HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 03/24/1980 o�
fi H p P. F'
w � `F m c:
0
N 0 v NP. �c 6 �'
(D F'. 0 O F+ • (D
p1 P. FO c+ O O
E3 N cw
0' F N
0 (DD K O co co
fA U1 c- W ``- W (D
O CO O FJ P P Q' W
c•+_ O O c- P (D �_i �r
(D
ri F' 0y 10 O C4 ch I C�
p) C O c+ W F• P w
F Fj FJ
N c+ Fj CD C
m N( D If
�i �3_ a 1-1 & y
O (D W c+ UQ ct N
P, 0 F,. F.' Ill K (D
p1 1
Fo ' F' `.' O c+ c+
fi
(~ p U N
Il PD O
s td p (A
Fi
�- ti c+- :4 (D
CS W (D F,. � O (D O O
W O m o (D O (D
(D Sn (D O Fes,
¢ ¢ y Iz c+ ►b OSq
O O c+ (D b (D O :4
ID 0 y° p
ci-
P,
n o 0 F, . ~ 0
(D cf N
CD
AGENDA - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting
March 24, 1980 7 : 30 p .m.
Atascadero Administration Building
Call to Order
Pledge of Allegiance
Invocation
Roll Call
Public Comment
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
All matters listed under Item A, Consent Calendar, are con-
sidered to be routine and will be enacted by one motion in the form
listed below. There will be no separate discussion of these items .
If discussion is required, that item will be removed from the Con-
sent Calendar and will be considered separately. Vote may be by
roll call .
A. CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Minutes of the regular meeting of March 10, 1980
(RECOMMEND APPROVAL)
2. Treasurer' s Report, 2-21-80 to 3-19-80 (RECOMMEND APPROVAL)
3 . Acceptance of Parcel Map AT 79-33 Molina/Rudd (RECOMMEND
ACCEPTANCE)
4. Acceptance of Parcel Map At 78-065 - Meeks/Gouff (RECOMMEND
ACCEPTANCE)
5. Application for Certificate of Compliance on a portion of
Lot 42 , Block 20 , Atascadero Colony, near the intersection
of Traffic Way and San Benito - Roselip (RECOMMEND APPROVAL)
6. Lot line adjustment of Lots 1-6, Block 43 , Llano Road,
AL 79-84 - Drake/Wilmore (RECOMMEND APPROVAL)
7 . Environmental determination - Wakefield (RECOMMEND APPROVAL)
B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES AND REPORTS
1 . Public hearing on Tract No. 866 , proposed condominium sub-
division of Lot 4, Block 18 , Atascadero Colony, located on
the west side of El Camino Real , just north of San Anselmo -
Lenzi (Maddalena)
2. Public hearing on CO 79-81 , proposed lot division of Lots
12 and 13 , Block 33, Atascadero Colony, San Gabriel Road,
west of Atascadero Avenue - Slote (Hilliard)
3 . Consideration of AT 79-077 , proposed lot division of Lot 13,
Block 49 , Atascadero Colony, Santa Cruz Road - Hurdle
(Hilliard)
4. Report No. 3 from the City Attorney
C . UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1 . Consideration of Resolution No. 6-80 adopting the Atascadero
General Plan
AGENDA - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting March 24, 1980
Page Two
C . UNFINISHED BUSINESS (cont . )
2 . Ordinance No. 20 amending the zoning map - first reading
3. Ordinance No. 18 accepting the requirements of Section 13522
of the State Penal Code relating to the training of law
enforcement officers - second reading and adoption
4. Resolution No . 5-80 approving the lease-purchase agreement
for the parking lot property
5 . , Consideration of department head salary classification plan
D. NEW BUSINESS
1. Ordinance No. 19 relating to Council procedures - first reading
2 . Award of bid for police department vehicles
3. Consideration of lease-purchase of cony machine
D. INDIVIDUAL DETEKIINATION AND/OR ACTION
1 . City Council
2. City Attorney
3. City Manager
MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting
March 10 , 1980 7 : 30 p .m.
Atascadero Administration Building
The meeting was called to order at 7 : 40 p .m. by Mayor Wilkins
with the Pledge of Allegiance . Reverend Wesley Buchanan from the
Atascadero Gospel Chapel gave the invocation.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT : Councilmen Highland, Mackey, Nelson, Stover and Mayor
Wilkins
ABSENT : None
PUBLIC COMMENT
1 . Mike Lucas presented the City Council with the final
drawing of the City emblem and motto. Each Council mem-
ber was furnished with a copy, Mayor Wilkins thanked the contest
committee for their many hours of work.
2 . Mike Cox of the Atascadero Fire District Board of Directors
thanked Murray Warden for his help during the recent rains
and flooding in Atascadero .
A. CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Minutes of the regular meeting of February 25 , 1980
(RECO11T4END APPROVAL)
Councilman highland requested a correction on uage three of the
minutes , the first motion on the page, on line four after the word
"residential" should read "be shown as suburban" instead of, "as
low density, single family suburban" .
MOTION: Councilman Highland moved that the minutes be approved
as corrected. The motion was seconded by Councilman
Mackey and unanimously carried.
B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES AND REPORTS
1 . Public hearing on Atascadero General Plan (continued)
Howard Marohn asked if the City Manager had determined the status
of the Caltrans project to extend Highway 41 east of El Camino .
Council noted that the City Manager had provided the requeste-d infor-
mation at the last meeting. Councilman Highland read the Caltrans
response to the City' s inquiry. They stated that , at present, there
is no funding for this project and its priority is very low. Mr . Marohn
then suggested that the current route was totally inadequate and that
MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting March 10 , 1980
Page Two
the Council should abandon any General Plan statement supporting
this extension. Mr. Marohn also suggested that the Council appoint
a traffic safety and road committee to address problems such as
this . Councilman Highland pointed out that page 92 of the General
Plan, number 3 , suggests that Curbaril be designated as a temporary
alternate route for Highway 41 .
The Planning Director noted that the Council had referred the
request of.. Ron Nelson for a Multiple Family Residential land use
designation, either high or low density, for property located along
the south side of Hermosilla near San Jacinto to the Planning Com-
mission for their recommendations . The Planning Commission was
recommending that the request be denied on the basis that multiple
family residential development would be inconsistent with the neigh-
borhood and changing the General Plan designation for the entire
block was not appropriate.
MOTION: Councilman Highland moved that Council approve the
Planning Commission' s recommendation. The motion was
seconded by Councilman Mackey and unanimously carried.
Mr . Stevens reviewed a map change as approved by the Planning
Commission in the area of Santa Ysabel and Capistrano with an access
off Valle. The Planning Commission had recommended that the Low
Density Single Family Residential section be changed to Moderate
Density Single Family Residential to be consistent with the neigh-
borhood. Councilman Mackey felt that the Low Density designation
was appropriate because of the slope of the area.
MOTION: Councilman Highland moved that this parcel be
changed from Low Density Single Family Residential to
Moderate Density Single Family Residential to be con-
sistent with the rest of the neighborhood. The motion
was seconded by Councilman Stover and carried with
Councilmen Mackey and Nelson voting no .
The Council continued reviewing the General Plan and made the
following changes :
On page 76 , with regard to the Planning Commission recommendation,
Council decided to delete, "In the establishment of those services ,
consideration is being given to a public safety function combining
some police and fire services . "
On page 77 , with regard to the Planning Commission recommendation,
Council agreed to delete, "A Dial-A-Ride program operates as a ser-
vice of the Senior Citizens United. " and insert, "A Dial-A-Ride pro-
gram is in operation. "
MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting March 10 , 1980
Page Three
Mr . Doug Lewis asked if there was an appropriate place in the
General Plan to identify high hazard areas such as mud slides , poor
run-off, etc. , so that people contemplating purchasing property
in Atascadero could be aware of problem properties . Mr. Warden
stated that this information could be the subject of a more detailed
study and normally would be contained in an element of the General
Plan called a seismic safety element. He suggested that Mr . Lewis
contact the Planning Director and outline his basic concerns . Such
an element could be considered by the Planning Commission and Council
at a later date .
MOTION: Councilman Highland moved that the General Plan be
accepted and that an adopting resolution be brought
back at the next meeting. The motion was seconded by
Councilman Mackey and unanimously carried.
2 . Public hearing on request of Atascadero Door Company and
Colony Associates for rezoning a 13. 6 acre site on the
west side of Frontage Road, between Santa Rosa Road and
Portola Road from C-H and R-A to C-1
Larry Stevens stated that the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of the change of zoning from C-H and R_-A to C-1-D, the "D"
meaning Departmental Review; this is consistent with the General
Plan.
MOTION: Councilman Highland moved that staff be directed to
prepare an ordinance and map change for first reading
on March 24, 1980, to effect this zoning change. The
motion was seconded by Councilman Nelson and unanimously
carried.
3 . Public hearing on the request for Conditional Use Permit
to convert an existing single-family residence to a pre-
school in an R-A zone, located at 8660 Portola Road
Larry Stevens stated that the Planning Commission had approved
this application subject to the conditions recommended by the County
Planning Department including a condition that the play area in the
rear yard be totally enclosed within a solid six-foot fence of
masonry or wood construction. Planning Commission approval was by a
4-2 vote .
John Sykes spoke to the proposal stating that he would shortly
receive his teaching credential and that the school would be a
Montessori school . He felt that the school would provide a needed
service to the community. Several residents in the neighborhood
spoke in opposition to the project noting that the school would
MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting March 10, 1980
Page Four
create a commercial use in a residential area with attendant noise
and traffic problems . Elaine Oglesby spoke in favor of the use .
MOTION: Councilman Highland moved that the Conditional Use
Permit be denied based on the neighborhood opposition.
The motion was seconded by Councilman Stover and
carried with Councilman_ Nelson voting no.
4. Public hearing, on the request for Conditional Use Permit
to allow the construction of a 6-unit apartment project
in an R-2-E-2-D zone, located on the east side of Tunitas
Mr . Stevens stated that the Planning Commission had recommended
denial of this request based on the findings presented by the County
Planning Department. Additionally, the Commission felt that the
development would create traffic and circulation problems in the
neighborhood.
MOTION: Councilman Highland moved that Council approve the
recommendations of the Planning Commission. The motion
was seconded by Councilman Mackey and unanimously
carried.
5. Public hearing and consideration of Ordinance No . 17
extending the moratorium on the approval of permits
for condominium uses , condominium subdivisions, and condo-
minium conversions with the City for un eight month period -
emergency ordinance
Mr . Stevens explained that an ordinance has not yet been pre-
pared regulating condominium conversions due to lack of agreement as
to exact content and lack of time to get it prepared. The Planning
Commission was , therefore, recommending that Council adopt an ordin-
ance extending the moratorium for eight months and directing Staff
to bring back an ordinance within 60 days ; the moratorium would
cease upon adoption of an ordinance. Councilman Highland was concerned
that the ordinance included new condominiums as well as conversions .
Mr . Stevens stated that the Commission felt that an ordinance would
probably treat condominium construction differently from apartments
and felt that this provision should be left in the moratorium ordinance.
MOTION: Councilman Nelson moved that Ordinance No . 17 be read
by title only. The motion was seconded by Councilman
Mackey and unanimously carried.
Mayor Wilkins read Ordinance No. 17 by title only.
MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITE' COUNCIL
Regular Meeting March 10, 1980
Page Five
MOTION: Councilman Nelson moved that Ordinance No. 17 be
adopted as an urgency measure. The motion was
seconded by Councilman Mackey and unanimously carried
by roll call vote.
RECESS 9 : 40 p.m. RECONVENED 9 :47 p.m.
C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1 . Ordinance No . 16 authorizing a contract between the City
and Public Employees ' Retirement System - second reading
MOTION: Councilman Highland moved that this constitute the
second and final reading of Ordinance No . 16 and that
it be adopted. The motion was seconded by Councilman
Stever and unanimously carried by roll call vote.
2. Resolution No. 3-80 with the County of San Luis Obispo
concerning non-agreement of exchange of tax base -
Atascadero County Sanitation District
Mr. Warden explained that this resolution formalizes the
Council ' s approval to enter into an "agreement to disagree" with
the Count;7 so that the grant, EPA approval and sale of bonds for
the sewer plant expansion project not be jeopardized.
MOTION: Councilman Highland moved for the adoption of Resolu-
tion No. 3-80 . The motion was seconded by Councilman
Mackey and unanimously carried.
3 . Recommendations from the Automobile Club of Southern
California regarding pedestrian .safety on El Camino Real
Mr. Warden reviewed the recommendations from the Automobile
Club which included eliminating the first and third crosswalks north
of Traffic Way, installation of medians and pedestrian safety educa-
tion as well as changes in lighting . Mr. Warden recommended imple-
menting construction of a median strip be held off until the Public
Works Director/City Engineer has time to study the problem and make
recommendations . Some of the lighting and painting recommendations
have already been implemented.
MOTION: Councilman Nelson moved for approval of the City
Manager 's recommendations with regard to the letter
from the Automobile Club. The motion was seconded by
Councilman Highland and unanimously carried.
I
i
0 •
MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting March 10, 1980
Page Six
4. Architect ' s Administration Building alternative floor plans
Mr . Stephenson, Architect, reviewed alternate plans for City
offices . The major change was the relocation of the Children' s
Library to the present Adult Library site, and the Adult Library to
the front of the building where Social Services now have some of
their offices . This would allow location of a one-stop City services
counter for City business on the East Mall side of the building
rear the recently acquired parking lot property.
There was considerable discussion regarding the plans and the
priorities for use of the building. Councilman Highland felt that
the City Offices were a high priority, with space to be provided for
the Library; Social Services was a low priority.
MOTION: Councilman Highland moved that the plans be approved
in concept . The motion was seconded by Councilman
Mackey and unanimously carried.
It was noted that detailed plans would be drawn and cost esti-
mates obtained by the Architect and they would be brought back to
Council for final approval .
D. NEW BUSINESS
1 . Consideration of acceptance of Parcel Map AT 78-041 -
Heinemann
Mr . Stevens reviewed the map and requested adoption of Resolu-
tion No. 4-80 accepting a five foot widening of a road into the City
road system.
MOTION: Councilman Highland moved for adoption of Resolution No .
4-80 and acceptance of the map . The motion was seconded
by Councilman Nelson and unanimously carried.
2 . Consideration of Ordinance No. 18 accepting the require-
ments of Section 13522 of the State Penal Code relating
to the training of Taw enforcement officers - first reading
Mr. Warden reviewed this ordinance stating that the type of
training included basic police academy, dispatcher training, special
investigations training.
MOTION: Councilman Highland moved that Ordinance No. 18 be read
by title only. The motion was seconded by ,Councilman
Mackey and unanimously carried.
Mayor Wilkins read Ordinance No. 18 by title only.
MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting March 10, 1980
Page Seven
MOTION : Councilman Highland moved that this constitute the
introduction of Ordinance No . 18 . The motion was
seconded by Councilman Mackey and unanimously carried.
Mr . Warden asked that Council clarify the vote concerning the
motion for Item D-3 approving the concept of the architect ' s plans
for remodeling. The detailed drawings will involve an expenditure
of funds , so he requested a roll call vote on the motion.
The motion for acceptance of the architect 's plans in
concept was unanimously carried by roll call vote.
3 . Salary survey and consideration of adoption of a salary
plan
Mr. Warden reviewed a salary survey and Salary Classification
Plan as prepared by Staff. He stated that the plan had been pre-
pared to reflect a general Council philosophy that City employee
salaries should be consistent with the relative size and population
of the City compared to other cities in San Luis Obispo County.
This would reflect a salary scale less than the largest city, but
somewhat more than the next highest paid of the small cities . The
salary plan, as presented, deviates from the traditional five-step
civil service-type pay schedule . The Plan proposes a two-step pay
schedule consisting of two steps - "qualified" and "fully qualified" .
Advancement from qualified to fully qualified would depend upon indi-
vidual employee performance and could vary in terms of time, depending
upon their performance on the job . Mr. Warden emphasized that this
plan did not affect existing salaries of County or Fire District
employees coming into City employment on July lst . Under the terms
of the incorporation resolution, these employees must be offered
the opportunity to become City employees at least at their current
rates of pay. Mr. Warden stated that he had not completed the depart-
ment head position recommendations and that he would have them for
the next. meeting.
