HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 11/08/1988 GEORGIA RAMIREZ
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
•
A G E N D A
ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
ATASCADERO ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
6500 PALMA
FOURTH FLOOR, ROTUNDA ROOM
NOVEMBER 8, 1988
7:30 P.M.
RULES OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
* Members of the audience may speak on any item on the agenda.
* A person may speak for five ( 5) minutes.
* No one may speak for a second time until everyone wishing to
speak has had an opportunity to do so.
• * No one may speak more than twice on any item.
* Council Members may question any speaker; the speaker may
respond, but, after the allotted time has expired, may not
initiate further discussion.
* The floor will then be closed to public participation and
open for Council discussion.
Call to Order
Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call
City Council Comment
COMMITTEE REPORTS:
(The following represents Ad Hoc or Standing Committees .
Informative status reports will be given, as felt necessary. )
1 . City/School Committee 7 . Police Facility
2 . North Coastal Transit Committee
3 . S.L.O. Area Coordinating 8 . Atas . Lake Acquisition
Council Committee
4 . Traffic Committee 9 . Business Improvement
5 . Solid/Hazardous Waste Mgmt. Assoc.
Committee 10 . Pavilion Committee
6 . Economic Opportunity Commission 11 . Tree Committee
COMMUNITY FORUM:
The City Council values and encourages exchange of ideas and
comments from you, the citizen. The Public Comment Period is
provided to receive comments from the public on matters other
than scheduled agenda items . To increase the effectiveness of
Community Forum, the following rules will be enforced:
* A maximum of 30 minutes will be allowed for Community Forum,
unless Council authorizes an extension.
All remarks shall be addressed to Council, as a whole, and
not to any individual member thereof.
* No person shall be permitted to make slanderous, profane
or personal remarks against any Council Member or staff.
* Any person desiring to submit written statements to the
Council may do so by forwarding nine ( 9) copies to the City
Clerk by 5 : 00 p.m. on the Wednesday preceding the Council
Meeting.
A. CONSENT CALENDAR:
All matters listed under Item A, Consent Calendar, are considered
to be routine, and will be enacted by one motion in the form
listed below. There will be no separate discussion on these
items. A member of the Council or public may, by request, have
any item removed from the Consent Calendar, which shall then be
reviewed and acted upon separately after the adoption of the
Consent Calendar.
1 . OCTOBER 25, 1988 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
2. OCTOBER 27, 1988 JOINT COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES
3. APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 18-88, 3100 AND 3150 EL
CAMINO REAL (GOLDEN WEST COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP LTD. /
VOLBRECHT)
4. COUNCIL CONFIRMATION OF NEW ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
DIRECTOR, MARK JOSEPH
5. RESOLUTION 106-88 - ACCEPTING NEGOTIATED EXCHANGE OF PROP-
ERTY TAX REVENUE AND ANNUAL TAX INCREMENT FROM THE ATAS.
COUNTY SANITATION DIST. TO THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
( Supercedes Res . 99-88, adopted 10/11/88)
6 . DENIAL OF CLAIM BY SALLY ZAMORA ( $50,000) .
7 . RESOLUTION 107-88 - ACCEPTING THE PENAL CODE REQUIREMENTS
RELATING TO THE SELECTION AND TRAINING STANDARDS OF PUBLIC
SAFETY DISPATCHERS
2
B. HEARINGS/APPEARANCES/REPORTS:
1. PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT CYCLE 1-89
(Review & authorization to refer to Planning Commission for
Public Hearing)
2. SEWER EXTENSION REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT (MACCORKLE)
3. REQUEST BY ACTION FOR ANIMALS' RIGHTS (AFAR) REGARDING SPAY/
NEUTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
1. CONVERSION OF $.50 DEVELOPMENT MITIGATION TAX TO A FEE AND
EXPANDING THE BOUNDARY FOR THE LEWIS AVE. BRIDGE FEE (Cont' d
from 10/11/88 & 10/25/88)
A. Resolution No. 100-88 — Establishing a development fee
or all developments within the incorporated area of
the City of Atascadero pursuant to Urgency Ord. 183
• B. Urgency Ord. No. 183 - An Urgency Ordinance of the City
Council superceding Chapter 8 of Title 3 of the City' s
Municipal Code relating to development impact fees and
repealing Ordinances 111, 118 and 119
2. PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROHIBITING ABANDONMENT OF WATERFOWL AT
ATASCADERO LAKE (Requested by Council 9/13/88)
A. Ordinance No. 182 - Amending Title 4 of the Atascadero
Municipal Code, entitled Animals, relating to the
abandonment of waterfowl at Atascadero Lake (FIRST
READING)
3. AWARD CONTRACT FOR CLASSIFICATION AND SALARY STUDY
* BREAK - APPROXIMATELY 10 MINUTES
D. NEW BUSINESS:
1. RESOLUTION NO. 105-88 AUTHORIZATION FOR CITY TO ENTER
INTO MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT (MOA) RELATIVE TO MEASURES TO
MITIGATE THE IMPACT OF HIGHWAY 41 EXTENSION ON HISTORICAL
• RESOURCES
2. ATASCADERO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT RESOLUTION 9 — ANTI-
LOITERING MEASURES IN CITY OF ATASCADERO
3
3. ESTABLISHMENT OF A LOCAL UMMET TRANSIT NEEDS HEARING
4. ESTABLISHMENT OF COUNCIL SUB-COMMITTEES
E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION:
1 . City Council
2 . City Attorney
3 . City Clerk
4 . City Treasurer
5 . City Manager:
A. Request to change regular Council meeting time to 7 : 00
p.m.
B. League of CA Cities City Council/City Manager Leader-
ship Team Workshop, January 18-20, 1989
C. Reschedule joint Council/Planning Commission Meeting of
11/17/88 to 11/29/88, 7 : 00 p.m.
** COUNCIL WILL ADJOURN TO A CLOSED SESSION FOR DISCUSSION
REGARDING LITIGATION AND PERSONNEL MATTERS, AND TO 5 : 00 .
P.M. , WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1988, FOR A STUDY SESSION
REGARDING 5-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AND COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM SETTING, BOTH MEETINGS IN THE 4TH FLOOR CLUB
ROOM.
4
MEETt 8 AGENDA
DAT ITEMM ,,,
ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES
OCTOBER 25, 198B
The regular meeting of the City Council was called to order at
7:30 p .m. by Mayor Borgeson, followed by the Pledge of
Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
All Present : Councilmembers Dexter , Lilley, Mackey, Shiers and
Mayor Borgeson.
Staff Present : Ray Windsor , City Manager ; Henry Engen, Community
Development Director , Paul Sensibaugh , Public
Works Director ; Chief Bud McHale, Police
Department ; Jeff Jorgensen, City Attorney; Chief
Mike Hicks, Fire Department ; Boyd Sharitz , City
• Clerk , Georgia Ramirez , Deputy City Clerk , Cindy
Wilkins, Secretary to City Manager .
COUNCIL COMMENT
Mayor Borgeson asked the audience to have any written protests
entered into the record to do so at this time and give to Boyd
Sharitz , City Clerk . This will be discussed during the Public
Hearing regarding the Chandler Ranch Assessment District .
Mari Mackey reported that many attended the League of California
Cities annual meeting in San Diego . Many good speakers spoke
during this meeting and she hopes everyone learned a lot from
these speakers .
Mayor Borgeson asked council to think about presenting a Citizen
of the Year Award . She asked for nominations from service clubs
and committees in the community and from individuals that might
want to nominate someone for this award . She also asked staff to
write a letter of thanks to the Recreation Department for the
help they gave the City Council in making banners. for the Colony
Days Parade on a last minutes notice and they did a fine job .
This was much appreciated by the Council .
At this time Mayor Borgeson read the Proclamation for Red Ribbon
Week .
•
-1-
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Tree Committee - Ursula Luna stated that the Tree Committee, as a
last official act to express their appreciation to the BIA for-
their efforts to beautify downtown Atascadero , presented to them
an oak tree in hopes the tree will grow and blossom as the tree
ordinance will .
COMMUNITY FORM - No public comment .
A. CONSENT CALENDAR
1 . October 11 , 1988 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
2. TREASURER ' S REPORT - SEPTEMBER, 1988
3. FINANCE DIRECTOR ' S REPORT - SEPTEMBER, 1988
4. RESOLUTION NO. 102_-88 - AUTHORIZATION THE CITY MANAGER TO
ENTER INTO A MASTER CARD AGREEMENT FOR THE CITY (cont ' d from
10/11 /88)
5. ACCEPTANCE OF FINAL PARCEL MAP 7-88 - LAUREL ROAD (WHITE/
TWIN! CITIES ENGINEERING)
6. AUTHORIZATION TO EXPRESS OPPOSITION TO PROPOSED RULE OF
PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT 2-400 (.CITY ATTORNEY)
7. AUTHORIZATION TO AWARD BID FOR 4-WHEEL DRIVE VEHICLE (FIRE
DEPARTMENT)
8. ROCKY CANYON ROAD QUARRY APPEAL
Motion: By Councilwoman Mackey, seconded by Councilman
Dexter to approve Consent Calendar . Passed
unanimously by roll call vote.
B. HEARINGS/APPEARANCES/REPORTS
1 . CHANDLER RANCH AREA ASSESSMENT DISTRICT ( Improvement
District No . 5)
Paul Sensibauqh , Public Works Director , gave the staff
report . He stated that he would like to point out that in
his report under fiscal impact , he indicated that council
would address the issue of adopting the roads into the city •
maintained system after the warrantee period is over with .
The warrantee period is normally one year after the
construction has been finalized . Council may wish to
-2-
adopt such resolution at an earlier date since one of the
good faith efforts of the council has been to indicate to
these people that they would bring these roads into the
system once the assessment district is formed .
Mayor Borgeson then conducted the public hearing in
accordance with the Procedure for Public Hearing .
John Falkenstein, of Cuesta Engineering gave the background
report .
Bill Bothwell from Orrick , Herrington & Sutcliffe of Los
Angeles reported on the legal aspects of the assessment
proceedings and issuance of bonds.
Kathy Bando from Security Pacific Capital Markets reported
on the financial aspects of the assessment financing and
issuance of bonds .
Boyd Sharitz , City Clerk , read the written protest made by
Frank Trott , 10095 E. Old Morro Road , Atascadero .
• Gaylen Little, 9265 Toloso Rd . , spokesman for the formation
of the assessment district for the Chandler Ranch area, and
thanked the council for their favorable response during the
past months. Also he thanked Paul Senisbaugh and John
Falkenstein for their help on this project . He asked the
council to accept the assessment district right after
construction of the project .
Frank Trott , 10095 Old Morro Rd . , who opposes the assessment
district stated that there isn ' t that much wrong with the
streets to start with and it doesn ' t do him any good one
way or the other .
John Falkenstein, Engineer of Work , responded to the
protest . Mr . Trott ' s parcel is on the boundary of the
assessment district and is located on the intersection of
Los Osos and Old Morro Rd . He feels Mr . Trott ' s assessment
is the same as everyone else' s and is equitable because he
uses that particular street (Los Osos) which is to be
improved .
Mayor Borgeson asked if anyone wished to withdraw their
protest . At this time Mr . Trott responded "filo Way" .
Mayor Borgeson asked the Engineer of Work what percentage of
lands within the assessment district is represented by the
written protest .
-3-
Mr . Falkenstein responded that Mr . Trott ' s parcel is
approximately 1/2 of 1% of the area within the assessment
district . He stated that protests that had been received
make up less than 50% of the area within the assessment
district .
Mayor Borgeson asked the Engineer of Work for a report on
financial requirements of project in light of bids and
recommends approval of the same by the City Council .
Mr . Falkenstein gave the cost breakdown and how the
assessments were arrived at . Five bids were received on the
project . The lowest bid was from Union Asphalt , Inc . Their
bid was $153,795. Estimated cost of construction at this
time is $170,635. Other costs involved in the assessment
district includes the engineering design of the improvement
plans, the inspection of the construction of the
improvements, soils testing that will take place during the
construction of the improvements as well as field surveying
with regards to center line street monuments. Total cost of
project to assessment is $235,021 . This figure is divided
by 120 units of property. Estimated assessment is $235,021
divided 120 times for an estimated assessment for each
parcel of $1 ,959.
Mayor Borgeson asked the councilmembers if they were
satisfied with the report and the evidence that has been
given on this matter .
Councilmernbers responded that they were satisfied with the
report and evidence.
Mayor Borgeson entertained a motion to close the public
hearing.
Motion: By Councilman Shiers, seconded by Councilwoman
Mackey to close the public hearing . Passed
unanimously.
Motion: By Councilman Dexter , seconded by Councilwoman
Mackey to adopt an order of determination that a
major protest is not present . Passed unanimously
by roll call vote.
Cathy Bando , from Security Pacific stated that she wanted to
make a clarification on the engineer ' s report . The figures
contained in exhibit C of the Engineer ' s Report have exact
fioures for certain numbers that will be determined as a
percentage of the actual bonds that are sold including the
bond discount of 3i: , the reserve fund of 7% and the
capitalized interest amount which will, reflect the
actual interest rate that is attached to the bonds. So
those numbers will actually change among themselves.
-4-
Motion: By Councilman Dexter , seconded by Councilman
Lilley to approve Resolution No . 103-88. Passed
unanimously by roll call vote.
Boyd Sharitz , City Clerk informed council that 5 bids were
received .
Paul Sensibaugh , Public Works Director , reviewed the bids
and stated that the lowest bid was Union Asphalt for
$153,785. Staff recommends that the council award the bid
to Union Asphalt for $153,785.
Motion: By Councilman Lilley, seconded by Councilwoman
Mackey, to adopt Resolution No . 104-88. Passed
unanimously by roll call vote.
2. CONVERSION OF x.50 DEVELOPMENT MITIGATION TAX TO A FEE AND
EXPANDING THE BOUNDARY FOR THE LEWIS AVE. BRIDGE FEE (Cont ' d
from 10/11/88)
Staff report was made by Paul Sensibaugh , Public Works
Director .
There was no public comment .
Paul Sensibaugh reported that a letter from the Chamber of
Commerce had been received in favor of the fee.
Mayor Borgeson stated that action will be taken on November
8th when a modified resolution and ordinance adjustments
will be presented .
3. APPEAL BY KEVIN T. DEVANEY OF DOUBLE PERMIT FEE (5350
Dulzura Ave. - corrected address)
Henry Engen, Community Development Director , gave staff
report.
Kevin T. Devaney, 5350 Dulzura Ave. , stated he is being
penalized for grading work done by the previous owner of his
property. Enforcement against the previous owner and a lien
should have been placed on the property so that he could
have dealt with it during escrow.
Kathy Devaney, Sombrilla Ave. , said this council is aware of
the fact that the fees that are being assessed were not
incurred by the current owner and therefore should not be
double what he is attempting to do . Wrong to judge Kevin
Devaney on the actions of some one else . He has done
everything including paying for his permits on time in this
project .
-5-
Norm Canfield , Atascadero Board of Realtors president in
January, said that there are many lots in 3-F Meadows and
Long Valley with graded home sites which were done before
the city ' s incorporation. Are they to advise the buyers of
all those parcels they are now subject to double fees?
