Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 09/11/1979 AGENDA - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting September 11, 1979 7 : 30 p.m. Administration Building Call to Order Pledge of Allegiance Invocation Roll Call Public Comment A. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of the regular meeting of August 27 , 1979 (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES AND REPORTS 1. Appearance of Dr. Hazel J. Jones, President, San Luis Obispo County Symphony Association requesting financial support from City C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Consideration of City retirement system programs 2. Review of 1979-80 budget D. NEW BUSINESS None E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR .ACTION 1. City Council 2. City Attorney 3. City Manager e MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting August 27, 1979 7 : 30 p.m. Atascadero Administration Building The meeting was called to order at 7 : 30 p.m. by Mayor Wilkins with the Pledge of Allegiance. Mayor Wilkins gave the invocation. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmen Mackey, Stover and Mayor Wilkins ABSENT: Councilmen Highland and Nelson PUBLIC COMMENT A representative of the Lions Club presented the Council with a clock for City offices. Mayor Wilkins thanked the Lions Club for their generous donation. A. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of the regular meeting of August 13 , 1979 (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) 2 . Treasurer' s Report, 7-16-79 through 8-20-79 (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) MOTION: Councilman Mackey moved for approval of the Consent Calendar. The motion was seconded by Councilman Stover and unanimously carried. B. HEARINGS , APPEARANCES AND REPORTS 1. Public hearing on application of Robert W. Walton for a Conditional Use Permit to allow an 8-unit apartment project in a R-2-B-2-D zone, located on the east side of Capistrano Avenue, north of Highway 41, Atascadero - continued from 7-30-79 Mr. Larry Kelly from the County Planning Department made a presen- tation regarding this project. He stated that the County Planning Department and City Planning Commission had recommended that Mr. Walton be allowed a 7-unit apartment project as opposed to the eight he requested, subject to the conditions contained in the County Planning Staff Report. In addition, the City Planning Commission had recommended that access over the old stadium road be preserved and made that a condition of approval. Mr. Kelly noted that the adjacent property belonged to the County and the portion of the road which is on County property would be preserved. A representative of Mr. Walton stated that Mr. Walton would accept the seven unit limitation, however, he wondered if the road r MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting August 27, 1979 Page Two in question is actually on Mr. Walton' s property. Mr. Warden stated that the provision is that the right-of-way be preserved; if Mr. Walton ' s project does not deny the right of way, this condition would not apply. Mayor Wilkins asked if there were any public comments either for or against the project; there were none. MOTION: Councilman Stover moved for the adoption of Resolution No. 13-79, a resolution granting a Conditional Use Permit (Walton) , with conditions as specified by the Staff report. The motion was seconded by Mayor Wilkins. Councilman Mackey stated that she could not support more than four units on the property. The motion carried on the following roll call vote: AYES : Councilman Stover and Mayor Wilkins NOES: Councilman Mackey 2 . Public hearing on application of Robert F. Stuhr for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the conversion of an existing 44-unit elderly housing project to general apart- ment use located at 5525 Capistrano Avenue on the south- east corner of Capistrano Avenue and Country Club Drive, Atascadero - continued from 7-30-79 Mr. Kelly gave the presentation. The City Planning Commission recommended approval subject to the agreed parking requirements and subject to the findings and recommendations as presented by the Staff report. Mr. Stuhr, the applicant, stated that he concurred with the Planning Commission ' s recommendations. Mayor Wilkins asked if there were comments from people opposed to the project.. There were several comments in opposition to the conversion; the feeling was that the apartment units should be pre- served for elderly renters. Councilman Mackey stated that because of the petitions and per- sonal appeals from people in the community in opposition to this conversion, she could not vote in favor of granting the Conditional Use Permit. Councilman Stover felt that the apartments are half empty because of the inability of the applicant to obtain elderly renters. MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting August 27, 1979 Page Three MOTION: Councilman Stover moved for the adoption of Resolution No. 14-79 granting a Conditional Use Permit (Stuhr) with conditions as specified in the Staff report. The motion was seconded by Mayor Wilkins and carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilman Stover and Mayor Wilkins NOES : Councilman Mackey 3. Public hearing on the application of Stinchfield and Summers (U790611: 2) for a Conditional Use Permit to allow signing in excess of sixty (60) square feet in a C-1 zone, 4401 El Camino Real, City of Atascadero Mr. Kelly stated that the Development Review Section of the County Planning Department has recommended approval of the signing which would be for a total of 220 square feet. A gentleman from Biesek Peterson/Graphics, representing the applicant, pointed out various aspects of the prcposed sign which made it aesthetically pleasing. There were comments from several people relative to setting a precedent in allowing this exception to the maximum signing require- ments. MOTION: Councilman Stover moved for the adoption of Resolution No. 15-79 approving the Conditional Use Permit as recommended by the City Planning Commission and County Staff report. The motion was seconded by Councilman Mackey and unanimously carried by roll call vote. 4 . Public hearing on application of Charles Kamm for a Tenta- tive Tract Map to allow a 16-unit condominium conversion subdivision on a 1. 