Councilman Mackey did not feel it was necessary to pay City
employees more than the next highest paid of the small cities '
employees ; she felt it was enough if they were equal to the second
highest paid employees . Councilman Highland felt that Atascadero
had to be competitive in order to attract qualified employees and to
keep them.
Roland Snow of the Atascadero Fire District objected to the
adoption of the plan because of the fire classification salaries .
He felt that the salaries were less than the employees of the Fire
District make and did not take into consideration the Memoranda of
Understanding that the firefighters now have. Mr. Warden stated
MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting March 10, 1980
Page Eight
that this classification plan does not include the current Fire
District employees and the MOU' s ?could be addressed at a later date;
it was another subject entirely.
MOTION: Councilman Nelson moved for the approval of the Salary
Classification Plan. The motion was seconded by Council-
man Stover and carried with Councilman Mackey voting no.
MOTION: Councilman Highland moved that Council adopt the concept
of a two-step salary scale and a general concept that
City employees be hired at a salary generally less than
that of the City of San Luis Obispo and generally a bit
higher than the third largest city within the County.
The motion was seconded by Councilman Nelson and carried
with Councilman Mackey voting no.
E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION
1 . City Council
Council members had nothing.
2 . City Attorney
Mr. Grimes had nothing
3 . City Manager
Mr . Warden requested an executive session to discuss a
personnel matter and noted that no decisions or action
would be taken after the executive session; Council would adjourn
directly after the executive session.
The meeting adjourned at 11 : 22 p.m.
Recorded by :
MURRAY L. WARDEN, City Clerk
By: Ardith Davis
Deputy City Clerk
}
CITY OF ATASCADERO
TREASURER' S REPORT
February 21, 1980 through March 19 , 1980
Balance as of 2/20/80 $ 11, 838. 30
Receivables:
Per attached deposit listing 299 , 060. 89
Payroll:
2/27 $4 , 620. 91
3/12 $4, 795. 30 ( 9 , 416 . 21)
Payables:
Per attached Expenditure List ( 293, 107. 44)
Balance as of 3/19/80 $ 8 , 375. 54
Other Funds•
Petty Cash $ 34 . 65
Local Agency Investment Fund, State of
California 185 , 000 . 00
Time Deposit, Mid-State Bank
13. 9% interest, matures 4/25/80 100 , 000. 00
Time Deposit, Mid-State Bank
14. 0% interest, matures 8/20/80 100 , 000. 00
Time Deposit, Mid-State Bank
15. 875% interest, matures 9/9/80 100, 000 . 00
Total $ 493, 410 . 19
DEPOSIT LISTING
February 21, 1980 through March 19 , 1980
Date Source Amount
2/21 State - Sales Tax (1/80) $ 57, 500. 00
2/25 State - Highway Carrier 618. 53
2/28 Transfer from L.A. I. F. 100 ,000. 00
3/7 County - Revenue (2/80) 4, 890 . 52
3/7 Collection - Publications 31. 80
3/13 Transfer from L.A. I .F. 105, 000. 00
3/14 State - Motor Vehicle "In Lieu" (2/80) 28 , 040 . 85
3/17 State - Cigarette Tax (2/80) 2 ,979 . 19
Total $ 299 , 060. 89
y . •
EXPENDITURE LIST
February 21 , 1980 through March 19 , 1980
Payroll:
2/27 Checks 1303, 1304 , 1305, 1306, 1307 ,
1308, 1309 , 1310 $ 4 , 620 .91
3/12 Checks 1317, 1318, 1319 , 1320, 1321,
1322, 132.3, 1324 $ 4 , 795. 30
Total $ 9 , 416 . 21
Payables :
Dated Check No. Vendor Amount
2/21 1283 Local Agency Investment Fund $ 55, 000. 00
2/22 1284 Mid-State - Time Deposit 100 , 000. 00
2/22 1285 U S Post Office - Postage 60. 00
2/27 1286 Robert Moss Acct. - Audit-Light. Dist. 140. 00
2/27 1287 Atascadero News - ads 249 . 48
2/27 1288 Void ---
2/27 1289 Legal Book Stores, Pubs. 80. 56
2/27 1290 Calif. Peace Officers Assoc. 30 . 00
2/27 1291 IBM - Typewriter lease 122. 43
2/27 1292 IBM - Supplies 59. 36
2/27 1293 R. McHale - Travel , Conf. 181. 67
2/27 1294 F. Metzger - Legal Svcs. 500. 00
2/27 1295 O. D. Smith - Conf. 9 . 06
2/27 1296 Eimicke Assoc. - Personnel Supplies 74. 06
2/27 1297 Western Office Prod. -Furniture, 1, 266. 78
Bid 80-1
2/27 1298 Western Office Prod. - Supplies 116 . 03
2/27 1299 Arrowhead Water 16. 68
2/27 1300 PG&E, light standard 496. 00
2/27 1301 M. Warden, Travel Prop. 4 175. 05
2/27 1302 M. Warden, Travel, Mgrs. Meeting 352. 12
2/27 1311 EDD SIT 1/26 - 2/22 356 . 00
2/27 1312 IRS FWH 2/9 - 2/22 1, 018 . 20
2/29 1313 U S Post Office - Postage 75. 00
2/29 1314 City Treasurer - Petty Cash 41. 73
2/29 1315 City SLO - JPA .Medical ( 3/80) 527. 17
2/29 1316 City SLO - JPA Medical (2/80) 418. 78
3/12 1325 IRS FWH 2/23 - 3/7 1, 124. 50
3/12 1326 M. Warden - Car Allow. (2/80) 150 . 00
3/12 1327 U S Post Office - Postage 19. 00
3/12 1328 Radio Shack - Tapes 40. 58
3/12 1329 Paper Works -Copy (2/80) 438 . 74
3/12 1330 PG&E, street lights (2/80) 1, 736 . 37
3/12 1331 IBM - Typewriter lease 114. 48
3/12 1332 Pacific Telephone - Svc. 322 . 57
3/12 1333 Atascadero News - ads 66. 74
3/12 1334 K & F Leasing - Dictaphone 105. 80
3/12 1335 A. Grimes, Legal contract & svcs. 2 , 036. 75
3/12 1336 LOCC, Salary survey 75. 53
3/12 1337 Daily Press - ad 32 . 40
Expenditure List
j 2/21 - 3/19/80
Page Two
Payables: (Continued)
Dated Check No. Vendor Amount
3/12 1338 NIMLO - Publications & Membership $ 218. 00
3/12 1339 American Public Works Assoc. 30. 00
3/12 1340 L. McPherson - Mileage 29. 58
3/12 1341 Western Office Prod. - Supplies 88. 23
3/12 1342 B &- B Blueprinting 47 . 51
3/13 1343 Mid-State - Time Deposit 100 ,000 . 00
3/13 1344 U S Post Office - Box rental 22. 00
3/13 1345 Unit Masonry Assoc. - Pub. 17 . 50
3/17 1346 Local Agency Investment Fund 25 , 000. 00
3/18 1347 American Trucking Assn. --DAR Freq. 25. 00
Total $ 293, 107. 44
0 •
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Atascadero City Council DATE : March 19 , 1980
FROM: Planning Consultant/Director
SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE OF PARCEL MAPS
A. Parcel Map AT 79-33, NZolina/Rudd
The Planning Commission recommends acceptance of this parcel
map.
B. Parcel Map AT 78-065, Meeks/Gouff
The Planning Commission recommends acceptance of this parcel
map.
LAWRENCE ST ENS moRgAY L. ARDEN
Planning Consultant/Director Cily Man er
LS: kp
Attach.
I
z
COUNTY
SH LUIS OBISP 0 COUHTY DEPARTMENT
ROOM A101 . COURTHOUSE ANNEX SAN LUIS OBISPO CALIFORNIA 93408 , (805) 549-5252
GEORGE C. PROTOPAPAS ROADS
County Engineer TRANSPORTATION
FLOOD CONTROL
CLINTON MILNE
WATER CONSERVATION
DEPUTY COUNTY ENGINEER
SURVEYOR
GUY PREWITT DECEIVE®
[_ `/ 4 ossa SPECIAL DISTRICTS
SPECIAL DISTRICTS ADMINISTRATOR R'
January 23 , 1980
City of Atascadero
Veterans Memorial Building, Room 106
P. 0. Box 747
Atascadero, CA 93422
Attention Mr. Murray Warden,
City Administrator
Subject: Acceptance of Parcel Map AT 79-33
Gentlemen:
Your consideration of the approval of Parcel Map AT 79-33 ,
a proposed subdivision by G. & G. Molina and R. M. & T.
Rudd, is requested. It is our
RECOMMENDATION
that your Honorable Council approve and authorize the Clerk
to sign the map.
Discussion:
A finding of consistency with the General Plan in accordance
with Section 66473 . 5 of the Subdivision Map Act was made by
the City Council of the City of Atascadero on December 10 ,
1979 .
The total area of this development is 1. 58 acres with minimum
lot areas of 0 . 75 acres. The area is zoned M-1.
Water service will be from Atascadero Mutual Water Company;
sewage facilities will be maintained by community sewers.
Respectfully,
-tC t IJ
GEOE C. ^PROTOPAPAS
County Engineer
GCP/JRE/ald
cYl
m
kjn
to
in
W ra
wcj
ZZp ? V ¢lo�33Qz`� Wr
K } Q`+•,4tj
J
41
d
yO/141 Y4
Ud
6
0/4-
IL
/4a
f
19
^V v
o i
f' w
U .• J N
z
Z
O
o
t
e'
O 'fA EOI"5
t'�C,Zf: eel?O
's n'jO���. R-a�-�' W
Y
ro. FP. Na 411.4 �J
7Rp
b YOO79
I
t 'I
• A4
.830 COUNTY
SH
�I COURTY
ENGINEERING
LUIS OBISP ODEPARTMENT
ROOM A101 + COURTHOUSE ANNEX SAN LUIS OBISPO + CALIFORNIA 93408 + (805) 549-5252
GEORGE C. PROTOPAPAS ROADS
County Engineer TRANSPORTATION
FLOOD CONTROL
CLINTON MILNE
WATER CONSERVATION
DEPUTY COUNTY ENGINEER
SURVEYOR
GUY PREWITT
SPECIAL DISTRICTS
SPECIAL DISTRICTS ADMINISTRATOR
March 10 , 1980
City of Atascadero
Veterans Memorial Building, Room 106
P. O. Box 747
Atascadero, CA 93422
Attention Mr. Murray Warden,
City Administrator
Subject: Acceptance of Parcel Map AT 78-65 , Portola
Road (4012)
Gentlemen:
Your consideration of the approval of Parcel Map AT 78-65 ,
a proposed subdivision by J. G. & F. D. Meeks and T. G. & A.
E. Gouff , is requested. It is our
RECOMMENDATION
that your Honorable Council act upon the attached resolution,
and authorize the Clerk to sign the map.
Discussion:
A finding of consistency with the General Plan in accordance
with Section 66473. 5 of the Subdivision Map Act was made by
the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Luis Obispo on
March 26, 1979.
Attached is a vicinity map and layout of Parcel Map AT 78-
65. The total area of this development is 2. 03 with minimum
lot areas of 1. 01. The area is zoned R-A.
The road will be maintained by the City; water service will
be from Atascadero Mutual Water Company; sewage facilities
will be community sewers.
Respectfully,
GEORbE C. PROTOPAYAS
County Engineer
GCP/JH
I
w
\ /•� //�Al 6�7-Z6%'�Z5*4-d5o.574C.,J) I^� /
m
.BAsis of B�azivys
mQ �
W
At
JI
Op
� w
a I Aq0 o0 I
N 37Zo6
o
*- Q
H � � p � aro •yN �' �
o _
6 �r��r�yJ �r-�,►j 1 tA,
• • f �
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Atascadero City Council DATE: March 19 , 1980
FROM: Planning Consultant/Director
SUBJECT: CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE (CC 49-023-02) ON A PORTION OF
LOT 42, BLOCK 20 , ATASCADERO COLONY NEAR THE INTERSECTION
OF TRAFFIC WAY AND SAN BENITO - ROSELIP
The Planning Commission recommends approval of one Certificate of
Compliance as indicated in the attached Staff Report.
LAWRENCE EVENS MUR Y VWARDEN
Planning onsultant/Director Cit Maer
LS:kp
Attach.
` Telephone(805)549-5600
1980
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Courthouse Annex
SAN LUIS 0131SPO, CALIFORNIA - 93408
February 26, 1980
Honorable City Council and Planning Commission
City of Atascadero, California
RE: APPLICATION FOR ONE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ON A PORTION OF
LOT 42, BLOCK 20; (CC 49-023-02/ROSELIP) PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OF ONE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE.
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
This application is requesting approval of a Certificate of Compliance
for property located in the northern portion of the City of Atascadero
near the intersection of San Benito Road and Traffic Way. The property
is approximately 1.8 acres in size and the site is zoned A-1-22, Light
Agriculture zoning with a 2z, acre minimum. The area in which the
property is located is designated as Industrial by the 1978 Atascadero
Area General Plan.
The Subdivision Map Act in Section 66499.35 gives a local agency authority
to issue Certificates of Compliance for property divided in conformance
with applicable laws and ordinances. The parcel for which a certificate
is requested was established in 1947 by separate grant deed. The division
of original Lot 42 at that time was accomplished in compliance with
applicable requirements.
Based on the foregoing information and documents submitted, the Planning
Department recommends approval of one Certificate of Compliance as
indicated in the attached material.
Respectfully submitted,
LARRY J. RED, Supervisor
Subdivision Review Section
ca
Attachment
._��
,�� • °
50
•
51 �� l
52
�. . •: o.Windli -
oc n 66p
53 4,
\ - • •��_
L Pact
-- - ' _ 55
REKA
a r; s A M A P
Yy
A
9 ITE
/ � 1
Far
17
(300
� RANCHO LA ASUNCION'
• A MAPS
'4 `a Q. • • nC1On
Qf
•, r 7
--L - I •`• ,i' -.,/ \ i '�' •�1 �p�►vc V
lGIi.11Ty M)SP
0
�. oNcv
1 a F-
O F-
/ r°m W Q O
Q U
fSOg
,X��N I
o l
Q]
o ) RSP r Z a
° a a
A 4 a o Im 7 m z
4
Il
° � O
C� Ill N N�
N
f1t, 0619
16 Z
96691 ( \
Q � U
rci� Q I
c iD o '/ a v c M
O
c
Q` W�
u
co
( N
C _ La
y
-
ch OJ
J t
t` f`YY co N a 2
N
C�L
_ --3_ 5£ C O
_ - 0 > 9 .obi >£b PI£ h
0 n
Ctn
Ct
N
a �• _ _ _ _ N
Go
tu
r
N _
cr�// O Q
1-
�- O � C @a Iris ■ N ^ 7 ^.. Z
-1 9 Ocr- O o M 4
�- cli V' 1
v aG M °
N -
_
in
o �D
/ cli " }.. �--_fib-0T O
.i n a
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
WHEN RECORDED, RETURN TO:
Planning Director
Room 102, Courthouse Annex
San Luis Obispo, California
93401
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
The following real property and the division thereof into
parcels as of the date of recordation of this document, has een etermined
to be in compliance with applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act
of the State of California and Local Ordinances enacted pursuant thereto.
Said Real Property being described as:
That portion of Lot 42 in Block 20 of Amended Map of Atascadero Colony,
according to the map recorded October 21, 1914, in Book 3 of Maps, at page 1
et seq., records of said County, described as follows:
Beginning at the most Southerly corner of said Lot 42; thence North 3So 34'
East along the Southeasterly line of said Lot, 421 feet; thence North 54o
26' West and parallel with the Southwesterly line of said Lot, 206.24 feet
to the Northwesterly line of said Lot; thence South 350 34' Nest along said
Northwesterly line 421 feet to the most Westerly corner of said Lot; thence
South 540 26' East along the Southwesterly line of said Lot, 206.24 feet
to the point of beginning.
OWNER: BERNARD ROSELIP, a widower, also known as BERNARD ROSELIP, an unmarried man,
who acquired title by Deeds dated May 8, 195 -
192
Official Records.
By:
Larry J. Red, Supervisor
Subdivision Review Section
i
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) On 19 before
COUNTY OF SAP! LUIS OBISPO) SS' me, the undersigned, a Notary Public
in and for the State, personally
appeared Larry J. Red known to
me to be the person whose name is sub-
scribed to the within instrument and
acknowledged to me that he executed the
same.
