Improvement Plan - continued
Mr. Warden reviewed the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and noted
that the CIP was a guide for considering future projects. He
suggested that the matter of funding needed to be determined due to
limited fiscal resources. He noted that it might be desirable to
put the question of funding a police facility on the ballot to
determine if the electorate is wilding to pay a surcharge or other
means of raising the funds necessary to build a facility.
Mr. McPherson stated that a decision as to the renovation of the
Administration Building should be made soon so that the heating
system will be operational by next winter.
Lon Allen stated that the Police Committee is considering three
alternatives : Bank of America building, a new facility, and
renovating the City Hall. He noted that in his opinion a new facility
would cost as much or more than purchasing the bank building.
Council continued the matter to the next Council meeting.
At 10 :50 p.m. , Council decided to continue with the meeting.
MOTION: Councilman Wilkins moved to continue with the agenda. The
motion was seconded by Councilman Stover and unanimously
carried.
8. Ordinance No. 62 establishing a time period for judicial
review of certain City administrative decisions
MOTION: Councilman Wilkins moved to read Ordinance No. 62 by title
only. The motion was seconded by Councilman Stover and
unanimously carried.
-7-
• •
MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL - APRIL 11, 1983
Mayor Nelson read Ordinance No. 62 by title only.
MOTION: Councilman Wilkins moved to adopt Ordinance No. 62. The
motion was seconded by Councilman Mackey and unanimously
carried.
D. NEW BUSINESS
None
E. ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
MOTION: Councilman Wilkins moved that the Council recess and reconvene
as the Atascadero County Sanitation District Board of Directors.
The motion was seconded by Councilman Mackey and unanimously
carried.
1. Ordinance No. 63 amending Ordinance No. 54 regarding sewer
service charges
MOTION: Director Wilkins moved to read Ordinance No. 54 by title only.
The motion was seconded by Director Stover and unanimously
carried.
President Nelson read Ordinance No. 63 by title only.
MOTION: Director Wilkins moved that this constitute the first reading
of Ordinance No. 63. The motion was seconded by Director
Mackey and unanimously carried.
MOTION: Director Wilkins moved that the Board of Directors adjourn
and reconvene as the City Council. The motion was seconded
by Director Mackey and unanimously carried.
F. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION
1. City Council
a. Councilman Mackey commented that Clean Sweep Week was a
success. Mayor Nelson stated that Councilman Mackey had done a good
job.
2. City Attorney
None
3. City Clerk
None
4 . City Treasurer
None
-8-
0
MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL - APRIL 11, 1983
5. City Manager
a. Mr. Warden stated that Roger Cook is unable to serve
on the Citizen Transportation Advisory Committee. There were no
other names suggested by the Council.
b. Mr. Warden announced that Debbie Terra is resigning
from the Recreation Department because of pregnancy.
C. Mr. Warden stated that the mobilehome rent control
issue is delayed so that consideration can be given to the con-
clusions reached in San Luis Obispo concerning a similar situation.
d. Mr. Warden requested a closed session and that the
meeting be adjourned to April 21, 1983, for the joint Planning
Commission and City Council meeting. The tentative agenda for the
meeting to include:
(1) Industrial and economic development;
(2) Improvement of downtown area;
(3) Sign regulations, including review of the Chamber
sign survey;
(4) Farm animal regulations;
(5) Annexation policies;
(6) Potential effects of new sewer plant on General
Plan densities ;
(7) How large a house can be built on a small lot;
(8) Blacktop on a small lot;
(9) Policy statement on buildable lots; and
(10) Policy statement as to types of businesses not to
be allowed in Atascadero.
e. Mr. Warden stated he had received a letter from the
League of California Cities in which the Department of Housing and
Community Development would be allowed through Assembly Bill 1599
to dictate the contents of local housing elements. This Bill could
also effect receipt of gas tax money by cities. Council requested
that a letter be drafted opposing this Bill.
f. Mr. Warden received a request for street closure at
9000 block of La Linia on June 4 for a block party. The Public
Works Director had no objections.
-9-
MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL - APRIL 11, 1983
g. Mr. Warden stated that an arcade license will be issued
to Bob Lawrence subject to providing three automobile parking spaces.
He noted that an appeal will be forthcoming.
Mr. Grimes remarked that there could be a moratorium established
if the Council denied.
Jim Cook spoke on behalf of the downtown merchants and would
like to see a moratorium imposed to study the issue. He felt that
the new place would not be a proper location,
Council directed staff to provide a recommendation and get legal
advice in time for the next Council meeting.
The meeting adjourned to closed session at 11:25 p.m. and
returned to regular session at 12 : 00 a.m. , at which time Council
adjourned to April 21, 1983, at 7 : 30 p.m.
Recorded by:
BARBARA NORRIS, City Clerk
By:
PATSY A. HESTER
Deputy City Clerk
-10-
0 0
M E M O RAN D U M
TO: City Manager Li s�'r'ri '�c
FROM: Finance Director
SUBJECT: Audit Agreement for Fiscal Year ending June 30 , 1983
DATE: April 19, 1983
Attached is the Agreement for Auditing Services between
Robert M. Moss Accounting Corporation and the City for Fiscal
Year 1982-83. Agreement for services is for $2,800 which in-
cludes the required Revenue Sharing Audit for the Federal Govern-
ment. This Agreement is identical to prior agreements executed
for past audits.
I recommend the City Council accept this Agreement as stated.
• This recommendation is based primarily on maintaining continuity
with an auditor who is very familiar with both the municipal
process and our computerized accounting system. In addition,
this accountancy. firm has provided excellent service not only
during the audit process, but throughout the entire year.
RALPH H. DOWELL, JR.
RHD:ad
c •AGREEMENT FOR AUDITING SERVICO
This agreement made and entered into this 28th day of March, 1983, •
between the CITY OF ATASCADERO CALIFORNIA, herein called "CITY"
and ROBERT M. MOSS ACCOUNTANCY CORPORATION, 802 East Main Street, Santa
Maria, California, herein called the "AUDITOR".
PARTIES
WHEREAS, it is the intention of the CITY to provide for the examination
of its financial statements, and WHEREAS, the AUDITOR is a Certified Public
Accountant, duly authorized to practice and licensed as such by the Califonia State
Board of Accountancy and experienced in City and Special District auditing;
THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, conditions and
premises hereinafter contained, the CITY hereby engaged AUDITOR, and AUDITOR
hereby agrees to examine the financial statements of all funds of the CITY.
It is understood that the services performed by the AUDITOR is in the capacity
of an independent contractor and not as an officer, agent, or employee of the
CITY.
AUDITING PROCEDURES AND SCOPE
The examination shall be made in accordance with generally accepted
auditing standards and accordingly shall include such tests of the accounting
records and such other auditing procedures as the AUDITOR considers necessary
in the circumstances in order to allow for the expression of an opinion on the
financial statements of all funds of the CITY. It is understood that such
procedures are not designed primarily to disclose defalcations or other
irregularities.
•
T -2-
AGREEMENT FOR AUDITING SERVICES
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INTERNAL CONTROL
AUDITOR shall observe the adequacy of the system of internal control
and if weaknesses are noted, make appropriate recommendations. AUDITOR'S
comments shall be included in a separate letter to be issued as soon as
possible after the conclusion of the examination.
PERIOD COVERED BY AGREEMENT
This agreement shall cover the audit of fiscal year beginning July 1, 1982.
COMPLETION OF AUDIT REPORT
AUDITOR shall deliver Ten (10) copies of their report as
soon as possible after the examination has been completed.
CONSIDERATION
Said auditing services will be performed by qualified persons.
Fees for services rendered may be billed as work progresses, but not
more than once a month. Such fees shall be paid promptly by the CITY.
The total payment to the AUDITOR for services and expenses rendered
under this agreement shall be $2,800.00 for the fiscal year.
The maximum annual fee stipulated above contemplates that conditions
satisfactory to the normal progress and completion of the examination will be
encountered and that CITY accounting personnel will furnish the agreed upon
assistance in connection with the preparation of necessary detail schedules
and the production of documents for AUDITOR'S inspection. However, if
AUDITOR feels unusual circumstances are encountered which make it necessary
-3-
AGREEMENT FOR AUDITING SERVICES
CONSIDERATION (Continued) .
for AUDITOR to do additional work, AUDITOR shall report such conditions
immediately to the responsible CITY officials, and if both parties agree
that circumstances are unusual they may negotiate such additional compensation
as appears justified.
EXTRAORDINARY SERVICES
It is contemplated that from time to time the CITY may wish AUDITOR
to perform accounting and auditing services in addition to those which are
usual and customary in making an examination of the financial statements of
the CITY. If so, AUDITOR shall be compensated for any such services performed
which are validly authorized at their normal hourly rates in effect at that
time. However, if such additional services require the expertise of
consultants, AUDITOR and CITY may negotiate separate rates and estimated fees
for the work contemplated.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have signed this agreement as of
the day and year herein first above written.
Date:
By: By:
CITY OF ATASCADERO ROBERT M. MOSS ACCOUNTANCY CORPORATION
APPROVED AS TO FOnM
C A fff
CITY ATTORNEY
• _M E_M 0_R A_N_D_U_M_
TO: City Manager
FROM: Finance Director
SUBJECT: Transfer of funds to Auto and Equipment Maintenance
Account
DATE: April 19, 1983
Recommend approval to transfer $900 from the Contingency Re-
serve to the Fire Department Auto and Equipment Maintenance Ac-
count #01-30-2150. In the event an insurance settlement is made
for our vehicle damage, such funds will be credited to the Con-
tingency Reserve.
• RALPH H. DOWELL, JR. 70: C# �Qit M41 #4 G$ Tn n. Di ff
*3
RHD:ad 7(1 LF d 4U'VV'n 1
L2061, 51 4*4 5I0gaNC4 jr0u-a0,"t'6tt ev
7n41-d4t , 1ftc&0 Ctc t O Ce u a rZzjp As' R N`0 5 ac
0 K 50Qr4tA- L u a a 14 Pt.9 w NIC4Y S A-tt a 0 E 2--
f/r2.14 I dILE '&%4 r cL IC fl 0 f P ole //*7^�P Er /1.AI C
{-t tv 'f- 1 ( .1LT t/r r4 t et C' 5xrr IC M ?`
V-✓�-" UU
e0 A& n &?4 D &V'- z '7 P 1+ 2rP neje��t1E,
_M_E_M_O_R A_N_D_U_M i
TO: Ralph Dowell , Finance Director
FROM: Mike Hicks, Fire Chief
SUBJECT: Transfer of Funds
Due to an unforeseen accident, earlier this year, involv-
ing a Fire Department vehicle which required the expenditure
of approximately $900 .00 from Account #01-30-2150 , this ac-
count is now overdrawn.
I request that $900 .00 be transferred from Contingency
Reserves into the above mentioned account. There is a pos-
sibility of this money being recovered once insurance claims
have been settled.
MIKE HICKS
4-15-83
MH:pj
i
• _M E_M 0_R A N_D_U_M
TO: City Manager yj C/
FROM: Finance Director
SUBJECT: Emergency roof repair, Fire Department
DATE: April 19, 1983
Attached memorandum from Chief Hicks details the need for
emergency roof repair for the City Fire Station. The Public
Works Director concurs with this request and agrees that repairs
should be completed as soon as possible to preclude further dam-
age.
Recommend approval of $4,000 from Contingency Reserve to
Building Maintenance Account #01-44-2160.
RALPH H. DOWELL, JR.
RHD:ad
•
M E M O R A N D U M •
TO: Ralph Dowell , Finance Director
FROM: Mike Hicks, Fire Chief
SUBJECT: Emergency Roof Repair
Due to normal wear, along with an excessively harsh winter,
the roof on the City Fire Station Building has developed
several severe leaks . We have attempted to patch these leaks
with little success. I had hoped that we would be able to
wait until FY 83/84 to make necessary repair, however, it has
gotten worse with each storm and the roof leaks are starting
to cause interior damage.
I feel , that we should re-roof the building as soon as pos-
sible in order to avoid any additional damage. The estimates
I have received, thus far, are around $4 ,000 .00 for a twenty
year guarantee composition shingle roof.
I recommend that $4 ,000 .00 be transferred from Contingency
Reserves into Building Maintenance Account #01-44-2160 in
order for these repairs to be done immediately.
a
MIKE HICKS
4-15-83
MH:pj
•
Ab
M E M O R A N D U M
• TO: Murray Warden
FROM: Public Works
SUBJECT: Road Acceptance of Llano, Puerta, and Lomitas Roads.
The above named roads were constructed as a requirement of a County
parcel map CO 77-58, initiated by Glenn Millhollin. All three roads were
completed while Atascadero was still a part of the County. County Engineering
did the inspections and the as-built drawings were certified by the County
Engineer. The roads were not accepted at that time due to the lack of an offer
to dedicate. When the offers were finally recorded in January 1980, the City
had incorporated and the project was caught between the two different agencies.
Engineering became aware of the project and it's status after several
phone requests from Glenn Millhollin's agent, Don Messer. We then conducted
field inspections to insure that the roads were in acceptable condition;
• which they were.
Public Works is recommending that City Council accept Llano, Puerta,
and Lomitas Roads for maintenance into the City road system. Following are
the maps and legal descriptions of the limits of acceptance for each road.
They are marked Exhibits A,B,C,D,E.
(:: a)4�Q M ,
PATIENCE J. WEST ,
4-18-83
��c�s6cY Germ¢
•
RESOLUTION NO. 19-83
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
ACCEPTING PORTIONS OF LLANO, PUERTA, AND LOMITAS
ROADS INTO THE CITY STREET SYSTEM.
The Council of the City of Atascadero resolves as follows:
1. Pursuant to the provisions of section 1806 of the California Streets
and Highways Code, the following street is hereby accepted for maintenance
into the City street system.
The portions of Llano, Puerta, and Lomitas Roads to be accepted are
more particularly described as follows:
That portion of Llano Road shown on 3AC/MAPS/59, on file at the County
Recorders Office, fronting Lots 10, 10A, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, of Blk 43,
(Exhibit E) .
All of Puerta Road as shown on 3AC/MAPS/58A, (Exhibit A) and the road
widening and extension of Puerta as shown on (Exhibit B and C) .
All of Lomitas Road as shown on 3AC/MAPS/59, (Exhibit D) , fronting Lots
10A,22,23,24, Blk 43.
2. A copy of this resolution shall be furnished to:
Glen Millhollin, Don Messer, and Daniel J. Stewart
On motion by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember
, the Atascadero City Council hereby adopts the foregoing
resolution in its entirety on the following roll-call vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Adopted this day of 1983.
Rolfe Nelson, Mayor
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
Barbara Norris, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO F RM: UR Y L./AIARDEN, City Manager
Allen Grimes, City Attorney
DANIEL J. STEWART WSSOC., ENGINEERS & SUIEEYORS
EXHIBIT A PUERTA ROAD
A strip of Land in Block 43 of Atascadero Colony in the City of
Atascadero according to map filed in Book 3 of Maps at Page 58A in
the office of the County Recorder of San Luis Obispo County,
State of California, said strip of land being 45 . 00 feet wide
and being 20. 00 feet left and 25 . 00 feet right of the following
described line
Beginning at the centerline intersection of Puerta Road and
Santa Lucia Road (formerly Santa Ana Road) according to said map;
thence N42028100"E, 278. 87 feet, thence along a tangent curve to
the left whose radius is 286. 60 feet "through a central angle of
68°10 ' 00" for an arc length of 340. 98 feet; thence N25°42 ' 00"W,
245. 80 feet= thence along a tangent curve to the right whose radius
is 2864 . 80 feet-'.through a central angle of 5°50' 00" for an arc length
of 291. 67 feet; `"thence N19052 ' 00"W, 228.81 feet to the end of said
Puerta Road. ,
Also including a 20-foot radius right-of-way line at the intersection
of the northeasterly line of Santa Lucia Road (formerly Santa Ana
Road) with the southeasterly line of the 45 foot strip of land
described above.
lig O
a 42L
® t 343.I! —
o
ails
too
� � o
n
xZ� O
u I
4 I
x �W
n
a•
O WD
a
db '.ASCI 70 i
1
X06. 8 a I
Oat • $ ' w
� � IIS� Sr v
a p
� s �
oa yq� .102 �T OZ
r '
• z N O `1 I to
P 0
° ss Vs
d) (M I
A �
t �
aiz.ao�— a I
�N O
I
aso
I
-�
to
gcn �
A�8
r �
22 ' a
DANIEL J. STEWART NgSOC., ENGINEERS & SURA&YORS
qW 1W
EXHIBIT B (PUERTA ROAD WIDENING)
A portion of Lot 10A, Block 43 of Atascadero Colony in the City
of Atascadero according to map filed in Book 3 of Maps at Page
58A in the office of the County Recorder of San Luis Obispo
County, State of California and being more particularly described
as follows:
Beginning at northwesterly terminus of the course noted on said
map as N19052 ' 00"W, 228. 81 feet, said point also being the end
of Puerta Road as shown on said map; thence N70°08 ' 00"E, 25. 00 feet;
thence on a line parallel to and 25 . 00 feet from the centerline of
said Puerta Road, S19052 ' 00"E, 228. 81 feet; thence N13°35 ' 38"W,
238. 05 feet; thence N_42054125"W, 12. 77 feet; thence S47005 ' 35"W,
50. 00 feet to the Point of Beginning.
17-L
W
N a:
4 !
J
00
�ifObyy (54 �v
.pq
Sa.
v O
N v
DANIEL J. STEWART §&SSOC., ENGINEERS & SURdJYORS
MW
EXHIBIT C (PUERTA ROAD EXTENSION)
A 50. 00 foot strip of land in Lot 10A, Block 43 of Atascadero
Colony in the City of Atascadero according to Map filed in Book
3 of Maps at Page 58A in the office of the County Recorder of
San Luis Obispo County, State of California the centerline of
which is more particularly described as follows :
Commencing at the northwestly terminus of the course noted
on said map as N19052100"W, 228. 81 feet, said point also being
the . end of Puerta Road as shown on said map; thence N70°08 ' 00"E,
25. 00 feet to the Point of Beginning; thence parallel to and
25. 00 feet from the southwesterly line of said Lot 10A, N42°54' 25"W,
917. 62 feet more or less to the centerline of Lomitas Road as said
Road is shown on said map.
Also including a 20-foot radius right-of-way line at the intersection
of the northeasterly line of the 50. 00 foot strip of land described
above with the southeasterly line of Lomitas Road; said southeasterly
line being 25 . 00 feet distance from the centerline of Lomitas Road.
N 49E Ci 5 O
Y71 34f 13
O �
CES O i
u
O) N e
O
Ig�,, (
• b O ��,,a I
-%170� "Y
.� 4 .49 a � I
to
rn
1� s
oa p qp O y I O
r e CS •� �t0 �Oi O � ?�
spy c w
AU 14
o
I
I
2 D I
�08
�mm o
�En Q O�Q
AA8
o I
- W
DAWEL J. STEWART §ASSOC., ENGINEERS & SUR�&YORS
1W 1W
EXHIBIT D (LOMITAS ROAD)
A strip of land in Block 43 of Atascadero Colony in the City of
Atascadero according to Map filed in Book 3 of Maps at Page 59
in the office of the County Recorder of San Luis Obispo ,County,
State of California, said strip of land being 45. 00 feet wide
and being 20 . 00 feet left and 25. 00 feet right of the following
line.
Beginning at the northeasterly terminus of the course noted on
said map as N43039 ' 00"E, 355: 60 feet; thence accord ng: ta_._said map along
the centerline of Lomitas Road and along a tangent curve to the
left whose radius is 191. 10 `feet through a central angle of
80°50 ' 00" for an arc length of 269. 61 feet; thence N37°11 ' 00"W,
928. 70 feet;-' thence along a tangent curve to the left whose radius
is 191. 10 feet through a central angle of 37°30 ' 00" for an arc
length of 125. 07 feet;-' thence .N74°41' 00"W, 89. 80 feet; thence
along a tangent curve to the right whose radius is 636. 80 feet
through a central angle of 18040100" for an arc length of 207 . 47
feet; thence N56001' 00"W, 183. 35 feet to the northwesterly line of
Lot 10A in said Block 43; thence continuing along the centerline
of Lomitas Road now being a strip of land 40. 00 feet wide and lying
20. 00 feet on each side of said centerline, N56°01 ' 00"W, 454. 24
feet; thence along a tangent curve to the right whose radius
is 1909. 90 feet through a central angle of 8 ' 00 ' 00" for an arc
length of 266 . 67 feet; thence along a tangent curve to the left
whose radius is 716 . 30 feet through a central angle of 17°30 ' 00"
for an arc length of 218 . 78 feet; thence along a tangent to the
right whose radius is 573. 10 feet through a central angle of
13°56 ' 00" for an arc length of 139 . 37 feet to the center of and
including a standard San Luis Obispo County cul de sac.