07 acre site, located on Capistrano Avenue north of Santa Ysabel, City of Atascadero- Recommend item be continued to 9-24-79 Mr. Warden advised that Mr. Kamm had requested an extension of time from the Planning Commission on this matter. The Planning Commission continued the hearing to their September 4th meeting and it is suggested that the Council reschedule their hearing for September 24th. MOTION: Councilman Mackey moved that the Kamm hearing be continued to September 24, 1979. The motion was seconded by Council- man Stover and unanimously carried. MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting August 27 , 1979 Page Four 5. Public hearing on application of Donald M. Rauch for a Tentative Tract Map to allow a subdivision of a . 49 acre site into a 5-unit condominium project, located on the west side of Santa Ysabel Avenue just south of Robles Avenue, City of Atascadero Recommend item be tabled Mr. Warden advised that this matter had been denied by the Planning Commission and was appealed by the applicant. The matter will be set for hearing at a subsequent date after proper advertised notification. C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Policy concerning legal advertising - continued from 8-13-79 The question of whether to advertise or post proposed ordinances was continued from the last meeting to give the public an opportunity to make their views known to Council. Councilman Mackey suggested that the City post ordinances and have extra copies of them available at the City Offices for people desiring them. Public comments from the floor favored publishing the ordin- ances in the newspaper. Council members discussed this matter and thought that perhaps the City could publish the ordinances for a three month period and then review the subject again. MOTION: Councilman Stover moved that ordinances be published in the newspaper with the matter to be reviewed by Council in three months. The motion was seconded by Councilman Mackey and unanimously carried by roll call vote. D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Consideration of Lot Line Adjustment of a portion of Lot 2 and 5 , hife Residence Park, and a portion of Parcel 2 of CO 74-185, City of Atascadero - Rural Development Mr. Kelly reviewed this item for Council. He stated that it is being proposed to comply with County entrance requirements along ` the project property line. The Subdivision ':Review Board has recommended approval with conditions. MOTION: Councilman Stover moved that Council approve the lot line adjustment in accordance with the recommendations contained in the Subdivision Review Board' s report. The motion was seconded by Councilman Mackey and unani- mously carried. j i MINUTES ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting August 27, 1979 Page Five 2. Consideration of Lot Line Adjustment of portions of Lot 13 and 13A, Block 7, Atascadero Colony, City of Atascadero Ramey/Frantz/Gaynos Mr. Warden advised that a representative of the applicant had notified the City that the applicant would be unable to be present at the meeting this evening and requested that the matter be con- tinued to the next meeting. MOTION: Councilman Mackey moved that this matter be continued to the next regular meeting of the Council. The motion was seconded by Councilman Stover and unanimously carried. 3. Consideration of Lot Line Adjustment of portions of Lots 4 and 5, Block 7, Atascadero Colony, City of Atasca- dero - Dove Investments/Eaglet Investments Mr. Kelly reviewed this item for Council. The reason for the request was to assure access to the applicant ' s property. The Sub- division Review Board recommended allowing the adjustment without the requested "flag" lot so as to provide an easement along the side of Parcel 2. They recommended approval of the layout on Subdivision Review Board Exhibit 1°F" dated August 8, 1979, and that an easement be recorded over Parcel 2 to serve Parcel 1, thus eliminatingthe need for the "flag" lot. Neither applicant nor his representative were present. MOTION: Councilman Stover moved that Council allow the lot line adjustment in accordance with recommendations contained in the report of the Subdivision Review Board Meeting dated August 8, 1979. The motion was seconded by Councilman Mackey and unanimously carried. 4. Consideration of purchasing public address system Mayor Wilkins reviewed the memo from the City Manager which outlined the proposals he had received for a PA system. He was recommending the purchase of a system proposed by Manford Vanderlip for a total of $2 , 898 including sales tax. This would include a security cabinet, microphones, desk stands, a floor stand, cassette tape deck, speakers and accompanying equipment. MOTION: Councilman Stover moved that Council approve the purchase of the PA system as proposed by Manford Vanderlip for a total of $2898. The motion was seconded by Councilman Mackey and unanimously carried. MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting August 27, 1979 Page Six 5. Consideration of employee holidays Mr. Warden stated that the issue was whether or not the Council considered Admission Day, September 10th, a legal holiday. The County Code, which the Council has adopted, sets Admission Day as a legal holiday. This is also a regular meeting day for the City Council. If the Council chooses to hold their meeting on that day, there will be no Planning Department support, since that is a holiday for the County. There was discussion regarding employee holidays with Mr. Warden advising that Council can decide on other employee holidays at a later time when they consider a personnel ordinance. MOTION: Councilman Stover moved that the City Council meeting of September 10, 1979 be changed to Tuesday, September 11, 1979. The motion was seconded by Councilman Mackey and unanimously carried. 