(SEAL) NOTARY PUBLIC
co 871
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Atascadero City Council DATE: March 19 , 1980
FROM: Planning Consultant/Director
SUBJECT: AL 79-84 , PROPOSED LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT OF LOTS 1-6 ,
BLOCK 43 , LLANO ROAD - DRAKE/WILMORE
Subsequent to typing the attached report, the map was revised to
reflect the proposed parcels properly. Parcel A will now consist
of Lots 1, 2 , 3 and a portion of 4 and Parcel B will consist of
Lots 5, 6 and the remaining portion of Lot 4 . This, in effect,
reduces the property from six potential building sites to two potential
building sites, but it does seem necessary based upon the configura-
tion of Lot 4 for the combinations effected. This would not neces-
sitate modifying the conditions and is reflected in the revised map.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission recommends approval of AL 79-84 subject to
Conditions 1-4 as recommended by the Subdivision Review Board and
subject to the revised lot line adjustment map which is included
in the attached materials.
lavv,x
,Gt�l
LAWRENCE TEVENS MUR. Y L. WARDEN
Planning onsultant/Director Ci y Manager
LS:kp
Attach.
REPORT OF THE SUBDIVISION REVIEW BOARD MEETING FEBRUARY 6, 1980
RE: Al., 79-84, PROPOSED LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT OF LOTS 1-6, BLOCK -13,
ATASCADERO CITY, LLANO ROAD.
(A-1-BV-5: SUBURBAN) (DRAKE - HILL)
RECOMTIENDATION FOR APPROVAL
SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT #5 (884 : 12/7/79)
SRB Members in Attendance: Chairman, Colonel Sorenson, Bill MacDonald, Larry Red,
John Hofschroer, John Wallace, Michael Doherty
Planning Commissioner in Attendance: Evelyn Delany
Legal Counsel Present: None
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This application proposes an adjustment of property line between
2 parcels. The site is located on Llano and Tecolote Roads in the
Paradise Valley District of Atascadero.
Zoning: A-1-BV-5: "Light Agriculture" (minimum lot size range
3-10 acres depending on slope)
General Plan: 1978 Atascadero General Plan: "Suburban" (lot size
range 2z-10 acres)
SPECIFIC REQUEST
The applicant indicates the adjustment will correct the existing encroach-
ment of a large shed on the northerly parcel.
COMMENTS
The adjustment involves exchanging equal sized parcels of land in order
to keep all structures belonging to the chicken ranch on the same
parcel . The exchange will maintain a position equal to the one that
currently exists.
RECOMMENDATION
After review of applicable General Plans and other available information,
the Subdivision Review Board recommends to the Atascadero City Council that
the proposed Lot Line Adjustment be found to comply with Section 21.48.017
of the Real Property Division Ordinance and that it be approved.
One last consideration is the matter of the Atascadero incorporation.
Although it appears the new City Council will take action on this project,
the Subdivision Review Board may still take action on this matter. Any
action taken will likely constitute an informal recommendation to the
City Council. It should be noted this staff report and the recommendations
are based on County policy, procedure, and ordinances.
AL 79-84
Page 2
Provided that the adjustment is approved, the following; conditions erre
hereby established:
1. All conditions of approval herein specified are to be complied with
prior to the recording of Certificates of Compliance which effectuates
the adjustment. Said Certificates of Compliance must be signed by
all record ow-ners and holders of interest, and notarized as required
by Section 21.48.017(e) of the Real Property Ordinance.
2. The Certificates of Compliance must be filed in accordance with
Section 21.48.017(e) prior to any conveyance of the adjusted portions
of the property.
3. After approval by the Board of Supervisors, compliance with the
preceeding conditions will bring the proposed adjustment in conformance
with the Subdivision Map Act and Section 21.48.017 of the Real
Property Division Ordinance.
4. The Lot Line Adjustment will expire one year (12 months) from the
date of Board of Supervisors approval, unless the Certificates of
Compliance effectuating the adjustment are recorded.
DISCUSSION
Applicant's engineer attended the meeting.
The Subdivision Review Board unanimously adopted the preliminary report
as written.
r
_ 200
•yam , -� � ,\ -�o o
,fi02 2 4�
1254 ..- i -_ � �'f .
~ � ATA SCA OERO
_ M P BOOK
q<
0
R AL
l8
4
V I G N ITY M&P
�= ,y Ley \ �
-N p.
f c. S
p•tyOc'' �1070�3.� v,��
N nrj
CSN fq
Oo Q2v Z
I �o hC' h � •o N Q� � � � � `O'y1
o
n e
ou
LP
� 2
i
C � �
Z �
PARCEL A
Lots 1 , 2 , 3 , and Lot 4 , except the Northwesterly 87 .00 feet of
Lot 4 , measured at right angles to the line common to Lots 4
and 5 , in Block 43 of Atascadero Colony , in the City of Atascadero ,
County of San Luis Obispo , State of California , according to
Amendment "D" to map of Atascadero Colony , recorded may 8 , 1920
in Book 3 , at Page 58-A of maps .
PARCEL 8
The Northwesterly 87.00 feet of Lot 4 , measured at right angles
to the line common to Lots 4 and 5 , and all of Lots 5 and 6 in
Block 43 of Atascadero Colony , in the City of Atascadero , County
of San Luis Obispo , State of California , according to Amendment
"D" to map of Atascadero Colony , recorded may 8 , 1920 in .Book 3 ,
at Page 58-A of maps .
t`
0 0 A �
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Atascadero City Council DATE: March 19 , 1980
FROM.: Planning Consultant/Director
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ON WAKEFIELD DEPARTMENTAL
REVIEW - ED 79-177 (R790815 : 1)
As noted in the attached materials, the Office of the Environmental
Coordinator has recommended that a focused EIR be prepared on this
project based on drainage and the introduction of commercial use
in a residential area. The City Council should be aware that this
Environmental Determination has been held in abeyance pending reso-
lution of the General Plan consistency issue which could have become
an additional focus. As part of the General Plan hearings, the
City Council has agreed with the Planning Commission recommendation
to change the land use designation for the subject property to
Retail Commercial.
County environmental procedures require authorization from the
legislative body (i.e. , City Council) when the Environmental Deter-
mination requires an EIR. The following alternatives should be
considered:
Finding A-- (The project may have a significant effect on the
environment and requires the submission of an
Environmental Impact Report)
Alternative No. 1: Acceptance of the Environmental
Coordinator' s recommendation for an EIR and the
two focuses identified above.
Alternative No. 2 : Require an EIR with provision for
additional focuses (i.e. , traffic) .
Alternative No. 3: Require an EIR with elimination of
one of the recommended focuses.
Finding B-- (The project will not have a significant impact on
the environment)
Alternative No. 4 : Negative Declaration
Finding C-- (Project will not have a significant effect on the
environment because of conditions imposed as part
of the Environmental Review)
Alternative No. 5: Conditional Negative Declaration
Memorandum to City Ouncil •
March 19, 1980
Page Two
Relative to Alternative No. 5, the following conditions are suggested
based on the focuses identified for the EIR:
Condition No. 1: Comprehensive drainage and erosion control
plan to be reviewed and approved by County/City Engineering
Department as per standard County/City procedures.
Condition No. 2 : Design of the proposed project including
building orientation and design, parking, access points,
lighting, and similar design features which consider the
effect on nearby and adjacent residential development and
appropriate conditions may be imposed to mitigate these
environmental effects as part of the plan approval process.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission, with two dissenting votes, recommends that
an EIR not be required and further recommends adoption of Finding C
and Alternative No. 5. The Conditional Negative Declaration is
recommended to include Condition No. 1 and 2 as outlined in the
Staff memo.
LAWRANCE ST VENS MUR LZWARDEN
LWARDEN
Planning C sultant/Director Cit Man er
LS:kp
Attach.
FORM B2-1 Part 3
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
"TAI I R1 PORT
Project Number P.N. ED 79-177 (R790815:1) Date Decernher 11, 1919
Project Title P.T._Wakefield Departmental Review
THE FOLLOl1ING STAFF REPORT 1,AS PREPARED BY THE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL CODRDI-
NATOR AND INCLUDES BASIS OF DECISION'S FOR YES AND RAYBE RESPONSES ON THE
E,;11Ik0;0' GTA[ CHIEKLISI (Form B?-], Part 7).
11P0,H(.1 DI_SCR11111ON:
The applicant is requesting a Departmental Review to allow a 112 unit motel and
two commercial buildings (restaurant and shops) on 3.74 acres in a C-Il zone. The
site is located adjacent to the west side of U.S. Highway 101 at the northwest
corner of the intersection of Portola Road and Coromar Road in the City of Atascad(—o.
STATEMENT OF FINDINGS:
The project site is generally level. However, a drainage swale traverses the
property and this area is lower than the rest of the site. Vegetation consits
of grasses and a few scattered trees.
Information from the Soil Conservation Service indicates that the soil in this
area is well-drained. However, because the site appears to be a drainage area,
development of the proposed density could cause problems with run-off in the
surrounding neighborhood.
The Atascadero Area General Plan designates the site as "Moderate Density
Single Family". Surrounding land use is predominantly residential. The introducti-_n
of a commercial use into a residential area could cause problems relating to noise.
lighting and traffic. The policy set down in the General Plan tends to discourage
non-conforming uses in residential areas. This project may constitute a non-confor•--
ing use.
COORDINATOR'S RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is recommended that the Atascadero City Council require the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report with the following focuses:
1. Drainage
2. Introduction of a commercial use into a residential area.
APPLICANT:
R.D. Wakefield K.L. Switzer
Box 95 609 W. Ojai Avenue
Carpenteria, CA Ojai, CA
(805) 684-5267 (805) 646-1276
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Office of the Environmental Coordinator, San Luis Obispo County
REVISED 7/79 -3-
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
FORM 132-1 Part 1
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBIPSO
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
and
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
Project Number t_D79- _ _ Date
Project Title/Description 1_L'�k�_ Gn}�_�
Project Location/Address/Legal Description L.¢.AatJDtkjL�St 15
p� ' rrt¢,r
o� _�i_�G _} COY�YYIGY _- c+� $ C _G. Property Sizeu
Primary Entitlement: �,19a8�5 �Q/�I 5L9-I--,R5 Supv. District
RECOMMENDATION 5W-111- 2-7)
THE ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR RECOMMENDS THAT THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL TAKE THE
FOLLOWING ACTION:
OFINDING NO. 1: NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Atascadero City Council after examination of the preliminary environmental des-
cription of this project and review of the Environmental Coordinator's recommendation
and the attached statement of reasons supporting this finding, finds that this pro-
ject will not have a significant effect of the environment and that this Board issue
Oits Negative Declaration.
FINDING NO. 2: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Atascadero City, Council after examination of the preliminary environmental des-
cription of this project and review of the Environmental Coordinator's recommendation
and the attached statement of reasons supporting this finding, finds that this pro-
ject may have a significant effect on the environment and requires the submission of
an environmental impact report prepared in accordance with the Environmental Impact
Report Guidelines,
l x ) FINDING NO. 3: FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Atascadero City. Council after examination of the preliminary environmental des-
cription of this project and review of the Environmental Coordinator's recorLiendation
and the attached stater;ent of reasons supporting this findinq, finds tha-, this pro-
may have a significant effect on the environment and requires the submission of a
focused environmental impact report prepared in accordance with the Environmental
Impact Report Guidelines and including the topics as listed in the attached Staff
OReport prepared by the Office of Environmental Coordinator.
FINDING NO. 4 CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Atascadero City C.nuncil after examination of the preliminary environmental des-
cription of this project and review of the Environmental Coordinator's recomnendatien
and the attached statement of reasons supporting this finding, finds that this pro-
ject will not have a significant effect on the environment and that this Board issue
its Negative Declaration subject to the conditions contained in the Environmental
Coordinator's staff report.
ACTION BY ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
On _ _ _ the Atascadero City Council took the followinq action on
the above referenced Proiect.
Adopted the Environmental Coordinator's Recomendation No. _ as stated above.
Adopted finding No. _ as stated above based on the following:
REVISED 7/79 -1-
0
FORM B2-1 Part 2
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
INITIAL STUDY - ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Project Number L`-X79 - 1-7 7 Date JQrI. 7, 19 F0
Yes Maybe No* POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT POLLUTION
( ) ( ) (Y) Water pollution (ground or surface)
( ) ( ) (X) Air pollution, including odors
Soil erosion and sedimentation
Noise
( ) ( ) (X) Other
POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT LOSS OF RESOURCES
( ) ( ) (X) Wildlife habitat
( ) ( ) W Vegetation
Mineral resources
( ) ( ) (x) Agricultural land
( ) ( ) OQ Other
POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON CULTURAL RESOURCES
Historical or archaeological sites
( ) ( ) (nl Loss of scenic values
( ) ( ) (X) Other significant adverse effect on human beings
Overload or major impact on community services
(fire ( ), police ( ), schools ( ), other S�_— _)
POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON PHYSICAL FEATURES
Contribution to traffic congestion ( ), or traffic circulation concerns
Limited or unsafe access
Overload or major impact on community facilities
(sewer ( ), water supply ( ), solid waste disposal( ) other L
Major topographic alteration
SENSITIVE LOCATION
( ) ( ) (xl State area of critical ecologic concern
( ) ( ) (7c) Scenic and sensitive land (Open Space Plan)
Endangered species habitat
Area Subject to seismic faulting or other e_eologic instability
(sliding ( ), soil expansion( ) , other ( ) _)
Area subject to drainage problems, floodinq odation
( ) ( ) Area subject to high fire hazard: Rating a 1
MISCELLANEOUS SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
( ) OC) ( ) Potential for beginning a new land use trend
( ) ( ) QC) Significant due to cumulative impact
( ) ( ) (X) Growth inducing impact
A "Yes" answer indicates that there is sufficient documented evidence to indicate sub-
stantial environmental impact in this category.
A "maybe" answer indicates that there appears to be substantial environ^iental impact and
requires further investigation in this category.
A "no" answer indicates that there is sufficient evidence either documented or obvious,
that there will be no environmental impact in this category.
Yes and maybe answers to the above environmental concerns are explained in the attached
sheet, together with other information as needed to assist the Board with their
determination.
-2-
REVISED 7/79
i
ov
B6
— --
Fl
l
11
�Ej
r
x
6,
� . ► _ .._ . � 1 .
TOPOGRAPHY
,eld Oeec:(rh-►��c,
51^7Q•(
a m
o � o
z
b
D g +
--------- - ----------
0
F
L
o W On V (n
n m l
I
ti
Ozm O a in I O.
of � Ia li o
U
a Y(Iu�I
v a
�W
0
n +
o IU y
- 615
p.9S5 �RTOLJ+
OW
ITE.
SITS M:)
�� ��- «7
15-8
I F3
15-c
,'Aj
25
�i \ Goz � ��3 g
/i 7 3 \� 38 'Jog 0, ��� al
- / �Y ca7 J -
n
P4D2 3 uis,1
P-257
,53" �
s - 34
3
y 2 8 3
1'/,K P G
R�� R _ I�rajec# Side
315
�
30
' .P-zR \v F7..-
12 _
/ja 1 31 \
\P-34\ i
P-178 ,P
5 P-1�4 \ 10
c
2 14 PAPC.�I 'y
16-
10
6-10 % 1-A I 4. `o
1
o.
1 1 '
17 1 P
i--J �3z3� !a-7�-lz 4
4 _ 8
RQ.I.'I•Q(�
0
� I
M E M O R A N D U .M
TO: Atascadero City Council DATE: March 19 , 1980
FROM: Planning Consultant/Director
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING ON TRACT NO. 866 , PROPOSED CONDOMINIUM
SUBDIVISION OF LOT 4 , BLOCK 18 , ATASCADERO COLONY,
LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF EL CAMINO REAL JUST NORTH
OF SAN ANSELMO - LENZI (MADDALENA)
The Planning Commission recommends for consistency based on
Findings 1-9 listed in the Staff Report and recommends for approval
subject to Conditions 1-26 as recommended by the Subdivision Review
Board with the following revisions :
A. Compliance with Conditions 20 and 21 shall be prior
to recordation of the final map or prior to obtaining
a Certificate of Occupancy, whichever occurs last.