Henry Engen said it would depend on how obvious it was that
the site was graded . Sometimes rough grading over a period
of time you wouldn ' t notice anything changed . Grading that
proceeded incorporation would probably be "grandfathered"
but he would have to check with the City Attorney.
After council discussion the following motion was made.
Motion: By Councilman Lilley, seconded by Councilman
Shiers, to uphold the appeal of Kevin Devaney of
the double permit fee. Passed 4 : 1 by roll call
vote with Councilwoman Mackey voting no .
4. APPEAL BY ATASCADERO FORD OF PLANNING COMMISSION ' S
MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT .
Staff report was given by Henry Engen, Community Development
Director .
Council and staff discussion followed .
Dutch Sawyer representing Atascadero Ford said they have an
existing monument sign that says "Ford" : not "Atascadero
Ford" . It is owned by Ford Motor Company and nothing
can be done with it as it is part of the franchise
agreement to identify the site with a Ford sign. They had
previously approved an additional pole-mounted sign. In
September thru working with staff they modified to pull back
the ok for an additional pole mounted sign that had another
product named on it and simply put Atascadero Ford on the
building . They had paid for the permit , had the OK to do
the work . At the last meeting their ability to finish their
job was denied by saying that everything is done but the
sign is not up in the six month period of time. They went
from a pole-mounted sign, to a wall mounted sign, to no
sign. Maybe they should get their permit fee back .
Kenneth Waage, 7450 Balboa Rd . , stated he felt that
Atascadero Ford had a freeway sign and is easily identified
as a Ford dealership and that one sign is adequate.
-6-
Debbie Muller , employee of Atascadero Ford , said she was
rudely called and she was asked to remove the banners signs .
The banners were immediately taken down. The sales manager
was new in the City and he didn ' t realize that the City had
so many regulations.
Vince Lennon from Atascadero Ford said they were given a
permit , they live up to their contract and thinks the City
should as well .
Council and staff discussion followed .
Motion: By Mayor Borgeson, seconded by Councilman
Shiers for denial of the appeal . Passed 3:2 by
roll call vote with Councilwoman Mackey and
Councilman Lilley voting no .
The mayor asked for a recess at 9: 15. Council reconvened at
9:30 p .m.
C . UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
1 . CONSIDERATION OF INITIATION OF CHANGES TO THE "TREE
ORDINANCE"
Staff report was given by Henry Engen, Community Development
Director .
Ursula Luna, Chairman of Tree Committee, said the committee
is recommending the ordinance be simplified and the previous
list of native trees should be reduced to oaks only. They
recommend the city employ an urban forester . This will
eliminate the requirement for the public to hire a certified
arborist . They are proposing to define the heritaoe tree
category to make it very special . They recommend that trees
planted by the property owner may be removed without a
permit . The tree committee continues to recommend that the
$35 fee be eliminated for dead and diseased trees .
Sarah Gronstrand said please do not lose site of the fact
the Council is an elected legislative body . It is the
Council ' s responsibility to act on these matters and not
the responsibility of an appointed group , be they
commissioners or members of the tree committee, nor the
paid employees . This is much too much power for the
Council to delegate. 85% of the permits are for single
houses . Does the staff have so much extra time that it
. can handle the extra work? If so , perhaps the department
is over staffed . The .second amendment to be addressed is
the city forester . The work of a well-trained city forester-
is
oresteris specialized and should be performed by a well-trained
-7-
person. We do need a full time forester due the fact of
the city growing at such a fast rate. The people hired
must be able to maintain independence and objectivity.
The person must be responsible and answerable only to the
council and the city manager .
George Highland suggested for council consideration that
when the ordinance requires the property owner to get the
permit , we are overlooking the fact that the property owner
very seldom actually removes the tree themselves. There
should be some sort of measure of responsibility on the
part of those .engaged professionally in doing this type of
thing to make certain that a permit is in existence. That
is not required in the current ordinance and is not even
suggested .
A resident of San Luis Obispo spoke in favor of hiring
an Urban Forester .
Elaine Oglesby spoke in favor- of employing a full time Urban
Forester .
Dave Duncan read the letter that he had submitted earlier to
the City Council . He asked that a tree management ordinance
be included in the tree ordinance and feels other native
trees besides oaks should be included .
Celia Moss, Vice President of the Home Owners Assoc . does
support the recommendations of the Tree Committee to
strengthen and clarify the tree ordinance. They oppose
any efforts to dilute the provisions of the ordinance and
also recommend the employment of a full time arborist .
Dorothy McNeal , Sierra Vista, finds the only objectionable
part of the current tree ordinance is the requirement that
an applicant must find an arborist , pay that person for
expert opinion and also pay the city a fee in order to
remove a tree on his property. She strongly favors hiring
a city arborist/urban forester and the elimination of the
city fee.
Others speaking in favor of hiring an urban forester
included : Ben Parker , Fred Frank , Joe Beatty, and Mike
Platz .
Motion: By Councilman Shiers, seconded by Mayor Borgeson
-to foward the Tree Committee recommendations to
the Planning Commission to look at and possibly
adopt as the Tree Ordinance.
Discussion followed by the Council .
-8-
Councilman Shiers withdrew his motion.
Motion: By Councilman Dexter , seconded by Councilman
Lilley, to send this suggestion for modification
of the Tree Ordinance to the Planning Commission
for a Public Hearing . After the testimony of the
Public Hearing to arrange for a working session
between the Council and the Planning Commission
which will be advertised and noticed and at that
time it will be returned to the City Council for
action. Passed unanimously by roll call vote.
2. NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL CENTER (Hurricane Investment
Corporation)
Ray Windsor , City Manager , gave the staff report .
Frank Platz , member of the Mutual Water Co . Board of
Directors stated the wells are "marginal at best" .
Consensus of the council was to continue to support the
• North County Regional Center at the Rochelle Site and to
direct the City Manager to appear before the Water Company
at its next meeting the water company to service the site
for the North County Government Center .
D. NEW BUSINESS
1 . FIRE INSURANCE BENO ' S BUILDING (5505 El Camino Peal )
Staff report given by Ray Windsor , City Manager .
Consensus is in concurrence with the City Manager ' s report .
2. RESTRICTION ON LIQUOR SALES OUTLETS THROUGH ZONING AND SALE
& USE OF ALCOHOL IN CITY PARKS/FACILITIES
Report was given by Mayor Borgeson.
Following discussion by the Council and staff Ray Windsor ,
City Manager , said he would like to initiate some
discussion during the staff meeting on Thursday . He will
bring back a report to the Council at a later date as an
agenda item.
Motion: By Lillev, seconded by Mackey, that council direct
staff to take a look at it and report back as an
agenda item to include reference to the use of
conditional use permits as outlined by the Mayor .
Passed unanimously.
-9-
E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATIONS:
City Council
Councilman Dexter that the secretary at the Methodist Church
received a note of thanks from Sergie Vashuran who had just
returned home to Moscow and sent greetings to the City of
Atascadero .
Councilwoman Mackey thanks for contributions to the Hot Line
Bowl-a-thon.
Councilman Lilley commented that he was asked to communicate
an apology to the City and the Council from Brad Davis for
political advertising . Message has been removed .
City Manager :
Ray Windsor reported that we are in the process of testing
out two copiers that came in at a very reasonable price.
Classification study - sent out 13 RFP ' s and got back 7. •
They range from $6 ,800 to $22,000. Staff is in the process
of doing some reference checks on these companies .
Highway 41 Hearing is scheduled for Wednesday night .
He met with a financial consultant regarding some capital
improvements and will be getting together some data that
his firm can review. Would like a finance sub-committee to
work with Mr . Windsor .
An Administrative Services Director has been hired and he
will be on board the 2Bth of November . His name is Mark
Joseph . Parks and Recreation recruitment will conclude this
Friday.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11 :05 P.M. TO A SPECIAL JOINT MEETING WITH
THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT 7:00 P.M. , THURSDAY , OCTOBER 27, 1988 ,
FOURTH FLOOR CLUB ROOM, FOR THE PURPOSE OF GENERAL PLAN REVIEW;
AND TO A SPECIAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS STUDY SESSION AT
5:00 P.M. , WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1988 IN THE FOURTH FLOOR CLUB
ROOM.
-10-
MEET
ITEM I
L1LQIE: THE MINUTES FROM THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY
COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF
OCTOBER 27TH WILL BE PROVIDED AT A LATER
TIME.
MEETI AGENDA� _ 3
DAT ITEM I -�.,�. ...
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council November 8, 1988
VIA: Ray Windsor, City Manager
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director W
SUBJECT: Tentative Tract Map 18-88
LOCATION: 3100 and 3150 E1 Camino Real
APPLICANT: Golden West Community Partnership Ltd. (Volbrecht)
REQUEST: Subdivision of an existing commercial parcel contain-
ing 2 .79 acres into ten parcels varying in size from
1, 600 to 28,000 square feet with a common lot for
parking, landscaping and utilities .
BACKGROUND:
At its October 18, 1988 meeting, the Atascadero Planning Commis-
sion conducted a public hearing on the above-referenced subject.
On a 7 :0 vote, the tract map was approved subject to the findings
and conditions contained in the attached staff report. There was
public testimony and discussion as referenced in the attached
minutes excerpt.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of Tentative Tract Map 18-88 per the Planning Commis-
sion' s recommendation.
HE :ps
cc: Golden West Community Partnership Ltd.
Volbrecht Surveys
Attachments : October 18, 1988 Staff Report
October 18, 1988 Minutes Excerpt
• i
CITY OF ATASCADERO Item: g- 2 •
STAFF REPORT
FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: October 18, 1988
BY: Joel Moses, Associate Planner File No: TTM 18-88
SUBJECT:
Subdivision of an existing commercial parcel totaling 2. 79 acres
into ten (10) parcels varying in size from 1, 600 to 28,000
square feet with a common lot for parking, landscaping and
utilities.
A. SITUATION AND FACTS:
1. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Golden West Community
Partnership Limited
2. Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Volbrect Surveys
3. Project Address. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3100 & 3150 E1 Camino Real
4. Legal Description. . . . . . . . . . . .Ptn. Lots 12 & 12A, Blk. 18
(Atas. Col. )
5. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. 79 acres
6. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .CPK (PD-1) Commercial Park
(Planned Development Overlay)
7. General Plan Designation. . . . .Commercial Park
8. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Commercial development under
construction
9. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration posted
October 7, 1988
B. ANALYSIS:
The applicant proposes to subdivide an existing undeveloped
parcel containing 2. 79 acres into ten (10) parcels varying in
size from 1, 600 to 28, 000 square foot with a common lot for
parking, landscaping, and utilities. Some of the lots will be
foot-print lots with boundaries coinciding with the individual
unit walls, others will contain outdoor storage and parking
areas. A common lot will provide parking and access for all the
proposed lots.
1
• •
The subject property is located in the CPK (Commercial Park)
zone. The CPK zone has no minimum lot size excepting that any
subdivision must conform to the Master Plan for development of
the site. The Master Plan approved by the Planning Commission,
on December 1, 1987 considered the sites development including
architecture, landscaping, signing and parking. The approved
Master Plan proposed two different conceptual plans for
subdivision. One proposed a foot-print subdivision and the
other matched the currently proposed subdivision. Thus the
proposed subdivision will conform to the approved Master Plan of
Development for the site.
Building permits have been issued for the development of the
site, and one building has been completed and occupied. The
approval of any use on the site will require a review of the
occupancy for building code compliance. This issue will be
reviewed at the time of business license review with possible
modification made to building separations.
The site is currently designed to be served by two on site septic
systems. Some potential exists for the extension of sewer
service to the site since the site is within the Urban Service
Areas indicated on the City' s General Plan. No plans have been
made as to any potential extension of sewer services to the north
E1 Camino Real Area, however. The two systems will be located on
• lots 1 & 8 and will need appropriate easements and maintenance
agreements to assure the systems ' operation and maintenance.
The major concern with the subdivision of the property is the
provision of adequate parking. The applicant has provided
information on the sites development and parking requirements
(Exhibit D) . The analysis is based on the specific requirements
of the zoning ordinance using 1 stall per 500 square feet of use
area, 1 stall per 1, 000 square feet for indoor storage and
1 stall per 3, 000 square feet of outdoor storage. these figures
are based on a combination of several of the heavier commercial
uses that are expected to locate on the site. The analysis shows
that a total of 45 stalls would be required for the site and 52
are provided. The additional parking could be taken up by an
unexpected use that will require additional stalls.
Comments were received from several outside agencies. Each
response notes that prior approvals and construction have met the
individual requirements. The public street improvements (curb,
gutter, sidewalk, and pave out) have been completed and all
utilities installed or plans approved.
2
C. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends conditional approval of Tentative Tract Map 18-
88 based on the Findings in Exhibit F and Conditions of Approval
in Exhibit G.
ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Location Map
Exhibit B - Tentative Map
Exhibit C - Development Statement
Exhibit D - Parking Calculations
Exhibit E - Map Detail
Exhibit F - Findings of Approval
Exhibit G - Conditions of Approval
JM/jm
3
IYI�IN�i11
.-_ I<l,�iiiaM�� 1111111 11
b
�, � • ��NI 11IIID •
SII �� ! �1� �� ■1
o
d �/1
EXHIBIT B - TENTATIVE MAP
CITY
�tB�■ �j OF ATASCADERO TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 18-88
Inc
197• 3100 & 3150 EL CAMINO REAL
� �ascnn COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT GOLDEN WEST/VOLBRECHT
DEPARTMENT
o'E Y�rarn-F saws• e�'�� OWNER S �S'TAlfMENT
z[ .m..rwrr lw Aa:ru✓a�v r r arr,.w a�.rrx
' 0•��� F.mxrr,aJ srlxw au/H/J rcvFo/nr.+.v F�f.Jr
LOl L � � /nea anw.,pv Jv.•.,w c_�v/r/iye.wo asynei
�� L A/n¢ecsrw.(r.a1.(Faa
-••—�� -^ Ry .EUV f KY!KA/[S.SIO/.1t'FM
L—�---------
p Lor/O $
t�• _ � TENlAl/UE T99CT lL1AP NO/S93
ln.W A/�.I�tvFO avil K✓<(YMKvF LHaJU.•i.M O-
J � AA Q' !!!KN%J.Y�/.Y MT fIL�✓.W.y4U(OF:r:.L6.�
\` t ; ` SayLVHJ.YW Of A/RTrn•NP'(OT/I.5t1/S r/.V '
/ _ 1 rlOiC/4y a'M fl KAV Sp(pyY.IJ lee—,
_ ytlf.L1V.y/!'[f,!,(IiM M(M.VM Ci/✓C/
LOl B .• i -LOl 5 � - ALO/Z wF.au:.az fcriar nJav fas assn r
LO4
...row
7
rA7cvr! laza[• --�,
JY 3� I
Cotofv YEsr ['outIERUAL
r A�+s%roan,f�roaou»yy"l
1 4151 acoy'm
sr f�/e• _
f.f !� HT SUP!!EYS
11
11 si:A—vTo
yo3JfFOf.(H,
/y1S104G9ZyG
t I P t-An
• EXHIBIT C - DEVELOPERS STATEMENT
CITY OF ATASCADERO TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 18-88
'ems 3100 & 3150 EL CAMINO REAL
` COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT GOLDEN WEST/VOLBRECHT
DEPARTMENT
C �
DEVELOPERS STATEMENT
TRACT NO. 1593
This tentative tract map is requesting a subdivision of the
Golden West Commercial Park, presently under construction, into
nine commercial lots and one common area openspace lot which is also
• a Public Utility Easement.