M 9 E si jajyy
® 6 w
ap ` Yw J4 3.is
A U P I
u
asv (
'+ O
O I
�``66 36R 70,
C gpQ.40
O � V
p
rn
a
rn
e
w
' o I
5.sc•7r-za�
ruq
ro �
IL40
I
I
I
sg8 i n
z2 i
W
ro
M
�� M
a
sjr+y9 O a
a
�i
to
M
Z
a w
0%
rn
nrn M
a
o SOA)3
aw
Cn
i Erol
E-
W g � "
�- �
o <
� w
DANIEL J. STEWART WSSOC., ENGINEERS & SUWYORS
EXHIBIT E (LLANO ROAD)
A Strip of land in Block 43 of Atascadero Colony in the Citv 0
of Atascadero, according to Maps filed in Book 3 of Maps at Page 58A
Page 59 in the Office of the County Recorder of San Luis Obispo County,
State of California, said strip of land being 40 . 00 feet wide
and lying 20. 00 feet on each side of the following described line.
Beginning at the most northerly corner of Lot 15 in said Block 43,
said corner being in the centerline of Llano Road; thence continuing
along said centerline according to said maps S64°13 ' 00"E, 83. 30
feet; thence along a tangent curve to the right whose radius is
286. 60 feet through a _central angle of 24130 ' 00" for an arc length
of 122. 55 feet;' thence S39043 ' 00"E, 1196 . 90 'feet; thence along
a tangent curve to the right whose radius is 636 . 80 feet- through
a central angle of 9°00 ' 00" for an arc length of 100 . 03rfeet;
thence S30043100"E, 18. 00' feet to the northwesterly line of
Lot 10A in said Block 43; thence continuing along the centerline
of Llano Road according to said maps accomodating a strip of:.land
45 . 00 feet wide being 20. 00 feet left and 25.00 feet right of said
centerline, S30043100"E, 403. 60 feet; thence along a tangent curve to
the left whose radius is 716 . 30 feet through a central angle of
16°00 ' 00" for an arc length of 200. 03 feet; thence S46°43 ' 00"E,
217. 00 feet to the Southeasterly line of said Lot 10A; thence
continuing along said centerline accomodating a strip of land
40 . 00 feet wide being 20. 00 feet on each side of said centerline;
N88017 ' 00"E, 355. 20 feet; thence along a tangent curve to the
right whose radius is 143.40 feet through a central angle of
46018 ' 00"E, for an arc length of 115 . 87 feet; thence S45°25 ' 00"E,
181.96 feet to the southeasterly line of Lot 10 in said Block 43.
• v
a
M /
ps
a
ss�
to
M ;
P
D i
6
ato
019 ro
VC
1• ' os"
L
m r
3
m
z
� l
a
w • w
ecb.
ru
� 2
V! a
v
M r- y
c C
e
�o c �a din
z
C
e `
� I
a
a �
I
~ E
=s> I •
A
� o •
I sveo,vs,oN O
o.
`IVE .
I D
OZ
I �
o
� ow
i
I ~ ,
O
V
w
I ,
O
� 1
aQ
o ®r
� I
ss
2y
v• O
s
Y
• 0
I
M E M 0 R A N D U M - - -- --- -
TO: CITY MANAGER April 19 , 1983
FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT LA 821228 : 1 (AT 83-075)
LOCATION: 9301, 9311 Musselman and 10245 E1 Camino Real (Ptns.
of Lot 4 , Block 7 of Eaglet #2)
APPLICANT: Merle Wahlenmaier, Carl Stewart, Ben Hoff (Hilliard)
On March 14 , 1983 the City Council approved tentative Lot Line
Adjustment LA 821228 : 1 (AT 83-075) adjusting existing lot lines
to accommodate an encroaching swimming pool, subject to certain
conditions and in concurrence with the recommendation of the
. Planning Commission.
The zoning is R-4-B-2-D (506) and the General Plan designation is
High Density Multiple Family Residential. Staff review has deter-
mined that all conditions of approval have been met. On April 18,
1983, the Planning Commission recommended acceptance of the Final
Map on its Consent Calendar.
LAWRENCE STEVENS MU RAY WARDEN
Planning Director Cat,
M ager
•
/Ps
OD N
20
;`V1�n�2 �0• �..,... � ' .� t t� ,-• �. W` �r 2.i�hZY It �W �/_ �e �
��� ^ � . . `• � f �� n; � i` pk� hN �� J0.
h�� 20 �. VZ + � M � `a� 4W • eM ��W
D�Whyy2 1 O %40 OK J �vVV, t �ti" O��mta K 4 W
w Y{
N31'21"1L"NRI
16o--1 R1M -
>. O W O .•... y p
22;W o IC
e2 Z f 'S'
ek3Q. REM
g
-
r. > 2� h vW,��y ig�; �y� � 4,•�� S '�'3 F li'.V�: �
Q Q r2 * C '°`+°uQWW�J
Z 3 ¢ W`0p2 %�' `1: 4 �`x a WO �'= d W< 't• '^ -
h -
tLJ3e
N� O�Z kQQ� y 2 � ��4 a0r� �e�hh � r •'j } -
W >OWyyx1 00 ee 3 R2> ~, ' .� � ,�,s -• -
W2 es�"�o�gW 4 �• 2 Wii ''7 S r, ))S' �.:. ! � 9•� f ,eil . A �.
R�h i°> W Q•�2 �> e ti 't Z¢> 4 K� 1 :\ N3T/!�'�! lY/CYJ.2e M'
W o��ys3.g2eoo °a o2> s
-
WW3voiW xap gWg y3y �~ g ?�4�}
ph�4°+4 y+2�emp 2 Y� O y+ 231°.e �pZ � i � ,
bWOi`�ZNQ ONQ J W ey W � 77
CWy
W�
f)
AQS>3 Wv2W ? VJ yi l>. _ W W Q J 1°y n - •:-f.v
WW>m Wtj�:� W W Q > O �m°W � '¢ �_� :� � .< ;• A� � .� n .�.
33$�i�� °_� r• 2 2 WJ2ac 9 ) 'k m t At h W
{ ii. 2• ':.��t i �. v± { tib?ix S hN
i e \ zg=+.4 °21 ~ 2�`- fe to '.•F Q^'.6 :.ems s y
.$
k4
sl �t
QQQ--- 3b'1 r.
�4 (,� 20�OQ Z i� �W zy4 W {.- •q ,p♦ _ -
Wf" "J Q>wN4 i WW WZ
�"
fes. �Qx ' > Vp 3W � � �• yo '. �4 a I ;' i
� W2 1:.. V C iJ ��`, _'fit�•1 t a t t , / it
-
LiWf
IiiII ~�
it
j'�,R,�li2 VCW b W2 A � W°V>W p b �• `y�. i �'
V O�=Vyp\y+> � Q � s,2�eo 2 I•. �.. ? tom. N�4'2! 2N .f><•'1- NL �
�`'•�4W2eeo h 3� p \ ti4N40 a W�., t:. 8('� ¢? 1 'Cr �
Z3�W roti 2C � 'Mo � � �3jt.N 2 It.>. w\ h /-�� �Ir✓ i5' b
3.',R��� 4 ZBpy � 'mI pS�at'Q� e�i Qo' • \ i!j �• ..
EL C.4a/i.YO rYERc i
yW Wo3�W2 ti y pti 3 \ F`22�w2 1. ',i n •
C'w�2t�� o� (j�.005 �VI ���oee3 t-'i�� •� --y _ +
• M E M O R A N D U M
TO: CITY MANAGER April 19, 1983
FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: ROAD EXCEPTION EX821124 :1
LOCATION: 6625 Santa Cruz Road (Lot 19 , Block 48)
APPLICANT: Elwood Garlick (Daniel J. Stewart)
REQUEST: To allow waiver or modification of conditions on Tentative
Parcel Map AT 820318 :1 (Garlick/Stewart) relating to con-
struction of road improvements along the property frontage
and back to the nearest improved section of Santa Cruz
Road.
On April 4, 1983 , the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing
on the above-referenced subject unanimously recommending denial of the
• road exception request based on Findings 1-2 as listed in the attached
Staff Report.
In discussion among the Commission, it was noted that the access to
the property could be dangerous if a road was not provided and that
potential development of other property in that area also pointed to
the need for an adequate road.
Elwood Garlick, applicant, appeared and spoke in support of the re-
quest. He stated that constructing the roadway would necessitate the
removal of several large trees and the hillside would lose its at-
tractive nature due to the amount of cut and fill that would be
necessary.
No one else appeared on the matter.
4mit
LAWRENCE STEVENS 14fJgRyk L. ARDEN
Planning Director Cit Manager
• ps
CITY OF ATASCADERO
IWM lY � � mV OKaNl.ltp .
1918 a 1979 Planning Department April 4, 1983
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: EXCEPTION EX821124:1
LOCATION: 6625 Santa Cruz Road (Lot 19, Block 48)
APPLICANT: Elwood Garlick (Daniel J. Stewart)
REQUEST: To allow waiver or modification of conditions on Tentative
Parcel Map AT 820318 :1 (Garlick/Stewart) relating to con-
struction of road improvements along the property frontage
and back to the nearest improved section of Santa Cruz
Road.
BACKGROUND
1. Existing Zoning: A-1-BV-3-D(508)
2. General Plan: Suburban Single Family Residential •
3. Environmental Determination: The Planning Director has determined
that the previously accepted Conditional Negative Declaration
shall apply to this project.
4. Site Conditions: A 15 foot wide dirt road has been cut from the
bank along the frontage and runs alongside the southerly bank of
a creek which empties to the northeast onto a floodplain. The
centerline of Santa Cruz Road generally straddles this creek bank.
Numerous trees including oaks lie within the full right-of-way.
The current road drops approximately 50 feet in elevation from the
improved section to the current terminus at the northerly corner
of the lot. The difference in elevation between the current road
and the bottom of the creek varies from approximately 20 feet to
an equal elevation at the northerly corner of the lot.
5. Project Description: The applicant is requesting that Conditions
14 and 15 of Tentative Parcel Map AT 820318 :1 be waived or modi-
fied such that improvement of Santa Cruz Road would not be re-
quired. The applicant states that field work indicated that a
great amount of cut and fill would be required to construct the
roadway to the standard asked for in the tentative approval. The
cut would necessitate the removal of oak trees and create large
scarring in the hillside. The fill would also require the removal
of trees and encroach into the streambed that parallels the road-
way. The applicant states that only five additional lots. would be •
using the road (see, attached letter) .
0111,
Re: Road Exception (Garlick Stewart
P /
Conditions #14 and #15 are as follows:
• "14. Santa Cruz Road shall be constructed along the frontage of
the property to City Standards including a minimum paved
width of twenty (20) feet with three (3) feet of graded
shoulder on each side of the paving prior to recordation of
the Final Map.
a. Improvements are to be constructed under an inspection
agreement and encroachment permit issued by the Public
Works Department.
b. Improvement drawings, including improvements to control
grading and erosion within the road right-of-way, shall
be submitted to the Public Works Department for review
and approval.
15 . Santa Cruz Road, between the subject property and the im-
proved section of Santa Cruz Road, shall be improved with
an all-weather surface. Said improvement is to be maintained
by the property owner (s) . "
STAFF COMMENTS
On March 3 , 1983, the Subdivision Review Board composed of Fred Buss,
Associate Planner, and Patience West, Senior Engineering Technician,
met with the applicant' s engineer , Daniel Stewart. The following
items of concern were discussed with regard to the exception request:
1. City policy on number of lots off private drives - potential
buildout could be 5-9 additional lots.
2. Cost involved with improvement in protecting the stream.
The City Engineer ' s response to the request for an exception (at-
tached) indicates that the road improvement is feasible. Staff review
of the site indicates that substantial improvements will be required
to protect the creek and construct the road to the improved width.
Staff' s main concern is the level of service that Santa Cruz Road may
eventually provide. There are still six lots that may eventually take
access from this portion of Santa Cruz Road not including the appli-
cant' s two lots. Additionally, the two parcels (Lots 17 and 18 of
Block 48) lying beyond the applicant' s parcel also have the ability to
each be split which would add two additional lots to this total. In
all, there is the potential of 10 single family residences using this
particular unimproved section of Santa Cruz Road. The Institute of
Transportation Engineers in its 1976 Trip Generation Report suggests
that single family residences generate 10 trips per dwelling unit
total each weekday. In this case, that could ultimately translate to
100 tripends per day on this road. For this reason and the fact that
five lots constitute a tract, the City has always determined that no
more than four lots should access off a road developed to to private
drive standards.
2
*_
Re: Road Exception .'821124 :1 (Garlick/Stewar
Section 21.48.135 of the Lot Division Ordinance (attached) specifies
the requirements necessary to obtain an exception from the improvement
requirements. Basically three criteria must be satisfied before the
Subdivision Review Board can grant the exception:
1) That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting
the property.
2) That the exception is necessary for the preservation and en-
joyment of a substantial property right of the petitioner.
3) That the granting of the exception will not be detrimental
to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the
vicinity in which the property is situated, and that it will
not:
a. Be detrimental to the traffic circulation system, the
public utility and storm drainage systems;
b. Result in any increase in the City maintenance costs;
C. Be detrimental to, nor degrade, any portion or part of
the improvement work involved in the project.
As to item#1 above, the Subdivision Review Board concurs with the
City Engineer in that there are special conditions affecting develop-
ment of this road in light of the alignment next to the creeek. How-
ever, the Subdivision Review Board cannot find any substantial proper-
ty right of the petitioner that would necessitate an exception to
preserve (item #2) . Nor does the Subdivision Review Board agree (by
the previous discussion) that a lower level of improvement would not
be detrimental to the traffic circulation system ( item #3a) . The
Subdivision Review Board is concerned about the service level required
of ten possible lots. The City' s maintenance costs would be increased
negligibly if the road is constructed to City standards ( item #3b) .
Granting the exception would not be detrimental nor degrade any por-
tion or part of the improvement work involved in the project (item
#3c) .
Section 21.48.135c of the Lot Division Ordinance states: "The Subdi-
vision Review Board shall not recommend approval of the exception re-
quest unless it affirmatively finds that the evidence sustains the
request regarding each of the issues set forth in subsection (b)
thereof. " The Subdivision Review Board cannot affirmatively find evi-
dence sustaining the request in all the issues.
FINDINGS
1. The exception is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment
of a substantial property right of the petitioner.
3
o.
Re: Road Exception OP'821124 :1 Garlick StewarP ( /
2. The granting of the exception may be detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity in which
the property is situated, and it may be detrimental to the traffic
circulation system.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Department recommends denial of Exception EX 821124 :1
based upon the above Findings.
ACTION
The Planning Commission should, by motion, direct Staff as deemed
appropriate.
REPORT PREPARED BY:
FRED' BLISS
Associate Planner
��t ��!��t1"✓3
REPORT APPROVED BY: A
LAWRENCE STEVENS
Planning Director
Ps
4
21 .48.1351 Improvement reouirements-exceptions therefrom.
(a) All improvements hereafter mentioned shall conform to those required by
the standard improvement specifications and drawings of the county as described in
Section 21 .28.010, recognizing that the exception procedure is available for
unusual circumstances. Under the provisions for exceptions, road improvements in
rural areas may be of a standard equal to that of the county road to which it
connects.
(b) Variation from standard improve^ents specificacions , required offers of
dedication , and/or the standard drawings of the county may be requested by the
applicant upon written application to the county engineer setting forth the
following facts with respect thereto:
(1 ) That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the
property;
(2) That the exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoy^ent
of a substantial property right of the petitioner;
(3) That the granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity in which the
property is situated, and that it will not:
i
(a) Be detrimental t0 the traffic circulation system, the public
utility and storm drainage systems;
(b) Result in any increase in the county's ,maintenance costs; j
I
(c) Be detrimental to, nor degrade, any portion or part of the
improve:,,ent work involved in the project.
(c) In performing its responsibilities Pursuant to Sections 21 .48.070 and I
21 .48.00"0 hereof, the subdivision review board shall consider the applicant' s
request for an exception together with the engineer' s reply. In the event the I
applicant is dissatisfied with the recor;,mendation of the subdivision review board
or any portion thereof, he may appeal , pursuant to the provisions of Section
21 .43.100 hereof, to the planning commission for an additional advisory recom-
mendaticn to the board of supervisors. The subdivision review board shall not
recomrr,end approval of the exception request unless it affir^atively finds that the
evidence sustains the request regarding each of the issues set forth in subsection
(b) hereof.
.,. � 49
NJi+/!E T1G.as �.
u 1,7 3V x
pq 23-89
S".%O R.;3A T22A P19 TT i I�� '• .
S � 1
1
62 AC..
t °7�a a3 1 l ;, n i i /o �r„a
a 16 16 .Q Z
24
a g PTN.50 1 ;
k.
t°ROAD RNi6122A \ 3g
S,At� +mob ' S 4g
GAS CIA
-
Oo C
f 26 YY. N ^' 1 _ _ 4.03 AC
M.23-e9
w
50 2 03 _
�\ 1
1
--------------- M ;PTN. �2 i G
AC
PTN. N
i 1
RES_j 5 �
1
A+ 8
.. ;.: ; 973 AC: { ✓_��jy , -/•F+ `
�
Irk .+.•!ti,", / 27 ' IY I+r 70
G4w 7 337AC/
Fxt \ Q 20 k !A 6
r - 1 1,21AC IYI
O
• ) w Case 31.f0 I// i 107 33 / ,�2e.Y N!.6t
.20
• , 2Je' � O-: • � �! ,?I,_ f F �h i Sy"lq
b 20 Y G .,,, {I♦,
3 FR.SI � �✓ ljZ
24
!a �,
� Is
O 4
2a y
t� ir,
tS f0,4
re3 96✓ lh3 PTK F PT
PM.19-21 S67 ,1 t'..� , 328 /4A �3.•<:
v PrN t +. 90 [ 17 Slw. O S
pL
gg 3 .....j L83gC + t y
AF A O MD J» a 3 K
.,_.r 1 9 P�\S4. \PI
_ ! ' 37 •2J�4Ca.a24C 3PTN. p
2F f/ 320.'
e
..k`: O .mss v0 ♦v[ A Prk
ff
13
2' , t a2E 3S .PTN. L _
/.9 A_
, a B +y �• 4! c O_ C. /a r _ _
O O'
_ .2.364C
+° As
1 P 7K rrir
• ?M P1{18-74 dl0 Y q 37 -
M BB�AC3 P9.65 s7s + t�. �:', 0 7 ?ZKI $p
Ind B, C3,Pg 69, to 0 + as c
R M. Bk.AC3-
-
33A
334 FR.48 I
•n°�.:;+' � 093 s
41
# Y v� ,!' ,x...[" k• V,:r :.�_asC� et® xc$ fy.�y�•isw+'7
S t Z
1 't�
- INCORPORATED JULY 2.1978
f ` ADMINISTRATION BUILDING -
POST OFFICE BOX 747
ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93423
2 T jJ PHONE: (805) 466-8000
( 's c, J �
DATE
, *•�w�ar" ^�cs.jp-' .; �lAl.,
v CtcC..-t�"��L'r�-`-`Z--
TO:
J
FROM:
SUBJECT:
rq
h T
�J Lr
�x.W s ra � 3. w Yom... x . 1 ! --{-- t, � � �: +."x.^-a-rP+•..k•!
Ct.a--�.
L� �C
a� -",n� k+. 3 •' X 3 r"s#� _ TX � �L �� /� � 1.�
C�% `j'` y
�✓ r
CITY ATTORNEY FIRE DEPARTMENT
POLICE DEPARTMENT
P. O. BOX 749 6005 LEWIS AVENUE
ATASCADERO, CA 93423 (805) 466-8600 ATASCADERO, CA 93422
(805) 466-5678 (805) 466-2141
4.
�z.�u, s ^�{�� '7�"v�F i `+.b itr� '4^,..��'�Z'•-33;'�xfcx? -t,''. - ,�sYe -we .3�-, r+a��k i,��9:� a �a�:�k9 ��sum a`'•�+���-"r z `" ,air '=.=u s�v
'�= ."''" _ -�., v. -"' �-�''�} �^rrti �.•��. v"�CE ��'t'",d.s„x�,'+Cps c L..,,q�;`^'�=cs4' ��n``'�ss •,-'ti *�-5:�� �'Pz�'�•'��`-K�, �-�.v3� r -`�
DIEL J T A ASC.