B. Condition 27 on fire protection standards should be
added as follows: "The applicant must comply with state,
county and district laws/ordinances applicable to fire
protection and consider increased fire risk to the area
by the land proposed. "
There was discussion of the timing of these events (CC&R review,
final map recording and construction) . The applicant is in agree-
ment with the Planning Commission recommendation. It was the
consensus of the Planning Commission that the project complies
with all current zoning and subdivision regulations and is consistent
with the Atascadero General Plan.
LAW NCE S EVENS M Y L. ARDEN
Planning nsultant/Director Cit Man ger
LS: kp
Attach.
Telephone(805)549-5600
i - 1
i
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Courthouse Annex
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA - 91408
February 13, 1980
Honorable Atascadero Planning Commission
and City Council
City of Atascadero, California
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
SUBJECT: TRACT NO. 866, PROPOSED CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION OF LOT 4,
BLOCK 18, ATASCADERO COLONY; EL CAMINO REAL, CITY OF
ATASCADERO.
(R-4-B-2-D(506) : HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL)
SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT #1 (LENZI - MADDALENA) (884: 12/28/79)
RECOMMENDATION FOR CONSISTENCY AND FOR APPROVAL
RECOMMENDATION ON ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
At a regular meeting of the County Subdivision Review Board, the attached
subdivision was considered and is being referred to you for required
action and findings regarding consistency with applicable general plans.
Respectfully submitted,
LARRY J. RED, Supervisor
Subdivision Review Section
ca
Attachment
cc: County Engineer
County Health Department
REPORT OF THE SUBDIVISION REVIEW BOARD MEETING FEBRUARY 6, 1980
RE: TRACT NO. 866, PROPOSED CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION OF LOT 4, BLOCK 18,
ATASCADERO COLONY; EL CAMINO REAL, CITY OF ATASCADERO.
(R-4-B-2-D(506) : HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL)
SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT #1 (LENZI - MADDALENA) (884: 12/28/79)
RECOMMENDATION FOR CONSISTENCY AND FOR APPROVAL
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
SRB Members in Attendance: Chairman, Colonel Sorenson, Larry Red, Bill MacDonald,
John Hofschroer, John Wallace, Michael Doherty
Planning Commissioner in Attendance: Evelyn Delany
Legal Counsel Present: None
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This application proposes a condominium subdivision of approximately two
acres into 25 two bedroom townhouse type units. The site is located on
the west side of E1 Camino Real, just north of San Anselmo in the City
of Atascadero.
Zoning: R-4-B-2-D(506) : "Multiple Family & Professional" (10,000 square
foot minimum)
General Plan: 1978 Atascadero Area General Plan: "High Density !Multi-Family
Residential" (z acre minimum)
STAFF CON24ENTS
Environmental Determination
A Negative Declaration was issued by the Environmental Coordinator on
January 9, 1980, stating that the project will not have a significant
effect on the environment and therefore does not require the preparation
of an Environmental Impact Report, based on a previous Negative
Declaration issued March 7, 1977.
Specific Request
The applicant proposes 25 townhouse apartment units, a laundry and
recreation building, swimming pool, and off-street parking for 44 vehicles.
Site coverage by structures and paving will be approximately 430. Project
density will be approximately 12.5 units per acre.
Project History
The proposed project was granted a Negative Declaration as an Environmental
Determination by the County Board of Supervisors on March 7, 1977. The
apartment units were originally approved March 9, 1977, by Departmental
Review 8770106: 1 for Gary Nichols. That approval lapsed and a subsequent
TRACT 866 •
Page 2
Departmental Review, R780629: 1, for Mr. Nichols was approved July 3,
1978. On November 6, 1979, a subdivision application was submitted
for Clifford Lenzi by Central Coast Engineering. The Atascadero City
Council granted an exception to their condominium moratorium for the
project on December 26, 1979, and the application was accepted for
processing by the County Planning Department on December 28, 1979.
Site and Area Considerations
The subject site is approximately two acres in area, located between
E1 Camino Real and Highway 101, north of San Anselmo, and is presently
vacant and unimproved, with-numerous oak trees . The site slopes toward
the south.
Land uses adjacent to the site include three single family homes on the
parcel immediately north of the site, single family residences to the
east and south and Highway 101 to the west. Chapcl of the Roses is
located a short distance to the north.
Zoning and General Plan Considerations
The site and adjacent properties are zoned R-4-B-2-D(506) , Multiple
Family and Professional with a 10,000 square foot minimum building
site requirement and setbacks pursuant to the R-4 District. Property
across El Camino Real is zoned A-1, Light Agriculture. The existing
zoning for the site would allow a potential density of 33 units per
acre. The present project proposes approximately 12 units per acre.
The 1978 Atascadero General Plan designates the site "High Density
Multiple Family."
The Plan has two sets of formulas to calculate maximum allowable density.
The one formula based on the number of one, two, three or four bedroom
apartment per acre.
"The following maxima shall apply:
18 one bedroom apartments per acre
12 two bedroom apartments per acre
9 three bedroom apartments per acre
7 four bedroom apartments per acre." (p. 44)
The other formula is established by Residential Policy #6.
116. Multi-family residential use areas should have a
minimum building site of one-half acre with the number
of allowable units corresponding to the following table:
TRACT 866
Page 3
No. of Bedrooms Required Land Area Per Unit
1 2400 sq. ft.
2 3600 sq. ft.
3 4800 sq. ft.
4 5900 sq. ft." (p. 45)
Since this formula is a policy as opposed to the other formula given in
the discussion section of the plan, it should be considered the controling
density formula.
The Atascadero General Plan also requires consistency with the General
Plan, Residential Policy #15 requires:
"15. Condominium projects, both new development or conversion
should be reviewed on an individual basis as community housing
needs, neighborhood character, and site improvements. It is
the intention of the plan that conversion of existing buildings
shall be subject to the provision of Government Code Section
66473. 5 and 66474." (p. 46)
The project site contains a net area of approximately 2. 1 acres. Using
either formula contained in the General Plan, the existing project
satisfies the density regulations. The project also satisfies the
general restriction against 5 or more units per structure, and it is
also located on an arterial as required by the plan.
E1 Camino Real is designated by the General Plan as a Principal Arterial .
The plan contains the following comments:
112. Arterials Divided
The two Arterials are El Camino Real and Morro Road. They
serve as major highways linking Atascadero with other communities,
and they channel traffic to different parts of town.
Arterials divided should be developed in two lengths: On El
Camino Real from Rosario to San Diego Road and on Morro Road
from E1 Camino to San Gabriel Road.
The divided arterials should also have a paving width that
will accommodate four traffic lanes, parallel parking strips,
bicycle lanes, curbs and sidewalks." (p. 88)
RECOMMENDATION
Although the City Planning Commission and the City Council will take
final action on this project, the Subdivision Review Board may still
take action on this matter. Any action taken will likely constitute an
informal recommendation to the City Council. It should be noted this
staff report and the recommendations are based on County policy, procedure
and ordinances.
TRACT 866 •
Page 4
After review of applicable General Plans and other available information.
the Subdivision Review Baord recommends approval to the City Council and
that the proposed subdivision be found consistent with the General Plan
in accordance with Section 65302. 5(a) (4) of the Government Code. This
is based on the following findings:
1. That the proposed map is consistent with applicable County General
and Specific plans;
2. That the design and improvement of the proposed subdivision are
consistent with applicable County General and Specific plans;
3. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development
proposed;
4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of
development proposed;
5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements
will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially
and avoidable injure fish or wildlife or their habitat;
6. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is
not likely to cause serious public health problems;
7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will
not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for
access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision;
or that substantially equivalent alternate easements are provided;
8. That the proposed subdivision complys with Section 66474.6 of the
State Subdivision Map Act, as to methods of handling and discharge
of waste;
9. That the proposed subdivision be found in compliance with the
County zoning and the Real Property Division Ordinance.
Provided that a finding of consistency is made and the application ulti-
mately approved, the following conditions are hereby established
regarding the design and improvements of the proposed subdivision:
And, provided that the Atascadero City Council finds that your Tentative
Map is consistent and approved, the Subdivision Review Board also
recommends to the Atascadero City Council that it be found in the interest
of the public health and safety, and as a necessary pre-requisite
construction of road improvements within a period of one year after
recordation of the Map.
The following conditions regarding its design and improvements are
recommended by the Subdivision Review Board should the application be
approved.
• _ TRACT 866 • •
Page 5
STREETS
1. E1 Camino Real fronting the tract be improved with 1/2 of the
previously designed 84 foot section with 8 foot sidewalk section.
2. Street surfacing to be a minimum of 3" A.C. along El Camino Real .
3. An encroachment permit be obtained for the County Engineering
Department for work to be done on the County right-of-way.
DRAINAGE
4. Complete drainage calculation submitted to the County Engineering
office for approval.
S. Water is to be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water Company.
6. That a letter be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water Company
and submitted to the Health and Planning Departments stating that
operable facilities are immediately available and ready for connection
to the units created.
SEWERS AND SOLID WASTE
7. Sewage disposal shall be by connection to the community sewers.
8. That evidence be obtained from the Atascadero Sanitation District
and submitted to the Health and Planning Departments indicating the
Community Sewage Sustem is willing and able to serve additional
connections, and that operable facilities are immediately available
and ready for connection to the units created.
9. That the required separation between water mains and sanitary
sewers be achieved during construction.
10. That provisions for handling of solid waste within the Tract be
satisfactory to the County Health Department.
11. No outdoor storage, or any accumulation of trash, debris, or packing
materials shall be permitted.
12. Applicant shall file with the County Engineer an application requesting
apportionment of any unpaid assessments under the Improvement Bond
Act of 1915, in compliance with Section 8740. 1 of the Streets and
Highways Code of the State of California. Said apportionment must
be completed prior to filing the Final Map.
TRACT 866 • •
Page 6
PUBLIC UTILITIES
13. Public utility easements be shown on the Final Map.
14. Cable T.V. lines be installed in the street and on-site at this
time.
15. Gas lines are to be installed at this time.
PLANS
16. Improvement plans be prepared in accordance with San Luis Obispo
County Improvement Standards and Specs by a R.C.E. and submitted to
the County Engineers office for approval. The plan to include:
(a) Street plan and profile
(b) Drainage ditches, culverts, structures with grades
(c) Grading and erosional control plan
(d) Public utility location
17. The engineer, upon completion of the improvements, must certify to
the County Engineer that the improvements are made in accordance
with Subdivision Review Board requirements and the approved plans.
CONVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS
18. The developer shall establish Convenants, Conditions, and Restrictions
for the regulation of land use, control of nuisances and architectural
control of all buildings and facilities. These CC4s shall be
administered by a Condominium Homeowners' Associatio . These CC&Rs
shall be submitted to the County Planning Departmen and County
Counsel's off' e for review and approval prior- to t e filing of the
final map.
19. The developer shall form a Property Owners' Association (Homeowner's
Association) for the area within Tract 866, so as to administer the
CC & Rs as noted above, and it shall conform to the requirements of
the State Division of Real Estate.
20. The CC$R and condominium management documents must be approved by
the State Department of Real Estate, as required by the State
Business and Professions Code. Evidence of that approval shall be
submitted prior to recording of the Final Map if deemed appropriate
by the Atascadero City Attorney.
DESIGN
21. All conditions of the Departmental Review Approval (R780629: 1)
shall be made conditions of this map and be complied with prior to
the recording of the Final Map.
• TRACT 866
Page 7
MISCELLANEOUS
22. The developer submit a preliminary subdivision guarantee to the
County Engineer's office for approval prior to the filing of the
Final Map.
23. A preliminary soils report by a Registered Civil Engineer be submitted
and approved prior to the filing of the Final Map.
24. A final soils report by a Registered Civil Engineer be submitted
and approved prior to the final acceptance of the improvements by
by the Board.
25. That all conditions of approval herein specified are to be complied
with prior to the filing of the Final Map.
26. That a Final Map shall be filed in accordance with Subdivision Map
Act prior to sale, lease, or financing of the subject property
within a period of 18 months from approval date of the Tentative
Map.
DISCUSSION
Applicant and engineer attended the meeting and discussed road improvements
and required real estate documents under conditon Nos. 20 and 21.
The Subdivision Review Board unanimously adopted the preliminary report
as amended.
e _ V
-.
S
Ivo I
Al
Dc
o
1 R,9 96.04.70�TE �/4, \• ' '�f
- rrl 1 -
• ,� *J
•�1"� � • �f a. -71
oF
r
46>
- , / {g�
IATA. CAGER01
- "Ap /
° ' - ®/1 co t� 1'1'
po+ 7.
12
95 - 1h 242
� 98 � �
P- P-3hb 77
10 � �
1.00 '
o Z 101
9 � O
4 ,' 2 102
8 _
' 103
17-B 104
7 .
-1- �sa��
17-A
105
• �. R s,��� o O
'v611207 6/
17-B a
17 •'L / b
/ G v
,mac ?'
19-E / ; 5
17-D
2O - -� (sob 107
v / '
19_D
3
p ,A 20-A
J I 19
19 18
19-A, M- -D
V.�0 19-F \
,1 19-B
22
23 �.
PAR A
24
Age
-r-12La cr 866
�wa����is o- �nD�� �)��J� ��✓'�`I1 J'\r,� xi{�'; - `
• {{S;.�f_ III � '. ';
. � LOtp Y9 " 959 S9l 'l3+led 3J;1 �p'N' I ;•i# t +
3`JsNfJYry OM►' siaaors r9N3i �a�++�r.? yY/1/!Y•4°..3�'Y✓,��Y r tib" 9^i1Cln9! j;;�1`£;: � ��1 � t
p��.t 9 �x ►E� fE � e} �• �
yy9 ��tt �r•s p` {2,
Ah
w
� r' � ,•vim (:__ ��/ � ,� .� z �I
71P
dim
ow
ow
,
--1 - / I � - 1 I` � •� �-s` �? '�_>?sem 4 � "
XiM ° / /°• /� I i -
i� ��� s//• / /
t�
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . rti
..:.... ti.
f
a'.
7 4'-
:' i
S• '' W.
/ r _
) I`I`
r -
9
- ' :
� .
a
•� 0
•'fi
•o
a
i 1
s• ...
. t�'
1',�'{;'::• aap°p° a a° 1'� � � t ' � �Y . .I .•.l e.... '.` , .r���r y'..
0 0
:..:''`,°foo
3�- b .': dap o •�a.:�s ��! -_ �'n
°p6�a po°a°pa pp°p4�.'.[d�::i.7,�...:'.;.:••:::.. ' to � �I- � �' ^ � '.
a°a pp oao°p°a°o Q,a•:C.'.�.t:•?• i � � � _ ��. � {•' r-_ .' , a .
°aa ap°a0p0 p'qJ ` :•:.•::::;:.;' rti, : � • -� 1 �1` I i � � '`�:
,op as ppoaat
IV
�,� { � ►�
� . : .•::;"�. t � yam. tai _......
e�
AL
a� '`�. �;::�:...... �::...':.::..:•.... :.'::. :.�t/ � ,�/`�..� Fes,- � -
") HIGH DENSITY �J LOW DENSITY 11} SINGLE INDUSTRIAL PARK
PPPI FL � yl� I �_� LOW OENSITY� E FAMILYSU6UR BAN J FAMILY INDUSTRIAL
HIGH OENSITY SINGLE LJ PUBLIC IM HEAVY COMMCRCIAL '
>\\11
FAMILY
MOO DENSITY � �^ AGRICULTURE �/�j� RETAIL COMMERCIAL 3
l
tw
` .�. I I � � � '..� � - •-. +...::ems :� =-"+�r lam:'-.-'. �-
fi� 978 ares. Gnu , � f
1
141 t .
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Atascadero City Council DATE: March 19 , 1980
FROM: Planning Consultant/Director
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING ON CO 79-81, PROPOSED LOT DIVISION OF
LOTS 12 AND 13, BLOCK 33 , ATASCADERO COLONY, SAN GABRIEL
ROAD WEST OF ATASCADERO AVENUE - SLOTE (HILLIARD)
The Planning Commission recommends for consistency and recommends
for approval subject to Conditions 1-15 as recommended by the
Subdivision Review Board with the addition of Condition 6a to
read as follows: "Provision shall be made for improvement of the
private driveways to include use of appropriate materials which
shall provide for reasonable access during poor weather conditions
and for adequate dust control during usage. The design and materials
shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Director
and the Public Works Director. It shall be the responsibility of
the subdivider to improve the driveway prior to recordation of the
final map or make adequate provision for bonding such improvements
subject to review of the Planning Department. "
There was considerable discussion concerning private driveway
standards and while most of the Planning Commissioners thought
standards to be desirable, there was disagreement over the wording
prior to settling on the above. The Planning Commission feels
that any improvement standards should be in ordinance form or
otherwise provided as a written standard and should be uniformly
applied. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the
parcel map meets current zoning and subdivision regulations and
is consistent with the General Plan, that the requirement for an
offer of dedication along the rear of the property was desirable
in order to provide potential for interior block circulation
and that private driveways should be approved as outlined in the
revised condition.