Lot 10, the common area openspace lot, will be owned and maintained
by an Owners Association and governed by Covenants, Conditions, and
Restrictions.
The septic system, as designed for this project, is adequate for the
proposed uses. Also, the parking, as designed, is adequate for the
proposed uses. (Please see attached parking requirement breakdown.)
All of the proposed lots front on Lot 10 except Lot 6. Access to Lot
6 will be provided by joint access easement accross Lot 5. Both lots j
will use the same entrance and maintenance of the easement will be
governed by the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for the tract.
I
I
I
I
I
EXHIBIT D — PARKING CALCULATION`.
CITY
OF ATASCADERO
r� IC ` 1 ' 9-7 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP I8-88
sCADEF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 3100 & 3150 EL CAMINO REAL
DEPARTMENT _ GOLDEN WEST/VOLBRECHT
I
PARKING CALCULATIONS BASED ON CURRENT ANTICIPATED OCCUPANTS
Parking Required
Lot 1 1/500 1/1000 1/3000
Building A - Wholesale 10,000 s.f.
Office and showroom area 3,500 s.f.
Wholesale storage 6,500 s.f.
Outside storage 16,800 s.f.
Lot 2
Building B - Wholesale 1,600 s.f.
Office 400 s.f.
Wholesale storage 1,200 s.f.
Lot 3
Building B - Wholesale 1,600 s.f.
Office 400 s.f.
Wholesale storage 1,200 s.f.
Lot 4
Building B - Wholesale 3,200 s.f.
I
Office 500 s.f.
Storage 2,700 s.f.
Outside storage 3,200 s.f.
Lot 5
Building C - Wholesale 1,600 s.f.
Office 400 s.f.
Storage 1,200 s.f.
Outside storage 1,100 s.f.
I
Lot 6
Building C - Wholesale 1,600 s.f.
Office 400 s.f.
Storage 1,200 s.f.
Outside storage 1,500 s.f.
Lot 7
Building C - Wholesale 3,200 s.f.
Office 800 s.f.
Storage 2,400 s.f.
Outside storage 2,000 s.f.
i
I
CITY OF ATASCADERO
p�scanl' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
1/500 1/1000 1/3000
Lot 8
Building D - Contractor yard
Office - 1,000 s.f.
Storage
Outside storage 1,400 s.f. 5,600 s.f.
Lot 9
Building D - Wholesale
Office 500 s.f.
Storage 1,000 s.f.
TOTALS - 7,900 18,800 30,200
16 19 10
Parking spaces required: 45
Parking spaces provided 52
It is anticipated that business related cars or trucks will be parked in their related
storage yards which will reduce substantially.the number of spaces needed in the project
if the anticipated occupants purchase units.
If other types of occupants purchase units, they must conform to the number of spaces
required for their use according to the zoning ordinance. Ample space is available on
the site for increased parking, however, the types of uses anticipated will have more
than enough with this design.
9
EXHIBIT E - MAP DETAIL
CITY OF ATASCADERO TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 18-88
197e-7 3100 & 3150 EL CAMINO REAL
` 'ASCAD f COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT GOLDEN T•1EST/VOLBRECHT
`^ DEPARTMENT
v s io
� I ~ CY4 N
IyT ,
T--j
1
n � ` 1 V
� 1
Liz
v
1
o � p
�j�o ✓\Fi o C
J. ,ll/
/v<s�aa�s u✓
7zj•L
CAiL�/^/p y.�9e
EXHIBIT F - Findings for Approval
Tentative Tract Map 18-88 (Tract 1593)
3100 & 3150 E1 Camino Real
Golden West/Volbrect Surveys
October 18, 1988
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
1. Creation of the proposed parcels conforms to the Zoning
Ordinance and the General Plan land use designation,
densities and other policies.
2. Creation of these parcels, in conformance with the
recommended Conditions of Approval, will not have a
significant adverse effect upon the environment. The
Negative Declaration prepared for the project is adequate.
3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development
proposed.
4. The site is physically suitable for the densityof the
development proposed.
5. The design of the subdivision, and the proposed
improvements, will not cause substantial environmental
damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish and
wildlife or their habitat
6. The design of the subdivision, and the type of improvements,
will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at
large for access through or the use of property within the
proposed subdivision; or substantially equivalent alternate
easements are provided.
7. The proposed subdivision complies with Section 66474. 6 of
the State Subdivision Map Act as to the methods of handling
and discharge of waste.
JM/jm
EXHIBIT G - CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Tentative Tract Map 18-88 (Tract 1593)
3100 & 3150 E1 Camino Real
Golden West Development/Volbrecht Surveys
October 18, 1988
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. The applicant shall establish Covenants, Conditions, and
Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the regulation of land use, control
of nuisances, maintenance of septic systems and
architectural control of the site and the buildings.
a. The CC&Rs shall be submitted for review and approval
by the City Attorney and the Community Development
Director prior to the approval of the final map.
b. The CC&Rs shall be administered by an Owner' s
Association.
2. The open space/common lot shall be designated as a Public
Utilities Easement. Easements shall be provided for
existing septic systems
3. A soils report or an Engineer' s certification stating that
the existing soils on the site are adequate to support the
proposed structure as per Chapter 70, subsection (e) of the
Uniform Building Code shall be provide prior to the
recording of the final map.
4. A final map, in compliance with all conditions set forth
herein, shall be submitted for review and approval in
accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the City Lot
Division Ordinance prior to recordation.
a. Monuments shall be at all new property corners
created and a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed
Land Surveyor shall indicate, by certificate on the
final map, that corners have been set or shall be set
by a date specific and that they will be sufficient to
enable the survey to be retraced.
b. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be
submitted for review in conjunction with the processing
of the final map.
C. A preliminary subdivision guarantee shall be submitted
for review in conjunction with the processing of the
final map.
1
i 0
5. Approval of this tentative map shall expire two years from
the date of final approval unless an extension of time is
granted pursuant to a written request prior to the
expiration date.
JM/jm
2
-3- 0
PLANNING COMMISSION - MINUTES EXCERPT - OCTOBER 18, 1988
expressed earlier.
Upon conclusion of discuss Chairperson Lochridge, by
order of the Chair, cont ' a the hearing on Tentative
Parcel Map 16-88 to a meet g of November 15 , 1988 to
allow the applicant to evise the s division map to propose
a three-way lot des ' n.
2. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 18-88:
Request initiated by Golden West Community Partnership
Ltd. (Volbrecht Surveys) to allow subdivision of an ex-
isting commercial parcel of 2 .79 acres into ten parcels
varying in size from 1, 600 to 28,000 square feet with a
common lot for parking, landscaping and utilities.
Subject site is located at 3100 and 3150 E1 Camino
Real.
Mr. Moses presented the staff report and referenced a master
plan for development which was previously approved. He then
responded to questions from the Commission concerning the
timing of landscape installation, the difference between air
space condominiums and this "footprint" subdivision, etc.
Richard Shannon, partner with Golden West Community Partner-
ship, spoke in support of the request. He apologized for
the delays in putting in the landscaping and explained the
time constraints involved with the delay. He noted that be-
tween 20-40 trees have been added over what had been origin-
ally approved for the site and explained that many of these
are screening trees (for Highway 101 and the storage yards) .
He spoke on the design explaining the reason for the
"footprint" design.
In response to question from Commissioner Brasher, Mr. Shan-
non explained the type of fencing which will be utilized for
the project.
Barbara Shoenike, area resident, spoke on the poor condition
of the trees in front of the site and asked what is being
done to address this problem. Staff responded that as part
of the master plan approval, a tree protection plan was
required. Mr. Shannon added comments regarding measures
which have been incorporated to revitalize these trees, in-
cluding inspection and recommendations by an arborist.
Mr. Shannon further elaborated on the proposed fencing
around the site.
Mr. Decamp indicated that at this point, since a master plan
for development was previously approved, action on this item
was more of an administrative nature . - There was continued
discussion relative to concerns raised by the Commission
pertaining to the type of fencing not being compatible with
-4- •
PLANNING COMMISSION - MINUTES EXCERPT - OCTOBER 18, 1988
the building, lack of landscaping on the site at this time,
etc. Staff addressed these concerns and pointed out
measures the Commission has (i.e. conditional use permit)
to assure that proper maintenance is complied with.
MOTION: Made by Commissioner Lopez-Balbontin, seconded by
Commissioner Waage and carried 7 :0 to approve
Tentative Tract Map 18-88 subject to the findings
and conditions contained in the staff report.
Chairperson Lochridge called a recess at 8:36 p.m. ; meeting
reconvened at 8: 45 p.m.
3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 11-88 :
Request initiated by Don Messer (Cuesta Engineering) to
llow for the development of a 66, 173 square foot om-
me cial shopping center with a bowling center and other
ret it space._ Modifications are requested for rking,
signs g, and landscaping. Subject site is 1 cated at
9255 E Camino Real.
Mr. Moses pr ented the staff report on th ' request for
development of a multi-phase commercial evelopment and
summarized the pr osed uses for the comple Staff is rec-
ommending approval of the use permit subject to 18
conditions.
Mr. Decamp pointed out everal lette which have been sub-
mitted by individuals who were unab to attend this hear-
ing. Members of the mmissi noted they had received
phone calls as well from ind'vid ls.
Commissioner Luna referenced a rezoning from residential
to retail commercial for thi pro erty and inquired about
the difference between th 10 foo rear setback as shown on
the zoning map as opposed o a 5 foo setback on the eastern
portion of the property. Mr. Moses r ponded.
Deborah Hollowell w' h Cuesta Engineeri representing the
applicant, addresse Commissioner Luna' s nquiry concerning
the proposed fiv foot setback. She noted hat a neighbor-
hood meeting had een conducted with the de elopers in an
effort to rev ' w the project. She stated eff is have been
made to comp y with all applicable ordinanc for this
proposal, a a lot of hard work went into desig 'ng a cir-
culation a d parking plan for this site which is a ward in
configur ion. Ms . Hollowell further commented on th trees
which a e proposed to be retained and the replacement ees .
The a licant is in agreement with the conditions of app ov-
al ith the exception of #10-a; modification is reques d
th the design of Principal Avenue comply with requirement
o the City engineer.
MEETI AGENDA
AT -
D E IT
0
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council
FROM: Ray Windsor, City Manager
SUBJECT: New Administrative Services Director
DATE: November 8, 1988
BACKGROUND
At your last meeting, I indicated that we would be hiring Mark
Joseph as the new Administrative Services Director, effective
November 28, 1988 . Under the terms and conditions of the City' s
Municipal Code (Sec . 2-4 .09 ) , the appointment, removal, promotion
and demotion of department heads, officers and employees shall be
0 recommended to the Council for concurrence and confirmation.
RECOMMENDATION
The attached letter notifying Mr. Joseph of his hiring is being
brought to you in . accordance with the above requirements and is
recommended for approval .
Attachment
RW/cw
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING �
POST OFFICE BOX 747
ATASCADERO. CALIFORNIA 93423
PHONE: (805( 466-8000 POLICE DEPARTMENT
POST OFFICE BOX 747
ATASCADERO. CALIFORNIA 93423
CITY COUNCIL PHONE: (805( 466.8600
CITY CLERK ascadeiCe
•
CITY MANAGER
CITY TREASURER INCORPORATED JULY 2. 1979 ��
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 6005 LEWIS AVENUE
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ATASCADERO.CALIFORNIA 93422
PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT PHONE: (805( 466-2141
October 27, 1988
Mr . Mark A. Joseph
214 E. Cornell
Fresno , CA 93704
Dear Mr . Joseph :
We are pleased to offer you employment as the Director of
Administrative Services. Your appointment will be presented to
the City Council for confirmation at their regular Council
Meeting of November 8, 1988.
The salary is $3,620.57, per month , payable bi-weekly on
Wednesday. You will be eligible for , and will receive any salary
adjustments or other increases available to other management
employees. You will also receive a monthly car allowance of
$175.00 per month .
Your benefits include vacation, sick leave, holidays,
administrative leave, family care and bereavement leave, and
leave of absence. Currently, medical , dental and vision
insurance for you and your dependents is paid by the City. Term
life insurance in the amount of $50,000 for you is paid by the
City, and a retirement plan is provided through contributions of
the City to the Public Employees ' Retirement System (PERS) .
Detailed explanations of these benefits and other conditions of
employment are given in the City of Atascadero Personnel System
and the Personnel Rules and Regulations.
Your pre-employment physical is scheduled with Dr . Jardini , 8280
Morro Road , on Monday November 21 , 1988, at 2:00 p .m. You are
scheduled to start work on November 28, 1988.
i
i
Mark A. Joseph
Page two
October 27, 1988
I am pleased to have you become a member of my staff and look
forward to a mutually fulfilling and successful relationship.
Please sign below, as an indication of your accepting the
position of Director of Administrative Services.
Sincerely,
WI DSOR
City anager
I hereby accept employment with the City of Atascadero for
the position of Director of Administrative Services.
MARK A. JOSEPH
Date
• • MEET F}AGE"
rrWt t s
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
THROUGH: Ray Windsor, City Manager
FROM: Paul M. Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works
Valerie Humphrey, Clerical Technician
SUBJECT : Dissolution of ACSD
DATE: November 2 , 1988
Recommendation :
Staff recommends that Council approve the attached
resolution which will supercede the resolution adopted on
October 11 for the negotiated exchange of property tax
revenue and annual tax increment with regard to the
dissolution of the Atascadero Countv Sanitation District .
Background:
At the meeting of October 11 Council adopted
Resolution No . 99-88 which accepted the negotiated items
required for the dissolution of the ACSD. Since that time,
however , LAFCO has provided us with corrected figures and
therefore we are required to adopt a new resolution
reflecting the corrected figures .
Fiscal Impact :
The adjusted figures show an increase of $12 ,508 over
previous figures for Fiscal Year 1988-89 .
• •
NOTE: This resolution to supercede Resolution No. 99-88
RESOLUTION NO. 106-88
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
ACCEPTING NEGOTIATED EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY TAX
REVENUE AND ANNUAL TAX INCREMENT FROM THE
ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT TO THE
CITY OF ATASCADERO
WHEREAS , in the case of a jurisdictional change other than
a city incorporation or district formation which will alter the
service area or responsibility of a local agency, Revenue and
Taxation Code Section 99(b) requires that the amount of the
property tax revenue to be exchanged, if any, and the amount of
annual tax increment to be exchanged among the affected local
agencies shall be determined by negotiation; and
WHEREAS, when a city is involved, the negotiations are
conducted between the city and the Board of Supervisors for the
County; and
WHEREAS , when a special district is involved, the
necrotiations are conducted by the Board of Supervisors of the
County on behalf of the district , unless otherwise requested by
said district pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code Section
99 .1 (3) ; and
WHEREAS , in the Atascadero reorganizationn , the dissolution
of the Atascadero County Sanitation District was to become
effective June 30 , 1980; however , the Atascadero reorganization
was adopted and approved by the voters after the adoption of
Article 13 (A) of the State Constitution and before the enactment
of said Revenue and Taxation Code Section 99(b) ; and
WHEREAS, Resolution No . 3-80, a Joint Resolution of the
City of Atascadero and County of San Luis Obispo concerning non-
agreement of exchange tax base resolved that the County of San
Luis Obispo and the City of Atascadero were not able to agree
upon the negotiated exchange of property tax revenues and annual
tax increment pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code Section 99
and that since the City and County were not able to agree upon
the negotiated exchange of property tax revenue and annual tax
increment pursuant to said Tax Code Section 99 the Atascadero
County Sanitation District would continue in existence until the
City and County did agree upon a negotiated exchange of property
tax revenues ; and
WHEREAS , the negotiations have taken place concerning the
transfer of property tax revenues and annual tax increment
between the County of San Luis Obispo and the City of Atascadero
pursuant to Section 99(b) for the jurisdictional - change
designated as Dissolution of the Atascadero County Sanitation
District ; and
• •
WHEREAS , the negotiating parties , to-wit : William E.