. S STEWART
ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS
Post Office Box 2038 Post Office Box 687
597 Twelfth Street 4450 EI Camino Real
Paso Robles, CA 93446 Atascadero, CA 93423
(805) 238-0700 (805) 466-5717
November 15, 1982
City of Atascadero
Engineering Department
City Hall
Atascadero, CA. 93423
RE: AT 82-56 Garlick-Santa Cruz Road
Road Exception Request
Gentlemen:
Based on field evidence that was not available at the time
of approval of the tentative map, I hereby request the city
of Atascadero to waive and/or modify the conditions of approval
relating to the construction of Santa Cruz Road.
Our field work indicated that a great amount of cut and fill
would be required to construct the roadway to the standard
asked for in the tentative approval. The cut would necessitate
the removal of oak trees and create large scarring in the hillside.
The fill would also require the removal of trees and encroach
into the streambed that parallels the roadway. The users of this
roadway would be very limited since there are only 5 lots in
addition to this one that could be developed.
Please proceed with the processing and advise this office as
to the amount of fees required to process this request so that
I may contact my client for payment.
Very truly yours ,
t;
DANIEL J. STEWART, R.C.E.
DJS/l
cc: E. Garlick
ORDINANCE NO. 61
• AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO ADDING
CHAPTER 13 TO TITLE 6 OF THE ATASCADERO MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO THE REMOVAL OF WEEDS, RUBBISH,
AND SIMILAR MATERIALS
The Council of the City of Atascadero ordains as follows:
Section 1. Chapter 13 of Title 6 is added to the Atascadero Munici-
pal Code to read as follows:
6-13 .01. Chapter 13. Removal of Weeds, Rubbish and® Similar Materials.
Whenever the Fire Chief or his authorized representatives shall
find weeds , rubbish, or similar material upon any property, lands, or
lots in the City, which in his opinion is or may become a fire hazard,
he shall cause to be given to the owner of said property a notice to
remove such weeds , rubbish, or other material which may constitute a
fire hazard in the manner hereinafter provided in this part.
6-13.02 . Definitions
The following words and phrases, when used in this part, shall be
defined as follows unless otherwise indicated:
• (a) "Council" shall mean the City Council of the City.
(b) "Debris" shall mean waste matter, litter , trash , refuse , rub-
bish, dirt, dry grass, dead trees , tin cans, paper , waste
material of every kind, or other unsanitary substance , object,
or condition which is, or when dry may become a fire hazard,
or which is or may become a menace to health, safety, or wel-
fare, or which is offensive to the senses.
(c) "City" shall mean the City of Atascadero.
(d) "Fire Chief" shall mean the Fire Chief of the City or his
authorized representative.
(e) "Property" shall mean and include lands and/or lots.
(f) "Street" includes public streets, alleys , parkways, sidewalks,
and areas between sidewalks and curbs.
(g) "Weeds" shall mean any of the following:
(1) Weeds which, when mature , bear seeds of a downy or
wingy nature;
(2) Sagebrush, chaparral , and any other brush or weeds which
. attain such large growth as to become , when dry, a fire
menace to adjacent improved property;
Ordinance No. 61
Page Two
(3) Weeds which are otherwise noxious or dangerous;
(4) Poison oak and poison ivy which the conditions are such
as to constitute a menace to public health; and
(5) Dry grass, stubble , brush, litter, or other flammable
material which endangers the public safety by creating
a fire hazard.
6-13 .03. Weeds and Debris a Public Nuisance
The City Council may declare, by resolution in accordance with
Sections 39561-39565 of the Government Code, that all weeds that are,
or may become a fire hazard upon or in front of private property to
the center line of adjoining streets in the City are public nuisances.
Also, it shall be unlawful for any property owner in the City to cause
or permit any combustible debris or similar material to be or remain
on any real property in the City or on portions of streets adjoining
such real property to the center line of such streets. It shall be
the duty of every such person to remove and destroy such weeds and/or,
debris. Destruction by burning within the City shall be unlawful un-
less the written permission of the Fire Chief is first obtained.
6-13 .04 . Notice to Destroy or Remove Weeds and Debris •
In the event the person or persons owning, occupying, renting,
managing, or controlling any real property in the City shall fail to
remove therefrom and from the portions of streets adjoining such
property all weeds and debris in accordance with the provisions of
this part, it shall be the duty of the Fire Chief or his authorized
representatives to notify such person or persons to remove the same .
Such notice to be conspicuously posted on or in front of the property
on or in front of which the nuisance exists.
As an alternative to posting notice of the resolution and notice
of the meeting when objections will be heard, the City Council may di-
rect the City Clerk, in accordance with Section 39567 .1 of the Govern-
ment Code, to mail written notice of the proposed abatement to all
persons owning property described in the resolution. The City Clerk
shall cause such written notice to be mailed to each person to whom
such described property is assessed in the last equalized assessment
roll available on the date the resolution was adopted by the City Coun-
cil. The address of the owners shown on the assessment roll shall be
conclusively deemed to be the proper address for the purpose of mail-
ing such notice . Such notice shall be mailed at least fourteen (14)
days prior to the time fixed for hearing objections by the City Council .
-2-
Ordinance No. 61
Page Three
6-13 .05 . Form of Notice
The notice shall besubstantiallyin the following form:
NOTICE TO DESTROY WEEDS AND REMOVE
RUBBISH, REFUSE, AND DIRT
Notice is hereby given that on the day of 19 ,
the City Council passed a resolution declaring that noxious or dan-
gerous weeds were growing upon or in front of the property on this
street, and that rubbish, refuse , and dirt were upon or in front of
property on this street, in the City of Atascadero, and more par-
ticularly described in the resolution, and that they constitute
a public nuisance which must be abated by the removal of the weeds,
rubbish, refuse , and dirt. Otherwise they will be removed and the
nuisance abated by the City and the cost of removal assessed upon
the land from or in front of which the weeds, rubbish, refuse , and
dirt are removed and will constitute a lien upon such land until
paid. Reference is hereby made to the resolution for further par-
ticulars. A copy of said resolution is on file in the office of
the City Clerk.
All property owners having any objections to the proposed removal
of the weeds , rubbish, refuse , and dirt are hereby notified to
attend a meeting of the City Council of the City of Atascadero to
be held , when their objections will be heard
and given due consideration.
Dated this day of , 19
Fire Chief
City of Atascadero
6-13.06 . Hearing of Objections
At the time stated in the notices, the Council shall hear and
consider all objections to the proposed removal of weeds , rubbish,
debris , and similar material.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the Council shall allow or
overrule any objections. At that time , the City acquires jurisdic-
tion to proceed and perform the work of abatement. The decision of
the Council is final
6-13.07 . Order to Abate Nuisance
If objections have not been made or after the Council has dis-
posed of those made , it shall order the Fire Chief to abate the
nuisance .
-3-
! i
Ordinance No. 61
Page Four
6-13. 08. Destruction and Removal of Weeds and Debris by City
In the event the person or persons owning, occupying, renting
managing, or controlling real property in the City shall fail to re-
move or destroy weeds and debris in accordance with provisions of
this ordinance within ten (10) calendar days after the hearing of
objections and order to abate nuisance, it shall be the duty of the
Fire Chief and his deputies, assistants, employees, contracting agent,
or other representatives to destroy or remove such weeds and debris,
and they, and each of them, are hereby expressly authorized to enter
upon private property for such purpose, and it shall be unlawful for
any person to interfer, hinder , or refuse to allow them to enter upon
private property for such purpose and to destroy or remove weeds and
debris in accordance with the provisions of this part. Any person
owning, occupying, renting, managing, leasing, or controlling real
property in the City shall have the right to destroy or remove weeds
and debris, or have the same destroyed or removed at his own expense,
at any time prior to the arrival of the Fire Chief or his authorized
representatives for such purpose.
6-13. 09. Account and Report of Cost of Abatement
The Fire Chief shall keep an account of the cost of abatement on
or in front of each separate lot or parcel of land. He shall submit
such itemized written report, showing such cost, to the Council for
confirmation. Such report shall refer to each separate lot or parcel
of land by description sufficiently reasonable to identify the same,
together with the expense proposed to be assessed against it, which
shall include charges sufficient to meet the administrative costs of
the program.
6-13.10 Notice of Report and Hearing
The City Clerk shall post a copy of such report and assessment
list on or near the door of the Council meeting room, together with
the notice of the filing thereof and of the time and place when and
where it will be submitted to the Council for hearing and confirma-
tion. The posting shall be for at least five (5) calendar days prior
to the submission to the Council.
6-13.11. Hearing of Report; Modification; Confirmation of Report
At the time and place fixed for receiving and considering the
report, the Council shall hear the same, together with any protests
or objections of the property owners liable to be assessed for the
abatement. Upon the conclusion of such hearing, the Council shall
then confirm the report by motion and the amount thereof shall consti-
tute a lein on the property assessed until paid. The confirmation of
the assessment by the Council shall be final and conclusive.
6-13. 12. Report to Assessor and Tax Collector; Filing Copy of
Report with County Auditor
A certified copy of the report shall be filed with the County Au-
Ordinance No. 61
Page Five
ditor on or before August 10th of each year for entry of such asses-
ments on the County Tax roll. In the event that the report cannot be
prepared in time for the County Auditor to enter the assessment on the
next immediate tax roll, the certified copy may be filed with the
County Auditor before August 10th of the succeeding year.
6-13.13. Collection of Assessment; Penalties and Procedures for
Foreclosure
The amount of the assessment shall be collected at the time and in
the manner of ordinary, municipal taxes. If delinquent, the amount is
subject to the same penalties and procedure of foreclosure and sale
provided for ordinary municipal taxes.
Section 2. The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be pub-
lished once within fifteen (15) days after its passage in the Atasca-
dero News, a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published and
circulated in this City in accordance with Section 36933 of the Gov-
ernment Code; shall certify the adoption of this ordinance; and shall
cause this ordinance and certification to be entered in the Book of
Ordinances of this City.
Section 3. This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full
force and effect at 12 :01 a.m. on the thirty-first (31st) day after
passage.
The foregoing ordinance was introduced on
and adopted on by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ROLFE NELSON, Mayor
ATTEST:
BARBARA NORRIS, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
ALLEN GRIMES, City Attorney U Y L. ARDEN, City Manager
M
• M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Murray
FROM: Larry McPherson
SUBJECT: City-wide Road Maintenance Assessment District
DATE: April 19, 1983
In response to Councilman Molina's request concerning information on
the possible formation of a city-wide road maintenance assessment district,
the following is supplied:
1- Starting with Section 5820 of the Streets and Highways Code, the
Government Code allows cities the authority to levy assessments
for street maintenance against the benefitting property owners.
2- There does not appear to be any obstruction in the Code to include
all the City within such a district. However, it would seem
advisable to schedule an assessment election once specific cost
figures were available.
3- Current costs for major maintenance, such as asphalt overlays, is
• around $45,000 per mile for local streets. With a gas tax revenue
of $229,000 projected for next year, it is evident that less than
five miles of road will be reconstructed, using these restricted
funds. It should be pointed out that gas tax funds are also used
for routine maintenance, such as patching potholes, further reducing
the number of miles of renovation or reconstruction.
4- To keep the City streets in good condition, from 10 to 12 miles of
renovation or reconstruction should be accomplished per year. This
large amount is necessary due to the marginal integrity of existing
improvements and the low level of maintenance over the years. With
this schedule, all roads would receive major maintenance within a
10 year period.
5- A very preliminary estimate indicates that an annual assessment
of from $15 to $20 per developed lot would raise an additional
$400,000 per year, which would allow for the maintenance program
mentioned above.
Before venturing into such a program, it should be determined whether
there should be different assessment levels for those living on City maintained
roads as opposed to presently non-maintained roads. On residential property,
it is probably reasonable to assess the fee only on developed lots, with the
fee being the same for all lots within the same category, regardless of size.
This can be justified by the amount of trips generated per residential lot.
•
City-wide MaintenanceWistrict
page two
On commercial, office, and industrial properties, it is probably
reasonable to develop a per acre fee based on the type of use. Large trip
generators would pay a higher fee.
The purpose of the City-wide maintenance assessment district could be
twofold. On one hand,it could generate adequate revenue to maintain at a
higher level all city accepted streets. On the other hand ,it could generate
adequate revenue to maintain and upgrade all public streets, whether accepted
for City maintenance or not.
If all public roads, accepted or not, are to be included within the
district then it would be reasonable to have a higher level of assessment
for properties accessed from non-accepted roads than those having frontage
on maintained roads.
If the Council wishes to pursue this issue, then staff could work up
specific assessment figures based on the current status of developed properties.
Another alternative exists for raising road maintenance dollars,
however, it would need to be done on a County-wide basis. A local gas tax
surcharge is allowed by consent of the County and local jurisdictions within
the County. These funds return directly to the local agencies based on the
gas tax formulas. Up to this point, attempts in other counties to have this
additional tax imposed have not been successful. •
aENCE McPHERSON
LM:vh e �Q tL m c i L
AS 4-N0t0 r'T'I-wWT"v� LOtGTGe.t Chu 1 D
to�''hD /&I-�/V q7G�!C T `�i S t7L+cV�
Tb(I�,' jam- n S P rye. C.o .�-� S w 3 YV--j n1
AZ tt;Foy i/I? P/W I/XJP /t"
pyo N- /.�prw v o -0v - r�-c es-r�Tr�v /�e , 31
�V n-w J c rC . /t a 4M 4 /+�t� aj T /gya
ffir : D
irMf.feCY sriN4 64- 10u,r 7-6
13A-Sr 0 o ty `1 N iZ /11-►DD
eon wn ye ��vtL s �
�,rl p/ r.✓ t-v� a ly r- &P-
/�-c rn iY f7p—
A'l
h'7 13V. A�16 17 R-
C
• M E M O R A N D U M
TO: CITY MANAGER April 20 , 1983
FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: Sand and Gravel Mining in the Salinas River - Sycamore Road
Pit
At the Council meeting on March 14 , 1983, complaints were made con-
cerning the sand and gravel operation in the Salinas River by Donna
Porter , resident on Sycamore Road. Staff was directed to review the
matter and report back.
It should be noted that this matter has been the subject of much con-
troversy in the past. A nuisance abatement hearing was held by the
County in 1976 . Area residents have frequently objected to the scope
and manner of operation. Regulations affecting the operation of such
uses have not always been clear and have not always been followed.
• Furthermore, discerning the "facts" has been a difficult task.
On July 19 , 1976 the County Board of Supervisors, after conducting a
public hearing, determined that the sand and gravel mining operation
being conducted on property owned by the Atascadero Mutual Water Com-
pany was a nuisance. Certain conditions were imposed on the operation
to reduce the nuisance to an acceptable level. These include:
1) the screening operation be moved to the Salinas River bed
2) the hours of operation be 7 :30 a.m. to 5 :00 p.m. on Monday
through Friday
3) the operation be confined to the Salinas River bed
4) the nuisance (i.e. relocation of equipment, relocation from
Atascadero Creek, securing of permits) be abated in 30 days
by the Atascadero Mutual Water Company
5) the site be restored to the satisfaction of the County Plan-
ning Department and State Fish and Game Department within 90
days
It was also implied that all necessary permits be secured or main-
tained, including Fish and Game and Air Pollution Control District.
•
Re: Sycamore Road Pit
Testimony at that hearing yielded the following pertinent points about •
the mining operation:
1) It was a nonconforming use since the L (Recreation) Zone at
that time made no provisions for it. (While there was some
discussion on the subject, no determination was made on the
precise limits on activity by the use beyond the above-ref-
erenced conditions. Typically, nonconforming uses are al-
lowed to continue provided that they cannot expand and pro-
vided that they are not conducted as a nuisance. )
2) Early levels of activity of the mining operation varied quite
a bit and, are not well-documented. Sand removal by strip-
loaders apparently predated the 1942 County ordinances. The
early operation was principally limited to the "stripping
of river sand from the main channel. There are conflicting
stories and no useful records on the volume of material re-
moved up to around 1970. A "Grizzly-type" screening device
was used to sift materials.
3) The level of activity in early 1976 resulted in numerous res-
ident complaints, primarily due to late hours, dust, noise
and potential flood damage. The establishment of a motorized
screening plant (3 hp diesel with muffler) in April is noted.
Apparently, holes as deep as 20 ' -30 ' were resulting and the
heavy equipment activity increased. Also, the location of
the operation (principally the screening plant) was moved
closer to the residences. An AJ Excavating report reports
the following volumes of material removal ( in addition to
25,000-30,000 cubic yards removed annually for use by the
Water Company) :
1970 - 73,000 cu. yd. (mostly for sewer line installation)
1971 16 ,000 cu. yd.
1972 - 3,800 cu. yd.
1973 - 7 ,600 cu. yd.
1974 8,600 cu. yd.
1975 - 29,000 cu. yd. (plus 3,500 cu. yd. by County)
1976 - 23,000 cu. yd. (plus 5, 200 cu. yd. by County)
(plus 5,000 cu. yd. by H.D. Peterson
for Atascadero High School)
It is reasonable to conclude that the 1976 events resulted in the
mining operation "getting out of hand. " There are varying reports on
the operation since that time and on apparent compliance with the
established conditions. In 1981 City Staff reviewed this matter with
other permitting agencies (Fish and Game, Corps of Engineers, Regional
Water Quality Control Board) and no substantive concerns over the
operation were raised. It is, however , also evident that at least
some residents of the area have always been and remain dissatisfied
with the nature and scope of the mining operation.
•
2
Re: Sycamore Road Pit
This matter is further complicated by legislative changes - princi-
pally the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) of 1975 and sub-
sequent amendments to it. These standards are reflected in Section
22.81.010 et seq of the Zoning Ordinance. Existing surface mining
operations are required to secure certification of a vested right and
to secure approval of a reclamation plan.
In July, 1981, A-Jay Trucking applied for certification of the vested
right and for approval of a reclamation plan for the Sycamore Road Pit
owned by the Atascadero Mutual Water Company. The application indi-
cates an annual yield of 100,000 cu. yd./year and includes a detailed
description of the method of operation. It appears that the applica-
tion was amended to also include property owned by William Collins.
No County action is indicated on the vested right certification, al-
though it must be assumed that it was certified since the reclamation
plan was approved as submitted (apparently with no conditions) by the
County Planning Department on July 12, 1980.
This approval of the reclamation plan probably is not valid since the
County had no authority to grant approvals within the City limits
after June 30 , 1980. It should be noted that some of the property
affected by the vested right and reclamation plan is in the unincor-
porated portions of the Salinas River and some is in the City. Prior
to taking any action on this issue, some additional research should be
conducted.
The matter of the mining operation has surfaced again for a number of
reasons, including:
- the continuing dissatisfactions of area residents with the
nature and scope of the nonconforming mining operation and with
prior County determination on the matter
- reported recent changes in the mining operation including a new
operator ; a large, new sand-sifter ; increased stock-piling; and,
change in location of the operation
In reviewing the current status of the mining operation, the following
additional points of information should be made:
1) The sand and gravel mining operation is conducted by Rocky
Canyon Sand and Gravel rather than A-Jay although some of the
principals (i.e. Bob Paver) are the same. (In any event, a
nonconforming use can be transferred from one party to
another. )
2) A new sand-sifting machine was established in essentially the
same location as the other piece of equipment.
3) Stock-piling occurs during winter months to provide material
during times when the Salinas River is running, but the
amount of stock-piling has probably varied considerably.
Over the past couple of years, slower building has probably
resulted in more material being stock-piled.
3
Re: Sycamore Road Pit
4) According to the Atascadero Mutual Water Company, there has
been no change in the location of the equipment or operation.
5) Material removed from the premises in recent years probably
does not exceed the 100 , 000 cubic yards in 1970. This is
also shown as the maximum removal on the reclamation plan.
6) It appears that the property owner and operator are conduct-
ing the sand and gravel mining operation in compliance with
previously established conditions.
As a result of information gathered to date, there does not appear to
be any reason for the City to take any action on the complaints,
unless it is felt that the use as operated, even when in compliance
with the 1976 conditions and required permits, may be a nuisance. If
information reviewed to date supports such a conclusion, then the City
Council should direct Staff to set the matter for hearing under the
nuisance provisions of the zoning ordinance. If, at such a hearing,
it is determined that the sand and gravel mining operation is a nui-
sance, then additional conditions intended to mitigate the nuisance
could be imposed or the use could be abated. Of course, either the
Atascadero Mutual Water Company or the operator could voluntarily
alter the operation to mitigate concerns raised by the residents.