�., e.�, y Fus,►vcM/P,W.
1),aWe�n w.�I �3� �� -Uj L),ny SIM-P40 0
b00V%-N/" SfrirZT-S 0
SAO
LAWRENCE 91EVENS MURRAY L.
Planning nsultant/Director City Manager
LS:kp
Attach.
Telephone(805)549-5600
j
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Courthouse Annex
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA - 93408
February 13, 1980
Honorable Atascadero Planning Commission
and City Council
City of Atascadero, California
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
SUBJECT: CO 79-81, PROPOSED LOT DIVISION OF LOTS 12 AND 13, BLOCK 33,
ATASCADERO COLONY; SAN GABRIEL ROAD, CITY OF ATASCADERO.
(A-1-1z: LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) (SLOTE - HILLIARD)
SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT #1 (884: 7/23/79)
RECOMMENDATION FOR CONSISTENCY AND FOR APPROVAL
At a regular meeting of the County Subdivision Review Board, the attached
subdivision was considered and is being referred to you for required
action and findings regarding consistency with applicable general plans.
Respectfully submitted,
LARRY J. RED, Supervisor
Subdivision Review Section
ca
Attachment
cc: County Engineer
County Health Department
REPORT OF THE SUBDIVISION REVIEW BOARD MEETING FEBRUARY 6, 1980
RE: CO 79-081, PROPOSED LOT DIVISION OF LOTS 12 AND 13, BLOCK 33,
ATASCADERO COLONY; SAN GABRIEL ROAD, CITY OF ATASCADERO.
(A-1-1'-�: LOP+ DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) (SLOTS - HILLIARD)
SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT 91 (884: 7/23/79)
RECOMMENDATION FOR CONSISTENCY AND FOR APPROVAL
SRB Members in Attendance: Chairman, Colonel Sorenson, John Hofschroer,
Bill MacDonald, Larry Red, John Wallace,
Michael Doherty
Planning Commissioner in Attendance: Evelyn Delany
Legal Counsel Present: None
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This application proposes a re-subdivision of two lots totalling 10 acres
into 4 parcels of 2. 5 acres each. The site is located on the south side
of San Gabriel Road, west of .Atascadero Avenue in the City of Atascadero.
Zoning: A-1-11z: "Light Agriculture" (11—, acre minimum)
General Plan: 1978 Atascadero Area General Plan: "Low Density Single
Family Residential" (21-, - 10 acres without sewer service)
COMMENTS
Environmental Determination
A Conditional Negative Declaration was issued by the Environmental
Coordinator on December 7, 1979, stating that the project will not have
a significant effect on the environment and therefore does not require
the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report, subject to the
following conditions:
1. Drainage plans will be required at the request of the County
Engineer's Office with mitigation measures to be prepared by the
County Engineer's Office as deemed necessary; and
2. The need for, and feasibility of interior block access will be
reviewed by the County Planning Department with the County
Engineer's Office and an "Offer of Dedication" is to be made
if deemed necessary.
Site and Area Considerations
The terrain of the project site consists of gently rolling hills that
slope downward in a southwest to northeast direction. The vegetation
on the site consists of grasses and scattered oaks. No structures or
improvements are presently located on the property.
CO 79-081 •
Page 2
Nater for the parcels will be provided by the Atascadero Mutual hater
Company. Sewage disposal will be by individual septic system. A
natural drainage area exists on proposed Parcels B, C, and D. Septic
system design should take into account that the soil of the low lying
portions of the above mentioned parcels may be saturated during the
rainy season. Although there is no apparent flood hazard, development
should include design modifications to mitigate potential drainage and
septic system problems.
Proposed Parcels A and B will have direct access onto San Gabriel Road.
Parcels C and D will have access onto San Gabriel Road via a 20 foot
access easement running the length of the border between proposed
Parcels A and B. There is, at present, no interior block access between
San Gabriel Road and San Rafael Road. It would appear desirable to
establish an easement for interior block access to this area. If further
subdivision activity occurs among the surrounding parcels with subseauent
development of these parcels, interior block access would facilitate the
delivery of emergency services.
The area surrounding the project site is characterized by mixed single
family residences interspersed with vacant parcels . The parcels adja-
cent to the project site are 4z to 5+ acres. Smaller parcels, 2 acres
to 4 acres, exist in the immediate vicinity.
The area is one that is undergoing land division activity, and an EIR
was recently approved by the Board of Supervisors for similar Parcel Map
divisions located on the south side of San Gabriel Road. Both of the
above mentioned Parcel Map divisions were approved (CO 78-164, CO 78-121
and CO 78-107) on June of 1979.
Zoning and General Plan Considerations
The site and adjacent properties are zoned A-1-11-2, Light Agriculture,
with a lz acre minimum. The 1978 Atascadero Area General Plan designates
the area as Low Density Single Family Residential. The site is outside
the Urban Services boundary, and San Gabriel Road is designated as a
Collector Street. The General Plan contains the following comments
pertinent to this project:
"Land Use Policy Proposals
2. The type and extent of services provided within the Urban
Reserve Area will depend on whether land is in the Urban or
the Suburban Services Area. Properties outside the Urban
Services Line should be evaluated for lot size based on the
Suburban Residential range (21z to 10 acres) until sewers are
available." (P. 42)
LU J-U61
"Low Density
Minimum lot sizes within the Urban Services Area should range
from 1'z to 2'j acres. Determination of appropriate lot sizes
should be based upon such factors as the availability of services,
especially sewers; slope of access road to building site; distance
from the center of the community; general character of neighbor-
ing lands; soil percolation; and the area needed for access roads
to the building sites." (P. 44)
"Residential Policy Proposals
5. Residential density should decrease as one moves outward
from the core, in order to maintain the rural atmosphere of
the community. This can be accomplished by a graded increase
in lot size and a graded decrease in the permitted density
of population.
10. Lot splits should be thoroughly evaluated and be in accordance
with community plans and principles. Strict adherence to the
lot sizes defined in this plan is essential in order to retain
the desired character of the community. Creation of lots
smaller than those recommended must not be permitted if the
maximum population of approximately 30,000 is to be maintained.
11. Attention should be paid to the aesthetic result of land
division. Building sites should be encouraged on natural
slopes, with minimal disruption of native vegetation and water-
sheds, and efficient layout of access and utilities.
12. A program should be developed to encourage the preservation of
trees, watersheds and natural slopes and other natural
amenities from abuse and destruction resulting from poor
design and development practices." (P. 45 $ 46)
The Suburban Residential Section also contains the following guidance:
"Lot sizes should be 2z acres or more. Determination of appro-
priate lot sizes should be based upon such factors as slope of
the access road to the building site, availability of services,
distance from the center of the community, general character
of neighboring lands, percolation and the area needed for access
road to building site." (P. 44)
The County' s Peal Property Division Ordinance contains the following
provisions pertinent to this application:
' Page 4 � •
"21.45.080 Factors to be considered. The subdivision review
board report shall consider and make recommendations as to whether
the following conditions are met:
(c) Access and circulation. The following standards shall
be applicable to property proposed for division to promote adequate
access and circulation.
(2) The division should provide for the opening or
extension of streets for traffic circulation for the convenience,
safety and welfare of the lot owners within the division and the
local neighborhood;"
This application was reviewed in detail by both County Engineering and
Planning relative to the access and circulation requirements of the
area. Based on the uncoordinated nature of Parcel Map divisions, it
is difficult to establish and implement neighborhood circulation systems.
Without a community design element and based on approvals of previous
applications where interior access was considered, it is recommended
that only a 25 foot offer-of-dedication be required along the southerly
boundary of the property. This will correspond to dedications required
on previous parcel maps and establish a potential alignment for a
public road parallel and between San Gabriel and San Rafael.
RECOt 14ENDAT ION
.Although the City Planning Commission and the City Council will take final
action on this project, the Subdivision Review Board may still take action
on this matter. Any action taken will likely constitute an informal
recommendation to the City Council. It should be noted this staff report
and the recommendations are based on County policy, procedure and
ordinances.
After review of applicable General Plans and other available information,
the Subdivision Review Board recommends approval to the City Council and
that the proposed subdivision be found consistent with the General Plan
in accordance with Section 65302.5(a) (4) of the Government Code.
Provided that a finding of consistency is made and the application
ultimately approved, the following conditions are hereby established
regarding the design and improvements of the proposed subdivision; which
conditions when satisfied will mitigate the environmental concerns
expressed by the Environmental Coordinator in his Conditional Negative
Declaration of December 7, 1979.
1. That the following "NOTES" shall be placed on the final map:
CO 79-031 •
Page 5
A. No sewage disposal system installations are to be placed
closer than 100 feet from the top of the existing creek bank,
drainage swales or areas subject to inundation.
B. Septic tanks will be an acceptable method of sewage disposal,
if soil tests and plans are acceptable, until public sewers
may become available.
C. Water is to be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water
Company.
2. Prior to the filing of theaP rcel map, the applicant shall submit
to and be jointly approved by the Planning Department and Health
Department, results of percolation tests and the log or logs of
soil borings performed by a registered civil engineer. For this
purpose, the applicant shall perform one or more soil borings to be
a minimum depth of ten (10) feet in the area of the proposed
sewage disposal system to determine the: (a) subsurface soil
conditions, (example: impermeable stratas which act as barriers to
the effective percolation of sewage) ; (b) and the presence of
groundwater. And the applicant must perform a minimum of three (3)
percolation test holes per lot, to be spaced uniformly in the area
of the proposed sewage disposal system. Percolation tests shall
conform to the methods and guidelines prescribed by the Manual of
Septic Tank Practice as adopted by the County Building and Construction
Ordinance Title 19, Chapter 10. 24.
That water operable facilities exist prior to the filing of the
al parcel map. Evidence of adequate and potable water, satisfactory
to t ealth Department shall be submitted pli2r to the filing of
the Final including the following:
a. (Potability) A lete on-site chemical analysis shall be
submitted for evalua ' for each of the parcels created or as
required.
b. (Adequacy) On individual parcel wel r test holes a minimum
four (4) hour pump test performed by a lic ed and bonded
well driller or pump testing business shall be mitted for
review and approval for each of the new parcels crea
3. That eater operable facilities exist prior to the filing of the
Final Map. A letter shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual
Water Company and submitted to the Health and Planning Departments
for review and approval stating there are operable facilities
immediately available and ready for connection to the parcels
created.
I
Page 6
4. That the applicant offer for dedication to the public for future
road widening purposes 5 feet along San Gabriel Road; said offer
to be made by Certificate on the Parcel Map.
S. That the applicant offer for dedication to the public 25 foot road
easement along the southerly boundary as shown on the Tentative
Parcel Map; said offer to be made by certificate on the Parcel Flap.
6. That a private easement be reserved on the Parcel PAap for access to
parcel(s) C and D.
7. That the applicant submit a preliminary Title Report at the time
the parcel map is submitted for checking.
8. That a practical plan and profile for access be submitted to the
County Engineering and Planning Departments for approval.
9. That any private easement as shown on the Title Report be shown on
the Parcel Map with recording data.
10. That the drainage swale and area subject to inundation on the
property be delineated on the Parcel Map.
11 . FIRE PROTECTION STANDARDS
The applicant must comply with state, county and district laws/
ordinances applicable to fire protection and consider increased
fire risk to area by the land proposed.
The applicant, where water supply is provided by electric pump,
should install electrical service drop from service pole, to pump,
to structures in order to prevent a possible structure fire from
disrupting access to water.
12. All conditions of approval herein specified are to be complied with
prior to the submittal of the Parcel Map Original to the County
Engineer for approval.
13. That a Final Parcel Map shall be filed in accordance with the
Subdivision Map Act, prior to sale, lease or financing of the
subject property within a period of one year from approval date of
the Tentative Map.
14. After approval by the Board of Supervisors, compliance with the
preceeding conditions will bring the proposed subdivision in
conformance with the Subdivision "lap Act and local ordinances.
PaPai 77
Page i
15. The Tentative Parcel "gap will expire one year (12 months) from the
date of Board of Supervisors approval. The Tentative Parcel Map
may be extended one year by the Subdivision Review Board. Written
requests with appropriate fees must be submitted to the Planning
Department prior to the expiration date.
DISCUSSION
Applicant's engineer attended the meeting.
The Subdivision Review Board unanimously adopted the preliminary report
as written.
Ir
t _ s
rrrrr--"^"ddd tel_. � /�.� .- r ,� 1� • / • ��• • �,i CjV
• - ;�_ � Z,P �•• •• �� ti � S E
•� 'fit • i _ ,I �� -%- .� .:• � �= ' • .� �_ �_'—-- / _.
l ••
Q'ant �� 4
- <<` 734,,of
%,. • •:• \ �j1 � � � \ \\\ i ,• —_—r�i." • `• �••• + �1 try
--1 34
RqA
7 `7 \ /
°° F
Qn �r r
u' �s \
y -9 •
36
v
C
?00
1250
� C
�I64 - AT 09/
ro-V
\j 14 Ir v)
f1b
O
01
�1�jr� '�4 �'-r���p q / qty. ,� /K
ry
ly
(2?
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Atascadero City Council DATE: March 19 , 1980
FROM: Planning Consultant/Director
SUBJECT: AT 79-077 , PROPOSED LOT DIVISION OF LOT 13, BLOCK 49 ,
ATASCADERO COLONY, SANTA CRUZ ROAD - HURDLE (HILLIARD)
At the meeting of February 11, the City Council considered the
Planning Commission recommendation to deny the subject parcel map.
Concern was expressed that it may be desirable to withhold decision
on this application pending resolution of the proposal to allow
12 acre lots with engineered septic systems. There was also some
concern as to whether the matter should be referred back to the
Planning Commission if the Council decision was for approval.
The consensus of the Commission in denying the application was
primarily based upon the gradation of lot sizes from the center
of the community; i. e. , larger lots at the perimeter, smaller
lots at the interior. The Commission also discussed road improve-
ments for Santa Cruz Road and private driveway improvement standards.
It was the desire of the Council to have the Planning Commission
reaffirm its recommendation with specific findings of fact supporting
that recommendation prior to Council making a decision on the
parcel map.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission, with two dissenting votes, recommends
for consistency and for approval subject to Conditions 1-16 as
recommended by the Subdivision Review Board with the following
revisions:
A. Addition of Condition 5a to read as follows: "Provision
shall be made for improvement of the private driveways to
include use of appropriate materials which shall provide
for reasonable access during poor weather conditions and
for adequate dust control during usage. The design and
materials shall be subject to review and approval by the
Planning Director and the Public Works Director. It
shall be the responsibility of the subdivider to improve
the driveway prior to recordation of the final map or
make adequate provision for bonding such improvements
subject to review of the Planning Department. "
B. Modification of Condition 7 to require road improvements
along the property frontage only.
There was considerable discussion on private driveway improvement
standards, on road improvements and on the General Plan policy
relating to gradation of lots from the center of the community.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that private drive-
way standards should be uniformly applied, , that road improvements
should only be required along the property rk n age and s ould not
Memorandum to Ci
f Council
March .19 , 1980
Page Two
I
be extended to the nearest County standard road, and that the parcel
map complies with current zoning and subdivision regulations and is
consistent with the General Plan. The dissenting Planning Commis-
sioners felt that the lot size was too small based on the General
Plan policy of larger lot sizes on the perimeter of the community.
The City Council should note that this changes the prior recommenda-
tion of the Planning Commission for the reasons outlined above.
LAWRENCE TEVENSr
Y L. ARDEN
Planning onsultant/Director CMa ger
LS: kp �, � /�w
Attach. Q(err'e M Tr
stIIV e T , A-0
S o nIL o s w ✓IiP 3
P jU e i,,o p VO 3/_ n 37
t'Pi - / PN r3 L i C lnJO /VYZ-r'
X2.1
NED A. ROGOWAY, Director Telephone(805)549-5600
r.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Courthouse Annex
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA - 93408
December 6, 1979
Honorable Atascadero Planning Commission
and City Council
City of Atascadero, California
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
SUBJECT: AT 79-077, PROPOSED LOT DIVISION OF LOT 13, BLOCK 49, ATASCADERO
COLONY; SANTA CRUZ ROAD, CITY OF ATASCADERO.