Briam, County Administration , County of San Luis Obispo and Ray
Windsor, City Manager, City of Atascadero have now concluded
said negotiation of the exchange of said property tax revenue
and annual tax increment as hereinafter set forth ; and
WHEREAS , it is in the public interest that such negotiated
exchange of property tax revenues and annual tax increment be
consumated.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED by the City
Council of the City of Atascadero, as follows :
1 . That the recitals set forth above are true , correct and
valid.
2 . That the Atascadero County Sanitation District agrees
to transfer the following negotiated exchange of property tax
revenues and annual tax increment :
a . Property tax revenues in the amount of $76 , 951 shall be
transferred from the Atascadero County Sanitation District to
the City of Atascadero in fiscal year 1989-90 .
b. Annual tax increment in the amount to be determined by
the County Auditor , based upon the following percentage agreed
to by the negotiating parties , 2 . 03459 percent , shall be
transferred from the Atascadero County Sanitation District to
the City of Atascadero in the fiscal year 1989-90 and each
fiscal year thereafter .
3. Upon receipt of a certified copy of this resolution and
and required documentation from the County of San Luis Obispo,
the County Auditor shall make the appropriate adjustment to
property tax revenues and annual tax increment as set forth
above .
4 . That the City Clerk is authorized and directed to
transmit a certified copy of this resolution to the Executive
Officer of the San Luis Obispo County Local Agency Formation
Commission , who shall then distribute copies thereof in the
manner required by law.
•
•
Upon motion of Councilman ,seconded by S
Councilman the foregoing resolution is hereby
adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES :
ABSENT :
ADOPTED:
ATTEST :
BOYD C. SHARITZ BONITA BORGESON, Mayor
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT :
JEFFREY G. JORGENSEN PAUL M. SENSIBAUGH
City Attorney Director of Public Works •
City Engineer
� �lISQ V
County of San Luis Obispo
COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER SAN LUIS OBISPO,CALIFORNIA 93408 • (805)549-5011
R E C E I V E DOFFICE OF THE
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
October 26, 1988 OCT 3 11988
CITY MGR.
Mr. Ray Winsor,
City Manager
6500 Palma Avenue
Atascadero, CA 93422
Dear Mr. Winsor:
This is to advise you that on October 25, 1988, the Board of Supervisors voted
to commence. negotiations for the exchange of property tax revenue and annual
tax increment for the dissolution of the Atascadero County Sanitation District.
This action was initiated at the request of the City of Atascadero. The
negotiation period is set at 30 days, however it is the Board's intention to
transfer all of the property tax that is currently distributed to the
Sanitation District to the City. This will formalize the dissolution which was
initiated and approved by the voters in 1979, at the time of the incorporation
election.
I have discussed the matter at great length with your City Attorney and Public
Work's Director. To complete the proceedings it will be necessary for the City
Council to adopt a resolution agreeing to the exchange set forth in the
attached notice. Your Public Work's Director has indicated to me that this will
occur at the November 8, 1988 City Council Meeting. Please forward a certified
copy of the resolution and a check in the amount of $170 payable to the State
Board of Equalization, to me at you earliest convenience following the meeting.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Sincerely,
PAUL L. HOOD
Principal Administrative Analyst
c - Jeff Jorgensen, City Attorney
Paul Sensibaugh, Public Work's Director
County of San Luis Obispo
Coum GovEwal wr Cmu • SAN Lues 081sPO,C.mn+owau 93408 • (805)549-5011
OFFICE OF THE
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS C KwwADMn ISMATOR
'R'
FROM: TIM NESS, ACTING COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
DATE: OCTOBER 25, 1988
SUBJECT: NOTICE TO CC&WE M NBGOTTAT10M FOR TTIE EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY TAX REVENUE
AND ANNUAL TAX INCIZEMM4 T FOR THE I)Eso.UTION OF THE ATASCADERO COUNTY
SANITATION DISTRICT
Summary
The attached Notice to Commence Negotiations for the Exchange of Property Tax
Revenue and Annual Tax Increment is required as a prerequisite to any jurisdictional
change, pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code Section 99. This notice was
Previously approved by your Board on July 19, 1988, but because the City of
Atascadero decided not to act to adopt a similar notice at that time, negotiations
must be commenced again. The staff of each agency will negotiate and then prepare
resolutions agreeing to the transfer of property tax from the Atascadero County
Sanitation District to the City of Atascadero. These resolutions must be
subsequently adopted by your Board.
Recommendation
Commence negotiations for transfer of property tax revenue and annual tax increment.
Attachment
karyne
KM:tb\mm
1 /�
LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION
• SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
NOTICE TO COMMENCE NEGOTIATION
FOR TRANSFER OF PROPERTY TAX REVENUE
Proposed Jurisdictional Change: Dissolution of the Atascadero County Sanitation
District
Agenda Date for
Negotiating Agencies: Start of Negotiations
County of San Luis Obispo October 25, 1988
on behalf of the Atascadero County
Sanitation District
City of Atascadero
Subiect Property:
Tax Code Areas
007-008 007-024 007-038
007-013 007-028
007-020 007-031
007-021 007-033
007-022 007-034
Estimated property tax revenue generated within subject property: $76,951 in fiscal
year 1988-89
Amount of property tax base to be exchanged: $76,951
Percentage of annual tax increment to be exchanged: 2.03459%
Negotiation period: October 25, 1988 - November 25, 1988
Property tax exchange effective in fiscal year: 1989-90
TIM NESS, ACTING EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Local Agency Formation Commission
By: ✓ . \ Date: to LS g
PAUL L. HOOD, Deputy Executive Off iccr
(Nott: At close of negotiations, each agency shall immediately transmit to the
LAFCo Executive Officer a certified copy of the resolution setting forth the amount
of property tax revenue to be transferred. For dependent districts, the Clerk of
the Board of Supervisors shall transmit a certified copy of the Board's resolution
adopted on behalf of both parties. This will allow LAFCo to commence processing of
the jurisdictional change.)
cc: County Negotiator, County Auditor-Controller, and Negotiating Agency
karyne
KM:tb\mm
MEETi AGENDA
DAT - .�
IT L
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council
FROM: Ray Windsor, City Manager
SUBJECT: Claim of Sally Zamora
DATE: November 8, 1988
BACKGROUND
Claimant alleges assault by a City police officer and is seeking
damages in the amount of $50,000 .
•
RECOMMENDATION
The City' s insurance adjustor is recommending denial of claim at
this time.
•
MA �, AGENDA
DATE //� MfTEM N
• MEMORANDUM t
eta-C ,, DA;T�r�
TO: Chief of Police (ICt,)"ca r a c
�L p t "►>
0'_j �7► C G +N cI L �}j GL�ib H
FROM: Support Services Coordinator r R Gvrori.00c.vT/on/
SUBJ: Public Safety Dispatcher Program Yo 4 '
!1'3-88
DATE: Nov. 3, 1988
BACKGROUND:
Penal Code Section 13510 has been amended to n require the Commission
q s o Peace
Officer Standards and Training to establish minimum selection and training
standards for local public safety dispatchers. The Commission adopted the
below described standards for agencies which participate in the program which
will become effective 1-1-89:
-a thorough background investigation;
-a medical examination;
-an evaluation of oral communication skills;
• -satisfactory completion of a POST-certified, 80-hour Basic
Complaint/Dispatcher course within 12 months of the date of hire;
and
-a minimum of 12 months probation.
Only participating agencies will be eligible for reimbursement of certain
dispatcher training costs. To participate in the Public Safety Dispatcher
Program, an agency must submit a letter to the Commission requesting participation,
accompanied by a copy of a_ resolution pledging adherence to the standards adopted
by the Commission. (As you will note, we currently adhere to the program
requirements, however, without the resolution and request to POST, effective
1-1-89, we will no longer be reimbursed for the POST training.)
Attached is a proposed resolution for City Council review and adoption. Once
approved, I will forward a copy with a letter to POST.
RECOMMENDATION:
I request that the attached proposed resolution in whatever format is appropriate,
be approved by City Council so that our City may continue to participate in
POST-funded training programs for our dispatchers.
FISCAL IMPACT:
• There is no cost to the City for participation in this program.
SANDI BARTELT
Sb
•
RESOLUTION NO. 107-88
A RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
ACCEPTING THE PENAL CODE REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO
THE SELECTION AND TRAINING STANDARDS OF
PUBLIC SAFETY DISPATCHERS
WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero does hereby declare its
desire to qualify to receive aid from the State of California
under the provisions of Section 13522 , Chapter 1 of Title 4 of
the California Penal Code; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 13510(c) , Chapter 1 , the City
of Atascadero will adhere to standards for recruitment and
training established by the California Commission on Peace
Officer Standards and Training (POST) ; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 13512, Chapter 1, the Com-
mission and its representatives may make such inquiries as
deemed appropriate by the Commission to ascertain that the City
of Atascadero' s public safety dispatcher personnel adhere to •
standards for selection and training established by the Commis-
sion on Peace Officer Standards and Training.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this resolution shall go
into full force and effect at 12 : 01 a.m. on January 1 , 1989 .
On motion by Councilmember and seconded by
Councilmember I the foregoing resolution is hereby
adopted on the following roll-call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ADOPTED:
ATTEST:
BOYD C. SHARITZ, City Clerk BONITA BORGESON, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO FORM: •
RICHARD H. MCHALE JEFFREY G. JORGENSEN
Chief of Police City Attorney
• � DAT Q ,�� AGENDA
ITEM/
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council
VIA: Ray Windsor, City Manager
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director {,
DATE: November 8, 1988
RE: Preliminary Review of General Plan Amendment Cycle 1-89
Background:
At their meeting of October 18, 1988, the Planning Commission
considered the study areas for the next General Plan amendment
cycle as presented in the attached staff report.
Discussion:
The Planning Commission concurred with Staff' s recommendation for
study areas for each of the proposed General Plan amendments.
After reviewing the Council' s requested amendment for the County
owned property located on Capistrano, the Commission determined
that this General Plan amendment (GP 1B-89) would be an appropri-
ate vehicle for amending the Plan relative to other City owned
facilities . Therefore, the Commission recommended the inclusion
of the Police Facility site and the site of Fire Station ##2 to
this General Plan amendment study area.
Recommendation:
Direct Staff to prepare an analysis and bring to public hearing
the General Plan amendment study areas recommended by the Plan-
ning Commission.
Attachment: October 18, 1988 Staff Report
•
i
CITY OF ATASCADERO Item: C-1
STAFF REPORT
FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: October 18, 1988
BY:P�&teven L. Decamp, Senior Planner File No: GP Cycle 1-89
SUBJECT:
Preliminary review of those General Plan Amendment applications
submitted for analysis and action in the first cycle of 1989.
BACKGROUND:
The application period for the first cycle of General Plan
amendments for 1989 closed on October 1, 1988. The purpose of
this report is to allow the Planning Commission an opportunity to
recommend approval or modification of the proposed study areas
for the amendments already initiated by private property owners
and the City. In addition, the Planning Commission can use this
as an opportunity to initiate any additional amendments to the
City' s General Plan. As with prior amendment cycles, staff will
recommend that Zoning Ordinance text and/or map revisions, as
needed, be processed concurrently with the corresponding General
Plan amendment proposals.
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS:
Following is a brief description of the amendment requests
currently in process and staff' s recommendation for study area
boundaries. Staff is not recommending that any additional City
initiated General Plan amendments be undertaken at this time
because of the ongoing work on the General Plan Revision Program.
GP 1A-89 - 10785 E1 Camino Real (Colombo)
Inclusion within Urban Services Line
The applicant has submitted a General Plan map amendment request
for a 10. 0 acre parcel at the intersection of E1 Camino Real and
Jornada Lane. The property is currently developed with a single-
family home and various out buildings. The subject property is
designated for High Density Multiple Family development on the
General Plan map. The property to the north, south and west of
this site is also designated for High Density Multiple Family
use. The property to the east is part of the State Hospital.
The subject property is not included within the boundaries of
the Urban Services Line and thus can not be provided with sewer •
service. The lack of sewer service precludes the development of
the property to the densities anticipated by its General Plan
land use designation and zoning district. The approximately 10. 0
• acre parcel to the south of the Columbo property is similarly
affected by its exclusion from the Urban Services Line.
Staff believes that this application can be reviewed and acted
upon on its own merits. However, it appears appropriate to
expand the study area for this proposal to include the parcel to
the south. This addition would provide a more logical boundary
for any resultant change to the General Plan map. There will be
no concurrent zone change necessary for this application.
GP 1B-89 - Hospital & Capistrano Property (City of Atascadero)
"High Density Multi-Family" to "Public"
The City of Atascadero has a long-term lease on a parcel of land
adjacent to the County' s health care facility located on Hospital
Drive off Capistrano Avenue. Both of these parcels are currently
designated "High Density Multi-Family" on the City' s General
Plan. The City Council has requested that these parcels be
redesignated "Public" to more accurately reflect their current
and intended future uses. The property surrounding the subject
site is designated for Low Density Multi-Density to the north,
and Moderate Density Single Family on south, east and west.
In addition to the Capistrano property, there are two other sites
in the City that should be redesignated "Public" on the General
• Plan map. These sites are the old "Beno' s" location which is to
become the new Police Facility, and the other is the site of Fire
Station #2. The Police Facility is currently designated "Retail
Commercial" and the Fire Station is designated "Moderate Density
Single Family" . Neither of these designations are appropriate
for the intended use of the properties.
Staff believes that this City Council' s amendment request can be
reviewed independently of the ongoing General Plan Revision
Program. It appears appropriate, however, to expand the proposal
to include other City owned land that is being utilized for
public purposes in the analysis. Appropriate changes to the
Zoning Map can also be made at this time.
RECONMENDATION:
The Commission should recommend study areas for the first cycle
of 1989 General Plan amendments, as shown on the attached maps,
to the City Council.
ATTACHMENTS: Map Exhibits (5)
SLD/sld
2
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF ATASCADERO GP 1A-89
• �� : Requested Amendment
' F COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
P U ' IC
ATASCADE� STATE
Ho�P/TAL
Sl \` REC.