FINDINGS
1. The existing sand and gravel mining operation in the Salinas
River at the Sycamore Road Pit is a nonconforming use.
2. Operating conditions placed on the use in 1976 are being complied
with.
RECOMMENDATION
Direct Planning Department to process the reclamation plan for the
mining operation and to monitor the operation for continued compliance
with previously established conditions.
CLuJwe to �..
LAWRENCE STEVENS/ MUqkAY WARDEN
Planning Director Ci y M nager
Ps
4
721,
y4^z�'r i -li ..s'zr•�e..k'^ x.t 3 ,e * -F� ,t - e r i a, ._
+.�q�?,.'�;Y - -S.y`tt� �'�•-`rs�-anr k3 �Y� r � i � -Y ."""`�-rte s 4.�.�,"^Q3�1�+ � � �. € ix� �_. �� ��.
�,a ... ...:...��: '"." �. 5 .� 4 � 0,{3w _ � �2* 2�k '*s'F; :x.15-.."' vj s: �n •..-i-• t �� ..
yt. 4 -�ti;..r•.r-y%t.. we "'�wS..,+'c+.�
>�`7�. �^�e Y s a �' 4��.�`•'t � .'.ia. ,�� E a"S,s�Y';c '"�.� �` -t„ `-�s is
cj �7},!•,3 ..
+''�'�'�'�'�,,,}'SS`�,.i��� f�j'`-'+�` �`A •�c'r�c,"•�,�mow.�.-= -:.1 �.... -,K,.a8=7 --•r F %ar '�{ 3y..� �`'t.•?''� $ ,��� _ '"� ��,�iy 5,`.,f 1 r, € -
!.:��y"S�}ni�,.��{�k��i- �ecL'r1F ..w- r $.�.��i y� �7.'x ice...._ � � •is-s a ,� '2'� r� r� f a�a �i-���� �'{'A 'zS.a ry 'a ^as`�' -b r {-:
3 �,'�`t,�e�.,,j,� 1" �,�.+F. ....; +• - � a i'aYa,-ti-,a���r. ti, �-��� _ ���, i a-.. -r �' �r" _Y � s r '
J- -
.zy,1..-J
ri.�� �`r-c`,�� l�.c��� (1��+, 'i a n.<• x t`nr? a, C � x"� tr. ..kl+..� � � �i�. _ �
ACn y 6 ra -57
5 S r^ y fy1�R1 ray Y pi s s -� 3 ♦ �` ) s. T
1 a'ti.P.at 3•s t T.� r - s� f. zv �" _ � r r � k se.S .. *5a: > .• .� '
R 44
'� ,e >s �;::' C "}t -- �♦ it �� y ., ;. � �...� _+
c-
` - _ ;. "T+yt+s„T. '^1` �.C••—Y–�.M26j ^�''e3� w�- y�.
r =.
i
' g A
- Y Orr-
_
_
:s
�Y
Re: Sycamore Road Ot
This matter is further complicated by legislative changes princi-
pally the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) of 1975 and sub-
sequent amendments to it. These standards are reflected in Section
is y
22. 81.010 et seq of the Zoning Ordinance. Existing surface mining
operations are required to secure certification of a vested right and
to secure approval of a reclamation plan.
In July, 1981, A-Jay Trucking applied for certification of the vested
right and for approval of a reclamation plan for the Sycamore Road Pit
owned by the Atascadero Mutual Water Company. The application indi-
cates an annual yield of 100 , 000 cu. yd./year and includes a detailed
description of the method of operation. It appears that the applica-
tion was amended to also include property owned by William Collins.
No County action is indicated on the vested right certification, al-
though it must be assumed that it was certified since the reclamation
plan was approved as submitted (apparently with no conditions) by the
County Planning Department on July 12, 1980.
This approval of the reclamation plan probably is not valid since the
County had no authority to grant approvals within the City limits
after June 30 , 1980 . It should be noted that some of the property
affected by the vested right and reclamation plan is in the unincor-
porated portions of the Salinas River and some is in the City. Prior
to taking any action on this issue, some additional research should be
conducted.
The matter of the mining operation has surfaced again for a number of
reasons, including:
- the continuing dissatisfactions of area residents with the
nature and scope of the nonconforming mining operation and with
prior County determination on the matter
- reported recent changes in the mining operation including a new
operator ; a large, new sand-sifter ; increased stock-piling; and,
change in location of the operation
Further investigation is needed on----these reported .,changes, on the
status . of any - required permits, and on..the vested right/reclamation
plan issue
A continuance—to -April 25 should be sufficient to-_--secure this ^addi-
tional "information. - --
LAWRENCE STEVENS *tyVanagerr
RAY,/t. WARDEN
Planning Director
3
r
41
AY
a � a
r
#`11Y; •�dw4 1'h' tn,4,fC"''�'.� /' � I La�t -,� A^E.-sS.
y fr$r1 r;
5
_y
,�� � _ -:x; � ►La'( _tip c _ ,-�.
�.tr�cz•a�—e._ � �.
4-y _
Al l -
f
v _
Y-
5'""�`'sl'-`c Yi`•�7"�"r _r5' -rte,="��^c.•S tom.. "�` �girl�".�."`"Y' �+i•`y�-.."�'°'4.ty; 'r�".�-si.�- s -..xcs-+�'s�'-r' "" -, 4s`,+�'�_"/ :' o -r,
.-fir f•l-.T�� ? Z _ C !_��
.�' 5tN♦�`4• tis r' - ..
4
C t
yyam,�'+ '+ •�. .'
'�s3 t it `� r _ _ - •E-'
WZ
IhSk
.t
75
OP
�• 9 a`
F 'r
V Y
..�,>-k-�.?- d'- r�,j'•_'� ,�� o -.: Top '�:.� `
mss.
���..'r'.-G,aAk�'F%'fs{^"�4.7�.'•{��o- '�-C.�Fs4��"kt�+,�,����'�-�•�S�eF..�f,.t:��'�5.+•'.s��'i:. x�"'a.�h�' 'ti" .�},yLt� iy'�'"-3�•'�a.t f i
�:- ',fe. "7�- '�` .t � �a:.�� �� x� '�,..�_ .-'.3' 'F x'�.7t'�• r,. �\ ate. �> ��•1:�,?Y 7v f?y�.•'.,.-
- - � '."4'•^x.1 Vie+ -�+.:�:'K 'u ,s-,-+-,�_.:.. ':_�'y.? ._7.. :.�:•� r,,:�.ti s�'a of f' �`���k'Ni?s� "�'.-.,.�-c. "'T_ -.
�.:_.::.. .:' '_ •__. - - ra�a..�:,_.�_..:.:tiasi....5,•.c.ry. '--rf.�;�'.�>;�'.5'1.,v2cz►-a>�, ••- •=-___ �.��ife..-r :ri.��:-__. --- -- — .�..._ 'w_..._-
! ! C5
• M E M O R A N D U M
TO: CITY MANAGER April 19, 1983
FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: Fees for Animal Permits to Fund Enforcement Costs
At the meeting of April 11, 1983 City Council requested information on
the above-referenced subject. As I understand it, the intent is to
hire a parttime person (probably an intern) to process farm animal
(i.e. horse, cow, pig, sheep, goat, etc. ) permits and to enforce com-
plaints relating to farm animals.
The estimated costs to fund such a program are as follows:
PERSONNEL: Intern (15 hr/wk during school, 40 hr/wk during
summer) - $5000
Clerical Assistant (est. - 2 hr/wk) - $875*
• Associate Planner (est. - 2 hr/wk) _ $1250*
Planning Director (est. - 2 hr/mo) $500*
TOTAL - $7625**
*These costs are already budgeted but are nevertheless costs of
the program for typing, supervision, responding to people not
satisfied with talking to an intern, etc.
**Does not include cost of City Attorney for any court time and
does not include cost of support services by other City
Departments.
SERVICES AND SUPPLIES:
Transportation - $600
Supplies - $800
$1400
There may also be some capital costs for camera, office equipment,
and similar items. There are probably also some start-up and train-
ing costs which are not included here. Transportation costs antici-
pate shared use of current City vehicles or payment ' of mileage for
• personal vehicles.
Re: Fees for Animal 'Permi
is to Fund Enforcement Costs .
It is difficult to estimate the number of permits that will be pro-
cessed but with approximately 6000 single family residences, it can be •
estimated that there would be 800-1000 permits. This would allow per-
mits to be in the $15-20 range (allowing for some reasonable amount of
overhead) . It should be noted that all of these figures are very
rough and experience may eventually result in adjustments. This as-
sumes one permit per residence regardless of the number of animals.
If this was done as a licensing program on a per animal basis, these
numbers would be altered quite a bit. (Note: Animal Control collects
about $9000 in license fees at $6/$12, but some of their operating
costs are defrayed by the City contribution. )
In discussing the permit program itself, the following should be
considered:
ADVANTAGES
raises revenue to compensate for portion of enforcement program
- can provide better enforcement response since one person dedi-
cated to program (person is only parttime)
- ease in determining violations since complaints can be checked
against permits
DISADVANTAGES
- persons complying with law by securing permits pay the burden •
for those who do not comply
- strong resistance from organized groups seem likely (which may
raise costs)
- may be unnecessary regulation of situation since the extent of
any problems is not well-established
- sensitive enforcement area which may not be adequately handled
by inexperienced intern (probably requires more supervision than
anticipated)
- parttime and transitory nature of intern positions can hurt
program implementation and continuity
- intern probably unable to perform full citation and court ap-
pearance requirements, therefore, costs would be higher
If such a program is to be favorably considered, it will be necessary
to make modifications to the farm animal regulations in Chapter 6.
In general, the disadvantages seem to outweigh the advantages at this
time. Particular concern should be given to the need for such addi-
tional regulation. In fact, during draft zoning ordinance hearings
before the Planning Commission, there was some brief discussion of •
such a permit procedure which was widely opposed. If the real desire
is to increase response to enforcement requests, then Council should
2
Re: Fees for Anima Aermits to Fund Enforcement Costs
change its priorities. In so doing it should be recognized that a
zoning enforcement officer should be added to the Department (see Sup-
plemental Listing in Draft Capital Improvement Plan) or that some
existing Department responsibilities (i.e. zoning application process-
ing, special studies, manning of public counter, etc. ) should be given
less time so enforcement can be given more time.
LAWRENCE STEVEN$ ,� R Y- L. -)WARDEN
Planning Director Cit Mana er
3
_M E_M O_R A N_D_U M
TO: City Council
FROM: City Manager
SUBJECT: San Luis Obispo-Atascadero bus service test
DATE: April 21, 1983
The attached report provides the background for the Council to
decide whether or not to support continuation of the San Luis Obispo
Atascadero commute run beyond the current test period.
Historically, the efforts by various government bodies to define
reasonable need has been difficult and often times has been based upon
the volume of voices heard at hearings as opposed to an evaluation of
the total number of people actually being served. In the present in-
stance, we have arrived at a point where many of the governing bodies,
in particular the. City of Atascadero, will have to determine whether
continued expansion of the transit systems within the County is justi-
fied and, indeed, whether some of those presently operating should be
continued. It is particularly enlightening to see the weight of ef-
fort of various agencies in the use of SB 325 money for transportation
• County-wide. Attachment #7 illustrates rather dramatically that three
agencies in the entire County now spend over 70% of their transit
funds for transportation, leaving the majority using 60% or better for
street and road maintenance purposes. It seems particularly notable
that the County only uses 25% of their available funds for transit
purposes along with Arroyo Grande at 23% and Paso Robles at 25%. A
conclusion can be reached, therefore, that only three out of eight
agencies within the County are fulfilling the priorities of the Trans-
portation Act. Certainly this indicates a disproportionate effort.
It also indicates that any COG attempts to force transit expansion on
already fully participating agencies is inequitable at best.
In the case of the Atascadero-San Luis Obispo run, the one year
test period only involved, on average, 21.78 passengers per day. As-
suming that these are commute runs, that means approximately eleven
people each way actually used the system. The question then arises,
is this number sufficient to justify continuation of a subsidized bus
system? It is the judgment of Staff that it does not.
Applying the test of the six criteria of Attachment #2, all of
which must be met, it is difficult to see how a conclusion can be
reached that the San Luis Obispo-Atascadero route is a reasonable way
of meeting commute transit needs. Indeed, it is even questionable,
applying the criteria of Attachment #1, that an unmet transit need
really exists when considering the number of persons involved. The
• one criteria which is often used as justification for a system is the
fare box return, but ignores the fact that fare box returns can be
reflective of a high or low rate as well as usage. A few people pay-
ing a high fare could cause one to conclude that a system was a suc-
San Luis Obispo-Atasladero bus service test
cess when only a limited number of persons were, in fact, riding the •
system. It should also be noted that the State Transportation Agencl
only uses the 10% fare box return as a criteria for authorizing re-
ceipt of SB 325 funds.
Attachment #2 also requires that transit be feasible within the
limits of transit funds available to the Area Council. With this cri-
teria, one could argue that if transit only requires half of the
available funds, the other half should be available for use for street
or road repairs and this argument is, indeed, consistent with the in-
tent of the Act.
Paragraph c of Attachment #2 would not seem to be met judging by
the ridership during the test period.
Paragraph d of Attachment#2 also would not appear to have been
met during the test period if you don' t approve of Atascadero funding
and support of the system.
Paragraph e of Attachment #2 only refers to assuring that equip-
ment is readily available in the marketplace.
Paragraph f raises a question as to the timing and fairness in
serving an average passenger need of 21. 78.
In considering the ridership statistics for this system, it should
be noted that they were compiled over a twelve month period including
vacation, weather variations and other annual influences on the use of
transit. Much has been said about the increased ridership of February
and March, but no adequate explanation has been given to the increase
and one could reasonably conclude that those increases were due to the
inclement weather of those periods.
Basic to consideration of continuation of the system is whether
the local entity has any control over expenditure of its SB 325 monies
as well as of its general fund monies. Due to a variety of reasons,
some of which are increased costs for Dial-A-Ride and others of which
are increases in our share of the costs for the handicapped system,
Fiscal Year 1983-84 will see Atascadero devoting 93% of its SB 325
monies to transportation. This will leave a balance of roughly
$13,500 for road repair as opposed to a Fiscal Year 1982-83 amount of
$56,500. Therefore, any requirements that Atascadero fund the route
between here and San Luis Obispo will necessarily come from the
$13 ,500 . It could mean that we would be using our General Fund for
transit support since 100% of the SB 325 monies may well be gone.
Certainly our street program will be affected. Additionally, consid-
eration must be given to any attempt by the COG or other agencies to
impose upon another an expenditure which might not be acceptable to
that entity. It is noteworthy that our attempts to define the propor-
tionate share of costs between San Luis Obispo-Atascadero and the
County revealed a fundamental problem in defining responsibility and
benefits.
•
2
San Luis Obispo-Atascadero bus service test
Now may be the time to re-examine the whole issue of transit and
its funding throughout the County. The inequities in effort are ob-
vious when examining Attachment #7. If, indeed, there are County-wide
transit needs including those within incorporated areas, then all
agencies perhaps should pool their money, meet those transit needs on
a County-wide basis and then appropriate the rest of the money for
road purposes on a per capita basis. Obviously, the City of Atasca-
dero would benefit from this formula. The County and other low trans-
it committed agencies would suffer. Again, Attachment #7 is the clue.
Based upon the foregoing, it is my recommendation that the Council
oppose continuation of the San Luis ' Obispo-Atascadero commute run for
the reasons of lack of significant ridership, that Greyhound offers a
service, that the system is not reasonable in terms of the dependence
upon overall transit and General Fund impacts and in weight of effort
in providing transit services, and that Atascadero is already doing
its full share of meeting the goals of the Transportation Act.
If, however, the Council should not wishto oppose the commute
run, then you should instruct Staff to work out an equitable cost
sharing formula with the City of San Luis Obispo and the County and at
the same time to consider operation of the system outside the North
Coastal Transit Board Authority.
jURRA L. WARDEN
MLW:ad
3
i •
_M E_M O_R A_N_D_U_M_
TO: City Manager
FROM: Finance Director/Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Recommendation re: San Luis Obispo-Atascadero Commute
System
DATE: April 19, 1983
On March 31, 1983, the twelve-month test period for the San Luis
Obispo-Atascadero bus service was completed. The test consisted of a
morning and evening commute run and a noon-time run between Atascadero
and San Luis Obispo via Santa Margarita and Cal Poly campus.
The North Coastal Transit Board (NCTB) , a joint powers agency
consisting of San Luis Obispo, the Cities of Atascadero, Morro Bay and
San Luis Obispo, and Cuesta College, was the monitoring agency of this
test. Funding was provided by State Transit Agency with $60,000 STA
funds made available for the twelve-month period.
The first action accomplished by the NCTB towards evaluating the
results of the test was to eliminate the noon-time run due to lack of
ridership. It was determined by the Board that the commute run should
continue after March 31, 1983 subject to continued STA funding from
the Area Council. This was agreed to by the Area Council with opera-
tion scheduled to continue until their next meeting, May 5, 1983, or
until STA funds are exhausted.
The NCTB then appointed a sub-committee to propose payment formu-
las) between Atascadero, San Luis Obispo and the County of San Luis
Obispo to determine methods of splitting the cost between the partici-
pants. This sub-committee was unable to devise any suggested method
of payment that was agreeable to all participants.
On March 23, 1983 , the NCTB, after extensive discussion, passed
the following motion on a 4 to 1 vote with the City of San Luis Obispo
dissenting:
"The NCT Board recommends, based on the extensive test of the
past year, that the need for transit service between San Luis
Obispo and Atascadero can be met by the existing Greyhound
bus system, and there is no need for an additional transit
system during commute hours. "
Pertinent data that was used as reference material during the
meeting is attached for your information:
1. Adopted Policy - Unmet Transit Needs Defined
San Luis Obispo-Atascadero Commute System
2. Adopted Policy. - Unmet Transit Needs that are Reasonable to
Meet
3. Ridership Statistics for Test Period
4. NCTB Analysis 7/1/82 through 2/28/83
5. Commute Run Performance Measures - Test Period
6. Greyhound Bus Schedule
7 . Revised Fiscal Year 1982-83 Allocation
You will note that the ridership during the test period varied
from a high of 31. 84 passengers per day in March 1983 to a low of 17
in August 1982. The twelve (12) month average was 21.78 passengers
per day with an average of 28.40 for January through March 1983. The
majority of the Board felt that this activity did not meet the Adopted
Policy of Unmet Transit Needs that are Reasonable to Meet as reflected
in the six (6) specific definitions approved by the Area Council (At-
tachment 2 above) .
On March 31, 1983 , A Report to the San Luis Obispo County and
Cities Area Planning and Coordinating Council was released by the NCTB
Staff Assistant. Subsequent to release, it was determined that such
report was not reflective of a majority on the Board. A special meet-
ing was called by Chairman William Coy on April 14 , 1983. After ex-
tensive discussion, it was determined that the report was lacking in
reference to the entire test period, specifically the Overall Findings
and Conclusions and Performance During the Test Period on page 3,
which required the addition of the total test data with certain report
changes. The staff agency responsible for report prepration was di-
rected to modify the report by a majority vote and to have such accom-
plished prior to the Area Planning meeting on May 5, 1982.
On April 15, 1983 , the Technical Transportation Advisory Committee
(TTAC) voted concurrence with the recommendation of the NCTB on a vote
of 4 to 1 with San Luis Obispo dissenting. The Area Planning Staff
has recommended that the test be continued for an additional year and
be "considered a success if the service carries an average of 40 pas
sengers/day and obtains a recovery farebox rate of 45%." It should be
noted that during the past test, 31. 84 passengers per day was the
highest during March 1983 with a farebox ratio of 54%. TTAC also sug-
gested that a strong effort be made to satisfy the current rider de-
mand by ride-sharing or van-pooling. There is a ride-sharing coordin-
ator in the County Engineer ' s office.
The estimated annual cost of operating this system, once the State
Transportation funds are expended, could vary between $25, 000 and
$30 , 000 minus a farebox of $6,000 to $15 ,000 based upon ridership.
This cost would be split by some unknown formula between the three (3)
participants. Our allocation of SB 325 money has been reduced from
$261,930 for Fiscal Year 1982-83 to $205,420 for Fiscal Year 1983-84.
2
San Luis Obis o-A
p to cadero Commute System
Our estimated expenditure for Fiscal Year 1983-84 is $176,000 for
Dial-A-Ride and $15 ,000 for our share of the County-wide handicapped
system for a total of $191,600.