(A-1-22: LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) (HURDLE - HILLIARD)
SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT #1 (884: 7/3/79)
RECOMMENDATION FOR CONSISTENCY AND FOR APPROVAL
RECOMMENDATION ON ROAD IMPROVMENTS
At a regular meeting of the County Subdivision Review Board, the attached
subdivision was considered and is being referred to you for required
action and findings regarding consistency with applicable general plans.
Respectfully submitted,
LARRY J. RED, S e isor
Subdivision Review Section
ca
Attachment
cc: County Engineer
County Health Department
REPORT OF THE SUBDIVISION REVIEW BOARD MEETING DECEMBER 5, 1979
RE: AT 79-077, PROPOSED LOT DIVISION OF LOT 13, BLOCK 49, ATASCADERO
COLONY; SANTA CRUZ ROAD, CITY OF ATASCADERO.
(A-1-22: LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) (HURDLE - HILLIARD)
SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT #1 (884: 7/3/79)
RECOMMENDATION FOR CONSISTENCY AND FOR APPROVAL
SRB Members in Attendance: Acting Chairman, Larry Red, John Hofschroer,
Bill MacDonald, Jerry Erickson, John Wallace
Planning Commissioner in Attendance: George Rathmell
Legal Counsel Present: None
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This application proposes a subdivision of a five acre site into two
parcels of approximately 2.5 acres each. The site is located on the
south side of Santa Cruz Road, near Carrizzo Road in northern Atascadero.
Zoning: A-1-22: "Light Agriculture" (21-z acre minimum)
General Plan: 1978 Atascadero Area General Plan: "Low Desnity Single
Family Residential"
COMMENTS
Environmental Determination:
A Conditional Negative Declaration was issued by the Environmental
Coordinator on November 2, 1979, stating that the project will not have
a significant effect on the environment and therefore does not require
the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report, subject to the
following condition:
Septic system design to be reviewed and approved by the
County Engineering Department as per standard County procedure.
Site and Area Considerations:
The project site is undeveloped and consists of gently sloping terrain
that slopes upward toward the south. Vegetation on the site consists of
annual grasses with several large oaks along the southern boundary of
the site. Data from the Soil Conservation District indicates that the
site may be subject to a moderate erosion hazard and is designated for
severe limitation on the use of septic systems. The County Fire Hazards
Map indicates that the site is subject to a high fire hazard rating.
Water for the site is to be supplied by the Atascadero Mutual Water
Company. The County Department of Public Health has received a letter
of intent to serve the proposed parcels. Sewage disposal is proposed
to be by septic system.
AT 79-077
11. Attention should be paid to the aesthetic result of land
division. Building sites should be encouraged on natural
slopes, with minimal disruption of native vegetation and
watersheds, and efficient layout of access and utilities.
12. A program should be developed to encourage the preservation
of trees, watersheds and natural slopes and other natural amenities
from abuse and destruction resulting from poor design and develop-
ment practices. (P. 45 & 46)
The Suburban Residential Section also contains the following guidance: 1
Lot sizes should be 22 acres or more. Determination of appro-
priate lot sizes should be based upon such factors as slope of
the access road to the building site, availability of services,
distance from the center of the community, general character
of neighboring lands, percolation and the area needed for
access road to building site. (P. 44)
Santa Cruz Road is designated by the Plan as a secondary arterial,
and the following comments are offered:
3. Secondary Arterials
Secondary arterials should be developed to a 60 foot
right-of-way. These roads serve as major access routes
between residential areas, shopping centers, employment
centers and primary recreation areas. Road in this classi-
fication must have shoulders wide enough to accommodate
multi-use paths and emergency parking.
There are 14 segments of undivided arterials:
b. Traffic Way from El Camino Real to Potrero Road
and future extension of Traffic Way beyond Potrero
Road to E1 Camino Real as a truck route. The
portion of Traffic Way between El Camino Real and
Olmeda Avenue is also designated to have 40 feet
of paving to allow for two 8 foot parking strips on
both sides of the arterial. (P. 88)"
RECONMNDATION
Although it appears the City Planning Commission and City Council will
take final action on this project, the Subdivision Review Board may still
take action on this matter. Any action taken will likely constitute an
informal recommendation to the City Council. It should be noted this
staff report and the recommendations are based on County policy, procedure,
and ordinances.
After review of applicable General Plans and other available information
the Subdivision Review Board recommends approval and that the proposed
subdivision be found consistent with the General Plan in accordance with
Section 65302.5(a) (4) of the Government Code.
AT 79-077
Provided that a finding of consistency is made and the application
ultimately approved, the following conditions are hereby established
regarding the design and improvements of the proposed subdivision, which
conditions when satisfied will mitigate the environmental concerns
expressed by the Environmental Coordinator in his Conditional Negative
Declaration of November 2, 1979.
And, provided that the Tentative Parcel Map is approved, the Subdivision
Review Board also recommends that it be found in the interest of the
public health and safety, and as a necessary pre-requisite to the
orderly development of the surrounding area, to require the construction
of road improvements within a period of one year after recordation of the
Parcel Map.
1. That the following "NOTES" shall be placed on the final map:
A. No sewage disposal system installations are to be placed
closer than 100 feet from the top of the existing creek bank,
drainage swales or areas subject to inundation.
B. Sewage disposal systems shall be separated from any individual
domestic well and/or agricultural well, as follows: (1) leach
fields, one hundred feet (1001) , and (2) bored pits, one
hundred fifty feet (1501) . Wells intended for two or more
parcels shall be separated by two hundred feet (2001) from any
subsurface sewage disposal system.
C. Sewage disposal systems installed on slopes in excess of 200
shall be designed and certified by a registered civil engineer
or geologist and submitted to the Planning and Health Department
for review and approvalrp for to the issuance of a building
permit. Consultants shall determine geologically stable
building sites and sewage disposal for each parcel, including
evaluations of hillside stability under the most adverse
conditions including rock saturation and seismic forces.
Slopes in excess of 30% are not considered suitable or practical
for subsurface sewage disposal.
D. Septic tanks will be an acceptable method of sewage disposal,
if soil tests and plans are acceptable, until public sewers
may become available.
E. Water is to be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water Company.
2. Prior to the filing of theap rcel map, the applicant shall submit
to and be jointly approved by the Planning Department and Health
Department, results of percolation tests and the log or logs of
soil borings performed by a registered civil engineer. For this
purpose, the applicant shall perform one or more soil borings to be
a minimum depth of ten (10) feet in the area of the proposed
sewage disposal system to determine the: (a) subsurface soil
conditions, (example: impermeable stratas which act as barriers to
the effective percolation of sewage) ; (b) and the presence of
AT 79-077 •
Surrounding parcel sizes are mixed. There is a tract to the east of
the site with lot sizes in the 1/4 - 1/2 acre range. The majority
of parcels are in the 22 to 5 acre range. The division of this
parcel would not appear to constitute a new land use trend.
Zoning and General Plan Considerations:
The site and adjacent properties are zoned A-1-2'-Z, Light Agriculture, with
a 22 acre minimum building site requirement. The ownership includes area
to the centerline of Santa Cruz Road and under present zoning requirements
may be utilized in calculating lot area. The result will allow the
front parcel to be a net area of 2.36 acres.
The 1978 Atascadero Area General Plan designates the area as Low Density
Single Family Residential. The site is outside the Urban Services
boundary, and Santa Cruz Road is designated as an arterial street. The
General Plan contains the following comments pertinent to this project.
"Land Use Policy Proposals
2. The type and extent of services provided within the Urban
Reserve Area will depend on whether land is in the Urban or
the Suburban Services Area. Properties outside the Urban
Services Line should be evaluated for lot size based on the
Suburban Residential range (22 to 10 acres) until sewers
are available. (P. 42)
Low Density
Minimum lot sizes within the Urban Services Area should range from
12 to 22 acres. Determination of appropriate lot sizes should
be based upon such factors as the availability of services, especially
sewers; slope of access road to building site; distance from the
center of the community; general character of neighboring lands;
soil percolation; and the area needed for access roads to the
building sites. (P. 44)
Residential Policy Proposals
S. Residential density should decrease as one moves outward from
the core, in order to maintain the rural atmosphere of the
community. This can be accomplished by a graded increase in
lot size and a graded decrease in the permitted density of
population.
10. Lot splits should be thoroughly evaluated and be in accordance
with community plans and principles. Strict adherence to the
lot sizes defined in this Plan is essential in order to retain
the desired character of the community. Creation of lots smaller
than those recommended must not be permitted if the maximum
population of approximately 30,000 is to be maintained.
AT 79-0 •
groundwater. And the applicant must perform a minimum of three (3)
percolation test holes per lot, to be spaced uniformly in the area
of the proposed sewage disposal system. Percolation tests shall
conform to the methods and guidelines prescribed by the Manual of
Septic Tank Practice as adopted by the County Building and Construction
Ordinance Title 19, Chapter 10.24.
3. That operable facilities exist prior to the filing of the Final
Map. A letter shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water
Company and submitted to the Health and Planning Departments for
review and approval stating there are operable facilities immedi-
ately available and ready for connection to the parcels created.
4. That the applicant offer for dedication to the public for future
road widening purposes 10 feet along Santa Cruz Road; said offer
to be made by Certificate on the Parcel Map.
5. That a private easement be reserved on the Parcel Map for access
to Parcel B.
6. That the applicant submit a preliminary Title Report at the time the
Parcel Map is submitted for checking.
7. That Santa Cruz Road fronting said property and continuing to Traffic
Way or El Camino be improved in the following manner:
2/3 an A-4 suburban section
8. That the grade and' alignment of the road easements as shown on the
Tentative Parcel Map meet San Luis Obispo County standards. Also,
improvement plans shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer
and submitted to the County Engineer's Office for approval.
9. That the applicant enter into an Inspection Agreement with the
County for inspection of said improvements.
10. The Engineer, upon completion of the improvements, must certify to
the County Engineer that the improvements are made in accordance
with Subdivision Review Board requirements and the approved plans.
11. That any private easement as shown on the Title Report be shown on
the Parcel Map with recording data.
12. FIRE PROTECTION STANDARDS
The applicant must comply with state, county and district laws/
ordinances applicable to fire protection and consider increased
fire risk to area by the land proposed.
AT 79-077 , •
13. All conditions of approval herein specified are to be complied with
prior to the submittal of the Parcel Map Original to the County
Engineer for approval.
14. That a Final Parcel Map shall be filed in accordance with the
Subdivision Map Act, prior to sale, lease or financing of the
subject property within a period of one year from approval date of
the Tentative Map.
15. After approval by the Board of Supervisors, compliance with the
preceeding conditions will bring the proposed subdivision in
conformance with the Subdivision Map Act and local ordinances.
16. The Tentative Parcel Map will expire one year (12 months) from the
date of Board of Supervisors approval. The Tentative Parcel DIap
may be extended one year by the Subdivision Review Board. Written
requests with appropriate fees must be submitted to the Planning
Department prior to the expiration date.
DISCUSSION
Applicant's engineer attended the meeting and discussed road improvements.
The Subdivision Review Board unanimously adopted the preliminary report
as ,wren x
L�
BOi
IDGE ORCHARDS
APS �
T — -- —— -- — f
5'
0 00
VQ,— ' 53
–945
afri 5
• G �° �� 7 / oC
Fa r r.
qu-
7,/
-
- s .009
s
rtM-310
2
i ,• ;, r�
960
wo
13
1262
0,90 / oC C gyp. . i \���• �� -�
ry ^402
�/�/\, �, o� � ��► . 077
e \
Q�
v
N ti
! o
1 00 64
alien grimes attorney at law
7360 EL CAMINO REAL. SUITE B • P. 0. BOX 749 • ATASCADERO. CALIFORNIA 93422
PHONES (8051 466-5678 OR 466.1408
ell
REPORT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY
For the
Council Meeting of March 24, 1980
No. 3
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
1. , REPORT OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES LEGAL ADVOCACY COMMITTEE
Attached is a copy of the February 25, 1980 Legal Advocacy Committee Report
and Recommendations. The Council's attention is particularly drawn to the
eight cases first reported in the report in which individual city partici-
pation by amicus appearance is approved.
I recommend that the Council approve by motion the amicus appearance by
the City of Atascadero in the following cases for the reasons set forth
in the committee report:
Bownds v. City of Glendale (legal sufficiency of the housing
element of the City's general plan)
Chula Vista Police Officers' Association v. Cole (validity of
civil service rule re sickness)
Music Plus Four v. City of Westminster (validity of narcotics
paraphernalia ordinance)
Trent Meredith, Inc. v. City of Oxnard (validity of post-
Proposition 13 school impact fee ordinance)
I do not favor participation in Arnel Development Co. v. City of Costa
Mesa because I think it's a wrong decision.
2. LITIGATION
International Business Machines Corp. v. County of San Luis Obispo, City
of Morro Bay, City of San Luis Obispo, City of Paso Robles, City of Arroyo
Grande, Grover City, City of Atascadero, et al. , Superior Court, San Luis
Obispo County, Case No. 52185.
This is a complaint to recover property taxes under Revenue and Tax Code
Section 5140, et seq. by the IBM Corporation. Plaintiff claims that the
AG:fr 1
3/18/80
REPORT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY
No. 3 - Page 2
tax rates on the tax bill for unsecured property tax for 1978-79 exceeded
the permissible tax rate under Proposition 13 . Prayer is for $2.3,961.69
plus interest.
Inasmuch as property taxes are administered under contract by the County
of San Luis Obispo, this complaint was forwarded to the County Counsel
for representation. County Counsel filed an answer to the complaint on
March 6 1980 denying the allegations in the complaint.
Respectfull submitted,
ALLEN GRIMES
City Attorney
AG:fr
Attachment
Sacramento, CA 95814
February 25, 1980
To: ALL City Attorneys
Re: Legal Advocacy Committee Report and Recommendations
At its regular meeting on January 18, the Legal Advocacy Committee reviewed over
40 cases of significance to cities now pending in both the federal and state courts.
In nice of these, the Committee and the Board of Directors have taken action approv-
ing cnnicus participation by consenting cities. Perhaps most significant of the
cases in which all City Attorneys are invited to join as amici is Agins v. City
of Tiburon, now pending before the U. S. Supreme Court. We again commend for your
attention the special release concerning this case which was distributed to all
under (late of February 5. In addition, all City Attorneys are urged to make
special note of the eight cases first reported below in which consenting cities
may join as amici at no cost.
AMICUS APPEARANCE BY CONSENTING CITIES APPROVED
ISownds v_._CLt_of Glendale, in which an appeal by plaintiff is pending in the Dis-
trLct Court of Appeal following a decision favorable to the City. The action
represents a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the housing element of the
City's general plan in a factual context involving condominium conversion approvals.
Directly at issue in the case is whether the State Housing Element Guidelines are
advLsory or mandatory, the trial court having directly found that they are advisory
only. Recognizing that this case presents the opportunity to have the now long-
tit;rnding dispute respecting the status of these State Guidelines settled, the
ComniiLtee and Board of Directors took action recommending that consenting cities
I):rrticipate as amici curiae in support of the City of Glendale in the appeal. The
City Council of the City of Irvine has taken formal action to sponsor the amicus
effort and members of the firm of Rutan & Tucker which represents that city will
prelmre the brief . The firm and the City of Irvine are both anxious to afford all
Cities an opportunity to lend their endorsement to this amicus effort in the belief
that evidence of the widespread concern for this point of law among California ciLies
will enhance the weight given by the court to the amicus effort. Those City Attorneys
wishing to join as amicus in the Bownds case may do so by directing a simple letter
of authorization to:
Mr. William H. Keiser
Rutan & Tucker
401 Civic Center Drive West
P. O. Box 1976
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Telephone: (714) 835-2200
Giii tcr v. Collins, in which the County of Santa Barbara as plaintiff in intervention
hrrs filed a petition for hearing in the Supreme Court following a decision of the
appellate court absolving defendant from liability. The action was brought by a
deputy sheriff who was injured by the defendant-motorist when the latter collided
wiLh cl«, deputy 's parked vehicle. The deputy was on duty observing motorists for
Possible traffic violations but had parked his car some 40 feet -off the
road. The County intervened in the action as employer of the plaintiff and thus
suhro�,aled to his rights to the extent of the County's obligation to pay workers '
Comp, nsaLion benefits to the plaintiff. The District Court of Appeal denied
rcu"vory by applv inn the so-called "f irannn's rule. " As commented in the dis-
NvIlI KV "pinion of Lhe aPOO KLe court , "Such a strained noolication of the lire-
man 's rule to the facts of the instant case renders all patrol officers, who are
on duty but sLonPed well off of the highwav in their patrol cars. 'fair game' for
speeders and drunk drivers since by application of the rule they can escape per-
sonal civil liability for their tortious acts and merely pass the buck for the
injuries and damage which they cause on to the taxpaying public." Because the
appellate decision, if not reversed, could considerably expand cities' workers'
compensation liability, the Committee and Board of Directors recommends that con-
senting cities participate as amici curiae in the case. The City Attorney of Los
Angeles will file an amicus brief in support of the County's petition for hearing.