6. Consideration of Public Employees Retirement System Mr. Warden briefed the Council on the differences between the Social Security System and the Public Employees Retirement System. , There was discussion on this matter with City Attorney Allen Grimes_ endorsing the PERS system. Jerry Gayle, an employee of the County, stated that he might possibly be transferring to the City' s employ when the City takes over some of the County activities in the area. He wanted to know what would happen to his accumulated retirement in the County system. Mr. warden stated that the County has its own retirement system and he is not sure Mr. Gayle can transfer to PERS, however, he will look into the matter and report back to Council. John McNeil did not feel that Council should make a decision based on this short discussion. Mr. Grimes made it clear that he was a contract employee and had nothing to gain by endorsing the PERS system as he would not, in any event, be a participant in a City retirement system. MOTION: Councilman Mackey moved that the matter be continued. The motion was seconded by Councilman Stover and unanimously carried. It was noted that the Fire Department will be transferring to PERS in December of this year. MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting August 27, 1979 Page Seven 7. Discussion regarding City of Atascadero 1979-80 Budget Mr. Warden suggested that, since Council had just received the budget this evening, they postpone any discussion or action on it until the next meeting. Mr. Warden reviewed revenues which had been built into the budget, but were not precisely known at this time. He stated that three approaches had been prepared; one which included the City' s estimate of the start times for City departments through- out fiscal year 1979-80, one which set forth the maximum anticipated costs if the City was cut-off from County support after 120 days, and the LAFCO 1980-81 budget for comparison purposes. E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION 1. City Council (a) Mayor Wilkins advised that he and Mr. Warden had been present at a Board of Supervisors meeting where the Board had considered the City' s request for a Board determina- tion of the County Counsel ' s opinion concerning continuing services to the newly incorporated City. The Board did not make a determina- tion, but directed the Administrative Office and County Counsel to meet with the City representatives to discuss the matter. 2. City Attorney (a) Mr. Grimes reviewed his first report to the Council which had been previously provided to the Council. (b) Mr. . Grimes requested that the Council approve supporting the City of Santa Barbara as an amicus curae in a suit involving the principle of the regulation of numbers of non related members allowed to occupy a shared dwelling unit. There was considerable discussion regarding this matter and question from the public as to how this would affect Atascadero. It was noted by the City Attorney that the Council is supporting a principle only; not specific numbers controlling occupancy. The issue of whether Atascadero should have such an ordinance and, if so, to what degree of control was not in question; only the ability to impose such regulation if desired by individual cities. (c) Mr. Grimes reviewed a guide to legislative procedures which he had prepared and previously provided the Council. After further discussion regarding support of Santa Barbara' s MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting August 27, 1979 Page Eight suit, the following motion was made : MOTION: Councilman Stover moved that Council approve the request by the City Attorney to lend the name of Atascadero to support the City of Santa Barbara in its attempt to determine a city' s right to regulate the number of non-related persons living in a residence. The motion was seconded by Mayor Wilkins and carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilman Stover and Mayor Wilkins NOES: Councilman Mackey 3. City Manager (a) Mr. Warden asked the Council to appoint him as a representative from the City of Atascadero to the Transportation Technical Advisory Committee (TTAC) which is a supporting committee of the San Luis Obispo County Area Council of Governments of which Councilman Stover is a member. MOTION: Councilman Mackey moved that Mr. Warden be appointed to the County TTAC. The motion was seconded by Councilman Stover and unanimously carried. (b) Mr. Warden stated that several planning items came directly to the Council this evening without going before the Planning Commission; this is in accordance with the County Code presently in effect for the City. He suggested that Council make a motion to route all planning matters through the Planning Commission for their recommendations to Council prior to Council' s consideration so that the Council can benefit from the Commission' s viewpoint. MOTION: Councilamn Mackey moved that planning items be referred to the Planning Commission for their recommendations and advice prior to consideration by Council; this action to be subject to procedural approval by the City Attorney. The motion was seconded by Councilman Stover and unani- mously carried. (c) Mr. Warden advised that the League of California Cities was conducting some