It is recommended that the Council concur with the findings of the
NCTB and TTAC. It is further recommended that this concurrence be by
motion so that our position will be available to all Area Council mem-
bers prior to the May 5, 1983 meeting.
i`
RALPH H. DOWELL, JR. ��WRENCE MC PHERSON
Finance Director Director of Public Works
RHD:ad
3
V
. man Lues Ubis o (.�o�Jnty and (it1es Arroyo TCT
Atascoae I`"f
Grover "
City `.
-ter Area Planning and Coordinating Council Morro Boy
Paso Robles
. Pismo Beach
San Luis Obispo
San Luis Obispo County
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY AND CITIES AREA PLANNING
AND COORDINATING COUNCIL
ADOPTED POLICY
SUBJECT: UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS DEFINED
The San Luis Obispo on February 4, 1982, adopted the following defini-
tion of "Unmet Transit Needs," as required by the California
Administrative Code, Section 6658(c) :
"Unmet Transit Needs means a deficiency in the current public
transportation or specialized transportation system that is
essential for mobility and is a specifically recommended transit
service in the regional transportation plan and is not yet
implemented or funded, and is consistent with the recommended
regional transit standards."
County Government Center, San Luis Obispo, Co. 93408, (805) 549-5710
,pan Luis Obj9po County and *ties Arroyo Grande
Atascadero
Grover City
Wiz:g1 Morro Bay
Area Planning and Coordinating Council Paso Rnbles
Pismc '}
San Luis0.00
San Luis Obispo County
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY AND CITIES AREA PLANNING
AND COORDINATING COUNCIL
ADOPTED POLICY
SUBJECT: UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS THAT ARE REASONABLE TO MEET
The San Luis Obispo County and Cities Area Planning .and Coordinating
Council, on February 4, 1952, adopted the following definition of "Unmet
Transit Needs that are Reasonable to Meet":
"Unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet" shall be those
existing transit services which continue to satisfy this
definition, and those unmet transit needs which:
a. Shall provide the minimum acceptable farebox return;
b. Shall be feasible to fund within the limits of transit funds
available to the Area Council;
C. Shall be feasible to draw sufficient ridership to fill
identified system deficiencies that are essential for mobility
and will provide an economy of scale, dependable service, and
enchance overall system cost effectiveness, both short and
long term;
d. The proposed service shall have significant support from the
community and from elected officials of the jurisdictions(s)
to be served;
e. Shall be feasible to perform with dependable transit equipment
presently available in the market place; and*
f. Shall be equitable• in terms of timing and fairness in light of
all other "unmet transit needs".
County Government Center, San Luis Obispo, Co. 93408, (805) 549-5710 7
• / � ��s�.l S�nTisrtic..s -{�' �C s�. r��1 tJC�
—TV
-- --------- --A ! -- ---- - ------` -- s--- ------- ------- = _- --19 . 1
-- - -
:34-
-- ----- _--s� -------
0-1
-- --- - - -- - ---� d h - - - _--- --- ._.---- - --
i
L.c�S 1 � n•�cri f'iYcys�C - � � L.. �C
3
w
NORTH COASTAL TRANSIT
OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
FOR THE MONTH ENDING 11/30/82
-SYSTEM--- --------------------- R O U T E S ----------
TOTALS CUESTA/ S.L.O.- S.L.O.-
(MONTH) CMC MORRO BAY ATASCADERO
REGULAR EXPRESS
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
VEHICLE SERVICE MILES . . . . . . 4433.0 593.6 2x317.0 195.0 1027.4
VEHICLE SERVICE HOURS . . . . . . . . 167.5 40.0 120.0 7.5 30.0
TOTAL TRANSIT COST . . . . . . . . . . $12,456 $19788 16047 $577 $3r344
OPERATING COST . . . . . , . . . . $7x972 $956 $3x499 $304 $3x213
ADMINISTRATIVE COST . . . . . . . . Sb484 $832 $3,248 1273 $131
TOTAL PASSENGERS . . . , . . . . 19878.0 276.0 1x101.4 13.0 488.0
CASH PASSENGERS , . . . 1,642,0 276.0 19101.0 13.0 252.0
MONTHLY PASS PASSENGERS . . . . . . 236.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 236,0
SUPER PASS PASSENGERS . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TOTAL FARE REVENUE . . , $1x171 $138 $523 $10 $500
CASH AT FAREBOX . . . . . $961 $138 $523 $10 $290
MONTHLY PASS SALES . . . . . . $210 $0 0 $0 $210
SUPER PASS SALES $0 f0 $0 $0 f0
COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE MEASURES
PASSENGERS PER VEHICLE SERVICE MILE , 0,39 0.46 0.48 0.07 0,28
PASSENGERS PER VEHICLE SERVICE HOUR . 11.21 6.90 9418 1.73 16.2;
OPERATING COST PER PASSENGER . , $4.24 $3.46 $3,18 $23.40 $6.58
4
TOTAL FARE REVENUE PER PASSENGER . . . 10.62 $0.50 $0.48 $0,77 $1.02
OPERATING SUBSIDY PER PASSENGER . , , 63.62 $2,96 $21.70 $22.63
FARE REVENUE/OPERATING COST . . . , . 0.15 0.14 0.11 0.03 0.16
A
NORTH COASTAL TRANSIT
OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
FOR THE MONTH ENDING 12/31/82
-SYSTEM--- --------------------- R O U T E S ----------
TOTALS CUESTA/ S.L.O.- S.L,O.-
(MONTH) CMC MORRO BAY ATASCADERO
REGULAR EXPRESS
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
VEHICLE SERVICE MILES , , , . 8:201.6 845.2 5,225.0 273.0 1x858.4
VEHICLE SERVICE HOURS , , , . , 347.0 60.0 276.0 11.0 69.0
TOTAL TRANSIT COST , , $19082 $2098 $12x448 $664 $3x812
OPERATING COST , , , . , , , $13x133 $1x361 $7x890 $426 13,457
ADMINISTRATIVE COSI $5,948 $737 $4x558 $238 $415
TOTAL PASSENGERS . . , . , . . 5x90440 1046.0 4,176.0 139.0 543.0
CASH PASSENGERS , . . s 4090,0 697.0 3002.0 112.0 279.0
MONTHLY PASS PASSENGERS . . . . . . 270.0 10.0 96.0 5.0 159,0
SUPER PASS PASSENGERS . . . . . 844,0 339.0 378.0 22,0 105.0
TOTAL FARE REVENUE . . . . , . . . . $5058 $842 $3+594 $119 $503
CASH AT FAREBOX , , , . . , , , , $3+733 $349 $29980 $84 $321
MONTHLY PASS SALES , , . , $138 $0 $64 $3 $70
SUPER PASS SALES , , . . . , $1087 $493 $550 $32 $112
COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE MEASURES
PASSENGERS PER VEHICLE SERVICE MILE . 0,72 1.24 0.80 0.51 0.29
PASSENGERS PER VEHICLE SERVICE HOUR . 17.01 17,43 15,13 12.64 7.87
OPERATING COST PER PASSENGER . , , , , $2.22 $1.30 $1.89 $3.06 i�6.37 r
1
TOTAL FARE REVENUE PER PASSENGER . $0.86 10.80 $0.86 $0,86 $0.93
OPERATING SUBSIDY PER PASSENGER $1.37 $0.50 $1.03 $2.21 $5,44
FARE REVENUE/OPERATING COST . . . . . 0.39 0.62 0.46 0.28 0.15
A < < --Z
s
NORTH COASTAL TRANSIT
OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
FOR THE MONTH ENDING 1/31/83
-SYSTEM--- --------------------- R 0 U T E S ----------
TOTALS CUESTA/ S.L.O,- S.L.O.-
(MONTH) CMC MORRO BAY ATASCADERO
REGULAR EXPRESS
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
VEHICLE SERVICE MILES , . . . . . Sr095.6 1x042.8 4410.0 546.0 11696.8
VEHICLE SERVICE HOURS . . . . . . . . 347.0 74,0 252.0 21.0 63.0
TOTAL TRANSIT COST . . . . . . 520,275 $2,660 $11:786 $1x365 $49464
OPERATING COST $121661 $1x679 $7x263 $852 $2,868
ADMINISTRATIVE COST . . . $7x613 $981 $4x523 $513 $12596
TOTAL PASSENGERS , . . . . . 7x402.0 !►819.0 4x308.0 660.0 615.0
CASH PASSENGERS . . . 5,173,0 1x224,0 3x239.0 392.0 318.0
MONTHLY PASS PASSENGERS 1r294.0 380,0 609.0 90.0 215.0
SUPER PASS PASSENGERS . . , 935.0 215.0 460.0 178.0 82.0
TOTAL FARE REVENUE , . . . . $6x283 $925 $4+054 $636 $667
CASH AT FAREBOX , . . $4027 $612 $2055 $294 $366
MONTHLY PASS SALES , $1028 $18 $667 $98 $245
SUPER PASS SALES . . . $1x228 $295 $632 $244 $56
COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE MEASURES
PASSENGERS PER VEHICLE SERVICE MILE , 0.91 1.74 0.90 1,21 0.36
PASSENGERS PER VEHICLE SERVICE HOUR 21.33 24,58 17.10 31.43 9.76
OPERATING COST PER PASSENGER . . . . . $1.71 $0.92 $1,69 $1,29 $4.66
TOTAL FARE REVENUE PER PASSENGER, $0.85 $0,51 $0.94 $0,96 $1.08
OPERATING SUBSIDY PER PASSENGER . . . $0.86 $0.41 $0.74 $0.33 $3.58
FARE REVENUE/OPERATING COST . . . . 0.50 0.55 0.56 0.75 0,23
A
47-3
NORTH COASTAL TRANSIT
OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
FOR THE MONTH ENDING 2/28/83
-SYSTEM--- --------------------- R 0 U T E S ----------
TOTALS CUESTA/ S.L.O. S.L.O.-
(MONTH) CMC MORRO BAY ATASCADERO
REGULAR EXPRESS
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
VEHICLE SERVICE MILES . . . . . 8:391.2 1x052.8 5x228.4 494.0 1,616.0
VEHICLE SERVICE HOURS . . . . . . 359.0 76.0 264.0 1910 60.0
TOTAL TRANSIT COST . . . $191490 $20498 $111881 $1x148 $31963
OPERATING COST . . . . $131092 $Ir695 $71895 $771 $21731
ADMINISTRATIVE COST . . . . $61398 $803 $3x986 $377 $11232
TOTAL PASSENGERS . . . . . . . . 7x972.0 11832.0 41743.0 782.0 615.0
CASH PASSENGERS. . 5x331.0 11175,0 31488.0 368.0 300.0
MONTHLY PASS PASSENGERS . . . 11589.0 440.0 827.0 80.0 242.0
SUPER PASS PASSENGERS . . 1x052.0 217.0 428.0 334.0 73.0
TOTAL FARE REVENUE . . . . . . . . $7x669 $11286 $4x300 $L 374 $709
CASH AT FAREBOX . , . . . . $30381 $588 $21173 $276 $345
MONTHLY PASS SALES $11216 $36 $821 $79 $280
SUPER PASS SALES . . . . . . . . . $31072 $662 $11306 $11019 $84
COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE MEASURES
PASSENGERS PER VEHICLE SERVICE MILE . 0.95 1,74 0.91 1.58 0.38
PASSENGERS PER VEHICLE SERVICE HOUR . 22.21 24.11 17.97 41.16 10.25
OPERATING COST PER PASSENGER . $1.64 $0.93 $1.66 $0.99 i$4.44
TOTAL FARE REVENUE PER PASSENGER . . . $0.96 $0.70 $0,91 $1.76 31.15
OPERATING SUBSIDY PER PASSENGER $0.68 $0.22 $0.76 $0.77- _$3.29
FARE REVENUE/OPERATING COST 0.59 0.76 0.54 1.78 0.26
NORTH COASTAL TRANSIT
Y,T.D, OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
FOR 07/01/82 TO 11/30/82
-SYSTEM--- -------------------- R 0 U T E S ----------
TOTALS CUESTA/ S.L.O.- S,L.O.-
(Y,T,D.) CMG MORRO BAY ATASCADERO
REGULAR EXPRESS
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
VEHICLE SERVICE MILES , , o i o 9 # 119854,0 593.6 2,317,0 195.0 8043.4
VEHICLE SERVICE HOURS . , , , , , 422.5 40,0 120.0 7.5 285.0
TOTAL TRANSIT COST , $26,506 $1088 $6047 $577 $17x394
OPERATING COST . a , , , , $21x031 $956 $3x499 $304 $16x272
ADMINISTRATIVE COST , . . , , $5x475 $832 $3x248 $273 $1,123
TOTAL PASSENGERS , . . . . , , 3465.0 276.0 1110100 13.0 2x475,0
CASH PASSENGERS . . . . . . . , , 2,858.0 276.0 1,101.0 13.0 1,468.0
MONTHLY PASS PASSENGERS , , 786.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 786,0
SUPER PASS PASSENGERS , . . 221,0 0.0 000 0.0 221.0
TOTAL FARE REVENUE , $3,499 $138 $523 $10 $2:828
CASH AT FAREBOX , . , , , $2,365 $138 $523 $10 $1,694
MONTHLY PASS SALES . . . , , , $875 $0 SO $0 $875
SUPER PASS SALES $258 $0 $0 $0 $258
COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE MEASURES
PASSENGERS PER VEHICLE SERVICE MILE , 0.33 0.46 0.48 0.07 0,28
PASSENGERS PER VEHICLE SERVICE HOUR , 9,15 6.90 9.18 1,73 8.68
OPERATING COST PER PASSENGER $5.44 $3.46 $3.18 $23,40 $6,57
TOTAL FARE REVENUE PER PASSENGER , $0.91 $0,50 $0,48 $0,77 $1.14
1
OPERATING SUBSIDY PER PASSENGER $4.54 $2.96 $2.70 $22.63
FARE REVENUE/OPERATING COST 0.17 0.14 0.15 0.03 0.17
• � i
NORTH COASTAL TRANSIT
Y,T.U. OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
FOR 07/01/82 TO 12/31/82
-SYSTEM--- --------------------- R 0 U T E S ----------
TOTALS CUESTA/ S.L.O.- S.L.O.-
(Y,T,D,) CMC MORRO BAY ATASCADERO
REGULAR EXPRESS
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
---------------
VEHICLE SERVICE MILES , , . . . 20,055,6 1038.8 7,542.0 468.0 10,606.8
VEHICLE SERVICE HOURS . . . . . . . . 769.5 100.0 396.0 18.5 354,0
TOTAL TRANSIT COST , . , . . . . . . . 545,588 $39886 $19,195 11,241 $21,266
OPERATING COST . . . . , , , . . . $34x164 $29316 $11x388 $730 $19029
ADMINISTRATIVE COST . . . . . . . . $11,423 $1:569 $7:805 $511 $1,538
TOTAL PASSENGERS . . . . . . , . . 9x769,0 1x322.0 5f277#0 152.0 3018.0
CASH PASSENGERS , , . . . . 7,648.0 973.0 4,803.0 125.0 1,747.0
MONTHLY PASS PASSENGERS . . . . . . 11056.0 10.0 96.0 5.0 945.0
SUPER PASS PASSENGERS . . . . 1x065.0 339.0 378.0 22.0 326.0
TOTAL FARE REVENUE . . . , $8x557 $980 $4x117 $129 $3x331
CASH AT FAREBOX . . , . $6+098 $487 $3x503 $94 $2015
MONTHLY PASS SALES . . . $1x013 $0 $64 $3 $945
SUPER PASS SALES . . $1:445 $493 $550 $32 $370
COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE MEASURES
PASSENGERS PER VEHICLE SERVICE MILE , 0.49 0.92 0.70 0.32 0,28
PASSENGERS PER VEHICLE SERVICE HOUR . 12.70 13.22 13.33 8.22 8.53
OPERATING COST PER PASSENGER $3,50 $1,75 $2.16 $4.80 $6.54
TOTAL FARE REVENUE PER PASSENGER . $0,88 $0.74 $0.78 $0.85 1$1.10
a
OPERATING SUBSIDY PER PASSENGER . $2,62 $1.01 $1.38 $3.95 .$5.43
FARE REVENUE/OPERATING COST 0.25 0.42 0.36 0.18 0,17
i ¢ _ 6
NORTH COASTAL TRANSIT
Y.T.D. OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
FOR 07/01/82 TO 1/31/83
-SYSTEM--- --------------------- R 0 U 1 E S ----------
TOTALS CUESTA/ S.L.O,- S,L.O,-
(Y.T,DJ CHC MORRO BAY ATASCADERO
REGULAR EXPRESS
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
VEHICLE SERVICE MILES , o # # 28,151.2 2x481.6 12x352.0 1414.0 12x303.6
VEHICLE SERVICE HOURS 11116.5 174,0 648,0 39.5 417,0
TOTAL TRANSIT COST , . , . . $65x863 $6x546 430x981 (2x606 $25030
OPERATING COST , . . $469825 $31995 $18x652 $1x582 $22x596
ADMINISTRATIVE COST , . . $19,037 $2x550 $12x329 $1425 43x133
TOTAL PASSENGERS , . . . 17x171.0 3x141.0 91585.0 .812.0 3x633.0
CASH PASSENGERS . . . , . . 12x821.0 2x197.0 8x042.0 517.0 21065.0
MONTHLY PASS PASSENGERS . , . . 21350.0 39010 705.0 95.0 1r160,0
SUPER PASS PASSENGERS . . . . . . , 2x000,0 554.0 838.0 200.0 408.0
TOTAL FARE REVENUE , . . . . $14r840 $11905 $8x171 $765 $3r998
CASH AT FAREBOX . . , . . . . $10x125 $11099 $6x258 $388 42x381
MONTHLY PASS SALES , . . . . $21041 $18 $731 $102 $19190
SUPER PASS SALES . . . . . . . . $21672 $788 $11181 $276 $426
COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE MEASURES
PASSENGERS PER VEHICLE SERVICE MILE . 0661 1.27 0,78 0.80 0.30
PASSENGERS PER VEHICLE SERVICE HOUR 15.38 18.05 14.79 20.56 8,71
OPERATING COST PER PASSENGER . . . . . $2.73 $1.27 $1.95 $1.95 $6.22
TOTAL FARE REVENUE PER PASSENGER , $0,86 $0.61 $0.85 $0.94 $1.10
OPERATING SUBSIDY PER PASSENGER $1.86 $0.67 $1.09 $1.01 $5.12
FARE REVENUE/OPERATING MST . . 0.32 0.48 0.44 0.48 0.18
NORTH COASTAL TRANSIT
Y.T.D. OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
FOR 07/01/82 TO 2/28/83
-SYSTEM--- --------------------- R 0 U T E S ----------
TOTALS CUESTA/ S.L.O.- S.L.O.-
(Y.T.D.) CMC MORRO BAY ATASCADERO
REGULAR EXPRESS
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
VEHICLE SERVICE MILES # 36x542,4 3x534.4 11x580.4 1x508.0 13,919.6
VEHICLE SERVICE HOURS . . . . . . . 1,475.5 250.0 912.0 58.5 477.0
TOTAL TRANSIT COST . . . . $851353 $9044 $42462 $3054 $291693
OPERATING COST . . $59x917 $51690 S26r546 $2x352 $25x327
ADMINISTRATIVE COST , . . $25x434 13x353 S16r315 $1x402 $4x365
TOTAL PASSENGERS , # 25x143.0 4,973.0 14x328.0 1x594.0 4x248.0
CASH PASSENGERS . . . . . . , . . . 18r152.0 3x372,0 I1r530.0 885.0 2x365.0
MONTHLY PASS PASSENGERS . . , 3,939,0 830.0 19532.0 175.0 1x402.0
SUPER PASS PASSENGERS , , , , 3052.0 771,0 .1x266.0 534.0 481.0
TOTAL FARE REVENUE . . . . . $22x509 $3r191 112x471 t2x139 $49707
CASH AT FAREBOX . , , , . . . $13606 $11686 $8x431 $664 $2x726
MONTHLY PASS SALES . . , . . . . . $3x257 154 $1x551 $181 S1r470
SUPER PASS SALES , . . $5044 $1x450 12x487 $1x296 $510
COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE MEASURES
PASSENGERS PER VEHICLE SERVICE MILE , 0.69 1,41 0.81 1,06 0.31
PASSENGERS PER VEHICLE SERVICE HOUR . 17.04 19,89 15.71 27.25 8,91
OPERATING COST PER PASSENGER . $2.38 $1.14 $1.85 $1.48 it5.96
TOTAL FARE REVENUE PER PASSENGER $0.90 10.64 $0.87 $1,34 11.11
OPERATING SUBSIDY PER PASSENGER . . . $1.49 $0.50 $0.98 $0.13 ,$4.85
FARE REVENUE/OPERATING COST . . . . . 0.38 0.56 0.47 0,91 0.19
All - t=�% ,
w
W -� z
C7 U O) V N O Ln M O M m T r1 -A M
z x W �f V V V V Ln Ln Ln �D �O [� t'- 10 Ln
W W J
N
¢ > >
C W
cG
x W O
w a Z M t- \0 M Ln t� M t� 00 O N r-+ N r-q
C7 L t� Ln N U) M �D N Lf) 0) \0 N O Ln Ln
W W U N M N M Lf) M M 1O a0 i Cr) O C
Cn C H r-i . ) r1 -i r1 r i r i r t .-1 L N r-L .--) r-i
Ln > >
Q
C W
C7
-4 1-4 ri N 0) N N N N Ln r-
r-i W N N N N N O O M Ln LP) Ln 1-4 \.O
F. a., U
- ` a w O Ln Ln Ln Ln 00 01
U Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln IZT
w Cf} W -4
CL. O > > 610- — rtr -El� 16S Is 1r sg il� f.9- it r a� r g it r ctr
O U
w
In
M ,
00 C7
FW r-t t )\LrZ
a w = F- E- \0 r- Ln v N v M 00 00 00 d M .o " r-
0
O O Z 0� Z Q N t- � Lf) Ln N M t- \.O M 0) O ,zY t- r- ' N
t3' In U Q W O N M N N N M M N N M d' Lf) v M M
In d C LL > wU
O z W ¢ w c.