City Attorneys wishing to join therein should contact :
John Neville
Assistant City Attorney
City Hall East - 17th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Telephone: (213) 485-3644
Chula Visln i'olice Officers' Association v. Cole, in which plaintiff has filed an
appeal following a trial court ruling for the City. The case arose after a siege
of "blue flu" among the City police officers. Before approving sick leave, the
City Manager required the officers to sign, under penalty of perjury, a statement
Lhat they were ill. When the officers refused, the City Manager docked their pay
until they complied. The City civil service rules provide that a doctor's certi-
11cace may be required for absences of four days or more. The plaintiffs contend
Lhat this rule precludes requiring any evidence to support use of sick leave for
absences of less than four days. The City asserts that the City Manager has an
obligation to prevent the abuse of sick leave and that under the circumstances
his actions were reasonable and within management 's prerogative. Since the issue
is of significance to cities statewide and at least two other cities are known to
be presently litigating the same issue, it is recommended that cities appear as
amici in support of the City of Chula Vista in the appeal. The City Attorney of
Santa Monica has volunteered to prepare an amicus curiae brief in which other
cities could join at no cost. City Attorneys wishing to do so should contact:
Richard L. Knickerbocker
City Hall
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (213) 451-4704
Duarte V. City of San Jose, in which the City intends to petition the Supreme Court
Or a hearing following an adverse ruling of the state appellate court. By the
letter, the City has been held liable for injuries to plaintiff when he was struck
by a stolen police car driven by an intoxicated driver who had been arrested, placed
in the locked police car and left unattended by the police. The City contended that
it was immune from liability by reason of the express provisions of the Torr Claims
Act which immunizes both public entities and employees from liability for injury
caused by an escaping prisoner (Gov.C. §845.8) . The appellate court held, however,
Lhat the City was liable by reason of Vehicle Code section 17001 which imposes
-2-
liul,iLity for injuries caused by a public employee's negligent operation of a
mo Lor vehicle, reasoning that the Tort Claims Act immunity does noL apply when
c n:;i ler i nF; liability imposed by a statute outside of that act where the purpose
elf thy: Ik1bi1.ity statute would be frustrated by applying such an immunity. While
the decision :is consistent with trend in the law to impose liability on cities
on the same basis as private persons, iL appears to present a different situation
Lllall lho"ic dec Lded ill the more recent Sacramento County and Pasadena cases and to
ruprC:ienL such a broadening of the liability for escaping prisoners as to merit
amicus participation of cities. The Committee and League Board of Directors took
action accordingly. The City Attorney of San Diego has volunteered to file an
amicus curiae brief in which other cities may join in support of San Jose. For
purposes of doing so City Attorneys should contact:
Ronald L. Johnson
Chief Deputy City Attorney
City Administration Building
202 C Street
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (714) 236-7221
;lLis_ic_ Plus Four v. City of Westminster, in which an appeal by the City is pending
following; a judgment that the City's narcotics paraphernalia ordinance was void
fur vrlg;Lleness under due process requirements and invalid on the basis of implied
precnlpLioll. A substantial number of cities have adopted similar ordinances, in-
cluding; the City of Lakewood which in a different procedural context was success-
ful ill the trial court and is now defending its ordinance in the appellate court.
1•:1fores to defer the appeal in the Westminster case pending the appeal in the
Lakewood case have been unsuccessful and thus the former will apparently be the
"lead" case and the first to be decided upon appeal. In light of the growing
interest in the subject matter of the litigation and the number of city ordinances
which have similarly been invalidated at the trial court level, the Committee and
the Board of Directors recommends that consenting cities join as amici in the
brief which the City Attorney of Lakewood will be filing in the Westminster case.
City Attorneys interested in joining in this amicus curiae brief should contact:
John S. Todd
City Attorney
4909 Lakewood Blvd. , Suite 300
Lakewood, CA 90712
Telephone: (213) 531-1805
Ti-c-n L_ Meredith, Inc. v. City of Oxnard, in which plaintiff has noticed an appeal
following; a ruling of the trial court that the City's post-Proposition 13 school
impacL fee ordinance adopted pursuant to Government Code ,section 65970 et seq.
was not invalid as a "special tax" but was a properly adopted police power measure.
The Lriail court ruling is contrary to that rendered in Winberry Development Co.
111c.-v.-County of Shasta, as well as to the widely publicized opinion of the
ALLorney General. Pursuant to previous Committee and Board action, cities have
Joined as amici in support of the County of Shasta in a brief cooperatively pre-
paired by Walnut Creek City Attorney Dan Curtin and Anderson City Attorney Leonard
Wingate. Since the issues in both cases are the same, amicus participation by
cities in a brief adapted for filing in the Oxnard case has been recommended.
City Attorneys interested in joining in such an amicus curiae brief are urged
to contact ;
-3-
Daniel. J. Curtin, ,Jr.
Ci Ly ALLorney
Ci Ly Ila Ll
1445 Civic Drive
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (415) 935-3300
IiIc:;un v. City of San ll_ieL',o, in which the City has noticed an appeal following
;i Lrial court judgment holding it liable in damages for false imprisonment. The
action was brought after plaintiff's arrest by City police officers on a murder
ch;ir,;e, his Lncarceration in the County jail, Grand Jury indictment, "rearrest"
and holding in that jail pursuant to the indictment, successful prosecution and
conviction, and sentencing to State prison where he remained some 8 months until
being released following another man's confession of guilt for the murder. l.n
Lhe action for false imprisonment which was brought only against the City and
its personnel, the City, while conceding the possibility of liability for false
arrest, contended that any damages flowing from the prosecution were not recover-
due to the statutory immunity for malicious prosecution (Gov.C. §821.6) .
The trial court nonetheless held the City liable for the entire period of:
pl;iintiff 's incarceration, reasoning his conviction and sentencing were a reason-
ably foreseeable consequence of his arrest. Since an affirming appellate decision
would significantly broaden the city's liability following arrests by city police
rind despite a successful criminal prosecution, the Committee and Board of Directors
Look action recommending that consenting cities join as amici in support of the
City of San Diego on appeal. While no volunteer writer of an amicus curiae brief
has vet been identified, any City Attorney interested in doing so as well as those
who may wish to join should such a brief be filed are urged to contact:
Ronald L. Johnson
Chief Deputy City Attorney
City Administration Building
202 C Street
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (714) 236-7221
Clemente v-
State of California, in which the state intends to petition for a hear-
ing by the Supreme Court following the adverse opinion of the District Court of
Appe;il. Lhe full text of which appeared in the January 31 issue of the Los Angeles
D;iLIy_ Journal. The appellate court reversed a judgment of dismissal of an action
Lor damuiges against the state and a highway patrol officer based on the negligence
of Lhe .Latter in failing to obtain the name of the tortfeasor while investigating
;in accident in which plaintiff was injured. The trial court had sustained the gen-
cral demurrer on the basis of the immunity for failure to enforce a statute (Gov.C.
§§818.a and 821) , which conclusion, according to the appellate court, was "premised
on the assumption that an investigation of a traffic accident by a highway patrol
olficer, pursuant to Vehicle Code section 2414, constitutes law enforcement within
the meaning of the Government Tort Liability Act." On the theory that "an investi-
gaLion, without a detention of significant duration, is a non-coersive activity and
therefore is not. . .itself law enforcement, " and consistent with the restricted
scope of the discretionary immunity, the appellate court determined that the alle-
gations of the complaint simply involved the officer's negligence in his conduct
Of tho discretionary investigation, an activity not immunized. Since the opi,iion
if allowed to stand could significantly expand a city's liability exposure in the
law enforcement field, the Committee and Board of Directors have taken action
recowr;elid:inl,, ;imicus participation by consenting cities in support of the state
11 IWAV111 .. ii t;rahted by the Supreme Court. The City Attorney of Long Beach
-4-
wi.i L fi.ie a brief in that event. Those i.IILerU'iLe(i III ]01illa6 as ail/�.l..i .-•..'u.. �:t! ,
LacL :
Robert 1'. Sluuuuln
Sen Lor Deputy City Attorney
City Hall, 333 West Ocean Blvd.
Long Beach, CA 90802
Telephone: (213) 590-6061
IL i !; relevant here to_ .11so note the more recent developments concerning .Like case
of PCI-Cr V. Ci Ly of Sail_Brunu, now pending before Like Supreme Court. IliforuulLiou
coucernillk Lhis case was disLribuLed to all City Attorneys under date of February
5. IL was Lhere noted that the issue in the case is generally whether a city may
wiLhikold one city-supplied utility service in order to enforce payment for another
city service and furLller that the Supreme Court had requested additional briefing
by Like parties on two issues, namely, whether the constitutional requirements of
sobstarit.ive due process of law preclude as an enforcement remedy cessation of water
services for non-payment of garbage collection charges and what, if any, are the
alternative remedies available to a city for enforcement and collection of unpaid
charges for city services. While the timing of the appeal in the case did not per-
miL the processing of it through the Committee and the League Board of Directors,
iL should be noted that, pursuant to the suggestion of the City 's special counsel,
LLc "10deSLo City Attorney's office has volunteered to prepare an amicus curiae
brief in support of San Bruno in the case and all cities are invited to join
therein at no cost. All City Attorneys, particularly those representing cities
which use a composite city service billing procedure, are urged to review the
prevLous memorandum on the case and consider joining in the Modesto amicus curiae
brief. In order to join as amicus in the case, contact should be made as soon as
possible with:
George Eiser
Deputy City Attorney
City Hall
P. 0. Box 642, 801 - 11th St.
Modesto, CA 95353
Telephone: (209) 577-5284
I LLLNG OI' INllfVIDUAL AMICUS BRIEFS INVITED
All CiLy Attorneys are familiar with the appellate decision in Arnel Development
Co. v. City of Costa Mesa, 98 Cal.App.3d 567, and are no doubt aware of the fact
Lh;iL the Supreme Court has assumed jurisdiction in the case on its own motion
lollowing the filing of sua sponte pleadings by the City Attorneys of San Jose
;Ind San iPrancisco. The essence of the District Court of Appeal decision in the
CA"c [s that the rezoning of a "relatively small" parcel of property is an adjud-
ic.]Lory rather than a legislative act and therefore is not subject to the initia-
Live ;process. This conclusion was consistent not only with the position argued
by Lhc devCloper, but also by the City. In view of this fact, the Committee took
,IcLion inviting the filing of individual amicus curiae briefs in the case in order
LllaL beth sides of the issue might be presented to the Supreme Court. We have
since. been advised that the San Francisco City Attorney's office will be filing
an amicus curiae brief in the Arnei case arguing the invalidity of the District
COUrL of Appeal decision. Those City Attorneys who wish to join in this brief
should contact as soon as possible:
Alice Barkley
Deputy City Attorney
206 City Hall
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: (415)' 558-3486
-5-
Similar action was taken by the Committee with respect to the case of National
Businc_s-s Aircraft Assn. v. City of Santa Monica, an action pending in the Led-
eraL district court seeking an injunction against the City's aircraft noise
regulaCLons. The principal issue is whether a local proprietor may reduce its
noise Level to that which will produce a CNEL noise level to that determined by
the EPA as requisite for the protection of the public health with an adequate
Wnrgln of safety. City Attorneys, particularly those representing airport own-
ing cities, who are interested in further details concerning this case and who
might consider filing an amicus curiae brief in support of the City are urged
to contact City Attorney Richard Knickerbocker, City Hall, 1685 Main Street,
Santa Monica, CA 90401, telephone: (213) 451-4704.
The Committee also took action inviting the filing of an individual amicus curiae
brief by any interested city in the case of City of Torrance v. Transitional Liv-
ing Centers for Los Angeles, Inc. In this case, the City has filed an appeal
following the denial by the trial court of an injunction sought to prevent the
use of property without obtaining a conditional use permit for a facility for
mentally ill persons. Without complying with the City's CUP requirements for
the establishment of such a facility in an R-2 zone, the defendant established
the facility on the theory that Welfare and Institutions Code section 5120 would
provide them an exemption from local zoning regulations so long as the City
allows any other kind of residential facility in the same zone. Since the
facility would house between 15 and 25 people, the defendant also claimed that
it was not controlled by the restrictions of the California Community Care Facil-
ities Act (Health & S.C. §1500 et seq.) . Anyone interested in filing an amicus
curiae brief in the case should make contact with City Attorney Stan Remelmeyer,
City hall , 3031 Torrance Blvd. , Torrance, CA 90503, telephone: (213) 328-5310.
IN-FORMATION ONLY
Since the case is still at the trial level, the Committee took information action
only with respect to Union Oil Co. et al. v. City of Corona, an action pending in
the trial court challenging Senate Bill 55 and the City's implementation thereof.
It is contended by the plaintiffs that the SB 55 legislation authorizing the estab-
lishment of special assessment districts to raise funds to insure that sufficient
revenues would be available to make the annual payments on tax allocation bond
issues is unconstitutional in that it is not a true benefit assessment but only
a disguised ad valorem real property tax levied without voter approval. It is
also contended that the SB 55 assessment is a "special tax" requiring two-thirds
vote of the qualified electors within the assessment area in accordance with
Proposition 13.
Similar action was taken with respect to Taxpayers Association, Inc. of San Joaquin
County v. San Joaquin Local District, et al. , in which the Superior Court ruled on
October 25 that the District fees imposed pursuant to County granted authority to
cover the costs of all types of state mandated health inspection services performed
by the District for the County and all cities within the County were not invalid
"special taxes" under Proposition 13. In its memorandum opinion the court concluded
that the fees imposed by the District are a valid exercise of the police power being
generally limited to the reasonable expense of enforcing the laws of the state which
is a duty imposed upon the District and historically having been recognized as not
coming within the category of a tax, and continuing to be so recognized by the con-
temporary acts of the Legislature, namely, Chapters 397 and 902 of the Statutes of
1979. An appeal is expected in the case.
-6-
OTHER CASH'S CONS iDERED
The Committee received status and initial reports on the following cases:
Soledad Police Officers ' Associaiton v. City of Soledad, a "briefing time" case
in which plaintiffs sought $10,000 alleged to be due officers of the City Police
DepartmenL because of their having been required, for a period of about two and
one-half years, to report for duty 15 minutes before their shifts for briefing
purposes, without additional compensation. Following denial of their claim by
the trlai court, plaintiffs filed an appeal but subsequent to a settlement con-
Terence filed a request for dismissal of the appeal pursuant to Rule 19(b) .
Ci_t,y of San Bernardino v. Clark, a friendly validation action brought by the
City against the City Clerk seeking a writ of mandate ordering the Clerk to
publish an ordinance of the City setting out procedures for the issuance of
industrial revenue bonds. The Superior Court found that the ordinance was
properly adopted under the municipal affairs authority of the charter City and
issued Lhe writ sought. To date no bonds have been sold although steps are
beink, taken to sell some for low and moderate income housing. Being a valida-
L.LUI.1 action, the case will not be appealed and, according to bond counsel, is
oT no value outside of San Bernardino County.
}iid_6cs v. Brown, an action for declaratory and injunctive relieve challenging
Lhe validity of the Governor's proclamation of an emergency and declaration pur-
suanL LhereLo ordering odd-even gas rationing throughout the state. It was
noted that the proclamation was amended after the complaint was filed to attempt
Lo clear up the facial ambiguity stated in the allegations, that the Attorney
General bas given the plaintiff an extension of time to amend rather than file
a deiliUrrer, and that plaintiff 's attorneys are biding their time in pursuing
tiie litigation pending any action which the Legislature may take with respect
Lo the matter.