NG
FAMtt
HIGH o®
i4 IJ DEN ITY o `1
-z'Mi
FA 441L
'® ® RE
® ® ® L 4
,r4 ® • C K o�
D I- AMILY •
�IFjo
E AIL �M'"�
0 C,M, 0 MERCIA
"° I� Qf4c
� • ®o
CtF�
o/
4s
EXHIBIT B
CITY OF ATASCADERO GP 1A-89
ms 's"''■^ '"'■ Recommended Study Area
MAD
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
Pi,
PU
' IC
ATASCADE�O STATE
` %��� •
REC. HO��P/TAL
��++r� •
SI �G •
FAMIi
A
o
•
•
0---HIGH
• '��� •®
%ice J DEN ITY • •®®•
Z,MUL ® A •••®
FA IL 3• A •A®
w• ® s ®A� �0s
REI
A ® ® L 4
® C K 0
D UTI• AMILY 0 P R
-91 E AIL q ''"off(
o CqM,No 0 MERCIA
I
4L
0
Q��
•- • - • -•
1 •
�J 1=. ,
MA v
�•e� GPER
�■ ■
W�Mw MIN
LE a
- Ip111111 . \
all 111M
_ 1 •
The 0
rtI
ONE
iiiiiii Mai
TTV 0,
. RMT �: � .„�s� �_��� . • \
EXHIBIT E
CITY OF AT GP 1.B-89
ASCADERO
Recommended Study Area
- ' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fire Station #2
DEPARTMENT
\ MULI1•rNmiai
RaDqM i �� � ���� boa� \`� •
E
Leo 0
Cr
- 0.
RET. ® �, SING-CAM •
� � �,�
ING,L i� I _.' i`\FAMti •
P K A M. m HIGH ®�
`C QP S •
y �9s / J DEN ITYS -77T
•
MU
vFA IL •
ER IA
0 M; ®�
A 4 pk
f
N
O Q . \
P LII
/ rtP
P
A/ E
N /
N1VE \ WJ
4f C °q
• • PLEASE REPLACE ITEM
B-2 WITH THE ATTACHED. I
THERE HAS BEEN A
• MEMORANDUM RECENT ADJUSTMENT IN
THE REIMBURSEMENT
TO: City Council AMOUNT. THANK YOU.
THROUGH: Ray Windsor, City Manager
FROM: Paul Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works
Valerie Humphrey, Clerical Technician
SUBJECT : Reimbursement Agreement
DATE: November 1 . 1988
Recommendation :
Staff recommends that Council approve the attached Sewer
Extension Reimbursement Agreement between the City and Mr . &
Mrs . MacCorkell .
Background:
Mr. & Mrs . MacCorkell have paid for the construction of
• a sewer main extension to serve property owned by them on
Larga Avenue . In doing so they provided sewer access to a
number of other lots . The Wastewater Treatment Ordinance
allows for the reimbursement of expenses incurred by
individuals in the construction of a public sewer line when
subsequent connections are made to that line.
During the Public Hearing required as part of the
annexation process , the neighbors affected by this extension
spoke in opposition to the mandatory connection . At that
time Council agreed to modify their requirement for
connection within 24 months to require testing, at the
owner' s expense, of their septic systems at the deadline . If
the systems failed immediate connection would be required.
In the event that the system passed the owner would be
allowed to postpone connection while retesting the system at
an interval to be specified by Council .
Engineering staff has reviewed the costs presented and
have determined that all are applicable to the project .
Fiscal Impact :
• There is no impact on the City from this action , except
administration of the payments . Line extension costs ,
annexation and connection fees will be paid by the residents
receiving the sewer service.
• DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS - SANITATION DIVISION
SEWER EXTENSION
REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT
WHEREAS , on February 23, 1988 the Board of Directors of the
Atascadero County Sanitation District did approve Resolution No
21-88 annexing Lot 25 of Block YB into Improvement District
No . 1 .
WHEREAS, Chapter 7-5 . 001 of the Ordinance of the City of
Atascadero provides for reimbursement of funds expended in the
construction of an approved sewer extension;
NOW, THEREFORE, THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this
8th day of November , 1988 by Mr. & Mrs . MacCorkell , 35 Sombrilla
Court , Atascadero, California , in the County of San Luis Obispo,
State of California, hereinafter referred to as "Applicant" and
the City of Atascadero , a municipal corporation located in the
County of San Luis Obispo, State of California , hereinafter
referred to as "City" ;
WITNESSETH:
In consideration of the mutual promises , agreements ,
• covenants and conditions set forth herein, and in consideration
of the final approval of said sewer extension , the parties
hereto do hereby mutually covenant and agree as follows :
1 . That the recitals set forth hereinabove are true,
correct and valid.
2 . That in the construction of an approved sewer
extension , Applicant has expended funds in the amount of
$19 ,794 .00
3 . That Applicant is entitled to a refund of a portion of
said expenditures at such times within fifteen (15)
years following the date of the execution of this
Agreement as additional connections are made to said
sewer extension , from the following parcel :
Lot 42 Block YB APN 31-132-02 $3,958. 80
Lot 41 Block YB APN 31-132-06 $3 , 958. 80
Lot 40 Block YB APN 31-132-07 $3 , 958 , 80
Lot 39 Block YB APN 31-132-04 $3 , 958 , 80
The amount to be paid by this parcel upon connection
shall be the amounts listed above which is the total
expenditure divided between 5 benefitting parcels .
ill
4 . That District will collect the amounts specified in
Section 3 from the owners of the real property listed
in said section , at such times within fifteen (15)
years following the date of execution of this Agreement
as a permit is issued for connection of said real pro-
perty to said sewer extension ,
5 . All monies collected in accordance with Item 4 , above,
will be refunded to Applicant , except that any such
refund shall be reduced by the total of;
a . Any outstanding sewer service charges .
6. Neither party to this Agreement shall assign or
transfer this Agreement or any interest therein without
the prior written consent of the other party , except
that upon dissolution of the ACSD the City Sewer
Department shall control both the collection and
disposition of the reimbursements .
7. Applicant further agrees to defend, indemnify and save
harmless the City of Atascadero, and
their officers , agents and employees from any and all
liability , claims , demands , costs , expenses , causes of
• action , damages and judgments , of whatsoever kind and
nature and to whomsoever occurring arising out of this
Agreement or occasioned by the performance or attempted
performance hereof, including but not limited to any
act or omission to act on the part of the Applicant or
his accents or employees or independent contractors
directly responsible to Applicant .
8 . This Agreement shall be binding on the heirs , assigns ,
transferees , executors , successors , administrators and
trustees of the parties hereto .
IN WITNESS WHEREOF Applicant and City have executed this
Agreement on the day and year first hereinabove set forth ,
APPLICANT V
• ATTEST :
BOYD C . SHARITZ BONITA BORGESON, Mayor
City Clerk Board of Directors
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT :
JEFFREY G. JORGENSEN PAUL M. SENSIBAUGH
City Attorney Dir , of Public Works/
City Engineer
MEETIN AGENDA
OAT : $r�
ITE Me
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council
FROM: Ray Windsor, City Manager
SUBJECT: Request by A.F.A.R. regarding spay/neuter assistance
program
DATE : November 8, 1988
I apologize for the delay in bringing this to your attention,
because I know that Mrs . Fahsing would like to initiate the
• accelerated program as quickly as possible. However, I felt
that it was important to receive comments from the City Attorney
before placing it on the agenda. Mrs . Fahsing will be at your
meeting on November 8th to provide additional information on
A.F.A.R. ' s intentions with respect to the one-month program.
I would only indicate to you that the 1988-89 Budget reflects a
$12 , 000 allocation for A. F.A.R. , $6 ,000 of which has already been
released. Beyond that, I would only state that, as long as there
is no implication of having the City appropriate additional
monies for the fiscal year, I would be supportive of the concept
enumerated by Mrs. Fahsing. You will note from the attached
letter that Paso Robles has also indicated its concurrence with
the concept.
Attach.
RW/cw
•
z Action For Animals' Rights (AFAR)
C . FAR 0
2 '��+ Q A Non-Profit Volunteer Animal Welfare Organization
�O °j
q v
=�=8 W ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93423 PHONE: (805)466-5403
8935 Morro Rd. , Suite 2, Atascadero, CA 93422
October 7,1988
Ray Windsor, Manager
City of Atascadero
P.O. Box 747
Atascadero, CA 93423
Dear Mr. Windsor:
This is a follow up to our interview this morning, on our query as to
extending payments from the City grant for AFAR Spay/Neuter Assistance Program.
I have spoken with Mayor Borgeson, and understand your wish to consult with
the Council.
As briefly as possible - we would like to offer free spay/neuter to people
who are feeding stley/wild cats, also to senior citizens, for a 1-month period,
probably November. We will try to get some help from the veterinarians but,
basically, the spay/neuter funds would pay the entire cost of the operations.
The abandoned cat and kitten problem seems to be worse than ever, in
spite of what we are trying to do, and we've always found it difficult to reach
the people who need the most help. Too many people feed the strays, only to
find that a bunch of kittens soon follow! We try to impress upon these people
that, if they feed them they must get them neutered. This means a great expense,
even with AFAR's certificates for, essentially, what the original orwners should
have done instead of abandoning the animals.
Then there is the need for shots. They have to be paid for and are just
as necessary, usually required by the vets, before taking in for surgery. Could
the funds be used to cover vaccinations as well?
Up to now we have only issued certificates for amounts off the vet, bill.
We would like to try extending the program for a month now, and perhaps again
before the spring kitten season, if funds permit.
We have written to Paso Robles City Manager and Mayor, with a similar
proposal for their city grant. If we should get an overwhelming response we
may find ourselves running short of money, but this would be a great benefit
to the community and will ultimately save the cities much more in animal control
costs. We would appreciate your advice, and look forward to hearing from you.
If you have any questions, my home phone is 466-9299. Thank you.
Sincerely,
aphne W. Fahsin --T
Co-Founder/President
cc. Mayor Bonita Borgeson.
• 0 RECEIVE ,
OCT 31 1988
CITY MGR.
MEMORANDUM
City of Atascadero
October 27, 1988
TO: Ray Windsor, City Manager
FROM: Jeffrey G. Jorgensen, City Attorney
SUBJECT: Action for Animals' Rights Request
At your request, I have reviewed the letter from Action for
Animals' Rights dated October 7, 1988. While I am not aware
of the terms and conditions of the City grant to the AFAR
spay/neuter assistance program, short of some limitation in
the grant, their request does not appear to pose any signifi-
cant legal issues.
While the question of a gift of public funds always seems to
arise with issues like this, I feel that it can be justified
as serving a municipal purpose in hopefully reducing the
abandoned cat and kitten problem in the City. While limiting
the program to "people who are feeding stray/wild cats, also
to senior citizens" may raise some equal protection issues, so
long as the program is done in a fair and equitable way, I
would not anticipate any problems.
The real question presented here is a management and policy
one. This should be determined by the City Council on your
recommendation.
Sincere y,
h
JE FREt G. ORGENSEN
City At orney
JGJ: fr
A:MMATA406
•
.4°°�`OPPOAgJ�,so City of EI Paso de Robles
Wye � FO Ops
0 O (��j pp pp ��((�� pp I
n • S iLE �[tiS O f Ells DaL"
o � I
ON �r
��JyO 4ACH l t.Ae091a, October 31 , 1988 II
- 113 Xtl1NaO
Ms . Daphne J. Fahsinn
President , Action For Animals Fights
"3-' 9433 Morro Road , Suite 2
Atascadero , CA 93422
Dear Ms . Fahsing :
In response to your letter of October 5 , 1988, the City of Paso
Robles has no objection to your use of existing funding from the
City for the purpose of providing, a program to offer for free
spay and -neuter for stray and wild cats . The offer of free
spay/neuter services to senior citizens is also an acceptable
program to the City.
The City continues to appreciate the fine work conducted by your
organization, and we support your efforts in this new endeavor .
Sincerely ,
Jerr�y��kston
City Manager
J11
Office of the City Manager P.O. Box 307, Paso Robles, CA 93447-0307 (805) 238-0400
N °
MEETIN ,AGENDA e_
OAT ITEW r
MEMORANDUM
To : Honorable Mayor and City Council
Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager
From: Paul M. Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Subject : Adoption of New Development Fees, Eliminating 50c Tax
Incorporating Lewis Ave . Bridge into Bridge Dev. Fee
Date : November 1, 1988
Recommendation:
Staff recommends adoption of Resolution 100-88 and
Ordinance 183
Background:
Refer to Exhibits A and B.
Discussion:
No public input was given at the October 25 scheduled public
hearing. Ordinances 111 and 118, the 50 cent tax and Lewis Ave .
Bridge, respectively, will be repealed. Resolutions 64-85, 10-86,
44-88 and 11-86, the 50 cent tax, development fees, development fee
cost-of-living increase and the Lewis Ave . Bridge, respectively,
will be repealed. Ordinance 119, development fees, will also be
repealed but replaced with the above urgency ordinance . Ordinance
117 and Resolution 9-86 which deal with the Amapoa-Tecorida Drainage
Development Fee will remain in tact . Resolution 100-88 will become
effective immediately upon approval .
Ordinance 119 is being replaced by the above urgency ordinance
only because the exemptions and definitions contained in Ordinance
111 must be salvaged and were only contained in Ord. 119 by
reference . Since the November 15 date brings the automatic voiding
of the Mitigation Tax (Ord. 111) , the urgency language is
necessary. Only the reference to not using commercial fees for
Parks and Recreation was deleted from Ord. 119 .
The Lewis Ave . Bridge Fee has been absorbed into the Bridgq
Development Fee and all projects that were originally intended to
pay that fee will now pay only the regular new bridge fee . Projects
that paid, or were subject to an agreement to pay, the fee contained
in Resolution 11-86 will either be reimbursed or expected to pay the
bridge fee contained in Resolution 100-88. Any project that is
submitted and accepted prior to November 9 will pay the development
fees outlined in old Resolutions 64-85, 10-86 and 44-88, and any
permit accepted after November 9 will pay the fees contained in
Resolution 100-88 .
Fiscal Impact :
The revision of the development fee structure should bring in
sufficient revenue to implement the capital improvements necessary
due to new development over the next twelve (12) years as listed in
Exhibit A.
•
_��OWN AT4,ej
10� 1vn
Down to
BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION
E O. BOX 1607 j • ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93423
RECEIVED
NOV Z 19db
CITY MGR.
, „
_ ._.,. .,.�._ '�;T : `'ct i•*j _i`i -w.,. iii 4.:'•>'_' >_;.f.`-
. _..i...�� .w �'_ '-._.i. ._ , _.i-i �i.✓�_'� i _._i i_f i, ....... ...r...r v s!t•__4r'i i i .... a a. _........ _.a_._....1.i._. ....�..1,._I
>n _.:.i:,v....:. j =_..:_!1 i��t_i i..i_t.._.i..ii ...1•ice 'r�t.1 i IL;v� '_t'.:..c
4
0 ED
.,_-.:�.:F'-,_� i t= ': F-ti t•;_��-`_.t
,.� ;.
.1..1,
t
RESOLUTION NO. 100-88
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ATASCADERO ESTABLISHING A DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE FOR
ALL DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE INCORPORATED AREA
OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO PURSUANT
TO ORDINANCE NO. 183
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Atascadero has
adopted Ordinances 119 and 183 creating and establishing the
authority for imposing and charging a Development Fee; and
WHEREAS , Exhibits A and B are a study of the impacts of
planned future development on existing public facilities in
the incorporated area , along with an analysis of the need for
new public facilities and improvements required by new
development , and said study set forth the relationship
between new development , the needed facilities , and the
estimated costs of those improvements . The study, entitled
"Exhibit A, Development Fee Impact Study, and Exhibit B,
Development Fee Task Force Report to Council" was prepared by
Paul M. Sensibaugh , Director of Public Works/City Engineer ,
and is dated November , 1988, and January 1986, respectively;
and
WHEREAS, this study was available for public inspection .
and review fourteen (14) days prior to this public hearing;
and
WHEREAS , the City Council finds as follows :
A. The purpose of this fee is to finance facilities
shown in Exhibit A to reduce the impacts of runoff , traffic
and other impacts shown in the exhibits , caused by new
development , within the incorporated area .