C = z G O
C:7
O W t
Lu
Q F- U N
V) ::D 00 c7 C
E-• -' •--4 N O O O r-4 -4 O 00 \O r-+ O
0) 1-4 M Lf) L) r-4 00 00 I'D M O) N 00 M
Cn n� W
O + = LQ (f) N N M M M N N N N r-c r1 r) ) N
a w cY. W =) CM
M 0- O., a. C!) ¢ 64 b4 b4 64 {f} ff} Ss} 1-9 64 ff? 84 1013. 1,9-
0
}O C
w f 7 � .-i \O N O Ln Lf) O 00 t� Lf) r- M O N
W O Z -4 M O r-i O N N O 00 O .-+ 'A r-q 1-4 r-4
Z C' W
Q W w
ti > C to
W Q b4 4&9- b4 64 6} 64 4bo� b4 ffg to� �- fJ? -C� (f} 6o9-
C-1
4C C
C rl,
Z W
H O N t- w M N Lf) Ln O m w Ln Ln m -4 N
E- E-• Z O r- -4 d' Ln t- M 00 \0 \O �
Q C!J W W
cL� (D M N N N N N M
W U M
(y. ¢ 6r} Sq 64 ff)- bO� 64 (f-} E.4 ER V} Cf} fy�} E� 64 ER i
O n
N N N N N N N N N M M M Ln Ln In
w 00 co W w w w c0 00 00 00 00 Z Z
O O O
H z a cn
O O O co L^ p W C' M �O N
C 7 r7 Ci O = 0 r+
¢ O [ ) W W Z V
O O W
L:] z 0
cn O
E~
-- -- -- / -
FT }.�
C�
-2—
-- ---._ �J ! J�Yc��.� �ZJN•�f I1Z�tt.rLre. t.;j ,
pG" / / 7v
� t� c ! , 1 19
• t. � Ct C1 b:z1 �s �.
-7. 0--
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: CITY MANAGER I/yraT-c
1q-pPIW
FROM: CHIEF OF POLICE
SUBJECT: FIREARMS AND DANGEROUS WEAPONS ORDINANCE
DATE: APRIL 19 , 1983
As you know, several inquiries have been made recently
by our residents regarding the discharging of firearms within
the city limits. To date, many of the questions, as well as
a few "letters to the editor" , relate to the killing of domestic
animals by firearms.
It is estimated that the police department receives an
average of 4 to 5 complaints per month of "shots fired,
circumstances unknown" in varying locations of our incorporated
city limits. Typically, officers responding to these types of
reports are unable to locate the responsible parties, in which
case, of course, no action may be taken. Occasionally, in-
vestigating officers locate persons who are "target practicing" ,
shooting squirrels, etc. In these cases, citizens are admonished
about restrictions relative to safe distances from streets and
buildings in keeping with existing statutes.
We, as a City, are entitled to enact ordinances which
restrict the use of firearms and dangerous weapons as deemed
appropriate.
The following factors suggest to me a need for a firearms
restriction ordinance:
1. Widespread growth - increasing number of residential
units being built.
2. The hilly topography and dense vegetation of our city
are such that buildings and people are easily hidden
from immediate view making the firing of weapons
extremely hazardous.
In order to insure there is no conflict with State Fish
and Game laws, I discussed the proposed ordinance with Captain
Kenneth Boettcher, Area Commander, Dept. of Fish and Game. The
captain indicated that he felt the ordinance was appropriate
and encouraged us to enact same as soon as possible for safety
reasons. He further stated that rifles, in particular, are
especially dangerous within incorporated cities.
While I am not naive enough to believe that the passage
of this ordinance will make our weapons-related problems
•
disappear, I feel that with the ordinance our officers will
have the ability to more effectively deal with circumstances
involving firearms.
Recommend adoption of the ordinance as proposed.
e---RICHARD H. McHALE
RHM:sb
ORDINANCE NO. 64
. AN ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 3 TO TITLE 4 OF
THE ATASCADERO MUNICIPAL CODE ENTITLED
DISCHARGE OF FIREARMS AND DANGEROUS WEAPONS
The Atascadero City Council ordains as follows:
Section 1. Chapter 3 of Title 4 of the Atascadero Municipal
Code is added as follows:
Chapter 3. Discharge of Firearms and Dangerous Weapons
4-3.101. Definitions.
As used in this chapter, unless the context clearly requires
a different meaning, the following words are defined as indicated
below:
(A) Firearm Defined. Any device designed to be used as
a weapon from which is expelled a projectile by the
force of any explosion, or other form of combustion.
(B) Dangerous Weapon Defined. Any device designed to be
used as a weapon which is capable of expelling a solid
projectile in excess of fifty feet.
4-3. 102. Exemptions: Protection of Life, Property; Predatory
Animals.
The provisions of this chapter shall not prohibit the discharge
of appropriate firearms when necessary to protect a human life or
to destroy or kill any predatory or dangerous animal while
defending oneself or another person against an immediate threat
of great bodily harm or as otherwise provided by law.
4-3. 103. Discharge of Firearms .
It shall be a misdemeanor for any person to willfully
discharge any firearm within the city limits except in shooting
galleries and on pistol or rifle ranges, the locations of which
have been approved by the Chief of Police, or as otherwise
provided by law.
4-3. 104 . Misuse of Dangerous Weapons
It shall be a misdemeanor for any person under the age of
eighteen, and without the immediate supervision of a parent or
guardian or an adult designated by the minor' s parent or guardian,
to willfully fire or willfully discharge any weapon or device as
defined in this chapter within the city limits. In no instance
may such weapons be discharged by a minor within one hundred feet
• of any building or livestock without the permission of the property
owner.
Section 2. The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to
be published once within fifteen (15) days after its passage in
the Atascadero News, a newspaper of general circulation, printed,
published and circulated in this City in accordance with Section
36933 of the Government Code; shall certify the adoption of
this ordinance; and shall cause this ordinance and its certifica-
tion to be entered in the Book of Ordinances of this City.
Section 3. This ordinance shall go into effect and be in
full force and effect at 12 :01 on the thirty-first day after
passage.
The foregoing ordinance was introduced on
and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council herd on
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ROLFE NELSON, Mayor
ATTEST:
BARBARA NORRIS, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ALLEN GRIMES, City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
M RAY WARDEN, City Manager
D3
• _M E_M 0_R A N_D U_M
TO: City Council
FROM: City Manager
SUBJECT: Request from Boy Scouts for land to construct multi-
purpose building
DATE: April 21, 1983
Attached is a request from Mr. John Lamas requesting that
City property be made available upon which a building could be
built for all scouting activities. The cost of the building
would be from Scout funds, but the land to be provided on a "for
use" basis by the City. There is a problem in providing City
land for private use involving the gift of public funds doctrine
as to which there are court cases specifically to the point.
Therefore, ability to meet Mr. Lamas' request is predicated
upon any building using City property to being made available for
general public use; a situation which may not satisfy Mr. Lamas'
needs. But, if an arrangement could be reached satisfactory to
the Boy Scouts and satisfying the legal requirements for use of
• City property, then there is a potential for a no-cost building
open to other as well as Boy Scout activities. Mr. Lamas' re-
quest is for a location at or near the Lake Park. If not the
Lake itself, then perhaps consideration could be given to the one
of the lots on Lakeview Drive.
If the Council is interested in pursuing this arrangement
further, I can have further discussion with Mr. Lamas. If the
Council is not, then I shall inform him of that fact.
%UR L. WARDEN
MLW:ad
' P.O. Box X
Atascad� Ca. 93422
March 20;1983
Murray Warden
RU 1J Fr_ ,
City Manager MAR 2 3 1983
City of Atascadero
6500 Palma .--
Atascadero, Ca. — — — — — — — — —
Dear Mr. Warden:
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss with you the matter of Boy Scout housing
this morning by phone. As per your request, I submit the concept behind our conversation
in writing for your further consideration and would appreciate anything you can do to
facilitate this investigative effort.
At present I believe we have three non-church sponsored Boy Scout troops and two
if not three non-church sponsored Cub Scout packs in Atascadero. Additionally, there
are to my knowlege, three other church sponsored groups housed by the church that
sponsors them. The remaining five groups each find their own local sponsor (a business
or private club) and each provide their own meeting facility.
I recently gave up the cub mastership of Cub Pack 153 and followed my son into Boy
Scout Troop 104 which is sponsored by KIQO radio. At any rate, while visiting one of
the troop's administrative meetings, the troop committee indicated the need to change
meeting locations because of the present proximity to a bar in the same building they
meet in because of size. I agree with the move. I shared with them my opinions and
ideas at the end of their meeting which included the following:
1. When I was young, the troop sponsor in Paso Robles owned the scout house and the •
ground it was on which allowed a great deal of flexibility as we were able to practice
tent set up, camping, etc. It worked very well and I highly recommended it.
2. I recommended that the local group of Boy Scout and Cub Scout organizations combine
their efforts and seek to build a building out of concrete block which is both
boy proof and fire proof on either their own land or perhaps city land which is my
purpose in inquiring about the issue with you. The national and local Boy Scout
councils have never been interested in property management for its obvious potential
management from distance problems. Therefore, the local scouts would need a single
non-profit benevalent entity to.hold either a building only or a building and lot
in trust for them. In that way, as scout troops come and go which they do as do
all groups, continuity would exist as far as meeting facility was concerned.
3. A block building with one larger main meeting room and two or three smaller side
rooms for small patrol or dens to meet in, together with adequate private storage
locker rooms (each with steel vandal proof doors) could be constructed which would
insure that each unit could privately and separately use the facility and lock up
any of their supplies maintained on site until the night or time of their meeting.
All units could then maintain or hold a key for the use of the room and scheduling
would have to be agreed upon among them but shouldn't be a problem for say five to
eight units over the span of a month's meeting time.
Now my question to you is to ask if the city has any land within the city where the
Boy Scouts, if possible could erect in a corner somewhere, such a building? Such land
would, of course, need to contain sufficient area to meet parking requirements of zonir �
contain some land for tent set up, and possibly minor overnight camp practice, and
preferably it would be located within a bicycling proximity to the center of town allowing
March 20, 1983
for boys from all sides Awn to have their meetings thelOday or night.
I would very much appreciate you considering this conceptual request and look
forward to hearing your reactions and suggestions at such time as you are able to
reflect and respond on the matter.
Very truly yours,
hn Lamas
466-4898
2
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
POST OFFICE BOX 747
ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93423
PHONE: (805) 466.8000
CITY COUNCIL
CITY CLERK
CITY TREASURER dv&;. adeiM&
CITY MANAGER INCORPORATED JULY 2. 1979
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT
RECREATION DEPARTMENT 6005 LEWIS AVENUE
ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93422
...�» PHONE: (805) 466-2141
MEMORANDUM April 20, 1983
r
To: Murray Warden, City Manager
From: Allen Grimes, City Attorney a�
Subject: Moratorium on Coin-Operated Game Machines and Arcades
You have asked me to furnish you with an opinion relating to the legality of
the use of a moratorium to close coin-operated game machines and arcades in
the City for a period of 90 days while the Council causes a study to be made
of the matter pursuant to Government Code S 65858.
I have read the memorandum on this subject prepared by the Planning Director
dated April 19, 1983, and wish to set forth my separate opinion on the matter
by this memorandum rather than signing the memorandum of the Planning Director.
I am of the opinion that if the Council were to include as a finding in its
moratorium ordinance that the present conduct and use of video games and
arcades appears to it to constitute a public nuisance, because it promotes
truancy by the youth and detracts from school studies, chores, and work, and
it further contributes to an unjustified expenditure of money as the cost of
operating such machines, and the Council further finds that where such arcades
or video games are in business in other cities, these governmental agencies
experience difficulty in controlling the bicycles which are brought by the
patrons and left on public sidewalks. Add to this the three findings con-
tained in the draft ordinance. On the basis of such a finding of a public
nuisance, I am of the opinion that such a defined moratorium ordinance could
legally be sustained if challenged, even though it applies to arcades and
video game establishments presently in use.
I have observed that many governmental agencies, both in California and
throughout the United States, have totally prohibited video games altogether
under the police power within their jurisdictions. Obviously, such a prohi-
bition would apply to games in operation at the time the prohibiting ordinance
was established.
MEMORANDUM: Murray Warden
April 20, 1983
Page 2
The City's basis for legislating in this fashion is derived from the police
power granted to cities by the California Constitution, which grants cities
the power to regulate the police, health, safety, and welfare of its inhabi-
tants. The constitutional provisions contained in Article 11, Section 7 of
the Constitution gives to cities the power to make and enforce all local
police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations which are not in con-
flict, with general laws.
In the remarks set forth above, my opinion is solely based on legalities and
not whether such an ordinance is feasible, desirable, or justified.
AG:fr
cc: Larry Stevens, Planning Director
Barbara Norris, City Clerk
•
R E C E I V E D
APR 2 01983
M E M O R A N D U M ALLEN GRIMES
TO: CITY MANAGER April 19, 1983
FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: Moratorium on coin-operated game machines and arcades.
At their meeting on April 11 the Council directed preparation of an
ordinance which would create a moratorium on game arcades. This is
primarily in response to objections by nearby merchants to the estab-
lishment of "Star Station 101" at 6105 El Camino Real. A business
license was issued on April 11 to "Star Station 101" which was prev-
iously located in the Adobe Plaza. An ordinance to establish such a
moratorium on an urgency basis has been prepared for consideration.
The ordinance, as drafted, would prohibit the establishment of any
coin-operated game machines (regardless of number) within the City
until the matter is studied. In considering the proposed ordinance,
there are a number of factors to consider.
Existing zoning Regulations:
Arcades are not specifically listed as a permitted, Departmental Re-
view, or Conditional use in any zoning district in the current ordi-
nance. In addition, there is no definition of an arcade (i.e. by num-
ber of machines, etc. ) . The Planning Department has continued a prev-
ious County interpretation that arcades are similar to "bars" , "bowl-
ing alleys" , "skating rinks" and "pool halls" and are allowable
subject to the same approval procedure as those uses. The Planning
Commission concurred with this interpretation in reviewing two arcades
("Star Station 101" Departmental Review in C-1-D and Del Vaglio Con-
ditional Use Permit in L) . As a result, arcades are allowable in com-
mercial zones as follows:
C-1-N - permitted use less than 5000 sq. ft. of floor area and
Departmental Review use greater than 5000 sq. ft. of
floor area
C-1-C - same as C-1-N
C-1 - Departmental Review use
C-2 - permitted use less than 10 ,000 sq. ft. of floor area and
Departmental Review use greater than 10, 000 sq. ft. of
floor area
Moratorium on coin-o eratedg ame machines and arcades
CH - Departmental Review use when in conjunction with planned
development and specified principal uses
CR - Departmental Review use
L - Departmental Review use
In addition, where coin-operated game machines are an accessory use
due to number of machines, amount of floor area, method of signing,
etc. , no approval was required.
Draft Zoning Regulations:
Arcades are included with a number of other uses ( i.e. card room, pool
hall, dance hall, and gym) under the definition of "Amusement "Ser-
vices" (Section 9-3.701-p. 3-54) . Arcades would be allowed as
follows:
CP - Conditional Use
CR - Conditional Use
CS - Conditional Use
CT - Allowable Use
L - Allowable Use
LS - Conditional Use
There are no special standards contained in Chapter 6 to evaluate
these uses although Chapter 4 contains a new parking standard of one
space for each 100 sq. ft. of floor area (currently 1/300 is used) .
Business License Regulations:
"Amusement parlors, penny arcades, playlands" are listed as a use
which requires approval of the Police Chief (in addition to standard
approvals by Planning and Finance Departments) prior to issuance of a
business license. A background investigation is done on the applicant
and any partners. The license would be issued unless the applicant is
disqualified pursuant to Section 6.08.080.
Additional Comments:
At this time it is not pertinent to consider information on possible
methods of regulation or possible standards for these game machines
but rather to consider the adequacy of the existing regulation govern-
ing such use.
There is little question that existing regulations are inadequate
since they fail to specifically mention the use leaving the issue open
to interpretation. However, the adequacy issue is clouded by the
Draft Zoning Ordinance now on the horizon. It would rely (when it be-
comes effective) on the Conditional Use Permit as a regulatory device,
except in the CT and L Zones. This seems to be the appropriate manner
in which to regulate arcades but two issues remain:
2
Moratorium on coin-
operated game machines and arcades
1) Is there a need to review these zoning districts relative to
game arcades?
2) Is there a need for specific special standards for game
arcades?
The answers to these two questions will determine what further study
if any is needed.
A "no" reponse indicates either that a moratorium is not needed (cre-
ating a possible risk until the Draft Zoning Ordinance takes effect)
or that any moratorium could be rescinded in the adoption of the new
zoning ordinance.
A "yes" response indicates that a moratorium should be adopted and a
study should be conducted of these issues. It does not seem to be
meritorious to delay the Draft Zoning Ordinance and incorporate this
concern in the upcoming Final Adoption Hearing.
The most common practice is to allow existing businesses to remain in
operation and treat them as nonconforming uses should the study result
in standards or procedures with which the existing uses do not comply.
Since Council expressed an interest in retroactivity of this morator-
ium, the matter has been discussed with the City Attorney. Although
there is no known case law directly related to application of mora-
toriums to existing uses, the City Attorney is of the opinion that
• such an action can be legally sustained if challenged. If this ap-
proach is desired, consideration should be given to the practical
effects of administering such an ordinance.
The Planning Department does not have complete data on the number of
businesses which have coin-operated game machines, but which are not
separately licensed as arcades since they have been deemed accessory
uses. A quick, but probably incomplete, field survey reveals the
following:
Sunshine Donuts - Plaza del -Camino - 5
Cheap Thrills - Plaza del Camino - 7
Plaza Twin Theaters - Plaza del Camino - 4
Shakey' s Pizza - Plaza del Camino - 3
Atascadero Bowl - El Camino Real - 7
Circle K Market - El Camino Real (near San - 2
Anselmo)
Alibi Cafe - E1 Camino Real - 7 (in-
cluding 3 pool tables)
Cornet Stores - Williams Bros./Safeway Center - 5
Round Table Pizza - Williams Bros./Safeway Center - 4
Star Station 101 - Adobe Plaza - 37 (40
approved at 6105 El Camino Real)
Circle K Market - Morro Road - 3
Jeff' s Plaza - Morro Road - 6
3
. Moratorium on coin-operated game machines and arcades
There are probably another 10-20 businesses which have 1-3 coin-
operated game machines. The administrative task to enforce a retro-
active moratorium would vary depending on the manner of defining an
arcade. In most of these cases, the game machines are both secondary
and accessory in nature, but that does not always reduce its nuisance
effects on adjacent commercial activity.
In addition to these practical administrative considerations, concern
must also be given to the effect on business which established game
machines in good faith reliance on existing law. This introduces the
equity issue. Furthermore, it should be pointed out that a retroact-
ivity provision may invite legal costs by the City to defend its
action.