solar workshops which he and the City Attorney would like to attend. He stated that these expenditures had been included in the proposed budget which the Council received this evening. I MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting August 27, 1979 Page Nine Mrs. McNeil stated that some rather important items had come before the Council this evening under the heading of Individual Determination and/or Action. She wondered why these items couldn't be printed on the agenda so that the public could know about it before-hand. Mike Lucas suggested that the City's plan for implementing City departments and activities be published in the paper so that the public can know what the Council is doing. Dorothy Smith wanted to know if the public can attend the solar workshops mentioned by Mr. Warden. Mr. Warden stated that they were sponsored by the League of California Cities and were normally for City officials, but he would find out and let her know. Mayor Wilkins adjourned the meeting at 9 :25 p.m. Recorded by: MURRAY L. WARDEN, City Clerk By: Ardith Davis Deputy City Clerk M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: Retirement program analysis The following is an analysis of the differences between the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) and Social Security: GENERAL A 'city is not required to have a retirement program. Partici- pation in Social Security is not recognized by the State law establishing the Public Employees Retirement System as being a "retirement system" qualifying an employee with credit for prior service. Four options appear available: 1. No retirement system 2 rcZkoiej Security only- 3. PERS onl PERS/Social Security COSTS 1. Social Security a. 6. 13% for city - 6 . 13% for employee up to $22 , 700 gross pay b. In 1980 the salary lid raises to $27, 000 gross C. In 1982 the salary rate raises to 6. 5% city/6 . 5o employee 2. PERS Miscellaneous Employees: a. Approximately 12% city contribution - 7% employee contribution Safety Employees: a. 8-14o city contribution based on actuarial data. Employees contribution based on age alone, e.g. , 25 year old employee pays 6 . 8% of gross pay Memorandum - Retirement program analysis Page Two 3. PERS/Social Security combinations a. "Coordinated" method (1) PERS approximately 11% for city - 7% for employee (2) Social Security 6. 13% for city - 6. 13% for employee Total 17. 13% for city - 13 . 13% for employee b. "Supplemental" method (1) PERS approximately 12% for city - 7% for employee (2) Social Security 6 . 13% for city - 6 . 13% for employee Total 18. 13% for city - 13 . 13% for employee 4. Rate adjustments a. PERS Each 4 years the employer' s (city) rate is eligible for adjustment - usually upward b. Social Security - 1980 will raise salary lid from present $22, 700 to $27, 000. In 1982 rate increases are scheduled from 6 . 13% to 6. 5% for both employer and employee. Adjustment depends upon Congress ' final action BACKGROUND From a dollar standpoint only, Social Security provides less costly coverage than PERS. while PERS costs more, there are advantages from both City and employee standpoint. PERS generates a retirement rate based on years within the system based on the average of last three (3) years ' salary. PERS has a withdrawal capability which includes a fixed interest rate. The ability of an employee to buy back into the system after having left, and mutual transfer between contracting California governmental employees have been significant factors in attracting qualified personnel during hiring cycles. Long time career employees stand to benefit more from PERS in retirement dollars than Social Security. PERS provides a participant the oppor- tunity to withdraw the employee ' s contributions upon termination of employment, thereby allowing flexibility in planning each individual ' s financial life style. Memorandum - Retirement program analysis Page Three ADVANTAGES TO CITY Social Security costs less per employee than PERS. Social Security provides a retirement income for City employees plus medicare qualification. PERS provides a retirement program that is highly desired by municipal employees and one for which employees will bargain during labor negotiations. PERS has been a significant factor in attracting qualified applicants during hiring cycles which tends to bring trained personnel aboard, thereby saving funds and time in post-employment training. OTHER FACTS The Fire District which has had both PERS and Social Security has recently withdrawn from Social Security and has elected to retain PERS as their retirement program. This selection complicates inte- grating the Fire Department into the City because we cannot have a system which provides PERS to some employees and Social Security to others. County employees who transfer to the City cannot transfer their credits from the County Retirement Fund to PERS. However, they can retain their County membership status and, providing they have met the vesting requirements, can retire from both systems at the highest pay rate earned during the last three years with each system. RECOMMENDATION . Option 3, "PERS only" , is recommended as the most advantageous for the City over the long haul. A benefit package containing PERS will attract desired and qualified personnel. If Social Security is selected and should a future decision be to change the program, such change would take two years to phase out Social Security. Assuming a replacement program to be PERS, it would be necessary for the City to "buy-in" all of the City contributions back to date of incorporation. The individual desires of County employees to trans- fer from an existing system to one of less benefits could be a point in our being unable to attact qualified County personnel wishing to transfer to the City. MY WARDEN LW:ad 9-6-79