B. The development fees collected pursuant to this
resolution shall be used to finance only the public
facilities described or identified in Exhibit "A" , attached
hereto ;
C . After considering the above study and analysis and
the testimony received at this public hearing, the Council
approves said study, and incorporates such herein , and
further finds that the new development in the incorporated
area will generate additional runoff , traffic , and other
impacts shown in the exhibits within the impacted area and
will contribute to the degradation of public facilities and
services in that incorporated area .
0 •
D. There is a need in this described impact area for
the improvements shown in Exhibit A which have not been
constructed or have been constructed, but new development has
not contributed its fair share toward these facility costs
and said facilities have been called for in or are consistant
with the City' s General Plan;
E. The facts and evidence presented establish that
there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the
described public facilities and the impacts of the types of
development described in paragraph 2 below, for which the
corresponding fee is charged, and, also there is a reasonable
relationship between the fee' s use and the type of
development for which the fee is charged, as these reasonable
relationships or nexus are in more detail described in the
study referred to above;
F. The cost estimates set forth in Exhibit "A" are
reasonable cost estimates for constructing these facilities ,
and the fees expected to be generated by new development will
not exceed the total of these costs .
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved by the City
Council of the City of Atascadero that ;
• 1 . A development fee shall be charged prior to the
issuance of any building permit and shall be paid prior to
the issuance of a building permit or a certificate of
occupancy in the case that a building permit is not
applicable . The City Community Development Department shall
determine if the development lies within this benefit area,
the type of development and the corresponding fee to be
charged in accordance with this resolution , including
proportionate fees for alterations on additions , if
applicable .
2 . Fee
SUMMARY OF FEES
NON-RESIDENTIAL * MULTIPLE FAMILY * SINGLE FAMILY
$FEE\LANDUSE (Sq.Ft.), UNIT COST.x (Sq.Ft.) AUNIT COST. (Sq.Ft.) *UNIT COST*
i # # ik
DRAINAGE : $0.634 # $0. 172 # $0. 127 *
W4520W 01250/0W :$1731cfs *
I TRAFFIC $0.439 # $0.010 N $0.001 *
'I $39.22/ADT# :$1. 19/ADT# :$0. 14/ADTA
S BRIDGES # 1 $0.537 # : $0.393 # : $0.260 *
$46.691ADT# $46.69/ADT# $46.69/ADT*
ROADS SIS : $0.075 # : $0.055 # : $0.036 *
:$6.53/ADT# :$6.53/ADT# :$6.53/ADT*
PARKS
# #
POLICE $0.214 # $0.056 # $0.032
FIRE $0.480 # $0. 115 # $0.065
*B&G & EQUIP3 $0.244 # $0.244 # $0.244 � •
# #
*COM.DEV/ENG $V036 # $0.036 # $0.016
# #
# #
TOTALS 8 $21758 # $1.674 # $1. 138
Notes : (1) Totals do not include the Amapoa-Tecorida
Drainage Development Fee , if applicable .
(Ordinance 117 and Resolution 9-86)
(2) Credits for actual work done shall be
determined by the City Engineer .
(3) Calls for studies that may require additional
fees or improvements shall be made by the
Director of Community Development .
(4) Calls for using CFS or ADT in lieu of
sq. ft . shall be made by the City Engineer .
(5) The Developer of a mobile home park shall
pay a one-time fee of $575 . 00 for each mobile
home space site . Mobile homes located outside
of mobile home parks shall pay the single
family fee unit cost .
•
3 . Use of Fee . The fee shall be solely used to pay (1)
for the described public facilities to be constructed by the
City ; (2) for reimbursing the City for the development' s fair
share of those capital improvements already constructed by
the City ; or (3) to reimburse other developers who have
constructed public facilities described in Exhibit "A"
attached hereto, where those facilities were beyond that
needed to mitigate the impacts of the other developer' s
project or projects .
4 . Fee Review. On or about June, 1990 and each
following year, the Public Works Department shall review the
estimated cost of the described capital improvements , the
continued need for those improvements and the reasonable
relationship between such need and the impacts of the various
types of development pending or anticipated and for which
this fee is charged. The Public Works Department shall
report its findings to the City Council at a noticed public
hearing and recommend any adjustment to this fee or other
action as may be needed.
5 . Judicial Action to Challenge this Resolution . Any
judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside,
void or annul this resolution shall be broucxht within 120
days .
6. Exhibits A and B are herebv adopted by reference and
are considered a part of this resolution .
7 . Resolution 11-86 is hereby repealed. The previous
Lewis Avenue Bridge Fee (Refer to Exhibit B) for any permit
subject to such fee shall be pursuant to this resolution,
including the Lewis Avenue Bridge project as contained in
Exhibit A.
8 . Resolutions 64-85 , 10-86 and 44-88 are hereby
repealed; provided that the fees contained therein shall be
applicable to building permit applications accepted by the
Building Division as complete prior to November 9, 1988 .
• •
11 . This Resolution shall become effective immediately
upon passage and shall apply to all building permits for
construction activities applied for on or after November 9,
1988 .
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of ,
1988.
AYES :
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: CITY OF ATASCADERO
BOYD .C. SHARITZ, City Clerk BONITA BORGESON, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT :
JEFFREY G. JORGENSEN PAUL M. SENSIBAUGH
City Attorney Director of Public Works
City Engineer
•
ORDINANCE NO. 183
AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ATASCADERO SUPERCEDING CHAPTER 8 OF TITLE 3 OF THE
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
AND REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 111 , ORDINANCE NO. 118
AND ORDINANCE 119
WHEREAS , residential , both single and multi-family , commercial ,
industrial , and other non-residential development in the City of
Atascadero requires substantial public facilities and capital
improvements pursuant to the City' s General Plan and other similar
policies ; and
WHEREAS, the costs of these public improvements are constantly
escalating and funding resources for public facilities and capital
improvements are diminished in terms of availability and control ; and
WHEREAS , the City Council has found that due to the increase in
growth and population in Atascadero, services in the area of
drainage, traffic control , bridges , roads , parks , police , fire,
administration and other public buildings and grounds and equipment
require improvement to meet the needs of the public health , safety,
and welfare and
WHEREAS , a mechanism is necessary to provide a predictable and
equitable funding method for requiring new development to cover the
costs of future public facilities and capital improvements which are
of benefit to such development such that the impact to new growth
will be borne equitably by that new development ; and
WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero as a general law city in the State
of California has the power to impose valid regulatory fees pursuant
to the California Consitution , Article VI , Section 7 ; and
WHEREAS , the Development Fee Task Force appointed by the City Council
has carefully evaluated the costs attributable to the impact of new
development as documented in their 1986 report to the City Council ;
and
•
WHEREAS , the Development Fee Task Force has recommended that fees be
levied which do not exceed the reasonable cost of providing the
necessary services ; and
WHEREAS , Proposition 62 stated that anv tax not approved by a 2/3' s
majority of the local electorate must cease on and after November 15 ,
1988; and
WHEREAS , Assembly Bill 1600 establishes criteria for the adoption
of development fees .
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO DOES
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS :
Section 1_ Ordinance No . 111 is hereby repealed
Section 2 . Ordinance No . 118 is hereby repealed
Section 3 . Ordinance No . 119 is hereby repealed
Section 4 . Chapter 8 of Title 3 is hereby modified as follows :
CHAPTER 8
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
SECTIONS: TITLE OF SECTIONS
3-8 . 01 Title
3-8 . 02 Scope and Purpose
3-8. 03 Definitions
3-8 . 04 Standards for Fees
3-8. 05 Issuance and
Requlations for
Setting of Fees
3-8 . 06 Adjustment to Fees
3-8. 07 Limitations on Use
3-8 . 08 Payment of Fee
3-8. 09 Alternative Payment
3-8 . 10 Exceptions
3-8. 11 Construction Prohibited
3-8. 12 Refund of Fee
3-8 . 13 Effective Date
3-8 . 14 Severability
Section 3-8_01 : TITLE .
This Chapter shall be known and may be cited as the "Development
Impact Fee Ordinance. "
• •
• Section 3-8 . 02 : SCOPE AND PURPOSE
The purpose of this Ordinance is to provide a predictable and
equitable funding method of requiring new development to pay for the
costs of future capital improvements which will benefit such
development . Thus , new development will be required to cover the
cost of anticipated future public facilities and capital improvements
so that the impact to new growth will be borne equitably by the new
development .
Section 3-8 . 03 : DEFINITIONS:
The following terms shall have the following meanings when used in
this Chapter .
(a) "Building" : means any structure having a roof supported
by columns and/or walls and intended for shalter, housing, and/or
enclosure of any person, animal or chattel , but not including tents
or mobile homes .
(b) "Building Permit" : means a buiilding permit for
residential , non-residential , or mobile home site development applied
for to the Community Development Department of Atascadero on or after
the effective date of this Ordinance.
. (c) "Capital Improvement" means any public facilities or
equipment funded through the City' s capital improvement budget .
(d) "Construct "Construction" as used in this Chapter means
the putting together , assembling, erection or altering of
construction materials components , or modules into a structure, or
portion of a structure, and includes restructuring, enlarging or
altering any structure . "Construct" also includes the movincr from
outside the City and locating of a building, or portion thereof , onto
a lot or parcel of land, and also includes the improvement of land as
a mobile home lot .
(e) "Costs of Capital Improvement" includes all costs
related to acquisitions , construction, design , repair, and financing,
but does not include costs of routine maintenance .
(f) "Dwelling Unit" means an independent , attached or
detached residential building designed to house and provide living
space including kitchen and bathroom facilities , for an individual
family .
(g) "Essential Infrastructure: are capital improvements
related to streets (includiing curbs , sidewalks , and related
structures) bridges , traffic control , drainage, and similar
facilities which serve public transportation , access and drainage
need
• 0
(h) "Government Facilities" are capital improvements relate
to City Hall , City garage and equipment yard, City offices , parking,
and all other public buildings and grounds , and similar facilities in
or through which general City government operations are conducted.
(i) "Gross Building Area" means the total floor area of each
floor of all buildings subject to this ordinance, including internal
circulation , storage and equipment space, as measured from the
outside faces of the exterior walls , including halls , lobbies ,
stairways , elevator shafts , enclosed porches and balconies .
(j) "Mobile Home" means a vehicle without self-propulsion
designed and equipped as a dwelling unit to be used with a
foundation .
(k) "Mobile Home Lot" , as used in this Chapter , means any
area or portion of a lot designated, designed, or used for the
occupancy of one(l) mobile home on a permanent basis .
(1) "New Development" means any residential , single or
multi-family, commercial , industrial , or other non-residential
construction project as sepcifically excepted herein .
(m) "Non-Residential" includes all uses of land other than
residential including agricultural , communication , cultura
educational , recreation, manufacturing, processing, resour
extraction, retail trade, services , transient lodging, transportatio
and wholesale trade uses .
(n) "Park and Recreation Facilities" are capital improvements
of general community benefit such as major landscaping, fountains ,
monuments , signs, and other similar facilities .
(o) "Person" includes any individual , firm, co-partnership,
corporation , company, association, joint stock association, city,
county, state or district ; and includes any trustee , receiver ,
assignee, or other similar representatives thereof .
(p) "Public Safety Facilities" are capital improements
related to police and fire operations .
(q) "Structure" as used in this Chapter means any artifact
constructed or erected, the use of which requires attachment to the
ground, including any building, but not including fences or walls six
feet or less in height .
(r) As used in this Chapter , the terms "residential , "
"commercial , " "office , " "industrial , " "hotel , " "motel ," and "quasi-
public" have the same meanings as are defined in the General Plan and
Zoning Ordinance of this City , as well as administrative
interpretations thereof .
Section 3-8 . 04 : STANDARDS FOR FEES :
Any fees imposed pursuant to this Chapter shall bear a
reasonable relationship to the costs associated with the capital
improvements which need is generated by such development .
Section 3-8 . 05 : ISSUANCE OF REGULATIONS AND SETTING OF FEES :
The City Council shall from time to time by resolution , issue
regulations and set fees for the administration of this Chapter .
Section 3-8 . 06 : ADJUSTMENT TO FEES:
The rates upon which the fees are based may be adjusted as of
July 1 of each year to reflect changes in building costs as
determined in the revised Consumer Price Index for all Urban
Consumers for Los Angeles-Long Beach , California Area, for all items
(1967=100) , as published by the United States Department of Labor,
Bureau of Labor Statistics for the period between the year
immediately preceeding July 1 of each year . In calculating any
increase , the most current index available immediately preceeding
July 1 of each year shall be used. In the event that the index is
unavailable, is no longer published, or is calculated on a
significantly different basis following the date of the enactment of
this Ordinance, the most comprehensive official index published which
most closely approximates the rate of inflation shall be substituted
in place of the aforesaid index .
Section 3-8 . 07 : LIMITATIONS ON USE:
(a) All fees collected pursuant to this Ordinance shall be
placed in the capital improvement fund and used only to pay for costs
of capital improvements as defined herein . The capital improvement
fund shall be divided into as many sub-funds as shall be necessary to
separately assess fees for single-family residential , multi-family
residential , commercial , industrial , and other non-residential
development .
(b) Fees from residential development of single, multi-
family units may be used for all types of capital improvements .
(c) Fees from commercial , industrial , and other non-
residential development may be used for all types of capital
improvements .
(d) The amount of fees collected pursuant to this Ordinance
which can be applied to any capital improvement shall be limited to
tot ft.jjp ppgt which is reasonably attributable to the need
generated by new development or benefit conferred upon new
development . In approving each capital improvement budget use of
funds from the capital outlay fund, the City Council shall apportion
the cost of capital improvements between needs or benefits relating
to existing development and needs or benefits relating to new
development .
Section 3-8 . 08 : PAYMENT _OF FEE_
Any applicant for a building permit for new development shall
d=ay a development fee in conjunction with payment of the building
permit fee. The fee shall be payable at the Building Division , City
Hall , Atascadero, California , prior to the issuance of a building
permit . The fee for a mobile home space shall be paid prior to the
issuance of the first permit for construction of such space or if
such construction is performed without a permit , at the time when
construction is commenced.
Section 3--8. 09: ALTERNATIVE PAYMENT:
The amount of the payment of a Development Impact Fee and the
timing thereof , can only be altered pursuant to an agreement approved
by the City Council of Atascadero .