Moratorium Ordinance Alternatives:
In considering actions relative to a moratorium on game machines or
arcades, the following alternatives are available:
1. Enact a moratorium prohibiting any new coin-operated game machines
regardless of number, in any business establishment as set forth
in attached ordinance entitled Alternate #1.
2. Enact a moratorium prohibiting any new game arcades with four or
more machines in any business establishment as set forth in at-
tached ordinance entitled Alternate#2.
3. Enact a moratorium prohibiting continued operation of and new
establishment of coin-operated game machines, regardless of num-
ber, in any business establishment as set forth in attached ordi-
nance entitled Alternate #3.
4. Enact a moratorium prohibiting continued operation of and new
establishment of game arcades with four or more machines in any
business as set forth in attached ordinance entitled Alternate #4.
5. No moratorium.
aW-'vW AV40
LAWRENCE STEVENS, Planning Director
ALLEN GRIMES, City Attorney
MIUR�AY L. ARDEN, City Manager
4
.1 ALTERNATIVE #1
2 ORDINANCE N0.
4 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO ESTABLISHING
5 A MORATORIUM ON THE APPROVAL OR GRANTING OF ANY AND
6 ALL LICENSES, PERMITS AND OTHER ENTITLEMENTS REQUIRED
7 FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF COIN-OPERATED GAME MACHINES
8 WITHIN THE CITY FOR A PERIOD OF FOUR MONTHS AND DE-
9 CLARING SAID ORDINANCE TO BE AN URGENCY ORDINANCE.
11 WHEREAS, Section 65858 of the Government Code authorizes the
12 adoption of interim ordinances as urgency measures to protect the
13 public safety, health and welfare; and,
14
15 WHEREAS, said ordinances may be adopted as urgency measures pro-
16 hibiting any uses which may be in conflict with a contemplated zoning
17 proposal which the City Council, Planning Commission or the Planning
18 Department is considering or studying or intending to study within a
19 reasonable time; and,
20
21 WHEREAS, the City intends to study alternative techniques to reg-
22 ulate coin-operated game machines.
24 NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Atascadero does
25 ordain as follows:
27 SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council finds and determines:
28
29 1. That the continued establishment of coin-operated game
30 machines without appropriate regulations will be detrimental
31 to the operation of other commercial businesses.
32
33 2. That an existing coin-operated game machine arcade has gen
34 erated opposition from nearby commercial businesses.
35
36 3. That further study is necessary to determine what legisla-
37 tion, if any, is proper for the protection of the public
38 health, safety and welfare.
40 SECTION 2. Beginning on the effective date of this ordinance
40. 1 and for a four (4) month period thereafter , no business license,
40 . 2 Plot Plan, Departmental Review/Precise Plan, Conditional Use Per-
40.3 mit or other grant of approval, either ministerial or discretion-
40 .4 ary, shall be made for any coin-operated game machines by the City
40. 5 or any of its Departments. In addition thereto, coin-operated
40.6 game machines not subject to any of the above approvals shall not
40. 7 be established within the City.
Re: Ordinance No. •
0
48 SECTION 3. Authority for Enactment. This ordinance is
49 adopted pursuant to Government Code Section 65858.
51 SECTION 4. Urgency. The City Council hereby declares that
52 this is an urgency ordinance necessary to preserve the public
53 health, safety and welfare due to the facts set forth above.
55 SECTION 5. Taking Effect. This ordinance being an urgency
56 ordinance for the immediate protection of the public health,
57 safety and welfare, containing a declaration of the facts consti-
58 tuting urgency, and passed by a four-fifths (4/5) vote of the City
59 Council shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
61 SECTION 6. Publication. The City Clerk shall cause this
62 ordinance to be published once within fifteen (15) days after its
63 passage in the Atascadero News, a newspaper of general circula-
64 tion, printed, published and circulated in this City; shall cer-
65 tify to the adoption and publication of this ordinance; and shall
66 cause this ordinance and its certification, together with proof of
67 publication, to be entered into the Book of Ordinances of this
68 City.
70 The foregoing ordinance was introduced, adopted and ordered pub
71 lished at a regular meeting of the City Council on ,
72 by the following vote:
73
74 AYES:
75
76 NOES:
77
78 ABSENT:
79
80
81 ROLFE NELSON, Mayor
83 ATTEST:
84
85
86 BARBARA NORRIS, City Clerk
87
88 APPROVED AS TO FORM:
90
91 ALLEN GRIMES, City Attorney
92
93 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
2
.l ALTERNATIVE #2
2 ORDINANCE NO.
4 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO ESTABLISHING
5 A MORATORIUM ON THE APPROVAL OR GRANTING OF ANY AND
6 ALL LICENSES, PERMITS AND OTHER ENTITLEMENTS REQUIRED
7 FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF GAME ARCADES
8 WITHIN THE CITY FOR A PERIOD OF FOUR MONTHS AND DE-
9 CLARING SAID ORDINANCE TO BE AN URGENCY ORDINANCE.
11 WHEREAS, Section 65858 of the Government Code authorizes the
12 adoption of interim ordinances as urgency measures to protect the
13 public safety, health and welfare; and,
14
15 WHEREAS, said ordinances may be adopted as urgency measures pro-
16 hibiting any uses which may be in conflict with a contemplated zoning
17 proposal which the City Council, Planning Commission or the Planning
18 Department is considering or studying or intending to study within a
19 reasonable time; and,
20
21 WHEREAS, the City intends to study alternative techniques to reg-
22 ulate game arcades.
24 NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Atascadero does
25 ordain as follows:
27 SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council finds and determines:
28
29 1. That the continued establishment of game arcades without ap-
30 propriate regulations will be detrimental to the operation of
31 other commercial businesses.
32
33 2. That an existing game arcade has generated opposition from
34 nearby commercial businesses.
35
36 3. That further study is necessary to determine what legisla-
37 tion, if any, is proper for the protection of the public
38 health, safety and welfare.
40 SECTION 2. Beginning on the effective date of this ordinance
41 and for a four (4) month period thereafter, no business license,
42 Plot Plan, Departmental Review/Precise Plan, Conditional use Per
43 mit or other grant of approval, either ministerial or discretion-
44 ary, shall be made for any game arcade by the City or any of its
45 Departments. A game arcade shall be defined as any business es-
46 tablishment which maintains four (4) or more coin-operated game
46 .1 machines.
Re: Ordinance No
48 SECTION 3. Authority for Enactment. This ordinance is
49 adopted pursuant to Government Code Section 65858.
51 SECTION 4. Urgency. The City Council hereby declares that
52 this is an urgency ordinance necessary to preserve the public
53 health, safety and welfare due to the facts set forth above.
55 SECTION 5. Taking Effect. This ordinance being an urgency
56 ordinance for the immediate protection of the public health,
57 safety and welfare, containing a declaration of the facts consti-
58 tuting urgency, and passed by a four-fifths (4/5) vote of the City
59 Council shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
61 SECTION 6. Publication. The City Clerk shall cause this
62 ordinance to be published once within fifteen (15) days after its
63 passage in the Atascadero News, a newspaper of general circula-
64 tion, printed, published and circulated in this City; shall cer-
65 tify to the adoption and publication of this ordinance; and shall
66 cause this ordinance and its certification, together with proof of
67 publication, to be entered into the Book of Ordinances of this
68 City.
70 The foregoing ordinance was introduced, adopted and ordered pub-
71 lished at a regular meeting of the City Council on ,
72 by the following vote:
73
74 AYES :
75
76 NOES:
77
78 ABSENT:
79
80
81 ROLFE NELSON, Mayor
83 ATTEST:
84
85
86 BARBARA NORRIS, City Clerk
87
88 APPROVED AS TO FORM:
90
91 ALLEN GRIMES, City Attorney
92
93 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
2
.1 ALTERNATIVE #3
2 ORDINANCE NO.
4 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO ESTABLISHING
5 A MORATORIUM ON THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF EXISTING
6 COIN-OPERATED GAME MACHINES AND ON THE ESTABLISHMENT
7 OF NEW COIN-OPERATED GAME MACHINES WITHIN THE CITY
8 FOR A PERIOD OF FOUR MONTHS AND DECLARING SAID ORDI-
9 NANCE TO BE AN URGENCY ORDINANCE.
11 WHEREAS, Section 65858 of the Government Code authorizes the
12 adoption of interim ordinances as urgency measures to protect the
13 public safety, health and welfare; and,
14
15 WHEREAS, said ordinances may be adopted as urgency measures pro-
16 hibiting any uses which may be in conflict with a contemplated zoning
17 proposal which the City Council, Planning Commission or the Planning
18 Department is considering or studying or intending to study within a
19 reasonable time; and,
20
21 WHEREAS, the City intends to study alternative techniques to reg-
22 ulate coin-operated game machines.
24 NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Atascadero does
25 ordain as follows:
27 SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council finds and determines:
28
29 1. That the continued establishment of coin-operated game
30 machines without appropriate regulations will be detrimental
31 to the operation of other commercial businesses.
32
33 2. That an existing coin-operated game machine arcade has gen-
34 erated opposition from nearby commercial businesses.
34.1
34 . 2 3. That other existing coin-operated game machines now located
34.3 in the City are being operated in such a manner as to con-
34. 4 stitute a nuisance.
35
36 4. That further study is necessary to determine what legisla-
37 tion, if any, is proper for the protection of the public
38 health, safety and welfare.
40 SECTION 2. Beginning on the effective date of this ordinance
41 and for a four (4) month period thereafter , no business license,
42 Plot Plan, Departmental Review/Precise Plan, Conditional use Per-
43 mit or other grant of approval, either ministerial or discretion-
Re: Ordinance No.
44 ary, shall be made for any coin-operated game machines by the
45 or any of its Departments. In addition thereto, coin-operated
#W
46 game machines not subject to any of the above approvals shall not
46.1 be established within the City. Beginning on the effective date
46 .2 of this ordinance and for a four (4) month period thereafter, all
46.3 existing coin-operated game machines shall cease operating and any
46 .4 approvals granted shall be immediately suspended.
48 SECTION 3. Authority for Enactment. This ordinance is
49 adopted pursuant to Government Code Section 65858.
51 SECTION 4. Urgency. The City Council hereby declares that
52 this is an urgency ordinance necessary to preserve the public
53 health, safety and welfare due to the facts set forth above.
55 SECTION 5. Taking Effect. This ordinance being an urgency
56 ordinance for the immediate protection of the public health,
57 safety and welfare, containing a declaration of the facts consti-
58 tuting urgency, and passed by a four-fifths (4/5) vote of the City
59 Council shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
61 SECTION 6. Publication. The City Clerk shall cause this
62 ordinance to be published once within fifteen (15) days after
63passage in the Atascadero News, a newspaper of general circula
64 tion, printed, published and circulated in this City; shall cer-
65 tify to the adoption and publication of this ordinance; and shall
66 cause this ordinance and its certification, together with proof of
67 publication, to be entered into the Book of Ordinances of this
68 City.
70 The foregoing ordinance was introduced, adopted and ordered pub-
71 dished at a regular meeting of the City Council on ,
72 by the following vote:
73
74 AYES:
75
76 NOES:
77
78 ABSENT:
79
80
81 ROLFE NELSON, Mayor
83 ATTEST:
84
85
86 BARBARA NORRIS, City Clerk
87
2
1
1 ALTERNATIVE #4
2 ORDINANCE NO.
4 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO ESTABLISHING
5 A MORATORIUM ON THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF EXISTING
6 GAME ARCADES AND ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW GAME
7 ARCADES WITHIN THE CITY FOR A PERIOD OF FOUR MONTHS
8 AND DECLARING SAID ORDINANCE TO BE AN URGENCY ORDINANCE.
11 WHEREAS, Section 65858 of the Government Code authorizes the
12 adoption of interim ordinances as urgency measures to protect the
13 public safety, health and welfare; and,
14
15 WHEREAS, said ordinances may be adopted as urgency measures pro-
16 hibiting any uses which may be in conflict with a contemplated zoning
17 proposal which the City Council, Planning Commission or the Planning
18 Department is considering or studying or intending to study within a
19 reasonable time; and,
20
21 WHEREAS, the City intends to study alternative techniques to reg-
22 ulate game arcades.
i
24 NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Atascadero does
25 ordain as follows:
27 SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council finds and determines:
28
29 1. That the continued establishment of game arcades without
30 appropriate regulations will be detrimental to the operation
31 of other commercial businesses.
32
33 2. That an existing game arcade has generated opposition from
34 nearby commercial businesses.
34. 1
34. 2 3. That other existing game arcades now located in the City are
34. 3 being operated in such a manner as to constitute a nuisance.
35
36 4. That further study is necessary to determine what legisla-
37 tion, if any, is proper for the protection of the public
38 health, safety and welfare.
40 SECTION 2. Beginning on the effective date of this ordinance
41 and for a four (4) month period thereafter, no business license,
42 Plot Plan, Departmental Review/Precise Plan, Conditional Use Per-
43 mit or other grant of approval, either ministerial or discretion-
44 ary, shall be made for any game arcade by the City or any of its
45 Departments. A game arcade shall be defined as any business es-
Re: Ordinance No.
46 tablishment which maintains four (4) or more coin-operated clam
46.1 machines. Beginning on the effective date of this ordinance aqw
46.2 for a four (4) month period thereafter, all existing game arcades
46.3 shall cease operating and any approvals granted shall be immedi-
46.4 ately suspended.
48 SECTION 3. Authority for Enactment. This ordinance is
49 adopted pursuant to Government Code Section 65858.
51 SECTION 4. Urgency. The City Council hereby declares that
52 this is an urgency ordinance necessary to preserve the public
53 health, safety and welfare due to the facts set forth above.
55 SECTION 5. Taking Effect. This ordinance being an urgency
56 ordinance for the immediate protection of the public health,
57 safety and welfare, containing a declaration of the facts consti-
58 tuting urgency, and passed by a four-fifths (4/5) vote of the City
59 Council shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
61 SECTION 6. Publication. The City Clerk shall cause this
62 ordinance to be published once within fifteen (15) days after its
63 passage in the Atascadero News, a newspaper of general circula-
64 tion, printed, published and circulated in this City; shall ce
65 tify to the adoption and publication of this ordinance; and sh
66 cause this ordinance and its certification, together with proof of
67 publication, to be entered into the Book of Ordinances of this
68 City.
70 The foregoing ordinance was introduced, adopted and ordered pub-
71 lished at a regular meeting of the City Council on ,
72 by the following vote:
73
74 AYES:
75
76 NOES:
77
78 ABSENT:
79
80
81 ROLFE NELSON, Mayor
83 ATTEST:
84
85
86 BARBARA NORRIS, City Clerk
87
2
RESOLUTION NO. 5089 (1983 Series)
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
OPPOSING SB 259 (MELLO)
AS AN UNWARRANTED INTRUSION INTO LOCAL AFFAIRS
AND REQUESTING THAT EACH MEMBER OF THE ASSEMBLY JOIN
IN OPPOSING THIS LEGISLATION
WHEREAS, municipal procedures for processing condominium conver-
sions and other tentative maps are a legitimate and necessary function
of local government; and
WHEREAS, SB 259 nullifies the legitimate and necessary regulations
enacted by the City of San Francisco in its effort to regulate excessive
condominium conversions in that city; and
WHEREAS, SB 259 is a blatant special interest bill in that it is
designed to enable one developer to gain additional profits by circum-
venting a duly enacted local ordinance; and
WHEREAS, this type of legislation helps to set a precedent of state
interference in local land use decisions and degrades the state's legis-
lative process by a flagrant violation of the principles of local
control;
• THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of San
Luis Obispo oppose SB 259 and urge members of the State Assembly to join
in opposition to this unnecessary and ill-conceived legislation; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that copies of this resolution be trans-
mitted to each city located within the County of San Luis Obispo urging
that all necessary action be taken by them in opposition to the
enactment of SB 259.
On motion of Councilwoman Dovey seconded by
Councilman Settle , and on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Dovey, Settle, Dunin, Griffin and Mayor Billig
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this twelfth day of
April, 1983.
Sol,
.*� 0-
ATTES Mel'knidC. Billig, Mayor
v
l/
• City lerk Pamela V ge
191,
1 ( �' R 5089
r Resolution No. 5081983 Series)
Page 2
•
APPROVED:
,
Paul A. Lanspery
City Administrative Officer
George Thacher, City Attorney
•
ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ORDINANCE NO. 63
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 10 OF ORDINANCE NO. 54
REGARDING SEWER SERVICE CHARGES
The Board of Directors of the Atascadero County Sanitation Dis-
trict does ordain as follows:
Section 1. That Section 10 of Ordinance No. 54 , Section 11.1 (e)
of the Atascadero County Sanitation District Ordinance Code, is amend-
ed to read as follows:
Section 11.1
Charge
(e) Rest Homes/Hospitals (per bed) $3.50
• Section 2. The District Secretary shall cause this ordinance to
be pubished once within fifteen (15) days after its passage in the
Atascadero News, a newspaper of general circulation, printed, pub-
lished and circulated in this District; shall certify the adoption and
publication of this ordinance; and shall cause this ordinance and its
certification to be entered in the Book of Ordinances of this Dis-
trict.
Section 3. This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full
force and effect at 12:01 a.m. on the thirty-first (31st) day after
passage.
The foregoing ordinance was introduced on
and adopted at a regular meeting of the District Board of Directors
held on , by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ROLFE NELSON, President
•
Ordinance No. 63
ATTEST:
MURRAY L. WARDEN, Secretary
APPROVED AS T FORM:
ALLEN GRIMES, Attorney
•
2
• _M E_M_O_R A_N_D_U_M
TO: City Manager 4r�a'
FROM: Finance Director
SUBJECT: Resolution approving Satisfaction of In Lieu Assessment
Agreement
DATE: April 15, 1983
The attached resolution is a release of the In Lieu Assess-
ment Fee Agreement approved by the San Luis Obispo County Board
of Supervisors acting as the Atascadero County Sanitation Dis-
trict Board in Resolution No. 80-426, adopted December 1, 1980.
The property owners have paid in full the required assess-
ment to the County Engineer and such funds have been credited to
the accounts of the District.
It is recommended that the Board approve the resolution and
authorize and direct the President to execute the attached agree-
ment, and direct the Secretary to record the executed agreement
with the County Recorder.
RALPH H. DOWELL, JR.
RHD:ad
•
RESOLUTION NO. 20-83 •
RESOLUTION APPROVING SATISFACTION OF IN LIEU
ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT WITH RAY AND KAREN SPEAR
AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING EXECUTION OF SAME
WHEREAS, on December 1, 1980, the San Luis Obispo County
Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution No. 80-426 , an In Lieu
Assessment Fee Agreement with Ray and Karen Spear; and
WHEREAS, Ray and Karen Spear have paid in full to the County
Engineer the required In Lieu Assessment amount.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of
the Atascadero County Sanitation District as follows:
1. That the Agreement attached hereto and marked Exhibit 1
be and hereby is, approved, and the President of the
Board of Directors be, and hereby is, authorized and
directed to execute same on behalf of the Atascadero
County Sanitation District.
2. That the Secretary is hereby directed to record the exe-
cuted copy of said Agreement with the County Recorder .
On motion by Director and seconded by Director •
, the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its
entirety on the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ADOPTED:
ROLFE NELSON, President
ATTEST:
MURRAY L. WARDEN, Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
•
ALLEN GRIMES, Attorney
Is SATISFACTION OF IN LIEU ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the Atascadero County
Sanitation District, located in the City of Atascadero, does cer-
tify that the In-Lieu-Assessment Agreement dated the lst day of
December , 1980 , made and executed by Ray and Karen Spear with the
Atascadero County Sanitation District, and recorded in the San
Luis Obispo County Recorder ' s Office on the 9th day of December,
1980, in book 2291, pages 192, of Official Reocrds, has been paid
in full, and the Atascadero County Sanitation District does here-
by consent that the same be discharged of record.
Signed this day of , 1983.
ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
By:
ROLFE NELSON, President
ATTEST:
MURRAY L. WARDEN, Secretary
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO )
On , 1983, before me, the undersigned
(Deputy) City Clerk, in and for the City of Atascadero, person-
ally appeared Rolfe Nelson and Murray Warden known to me to be
the President and Secretary, respectively, of the Governing Board
of the Atascadero County Sanitation District, a public corpora-
tion, and known to me to be the persons who executed the within
instrument on behalf of said public corporation, and acknowledged
to me that such public corporation executed the same.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand and seal hereto on the
day and year first hereinabove set forth.
(Deputy) City Clerk
City of Atascadero, California
�3
• _M E_M 0_R_A_N_D_U M
TO: City Council
FROM: City Manager
SUBJECT: Status of Wastewater Collector Grant
DATE: April 21, 1983
The attached report provides extensive background information
on the wastewater collection system grant which was proposed to
solve our collector system problems within the area in which the
Regional Water Quality Control Board staff had proposed a mora-
torium.
We have been informed that the implementing regulations for
the EPA grant disqualify the City because of a requirement that
at least 2/3rds of the area had to be developed prior to October
19, 1972. Since most of the area was developed around 1975, or
later, the Water Quality Control Board Executive Director ' s judg-
ment appears to be supported by the regulations. However, be-
cause of the objectives and goals of the EPA waste water grant
program are to avoid health problems and to provide adequate
sewer collector systems, it is felt that an appeal to the State
and, subsequently, to the EPA, may have some chance of success.
It is, therefore, recommended that you authorize Staff to
proceed with such an appeal.
*UY . WARDEN
MLW:ad
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Murray
FROM: Larry McPherson
SUBJECT: Status of Wastewater Collector Grant - Project No. C-06-2927
DATE: April 18, 1983
Attached is a report concerning the current status of the Wastewater
Collection System Grant of which the City was previously notified.
After a review of the individual areas that were to be sewered, the
Executive Officer of the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control
Board has notified the City that these areas do not qualify under the
grant criterion that requires at least 2/3rds of the areas to have been
developed prior to October 19, 1972.
The bulk of the properties in the proposed service area were
developed around 1975, with a number of lots stili undeveloped.
It should be emphasized that the lots proposed to be served by
the collector system effected by this grant are currently covered by
a Cease and Desist Order of the Regional Board. This order was due
to evident septic tank problems in the area and requires specific action
by the City to correct, generally, five years from the completion of
the new wastewater treatment plant. Failure by the City to correct these
problems could result in a building moritorium in the areas covered by
the Order.
I concur with the attached report by Ms. Reynolds and agree that
the Council order staff to file an appeal to the Executive Officer's
decision.
LAWRENCE McPHERSON
LM:vh
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Public Works Director
FROM: Assistant Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: Clean Water Grant Project #C-06-2927
DATE: April 8, 1983
The following is an outline as to the status of the Clean Water Grant
Project #C-06-2927.
Background
March 1981 - A survey to delineate the scope of the septic systems problems
by area in accordance with a wastewater construction grant re-
quirement and in response to input by City staff was completed
by San Luis Obispo County Health Department. Analysis revealed
that some of the areas showing surfacing effluent and/or septic
tank problems may be caused by surfacing or subsurface springs
which adjoin or traverse disposal fields. It was on the opinion
of that Division, that there exists a moderate on-site disposal
system problem in those areas with the smaller parcel sizes,
areas of excessive slopes, especially where there is spring
activity. Based upon the survey findings, it was the Department's
recommendation that the community sewerage system be expanded as
rapidly as funding will allow.
June 1981 - The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Coast
Region imposed the Cease and Desist Order #81-60 upon the
Atascadero County Sanitation District and the City of Atascadero.
October 1982 - The City of Atascadero received notification of project
acceptance "collection system for unsevered area under Cease
and Desist Order" on the FY 1983 priority list as a Class A
priority.
Nov. 8 1982 - A progress report as to the status of the Clean Water Grant
Project #C-06-2927 was submitted to the California Water
Quality Control Board Central Coast Region.
Dec. 8 1982 - The Scope of Work for Facilities Planning was submitted to the
California Regional Water Quality Control Board and the names on
the A-95 Circulation list for review.
Dec.30 1982 - A letter requesting advance funding was submitted to California
Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Feb.28 1982 - A requ* was submitted to California Ronal Water Quality
Control Board for special consideration of Clean Water Grant
Project #C-06-02927. After compiling information, it was det-
ermined that this grant-funded project did not meet the req-
uirement set forth by 40CFR 35.2116 which states: "If the pro-
ject involves collection system work, such work shall be for
a new cost-effective collection system in a municipality in
existence on Oct.18, 1972, which has sufficient existing or
planned capacity to adequately treat such collected wastewater
and where the bulk (generally two thirds) of the expected flow
(from existing plus future residential users) will be from the
resident population on October 18, 1972." Therefore, a request
for special consideration was submitted to California Regional
Water Quality Control Board.
March 1983 - A letter from the California Regional Water Quality Control
Board was received stating that the City's request for
special consideration cannot be granted.
Applicability
An appeal to this decision may be submitted to the Environmental Protection
Agency. In reference to Clean Water Grant Regulation, Subpart 1 Deviations
40CFR30.1000 it states that "The Director, Grants Administration Division, is
authorized to approve deviations from substatutory requirements of this sub-
chapter or grant related requirements of this Chapter when he determines that
such deviations are essential to effect necessary grant actions or EPA
objectives where special circumstances make such deviations in the best interest
of the Government."
The following is a list of goals, policies and recommendations stated by
applicable State and Federal entities which relate to clean water grant
programs:
1) The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended through December
1981 states: The objective of this Act is to restore and maintain
the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation's Water.
In order to achieve this objective it is hereby declared that, con-
sistant with the provisions of this Act -
a) it is the national policy that Federal financial assistance be
provided to construct publicly owned waste treatment works;
b) it is the national policy that areawide waste treatment management
planning processes be developed and implemented to assure adequate
control of sources of pollutants in each State.
2) Title 23, Regional Water Quality Control Board; Clean Water Grant
Program states: The primary objective of the Clean Water Bond law and
the purpose of the State Clean Water fund is to assist in the financing
of treatment works necessary to prevent water pollution and thereby
protect and promote the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants
of the State.
3) Discussion from the meeting agenda of the State of California Regional
Water Quality Control Board (Friday, June 12, 1981) which considered
issuance of a Cease and Desist order against the Atascadero County
Sanitation District states:
"Evidence indicates that the existing water quality situation within
the District's boundaries will worsen if wastewater treatment facilities are
not expanded and areas with failing septic systems are not sewered. Proposed
Cease and Desist Order No. 81-60 requires that the District and/or the City
construct the needed treatment and sewer system expansion in accordance
with a specified time schedule. Specific areas requiring sewers have been
delineated in the proposed enforcement Order.
The grant condition requires areas with failing septic systems to be
sewered if grant monies are used to expand treatment capacity; adopting Cease
and Desist Order No. 81-60 would insure that it will be done. Adoption of
the order would also justify elevating the project on the priority list."
A grant of deviation from the grant related requirement of 40CFR35.2116
would be in accord with ithe above stated State and Federal environmental
goals, policies and recommendations; therefore, the City's appeal for a
deviation would be justified. Also, it should_be noted that the regulation
40CFR35.2116 which states the 2/3 requirement was not stated in the Federal
Clean Water Act and was decided upon arbitrarily after adoption of the Act.
The attached regulation outlines the necessary steps for request for
deviation.
The attached maps illustrate the building dates of the lots in the grant
funding area.
I recommend that the City appeal the decision of the California Regional
Water Quality Control Board and request for a deviation to the Director,
Grants Administration Division.
MICHELE RE OLDS
att.
•
,Administrator has failed to act on ththe existing p:�)ulation will connect to5.2122 Approval of usarcharge system
within 120 days of receipt the collection.'s;stem within a proposed 3awer use ordinance.
reasonable time after project if the project ip for Step 3 grant
§35.2112 ?marine walver disca$rge completion. assistance,unless it is solely for
nplicant3.
;,• acquisition of eligible lard, the applicant
If the applicant is also an applicant §35.2118 Preaward costs.
for a secondary treatment requirement a EPA will not award grant must obtain the Regional
waiver under section 301(h)of the Act,a � ) Administrator's approval of its user
( ) assistance for Step 2+3 and Step 3 work charge system(§35.21401 and proposed
plan mist be submitted which contains performed before.eward of grant
a modified scope of work,a schedule for assistance for that project,unless (or existing)sewer use ordinance
completion of the less-than-secondary permitted under paragraph(b)of this (§35.2130).If the applicant has a sewer
facility and an estimate of costs section. use ordinance or user charge system in
providing for building the proposed less- ro)O effect,the applicant shall demonstrate
1 In emergencies or instances
than-secondary facilities,including where delay could result in significant to the Regional Administrator's
provisions for possible future additions cost increases,the Regional satisfaction that they are adequate and
Of treatment processes or techniques to being enforced.
AdMinistrator may approve preliminary
meet secondary treatment requirements. Ste 3 work such as procurement of
Step { P §35.2123 Reserve capacity.
§35.2113 Environmental review. major equipment requiring long lead EPA will limit grant assistance for
a The environmental review times,field testing of innovative and
i O reserve capacity as follows:
required by Part a cf this Chapter must alternative technologies,minor sewer
be completed before submission of any rehabilitation,acquisition of eligible (a)An interceptor that received a Step
application.The potential applicant land or of an option for the purchase of 3 grant on a segment before December
should work with the State and EPA as eligible land,or advance building of 29,1981,may receive grants for the
early as possible in the fac;lties minor portions of treatment works), remaining interceptor segments included
planning process to ascertain the . after completion of the environmental in the facilities plan for reserve capacity
appropriateness of a categorical review a required by § 35.2113. as planned,up to 40 years.
exclusion.a fina,_i^.g of no signir:cart (2)if the Regional Administrator (b)A primary,secondary or advanced
impact,or an environmental iinipact approves preliminary Step 3 work,such treatment facility,or its interceptors
statement approval is not an actual or implied included in the facilities plan may
(b)In conjunction wili7 the facilities comm"tment.of grant assistance and the receive a Step 3 grant with 20 years'
planning process as described in applicant proceeds at its own risk.Any reserve capacity if the grant is received
§35.2030(c),a potential applicant may procurement is subject to the after December 28,1981,but before
request,in writing, that EPA make a requirements of 40 CFR Part 33. October 1,19PA.
formal determination under Part 8 of this (c)Except as provided in paragraph
chapter. §35.2129 Infiltration/inflow. (a) of this section,a primary,secondary, .
h
35.2114 Value engineering. (a)The applicant shall demonstrate to or advanced treatment facility or its
te Regional Administrator's iiiterce tors included in the facilities
The applicant shall conduct value satisfaction that each sewer system p
• enoineeri.. if the total estimated cost of plan,that received a Step 3 grant on a
^S discharging into ilia proposed treatment
buildin.,- the treatment works is more segment before October 1, s're may
a works project is not or be
than$10 million.The value engineering subject to excessive infiltrationjinflow, receive grants with 20 years'reserve
recommendations shall be imp'e
: mented (b)if flow rates exceed 120 gallons per capacity for the remaining segments.
to the m maximuextent feasible. (d)Except as provided in paragraph
capita per day during high ground water (c) of this section,after September 30,
§35.2115 Collection system. period or 2.5 times the average design
flow during a rain storm the applicant 1984,no grant shall be made to provide
If the project involves collection reserve capacity for a project for
system work, such work: may select either to:
Y secondary treatment or more stringent -
aShall be for the replacement or (1)Request the Regional
O P treatment or new interceptors and '
major rehabilitation of an existing Administrator to determithat at he may appurtenances.Grants for such projects
collection system which was not built proceed wi.hout further flow analysis,in .shell be based on capacity necessary to
with Federal funds awarded on or after which case the Federal share of the
serve existing needs (including existing
October 18,1972, and shall be necessary project cost wi.l be limited to that needs of residential,commercial,
to the integrity and performance of the. portion of the project having a capacity industrial,and other users) as
complete waste treatment system of up to 120 gallons per capita per day;
serving the municipality;or or . determined on the date of the approval
(b)Shull be for a new cost-effective (2)Perform a study of the sewer of the Step 3 grant,but in no case
collection system in a municipality in system to determine the quantity of greater than existing needs on October
existence on October 18,1972,which excessive infiltration/inflow and to 1, 1990;
has sufficient existing or planned propose a sewer rehabilitation program (e)All incremental costs for any
C. to adequately treat such to eliminate the.portion of infiltration reserve capacity in excess of that
collected wastewater and where the and inflow that is excessive,in which provided by this section shallbe paid
bulk[generally two-thirds) of the case Step 3 work, such as the cost for solely by the applicant.Incremental
expected flow (flow from existing plus sewer rehabilitation based on the costs includes all costs which would not
future residential users) will be from the elimination of infiltration and inflow, is have been incurred but for the
resident population on October 18,1972. eligible for grant assistance and the additional excess capacity, i.e., any coat
The expected flow will be subject to the eligibl=e treatment plant size will be in addition to the most cost-effective
limitations for interceptors contained in based on the quantity of infiltration and alternative with eligible reserve
( 35.2123.If assistance is awarded, the inflow determined by the sewer system capacity described under paragraphs(a) �—
`' grantee shall provide assurances that study to be non-excessive. through(c)of this section.
date of cessation of the project work by ance with appl:c able Federal cost pr in- in, grant actions is prescribed by.this
the grantee. If the Project Officer, ciples listed in§ 3u.710. bcha;)ter or by grant related require-
the concurrence of the EPA grant MWnts of this Chapter, any policy, pro-
roving official, determines that a §30.9.0-5 Artnulment of grant. i
'-ntce tt3s ceased work on the project (a) The grant award official may uni- cedure, method, or practice inconsistent
_ >ltout good cause, the grant award of- laterally annul the grant if the Project Of- the retri:h,
ficial may unilaterally terminate the ficer determines, with the concurrence of the (c) when a prescribed grant clause is
grant pursuant to ;c 0.9'30-3 or annul the appropriate
to Assistant and Administrator
rio r set for:h verbatim in this Subchapter,
grant pursuant to §30.920-5. B use of a clause covering the same subject
Grants, that:
Counsel or Assistant General Counsel, . nwhich hick varies from, or has the
§ 30.920-3 Grant terinination by EPA. (1) There has been no substantial per- elect of altering, the prescribed cluuse
(a) Notica of intent to terminate. formance of the project work without or charging its application,
After concurrence in the issuance-of a good cause: (d! c•:hen a limitation on award or
termination notice has been obtained (2) There is convincing evidence the ant condition is set forth in this Sub-
from the EPA grant approving official grant was obtained by fraud; or chapter but not for use verbatim, use of
and the Regional Counsel or the Assist- (3) There is convincing evidence of a special condition covering the same
ant General Counsel, Grants, the grant gross abuse or corrupt practices in the subject matter which is inconsistent with
award official shall give not less than ten administration of the project. the intent, principle, or substance of the
(10) days :c•ritten notice to the grantee hmitatien or condition, or related cov-
(certified mail,return receipt requested) (4) The grantee has inordinately de- erage of the subject matter,
of intent to terminate a grant in whole laved completion of the project with- (e) onission of any mandatory grant
or in part. out good cause; or, provision.
(b) Termination. action. The grantee (5)The grantee has failed to achieve (f) when an EPA or other form is pre-
must be afforded an opportunity for con- the project purpose (e.g.. preparation scribed by this Subchapter, use of any
suitation prior to any termination. After of a research report) or to utilize the other form for the same purpose, or
the EPA grant approvingo ficial and the project (e.g., construction) to the (g) al_eration of an EPA or other form
Regional Council or the Assistant Gen- extent that the fundamental purpose prescribed in this Subchapter.
eral Counsel,Grants,have been informed of the grant is frustrated.
of any expressed views of the grantee and [43 FR 28484, June 30, 19781 00.1000-2 Request for deviaGun.
concur in the proposed termination, the (b) In addition to such remedies as A request for a deviation shall be sub-
grant mail. return
a may,in writing (ter- may be available to the United States rnitted -. writing to the Director.Grants
tified mail, return receipt requested), ci
terminate tt:e grant in whole or in part. under Federal, State, or local late, all Admia, ration Ditzson, as far in ad-
(c) Basis for ter7r ination.A grant may EPA grant funds previously paid to the :ance as the e::ieercies of the situation:
EPA grantee shall be returned or credited to c ill pe_=it.Each request for a deviation
be terminated ed b-. io A for good cause the United States, and no further pay- shall contain as a minimum:
subject a nermina io and payment of rr.ents shall be made to the grantee. (a) t_^_e name of the applicant o�• the
appropriate termination settlement costs. —antee and the brant identification
(d) Methc•3 of Tc;7nination. The pre- §30.920-41 Disputes provision. ;umber of the application or grant of- j
feared rntet`,o . of0
grant termination The grantee may appeal a termina-
tion fitted,and the dollar value, 1
11 be by mutual agreement through or annulment action taken pursuant (b) identification of the section of this
laterW'ly'e_cec:uted grant agreement to this section (see Subpart J of ;his SubChapLer or the grant related require-
providirg for payment of termination part). rnents of this Chapter from which a de-
costs. However, if such agreement is x,:ation sought,
not feasibie, than the grant award of- Subpart 1—Deviations (c) an adequate description of the de
ficial may unilaterally terminate the §30.1000 Genera. cation and the circumstances fn whicnI
f: will be used, including any pertinent
grant,in whole or in part. The Director, Grants Administratio: backgrosnd information which will con-
[43 FR 28484, June 30, 19781 Division, is authorized to approve de-'ia- tribute '•� a fuller understanding of the
tions from substatutory requirements or deviation sought, and
,OJ_
r, this Subchapter or grant related require- (d) a statement as to whether the
y 0=i Effect of termination. menu of this Chapter when he deter-
Upon termination, th'e grantee must mines that such deviations are essential same or a similar deviation has been re-
refund or credit to the United States that to effect necessary grant actions or EPA quested preciously, and if so, circum-
portion of grant funds paid or owed toStances •af the previous request.
objectives where special circumstances
the grantee and allocable to the termi- make such deviations in the best interest
rated project work. except such portion of the Government. §30.10NI-3 Approval of deviatiotl.
thereof as may be required to meet com- Devin_:ons may be approved only by
mithe Director of the Grants Administra-
tments which had become firm prior §30.1000-1 Applicability.
to the effective date of termination and A deviation shall be considered to be t;on Division or his duly authorized rep-
are othLrwise allowable. The grantee any of the following: resenta.cve. A copy of each such written
shall not make any new commitments (a) when limitations are imposed by approval shall be retained in the official
vnthcut EPA approval. The grantee this Subchapter or by grant related re- EPA grant file. Conctirrence in the ap-
shall reduce the amount of outstanding quirements of this Chapter upon the use provaI c the deviation by the appropri-
commitmP_rt•s insofar as possible and re- of a procedure, fortn, grant clause, or ate Assistant Administrator(s) is re-
port to the Project Officer the uncom- any other grant action,the imposition of quired prior to its effectiveness, where
mitted balance of funds awarded under lesser or greater limitations• the deviation would involve more than a
he
tgrant. The allowability of termina- (b) when a pokcy, procedure, method unique, special situation, e.g., will affect
tion,costs wil!be determined in conform- or practice of administering or conduct grantees as a class.
Sewage Tr-atment Construction Grants Manual [Sec. 30.1040.31 360
• f
j
N75
v
197
r
157
w=
I � � q
_ A-rfe r 19
Vu,.�l a r,
CITY OF ATASCADERO
ARI7.ONAMANANITn ARTA
C.R.W.O.C.B. CEASE AND DESIST t
ORDER 81-60 �ANSEL' "o
SAN
BUILDINGS PRIOR TO 10/18/72 �34" gYSElMO „AVE'
' i O ;ipii' O Q
tt n
O ♦ � O
1.
NORTH ♦ y
- ooav a At VS
I'. 8\ O O
r Q O a
® i ee..s •.: .{i...:.::
ft
>. .. O
:.::.... .-.: O Vl .::
+ � s
a ,. �'.,>rn••'-' V'8a3d
'�.,� ,•a.. AVf.
irn
:•i?: i� .
J
o�`: J •r.•. r O ;?+t ,-ne,. ..". '+a= O `:�:"::`ys Z� t4 A .. .Or
\ MANANITA �' L::4( � O'
w
CJ o i
. ,i tJ � J J.J! d• �J! J a .. r�? ._ J2 �`m `�, E •L.J
S ••SAN...JACINTG /� \ . 4 x.> ♦' x� _
V �
•o1
f
• CITY OF ATAS*;rRQ
LOBOS/HERP'LOSILLA AREA _
C.R.t7 C.B. CEASE At,D DF'SI T
ORDER 81-60
DUILDIPN"GS PRIOR TO 10/13/72
NORTH
al
�. .. OM1 A .•
O �
`J O a�'� �t � •°Q3
•t^ �' r, a, ,.r
' .a a �� :� zG> ,4 vt• � � rpt' � ��
sOJ p •� ' z n, t �r
- A Lam-, `•t ENo =a-• � �, ,�µ rc 11
,.. ... ,. .. ..0
NDME GIN
• � `O- '. AME Q' r®pl
y 3 v
Y
.. -
h r^4j•-- ter\
I