Section 3-8_10 : EXCEPTIONS_
There is excepted from the fee imposed by this Ordinance the
following:
(a) The construction of a building or structure or mobile
home which is a replacement for a building or mobile home being
demolished or moved to outside the City from the same lot or parc
of land. The exception shall equal but not exceed the fee whi
would be payable hereunder if the building or mobile home bein
replaced were being newly constructed. If the fee imposed on the new
building exceeds the amount of this exception , such excess shall be
paid;
(b) Accessory buildings or structures in planned
developments , multi-family or mobile home parks , such as a clubhouse,
swimming pool , or laundry facility ;
(c) Buildings or structures which are "clearly accessory to
a principal use" such as fences , pools , patios , parking spaces
garages , residential accessory buildings . ;
(d) Any person when imposition of such tax upon that
person would be in violation of the Constitution and the laws of the
State of California, County of San Luis Obispo , or City of
Atascadero ;
(e) A condominium project converting an existing multi-
family building into condominiums where no new dwellings are added or
created;
(f) Any rebuilding of a structure destroyed or damaged by
fire ; explosion , act of God or other accident or catastrophe , which
rebuilding does not increase the original gross building area .
such increase does occur , the increase shall be subject to the fee
imposed by this resolution .
• 0
• (g) Any restoration/reconstruction of a historical
building recognized, acknowledged, and designated as such by the City
Planning Commission or City Council ;
(h) The construction of any building by the City of
Atascadero , or the United States or any Department or Agency thereof,
or by the State of California or any Department , Agency or Political
Subdivision thereof , or any residential development where the City
Council finds there are specific over-riding fiscal , economic , social
or environmental factors benefitting the City which , in the sole
judgement of the City Council , would justify the approval of such
development without the payment of said tax .
Section 3-8. 11 : CONSTRUCTION PROHIBITED:
It is unlawful for any person to erect , construct , enlarge,
alter , repair, move, improve, make, _ put together or convert any
building or structure in the City , or attempt to do so , or cause the
same to be done, without first paying the fee imposed by this
Chapter.
Section 3-8. 12 : REFUND OF FEE:
If the building permit approval is vacated or voided, and if
the applicant so requests in writing, there shall be a refund of the
entire Development Impact Fee paid.
Section 3=8_13 :_EFFECTIVE+DATE:
The fees imposed by this Chapter shall be applicable with
respect to building permits for construction activities applied for
on or after November 9, 1988.
Section-3-8.14:-SEVERABILITY
If any section , sub-section, sentence, clause, or phrase of
this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or
unconstitutional by the decision of the Court of competent
jurisdiction , such decision shall not affect the validity of any
remaining portion of this Chapter .
Section 4 . This ordinance is hereby declared to be urgently required
for the immediate preservation of the public peace , health , and
safety , and shall take effect immediately upon its adoption, but
shall be operative as specified herein . The facts constituting the
urgency are as follows : Pursuant to Proposition 62 the current
Development Mitigation Tax (50 cent tax) must cease on November 15 ,
1988 .
Section 5 . The City Clerk shall cause this urgency 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 Government
Code Section 36933 : shall certify the adoption of this ordinance; and
shall cause this ordinance and its certification to be entered in the
Book of Ordinances of this City .
Section 6 . This urgency ordinance shall go into effect immediate
upon adoption, but shall not become operative until the Council
adopts a resolution declaring all or part of this ordinance operative
and fixing the operative date .
The foregoing ordinance was introduced on November 8, 1988 and
adopted immediately .
AYES:
NOES :
ABSENT :
ATTEST:
BOYD C . SHARITZ BONITA BORGESON
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT : APPROVED AS TO FORM:
PAUL M. SENSIBAUGH JEFFREY G. JORGENSEN
Director of Public Works City Attorney
City Engineer
• • i-- I
• MEMORANDUM
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager
From: Paul M. Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Subject : Adoption of New Development Fees, Eliminating 50c Tax
Incorporating Lewis Ave . Bridge into Bridge Dev. Fee
Revised Memo.
Date : November 8, 1988
Note: This memo ammends the November 1 memo on the same subject .
Recommendation:
Staff recommends adoption of Resolution 100-88, as revised.
Background:
Refer to Exhibits A and B and the November 1 staff report .
Discussion:
Due to certain code sections regarding fees, Ordinance 183 will
be held over and revised to simply ammend Ordinance 119 since it
cannot be passed as an urgency. The repeals mentioned in that
ordinance (which is now only a draft) will follow at a later date so
that there is no chance of being caught without an effective
ordinance on the books for any of the old or new fees .
Additionally, fee Resolution 100-88 has been revised to reflect
a 60 day waiting period prior to applying it to new residential
permits . Non-residential uses will pay the new fees immediately
upon passage . Residential permits issued prior to January 9, 1989
will not pay the increase in fees, including the new bridge fee .
The Lewis Avenue Bridge Development Fee Ordinance will remain
on the books another 60 days, but Resolution 11-86 that established
that fee will be repealed. Residential uses will not pay the new
bridge fee until the effective date of Resolution 100-88, which is
January 9, 1989 . Non-residential will pay the new bridge fee, which
supercedes the old LAB fee, effective November 9, 1988 .
Rebates for the two projects that have paid the old LAB fee
will be brought back to Council on the consent agenda for approval
at a later date . The two projects that have been conditioned to pay
the old LAB fee will now pay the new bridge fee since the agreements
refer to a fair share portion of the cost of the bridge project .
Again. Ordinance 117 and Resolution 9-86 which deal with the
Amapoa-Tecorida Drainage Development Fee will remain intact .
Since the November 15 date brings the presumed automatic
voiding of the Mitigation Tax (Ord. 111) , any residential projects
Paying the 50 cent tax between November 15 and January 9 will be
seperately recorded in the unlikely event that reimbursements are
necessary in the future . There is now case law that may have an
impact on the Jarvis initiative (Proposition 62) which could render
it ineffective .
Since non—residential will pay the new fees, which essentially
takes up any slack from the old 50 cent tax, the 50 cent tax will
not be charged to that category after November 8 . The reference to
not using commercial fees for Parks and Recreation will still be
deleted from Ord. 119 via the proposed ammendment .
Fiscal Impact :
The revision of the development fee structure should bring in
sufficient revenue to implement the capital improvements necessary
due to new development over the next twelve (12) years as listed in
Exhibit A.
RESOLUTION NO. 100-88
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ATASCADERO ESTABLISHING A DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE FOR
ALL DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE INCORPORATED AREA
OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO PURSUANT
TO ORDINANCE NO. 119
WHEREAS , the City Council of the City of Atascadero has
adopted Ordinance 119 creating and establishing the
authority for imposing and charging a Development Fee; and
WHEREAS, Exhibits A and B are a study of the impacts of
planned future development on existing public facilities in
the incorporated area , along with an analysis of the need for
new public facilities and improvements required by new
development , and said study set forth the relationship
between new development , the needed facilities , and the
estimated costs of those improvements . The study , entitled
"Exhibit A. Development Fee Impact Study , and Exhibit B.
Development Fee Task Force Report to Council" was prepared by
Paul M. Sensibaugh , Director of Public Works/City Engineer .
and is dated November , 1988 , and January 1986 , respectively ;
and
WHEREAS , this study was available for public inspection
and review fourteen (14) days prior to this public hearing;
and
WHEREAS , the City Council finds as follows ;
A. The purpose of this fee is to finance facilities
shown in Exhibit A to reduce the impacts of runoff , traffic
and other impacts shown in the exhibits , caused by new
development , within the incorporated area .
B. The development fees collected pursuant to this
resolution shall be used to finance only the public
facilities described or identified in Exhibit "A" , attached
hereto ;
C. After considering the above study and analysis and
the testimony received at this public hearing, the Council
approves said study , and incorporates such herein , and
further finds that the new development in the incorporated
area will generate additional runoff, traffic , and other
impacts shown in the exhibits within the impacted area and
will contribute to the degradation of public facilities and
services in that incorporated area .
D. There is a need in this described impact area for
the improvements shown in Exhibit A which have not been
constructed or have been constructed, but new development has
not contributed its fair share toward these facility costs
and said facilities have been called for in or are consistant
with the City' s General Plan;
E. The facts and evidence presented establish that
there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the
described public facilities and the impacts of the types of
development described in paragraph 2 below, for which the
corresponding fee is charged, and, also there is a reasonable
relationship between the fee' s use and the type of
development for which the fee is charc_ted, as these reasonable
relationships or nexus are in more detail described in the
study referred to above;
F. The cost estimates set forth in Exhibit "A" are
reasonable cost estimates for constructing these facilities ,
and the fees expected to be generated by new development will
not exceed the total of these costs ,
NOW, THEREFORE. it is hereby resolved by the City
Council of the City of Atascadero that :
. 1 . A development fee shall be charged prior to the
issuance of any building permit and shall be paid prior to
the issuance of a building permit or a certificate of
occupancy in the case that a building permit is not
applicable . The City Community Development Department shall
determine if the development lies within this benefit area ,
the type of development and the corresponding fee to be
charged in accordance with this resolution , including
proportionate fees for alterations or additions , if
applicable .
2 . Fee
�
SUMMARY OF FEES
***************************�***************************. ****************** !
* * NON-RESIDENTIAL * MULTIPLE FAMILY * S FAMILY * �
*FEE\LANDUSE * (Sg.Ft,)--nUNIT COST* �Sg.��.) *UNIT COST* (Sq.Ft. *UNIT COST* �
)P.**�a****************$**************************************************** �
* * : # : # : *
* DRAINAGE * : $0.634 # : $0. 172 # : $0. 127 * �
* * :$3452/cfs# :$1250/cfs#
* TRAFFIC * : $0.439 # : $0.010 # : $0 0O1 * |
^ ^ \ '
� * $38.22/ADT4 :$1. 18/ADT# :$0. 14/ADT*
*
BRIDGES * : $0.537 # . : $0.393 # : $0.26O * |
* * $46.69/ADT# $46.69/ADT# $46.69/ADT*
� ROADS * : $0.075 # : $0.055 # : $0.036 *
* * :$6.53/ADT# :$6.53/ADT# :$6.53/ADT* �
q PARKS * : $0.079 # x $O.593 # : $0.337 *
* POLICE * : $0.234 # : $0.056 # : $0.032 *
* FIRE * : $0.480 # : $0. 115 # : $0.065 *
m * : # : #
*B&G & EQUIP.* : $0.244 # : $0.244 # : $0.244 *
# : it
-- *COM.DEV/EN6 * : $0.036 # : $0.036 #
* * : # : # : *
**************
# : *
* TOTALS : $1.674 # : $1. 138 *
*
*************�*�********�*********************************
�
Notes : (l) Totals do not include the &mapoa-Teoorida
3 . Use of Fee . The fee shall be solely used to pay (1)
for the described public facilities to be constructed by the
City , (2) for reimbursing the City for the development' s fair
share of those capital improvements already constructed by
the City ; or (3) to reimburse other developers who have
constructed public facilities described in Exhibit "A"
attached hereto , where those facilities were beyond that
needed to mitigate the impacts of the other developer' s
project or projects .
4 . Fee Review. On or about June, 1990 and each
following year , the Public Works Department shall review the
estimated cost of the described capital improvements , the
continued need for those improvements and the reasonable
relationship between such need and the impacts of the various
types of development pending or anticipated and for which
this fee is charged. The Public Works Department shall
report its findings to the City Council at a noticed public
hearing and recommend any adjustment to this fee or other
action as may be needed.
5 . Judicial Action to Challenge this Resolution . Any
judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside ,
void or annul this resolution shall be broua_ht within 120 days .
6. Exhibits A and B are hereby adopted by reference and
are considered a part of this resolution .
7 . Resolution 11-86 is hereby repealed. The previous
Lewis Avenue Bridge Fee (Refer to Exhibit B) for any permit
subject to such fee shall be pursuant to this resolution ,
including the Lewis Avenue Bridge project as contained in
Exhibit A.
•
11 . This Resolution shall become effective immediately
upon passage and shall apply to the issuance of any building
permit or certificate of occupancy for any residential
development issued on or after January 9, 1989 following
passage of this resolution and for all non-residential
developments immediately upon its passage .
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of ,
1988 .
AYES :
NOES :
ABSENT :
ATTEST: CITY OF ATASCADERO
BOYD C . SHARITZ, City Clerk BONITA BORGESON, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT :
•
JEFFREY G. JORGENSEN PAUL M. SENSIBAUGH
City Attorney Director of Public Works
City Engineer
• MEET(N �,+�.- AGENDA -
DAT G ? 1TEM IGI Z
t
MEMORANDUM
City of Atascadero
September 19, 1988
TO: Ray Windsor, City Manager
FROM: Jeffrey G. Jorgensen, City Attorney
SUBJECT: Duck Ordinance
Attached for your consideration is a proposed ordinance
prohibiting the abandonment of waterfowl at Atascadero Lake,
as requested by the City Council at the September 13, 1988
Council meeting. Please feel free to contact me at your
convenience if you have questions or comments concerning the
ordinance.
Sincerely,
? /or
FREY JORGENSEN
City A - orney
JGJ: fr
A:MMATA350
Attachment
cc: City Council
i '
ORDINANCE NO. 182
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ATASCADERO AMENDING TITLE 4 OF THE ATAS-
CADERO MUNICIPAL CODE ENTITLED ANIMALS,
RELATING TO THE ABANDONMENT OF WATERFOWL
AT ATASCADERO LAKE
The Council of the City of Atascadero does ordain as
follows:
Section 1. Section 4-1.403 is hereby added to the
Atascadero Municipal Code, and shall read as follows:
Section 4-1.403 . Abandonment of Waterfowl at
Atascadero Lake. It is unlawful for any owner or
person having possession or control of any
waterfowl, including but not limited to ducks,
geese, swans, poultry, or household pets, to place,
abandon, or release such waterfowl, or cause to
permit such waterfowl to be placed, abandoned, or
released, or to knowingly allow or permit such
waterfowl to remain in or upon the waters of
Atascadero Lake, or upon any public land adjacent
thereto. Any person who violates this section is
guilty of an infraction.
Section 2 . Publication. The City Clerk shall cause this
ordinance to be published once within fifteen (15) days after
its passage in the Atascadero News, a newspaper of general
circulation, printed, published and circulated in this City in
accordance with Government Code Section 36933 ; shall certify
the adoption of this ordinance; and shall cause this ordinance
and certification to be entered in the Book of Ordinances of
this City.
Section 3 . Effective Date. This ordinance shall go into
effect and be in full force and effect at 12 :01 a.m. on the
thirty-first (31st) day after its passage.
On motion by Council member and
seconded by Council member the foregoing
ordinance is hereby adopted in its entirety by the following
roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
i ,
• ORDINANCE NO. 182
Page 2
ABSENT:
DATE ADOPTED:
CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA
By
BONITA BORGESON, Mayor
ATTEST:
BOYD C. SHARITZ, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
EEY G. RG SEN, City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
JGJ: fr/9/15/88
C:ORATA668
. • A+tEEtti�� AGENDA _
DATE ITEM f
M E M O R A N D U M
To : City Council
From: Ray Windsor , City Manager
Date: November 4, 1988
Subject : Wage and Classification Study RFP
We have completed a reference check on each firm that submitted a
proposal for the Wage and Classification Study. All the firms
received good recommendations, with a few exceptions.
Following is a brief summary of the information collected on the
three firms that submitted the lowest proposals.
Comp Plus $6,800
Comp Plus is a newly formed subsidiary of William Hamilton &
Associates. Of the three cities called , two have worked with Mr .
Nichols for several years. They were satisfied with his work .
No major setbacks or problems. They continue to use his firm on
a consultant basis when a new position is created or salary
adjustments are necessary. He did work alone in one city which
resulted in some small setbacks, but that was five years ago . He
received good recommendations.
Nash & Company, Inc. $13,980
Nash & Company was founded in 1983. This firm received overall
good recommendations from the cities contacted , with a few minor
exceptions. When the studies were completed for these cities,
the firm had a lack of clerical support , resulting in errors,
omissions and sloppy work . There was a lack of communication
between two consultants, thus the firm put out conflicting
findings. Another city, contacted as a reference for another
firm, mentioned his firm had started (but not completed ) a
classification study for them, due to problems with the union.
The cities listed as references said they would re-hire this
firm.
Reward Strategy Group, Inc. $149000
This firm received a good positive response from the cities that
were contacted . As for the firm ' s experience, the date they
were founded was not listed . One city said they were clearly
technically competent and confident . A good rapport with the
employees, timely, and kept in _close contact with the City
Manager . They were rated "9.5 on a scale of 1-10 re: job
specs" . Their recommendations were supported by the unions.
They received good recommendations.
As a recap the other firms submitting bids were:
Personnel Associates $14,500
Becker and Bell , Inc . 16,809
Ralph Anderson & Associates 22,000
THC Associates 22,000
This synopsis does not cover the rewriting of the City ' s Rules
and Regulations. Two of the firms that responded to the Wage
and Classification Study did not propose to rewrite the Rules and
Regulations.
We recommend that the Council hire Comp Plus at the rate of
$6,800 to complete the Wage and Classification Study.
cc : Mid-Management/Professional Unit
\wagerfp
AOENDA
0D Tom, f ITM a
•
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council November 8, 1988
VIA: Ray Windsor, City Manager
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director }C
SUBJECT: PROPOSED STATE HIGHWAY 41 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
BACKGROUND:
The Initial Study and Environmental Assessment report prepared
for the extension of Route 41 notes that historical resources in
the form of the Atascadero Residential Plan would be impacted.
The City of Atascadero, by passing this resolution, becomes a
participant in consultations with Caltrans, and others, to
implement mitigation measures including:
1 Filing of a permanent record of the streetscape prior to
construction.
2 . Developing acceptable sound barrier designs to mitigate
impacts .
3 . Insuring that relinquished portions of Highway 41 is handled
in the future in a manner sensitive to historic qualities.
4 . Where projects in the future are proposed, that there be a
30 day review by the State Historic Preservation Officer
prior to action.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval draft Resolution No. 105-88 providing for participation
by the City in mitigation impact measures . other parties include
the Advisory Council for Historic Preservation, the Federal High-
way Commission, the State Historical Preservation Office, and
Caltrans .
HE :ps
Enclosure: Draft Resolution No. 105-88
a
RESOLUTION NO. 105-88
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AUTHORIZING
PARTICIPATION IN THE STATE HIGHWAY 41
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the Atascadero Estates Residential District Plan is of
historic significance in the areas of architecture and planning
at the State level, as determined by the Keeper of the National
Register of Historic Places, and
WHEREAS, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
proposes to build a new State Highway 41 segment through a
portion of this historic resource, and
WHEREAS, the National Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
has determined that the project will have an adverse effect upon
the Atascadero Estates Residential District Plan by altering a,
portion of it, and
WHEREAS, Caltrans has developed a plan to mitigate these adverse
effects, as set forth in the attached Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, Caltrans, the Federal Highway Administration, the State
Historical Preservation Officer, have invited the City of Atasca-
dero to sign the Memorandum of Agreement as provided for in the
regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation; and
WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero supports both the State Highway
41 project and CalTrans ' efforts to mitigate the effects of that
project.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Atascadero City Manager
is directed to sign the MOA on behalf of the City of Atascadero
at such time as it is presented for signature.
On motion by , and seconded by
the motion was approved by the following roll
call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
DATE ADOPTED:
By:
BONITA BORGESON, Mayor
•
ATTEST:
BOYD C. SHARITZ, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
JEFFREY G. JORGENSEN, City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
RAY WINDSOR, City Manager
PREPARED BY:
."5!!!!6 z't
HENRY ENGaN, Commu ity Development Director
^ ����&
��
�- ' �� EXHIBIT A
RECEIVED NOV � ��
v^^.�^~^v^.� '�°v � ww�
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has
determined that the proposed realignment of Highway 41 , P. M.
16. 0/19. 7, through Atascadero, California will have an adverse
effect upon the Atascadero Estates Residential District Plan , a
property eligible for inclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places, and has consulted with the California State
Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) pursuant to the regulations
(36 CFR Part 800) implementing Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act ( 16 U. S. C. 470f ) ; and
WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero participated in the
consultation and has been invited to concur in this Memorandum of
Agreement; and
NOW, THEREFORE, the FHWA and the SHPO agree that if the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Council ) accepts this
Memorandum of Agreement (agreement ) in accordance with 36 CFR
800. 60) ( 1 ) (i ) , the undertaking shall be implemented in
accordance with the following stipulations in order to take into
account the effect of the undertaking on Atascadero Estates
Residential District Plan.
STIPULATIONS
The FHWA will ensure that the following measures are carried out:
1 . Prior to alteration of Mercedes Avenue and Santa Ysabel
Avenue, a permanent record of these streetscapes will be made in
accordance with the standards of the Historic American
Engineering Record (HAER) . FHWA will contact the HAER, National
Park Service, P. O. Box 36063, San Francisco, CA 94102, to
determine the appropriate level of documentation required. All
documentation must be acceptable to HAER prior to alterations.
FHNA will also provide copies of this documentation to the
California SHPO, the California State Library, the Bancroft
Library, and to the City of Atascadero (City) .
2. In order to minimize adverse visual effects, FHWA will
develop barrier wall design for any such barriers which may be
placed within the eligible property in consultation with the SHPO
and the City of Atascadero.
3. A portion of existing Route 41 , generally described as
that portion of El Camino Real between Santa Ysabel Avenue and
West Mal ] , West Mall and Capistrano Avenue between El Camino Real
and Sycamore Road , and Sycamore Road between Capistrano Avenue
and Curbaril Avenue, will be relinquished to the City of
Atascadero. The City of Atascadero will ensure that future
preservation and maintenance of this contributive element of the �
' eligible property , including landscape elements within the right
of way, will be carried out in accordance with the recommended
'
approaches set forth in g[ Qq, ll tyLign-'-g S
Qn, Rp|}Dbil-itatig[� �I!d.
and will ensure that future work performed on these
elemcnts will be subject to prior review and approval o{ the
SHPO.
4. Should the SHPO object within 30 days to any actions
proposed in accordance with Stipulation 3 of this agreement , the
City shall consult with the SHPO to resolve the objection. If
the City and the SHPO determine that the objection cannot be
resolved , the City shall request the further comments of the
Council pursuant to 36 CFR 800. 6 (b) . Any Council comment
provided in response to such a request will be taken into account
by the City in accordance with 36 CFR 800. 6 (c) (2) with reference
only to the subject of the dispute; the City ' s responsibility to
carry out all actions under this agreement that are not the
subjects of the dispute will remain unchanged.
Execution of this Memorandum of Agreement by the FHWA and the
California SHPO and its subsequent acceptance by the Council and
the FHWA carrying out the terms of the Memorandum of Agreement
evidences that the FHWA has afforded the Council an opportunity
to comment on the undertaking and its effects on historic
properties, and that the FHWA has taken into account the effects
of the project on the Atascadero Estates Residential District
Plan.
By: -----------------------------------
Bruce E. Cannon (Date)
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
`
By: ------------------------------
Kathryn Gualtieri (Date)
California State Historic
Preservation Officer
By: ------------------------------
(Date)
City Manager
City of Atascadero
'
i t
EETING AGENDA
ATETO ITEM#
Atascadero Unified School District
"Where students and their education are paramount"
5601 WEST MALL
ANTHONY AVINA, Ed.D. ekTASCADERO, CA 93422-4234
District Superintendent Oct
�qpO E: (805)466-0393
(,/ 26.19F
c�Ty
October 25 , 1988 AjG; ?
The Honorable Bonita Borgeson
Mayor
City of Atascadero
P. 0. Box 747
Atascadero, CA 93423
Dear Mayor Borgeson:
The Board of Education of the Atascadero Unified School District is
deeply concerned with the welfare of the students and the youth of
this community. Accordingly , at a special meeting of the Board on
October 19 , 1988, the Board adopted resolution #9 to support the
anti-loitering measures which may help to combat the growing concern
of the community for its youth. In adopting this resolution, it was
not the intention of the Board to usurp the authority of the City
Council or of the Atascadero Policy Department. Rather, the Board
wishes to support the City and the Police Department in their efforts
to protect our youth and our community.
Attached is a copy of the resolution as adopted. If you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Ta you.
incerely ours,
nthony Avina . D.
District Su e intendent
AA :ejs
cc: City Manager Ray Windsor
Chief Richard "Bud" McHale, APD
Board of Education , AUSD
Carrisa Plains Elementary Creston Elementary Lewis Avenue Elementary Monterey Road Elementary
San Gabriel Road Elementary • Santa Margarita Elementary Santa Rosa Road Elementary 0 Atascadero Junior High School
Atascadero Senior High School 0 Atascadero Adult School Oak Hills Continuation High School
ATASCADERO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
RESOLUTION 9 •
ANTI-LOITERING MEASURES - CITY OF ATASCADERO
WHEREAS , the City of Atascadero is a growing and critical part of the
Atascadero Unified School District ; and
WHEREAS , the students, who are the responsibility of the District
during school hours , become the responsibility of their
parents and other agencies at the conclusion of the school
day ; and
WHEREAS , SafeHomes was organized to identify ways to safeguard the
welfare of the youth in our community , and
WHEREAS , the PTAs are cooperatively supporting those efforts , and
WHEREAS , a community-wide effort is necessary to address this growing
concern , and
WHEREAS , the school district acknowledges that it can play a role in
helping to find solutions to the loitering and late hours
which our youth are experiencing ; and
WHEREAS , the school district also recognizes that such loitering
presents a potential danger to the youth of this community
as well as to the community itself ;
NOW, THEREFORE, LET IT BE KNOWN, that the Board of Education of the
Atascadero Unified School District is prepared to work
cooperatively with the parents , community organizations ,
PTAs , along with City and County governments to find
solutions to the growing problem of loitering in the
community .
Moved by Trustee King , seconded by Trustee
Molle
Ayes: Beck, Burt , Haynes , Horst , King , LaSalle , and Molle .
Noes: None .
Absent : None .
President , Bo rd of Education Clerk , Board of Education
Adopted this 19th _day of October, 1988.
4JTELW AGENDA _
ITEM N -
San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating CJounci rroyo rande
Atascadero
Grover City
Morro Bay
and Regional Transportation Planning Agency Paso Robles
Pismo Beach
San Luis Obispo
® San Luis Obispo County
October 27, 1988
Bonita Borgeson, Mayor
City of Atascadero
P. 0. Box 747
Atascadero, CA. 93422
Dear Mayor Borgeson:
SUBJECT: LOCAL UNMET NEEDS HEARINGS
The Area Council annually allocates approximately $4 million dollars in
Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds to cities and the county. The
funds are designated for public transit, but can be used to improve local
streets and roads providing all transit needs are first satisfied.
State law requires the region to conduct a public hearing to receive
public testimony identifying or commenting on transit needs that may
exist within each jurisdiction. A Regional Unmet Needs Hearing is
scheduled in San Luis Obispo, December 7, 1988 at 1:30, in the Board of
Supervisors Chambers. Concerned residents will have an opportunity to
testify on any transit deficiencies they experience. The testimony is
evaluated to determine which requests are unmet needs, and which needs
are "reasonable to meet". The Area Council directs each jurisdiction to
set aside funds to meet those needs, then allows the remainder to be
programmed for necessary improvements in streets and roads.
You can help facilitate the citizen input to this process. Please
consider establishing a Local Unmet Transit Need Hearing to involve fully
the residents of your city in transportation planning. Local hearings
are strictly optional. Three cities have previously held local
hearings. The benefits of local hearings are threefold:
Addresses prior problems transit-disadvantaged people have had
getting to hearings;
Allows citizens to directly present transportation concerns to
their legislative body rather than a regional body; and
° Provides an opportunity for city councils to be directly
involved in the unmet needs process.
County Government Center, San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 (805) 549-5706
• i
LOCAL UNMET NEEDS HEARINGS •
OCTOBER 27, 1988
PAGE 2
Should you desire to have such a hearing, we would provide staff-support
consisting of a staff report, advertising and presentation at the actual
hearing.
Please contact us at 549-5712 if you want to discuss this option further
or set a date for a local unmet transit needs hearing.
Sincerely,
PAUL C. CRAWFORD, AICP
ecutive D ector
DAN HERRON
Transportation Planner
DH/cl/sb/8861-1 & 8862-1/
10-27-88
•
AGENDA
,0_,y
8 ITEM i '
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council
FROM: Ray Windsor, City Manager
SUBJECT: Council Sub-committees
DATE: November 8, 1988
As I have indicated previously, the use of Council sub-committees
to work with staff on major issues and/or areas of priority can,
and often does, assist in expediting things . It also provides a
check/balance between elected and non-elected officials . Of
course, the process only works if there is a spirit of openness
t and cooperation and the understanding that ultimate decision
making rests with the entire policy-making body.
I strongly urge that Council give serious consideration to the
formation of sub-committees, recognizing that it is experimental
and subject to modification and/or termination. Initially, I
would like to suggest assignment of two members of Council to the
following areas:
1 . Fiscal matters, including long-term financing
Ste" � � U
2 . Land-use (General Plan Update)
3 . Tree Preservation
RW/CW
MEETiI� AGENDA _ �
DATE, ITEM N �
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council
FROM: Ray Windsor, City Manager
SUBJECT: Council Meetings
DATE: November 8, 1988
I would very much appreciate consideration of changing the time
of all regular Council meetings from 7 : 30 p.m. to 7 : 00 p.m. In
suggesting this, I am motivated purely out of a desire to keep
the length of meetings, in terms of adjournment, to a reasonable
hour. Precedent for this has been established with special
meetings .
One half hour may not appear to be significant in the scheme of
things, yet it would assist in addressing some of the more rou-
tine items . There is no reason to modify the public hearing
portion, which can remain 8 :00 p.m. or whatever.
Should you see fit to approve a time change as suggested, it will
require an amendment to Code section 2-1 .01 .
RW/cw
•
fasca&ro cfiam er of commerce
6550 EL CAMINO REAL ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93422
TELEPHONE: (805) 466-2044
April 18 , 1988
TO : Chief Bud McHale
Rolfe Nelson, Atascadero High School
Dr. Robert and Mrs . Vicki Perce, Safe Homes
FROM: Maggie Rice, Executive Manager
RE : Proposed curfew law in Atascadero
At -he r has
t request of Rolfe Nelson, the Board of Directors t s
discussed a request for support of a curfew law in Atascadero.
Police Chief McHale was invited to comment at this meeting on
April 12 , 1988. He expressed that he would like to see a curfew/
anti-loitering ordinance written provided the community wanted it.
The Board of Directors made a motion as follows: "Representing
the business community, the Chamber of Commerce endorses the
concept of an anti-loitering/curfew law in Atascadero. "
Unanimous approval.
It is believed that this would help to curtail loss of business
due to loiterers , prevent littering , enable police officers to
question loiterers and help to curtail malicious behavior causing
vandalism and property damage.
• li
ro