ViI lri�;e L_ urui of Laguna Beach, Inc. et al. v. Board of Supervisors of Oranl e
CuunLy, CL al. , an action pending in the trial court challenging by way of writ of
m,indrite amendments to the County land use, noise and circulation elements of
its general_ plan which, among other things, permitted development on approxi-
mately 6,000 acres of up to 20,000 dwelling units together with associated com-
merrial_ and industrial uses. The action alleges non-compliance with CEQA and
I.Wk oT .1 Tair hearing under the Woodland }lilts case. Aliso Viejo Company as
Uie property owner is named in the action as the real party in interest and is
L,11Ung an active part in the case. The issue of exhaustion of administrative
remedies as a prerequisite to challenging an environmental impact report is also
raised, the focus being on whether petitioners can challenge the EIR on grounds
LiiaL were not raised during the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisor
hearings or otherwise during the preparation and review period for the EIR.
CiLy of_Chu1a Vista v. Pagard, 97 Ca1.App.3d 627, in which a petition for hearing
by Lhe Supreme Court was filed following the decision of the appellate court
vali(lating the City's R-1 zoning limitation on "family" of unrelated persons as
aP171ied to a religious commune. Since the Committee meeting, the Supreme Court
has granted a hearing noting that the principal question "is related to that
,ilready before this court in City of Santa Barbara v. Adamson."
Winn v. City of Coronado, an action brought to prevent the City from expanding a
senior center located adjacent to a City library in the principal City park.
Plaintiff argued that in so doing the City would be violating its own open space
-7-
irl;rn a:; wel I ;is the general plan inasmuch as the property is zoned open space.
Since denial by Lire trial court of the request for preliminary injunction, the
action h:rs been dismissed.
Il i.l.,l,cc cL a l . v. Times-Advocate, Inc. _et al. , a civi rights action brought under
Section 1983 and a cause of action for the LorL of invasion of privacy based upon
invest igaLiuns by the City of Escondido and County of San Diego into bookmaking
;1CLivities which led to surveillance and arrest of plaintiff. Following filing
by Lire plaintiff of a first amended complaint and a hearing on the City's motion
for dismissal, a ruling favorable to the City is expected because plaintiff 's
efforts to plead sufficient facts showing the customary usage necessary to estab-
lish liability under the Monell case appear to have been unsuccessful.
Atchison-Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Corp. v. City of Del Mar, an action seeking
damages alleging trespass, inverse condemnation and federal civil rights viola-
tions for interference with plaintiff's right-of-way in the City. A fundamental
issue in the case is the authority of the City to regulate developments within
the railroad right-of-way. It was reported that the City anticipated filing a
demurrer primarily on the basis of the failure of the railroad to challenge the
City's permit actions in a timely fashion.
Co,rlitioil fur Fair Rent v. Abdelnour, in which the lower court has granted a writ
of mandate to compel the City Clerk to accept for filing supplemental initiative
petiLions respecting a proposed charter amendment. The Clerk had refused to do
so on the advice of the City Attorney that state law governing charter amendment
procedures (Gov.C. 934450 et seq.) does not expressly provide for the filing of
supplemental petitions. It was indicated that a notice of appeal has been filed
in the case but that it may be mooted if the Clerk's present count indicates
insufficient signatures on the supplemental petitions.
Livesay V. Citi of Chula vista, an action pending in the trial court seeking a
writ of mandate to recover alleged accumulated sick leave due under Government
Code section 21025.2 where an MOU provision abolished sick leave reimbursement
rights.
C_rdy v_.-_City_of Concord, an action for declaratory relief pending in Superior
Court by which plaintiff seeks to require the City to provide certain documents
related to the operation of the Concord Pavilion, an entertainment facility con-
structed under a joint powers agreement. While the City provided plaintiff with
most ot: the financial data and various contracts requested, it withheld disclosure
of Lhe specific individual contracts with entertainers on the theory that disclo-
sure of these would constitute an invasion of privacy and the disclosure of a
trade secret. It is the City's contention that the amount of money that it pays
any entertainer and split on proceeds if disclosed would provide to other indi-
vidual.s, firms, corporations and entities a competitive advantage in securing
enterLainment talent. Ken Scheidig, Assistant City Attorney of Concord, is
NB anxious to hear from other jurisdictions which may operate facilities
similar to the Concord Pavilion or entertainment facilities where they
contract for performers in order to obtain some information as to the position
other cities take with respect to the release of such performance contracts. City
Attorneys representing cities which operate similar facilities are requested to
conLact Mr. Scheidig at Civic Center, 1950 Parkside Avenue, Concord, CA 94520.
telephone (415) 671-3160.
-8-
Ilo_rn v. CLtof Concord, an action pending in the Superior Court seeking a writ
of mandate and declaratory relief attacking the validity of the City's award of
a fr;iiichise to a competing company for performance of police towing services in
Lhe City. The plaintiff contends that the City abused its discretion in not
;iw,irdiiig the franchise to the lowest responsible bidder, but also contends LhaL
Llicre has been an abuse of discretion in that three members of the City Council
who voted for the award had received campaign contributions from the successful
fr;inchisee. In addition, it is contended that one of the Council Members voting
For the award of the franchise had received gifts from one of the members of the
successful bidder, that said member had been the campaign treasurer of the same
Council Member and that he had provided his residence for campaign functions to
such a degree that all of these items together constituted a conflict of\ interest
which required the Council Member's disqualification in accordance with the Wood-
l;ind 11i l is LII case.
CiL_izens Against Kent Control v. City of Berkeley, 99 Cal.App.3d 736, in which
the appellate court has affirmed trial court judgment for plaintiffs declaring
Le City campaign ordinance unconstitutional as violative of. plaintiff 's rights
of free speech and association. The ordinance provided that no person could
make, ;,rid no campaign treasurer could solicit or accept, any contribution which
would cause the total amount contributed by such person with respect to a single
election Ln support of or in opposition to a measure to exceed $250. It should
he noted Lhat Santa Monica City Attorney Richard Knickerbocker has indicated Lhat
he wiiL file an amicus curiae brief in support of Berkeley in its petition for
hearinf; following this decision of the District Court of Appeal.
l:u0-1;1_I L_nLerprises, Inc. v. City of Berkeley et al. , in which by a memorandum of
decision filed December 28 the Superior Court of Alameda County has validated
al;;1i11sL challenges based on impairment of contract, preemption, due process and
oqual protection, the initiated renter property tax relief ordinance as applied
Lu preexisting leases on commercial property. Under the initiative, plaintiff
was required to "pass through" 80% of its Proposition 13 savings by reducing the
monthly rental by $199 per month from the time of the adoption of the initiative
on November 7, 1978 to its expiration on December 31, 1979.
Cypress o
_ 1' inL Investments V. City of Mountain View, three cases involving a chai-
lenge Lo the recently passed Condominium Conversion Limitation Act, an initLiaLive
ordinance which requires that proposed condominium conversions, before they may
be acceI)LCd by the City for filing, must first obtain the signatures of triose
tun;ints who legally represent a majority of the units, and those tenants must
also indicate a desire to purchase one of the units. The initiative specified
Lli;iL iL is applicable to subdivisions which receive tentative map approval some
c Ly;hL monLlis prior to tide date upon which it was actually voted. Based upon
L
hese retrol-;ctive provisions, after the initiative was passed the City rescinded
F
ilial map approvals within that period of time and the litigation followed. The
Superior Court upheld the ordinance as well as its retroactive application in
Lhe preliminary injunction portion of the three cases, but the declaratory relief
action is still pending.
I'ul;li v__City of Sacramento, a class action seeking declaratory relief in regard
Lo the City's real estate transfer tax which was enacted on June 29, 1978. The
Proposition L3 challenge to the tax is based upon the plaintiff 's argument that
Lhe constitutional amendment took effect on June 7 rather than July 1, 1978. The-
parties
heparties have agreed to a stipulation that the case will be held in abeyance pend-
ing, the outcome of Kehrlein v. City of Oakland now pending on appeal and in which
the same issue with respect to the effective date of Proposition 13 is raised.
-9-
Nil Since the same effective date issue is before the court in the Oakland
case, the Sacramento City Attorney has urged that interested cities
consider joining in the amicus curiae brief addressing that issue which is being
prepared by ,Jeffrey G. Hollows of Gibson, Dunn S Crutcher as Special Counsel for
Lilt! laity of Arcadia for filing in support of Oakland in the Kehrlein case.
National Independent Business Alliance v. City of Beverly Hills, an action orig-
inally filed as a class action but in which an amended complaint to dismiss all
the class was filed following ruling sustaining the City's demurrer. The action
challenges the June 29, 1978 amendment to the City business license tax ordinance.
Cross-motions for summary judgment were heard on February 14 and no ruling of the
trial court has yet been made.
Al;new v. Citi of Beaumont, a Proposition 13 challenge to ordinances increasing
sewer service and trash collection fees by ordinances adopted after July 1, 1978.
I'lraintiff has dismissed the action subsequent to the appellate decision in the
Fresno County case validating special. improvement assessments as not being
"speciril taxes" under Proposition 13.
Berl; v_ City of Dixon, a Proposition 13 challenge to regulatory permit fee and
hedroom tax increases passed as urgency measures on June 26, 1978. Following
successive changes in trial dates and failure of the parties to negotiate a
settlement, it is indicated that they will probably agree to drop the case from
the trial calendar pending the decision in the Kehrlein case.
The next meeting of the Committee will be held on April 11. Information concern-
ing any case submitted for consideration by the Committee should be conveyed to
the appropriate member and the Sacramento office of the League at least one week
in advance of that meeting.
Carlyn F. Galway
Senior Staff Attorney
-10-
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Atascadero City Council DATE: March 19 , 1980
FROM: Planning Consultant/Director
SUBJECT: ATASCADERO GENERAL PLAN
Over the past several months, the City Council has conducted a
number of public hearings on the Atascadero General Plan for the
purpose of obtaining public input. As part of that review, the
City Council has conducted a page-by-page review of the General
Plan, has considered the recommendation of the Atascadero Planning
Commission and has made certain revisions to the General Plan.
Government Code Section 65357 requires that a General Plan or
amendment thereto be formally adopted by resolution. The attached
resolution contains a specific listing of both text and map changes
that have been approved and states findings supporting adoption.
LAWR NCE SVENS MURW L. RDEN
Planning C nsultant/Director City Mana r
LS:kp
Attach.
RESOLUTION NO. 6-80
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ATASCADERO ADOPTING THE ATASCADERO
GENERAL PLAN
WHEREAS, California Government Code Sections 65300 through
65307 established the scope and authority for a general plan which
shall consist of a statement of development policies including
diagrams and text setting forth objectives, principles, standards,
and plan proposals through a series of required elements; and
WHEREAS, an integrated Environmental Impact Report, includ-
ing a supplemental letter of September 14, 1978 , with suggested
mitigation measures to certain portions of the plan, has been prepared
and reviewed by the Office of the Environmental Coordinator; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted several
public hearings culminating in the adoption of Planning Commission
Resolution 1-80 on January 7, 1980 , recommending adoption of the
Atascadero General Plan as outlined therein; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has conducted several public
hearings on the matter of the Atascadero General Plan and in con-
junction therewith provided adequate notice as specified in California
Government Code Section 65355; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has referred any modifications
not previously considered by the Planning Commission to the Planning
Commission for their report and recommendation on such modifications
as specified by California Government Code Section 65356 and has
duly considered these reports and recommendations as part of the
public hearing process; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully considered the
proposed Atascadero General Plan and finds and determines that said
General Plan constitutes a suitable, logical and timely guide for
the development of the City of Atascadero.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council, after
review and consideration of the Environmental Impact Report and
supplemental letter dated September 14 , 1978, suggesting mitigation
measures to certain portions of the General Plan, finds said Environ-
mental Impact Report and supplement thereto to be adequate; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council hereby adopts the
Atascadero General Plan consisting of:
1. Textual material which is made a part hereof by
reference and which includes the 1978 Atascadero General Plan marked as
Exhibit "A" and dated March 24, 1980 , which further includes:
RESOLUTION No. 6-80
Page Two
(a) Amendments and corrections approved by the San
Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors by Resolu-
tion No. 78-674 adopted December 18, 1978;
(b) Mitigation measures supplementary to the Envir-
onmental Impact Report as recommended by the Environ-
mental Coordinator by letter dated September 14, 1978;
and
(c) Amendments and corrections to the text approved
by the Atascadero City Council at their meetings of
January, February and March, 1980 , and as specified
in the attached supplement which is marked as Exhibit
"B" and made a part hereof by reference.
2. The General Plan Land Use Map, which is on file in the
City Planning Department and which is made a part hereof by reference,
and which is marked Exhibit "C" which includes the attached supplement,
which is marked as Exhibit "D" and made a part hereof by reference,
specifying amendments to the Land Use Map approved by the Atascadero
City Council as reflected in the minutes of their meetings of January,
February and March, 1980.
On motion by and seconded by
the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in
its entirety on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ADOPTED:
ROBERT J. WILKINS, JR. , Mayor
ATTEST:
MURRAY L. 64ARDrN , City Clerk
Approved as -o Form:
ALLEN GRIMES, City Attorney
• EXHIBIT "B"
.A
S U P P L E M E N T
TEXT CHANGES APPROVED BY THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
Page Col. Par. Line
- 1 L 1 2 change "more than a half century" to "nearly
three-quarters of a century"
- 1 L 2 3 delete "amends the County Land Use Element
and"
1 L .2 4-7 delete third sentence referring to County
General Plan
1 L 2 8 delete "County" and replace with "City"
1 L 4 delete second sentence
1 R 1 4 change "still stand" to "stood until recently"
2 L 2 2 delete " , now a County landmark, "
9 L 1 5 change "2311" to "1711"
41 R 1 8+ change third sentence to read, "In this Plan
the Urban Reserve Line generally coincides
with the Atascadero Colony boundary, except
for two Agricultural Preserves and a portion
of a third (The Eagle Ranch Agriculture Pre-
serve has a total of 5,978 acres, of which
2 , 786 acres are within the Colony boundaries)
that are located on the periphery of the
Colony and except for areas south of Santa
Barbara Road and west of the summit of Frog
Pond Mountain.
42 L 1 2, 3 change first sentence to read, "The Suburban
Services Area consists of the remainder of
the City and the portion of the Eaglet Tract
within the City boundaries. "
42 R 1-3 delete the three paragraphs explaining the
method of calculation
-- 43 L delete entire left column
43 R #8 the following wording is suggested, "8. In
the calculation of lot area for the purposes
of considering land divisions and in deter-
mining permitted numbers and types of animals
allowed, gross acreage shall be used. However,
in determining permitted densities for multiple
• -2- •
Page Col. Par. Line
r 43 R #8 (Continued)
family residential developments, net acreage
(excluding land area needed for streets
rights-of-way) shall be used. "
43 R 4-6 delete "The rate of residential construction. . .
problems are discussed in Chapter IX, HOUSING. "
44 L 4 3 amend to read " . . . schools, libraries and
board and care facilities. "
�. 44 L 7 the wording of the section under "Low Density"
shall read "Minimum lot sizes within the
Urban Services Area shall range from 12 to
22 acres while the minimum lot sizes outside
the Urban Services Area shall be 22 acres.
Determination of appropriate lot sizes shall
be based upon such factors as slope of access
road to the building site; availability of
services, especially sewers; distance from
center of the community; general character
of neighboring lands; percolation and the area
needed for access roads to the building site.
The keeping of poultry. . . "
44 R 2 11-13 delete last sentence "Because this plan. . .
formerly designated Rural are increased. "
- 44 R 4 3 delete first point "The use density. . .does
not exceed 36 individual residents per acre. "
- 45 L 1 add under High Density "The use density. . .
does not exceed 36 individual residents per
acre. "
- 45 L 1 amend second sentence under Low Density to
read " . . . and fourplexes, but generally no
more than 5 dwelling units per building. "
45 L 1 add third sentence under Low Density "New
projects with more than four units per
structure shall require specific design
approval. "
45 L 1 add the following under "Low Density" : "The
use density shall be based upon the criterion
of approximately 22 individual residents per
acre. The following maxima shall apply:
11 one-bedroom apartments per acre
7 two--bedroom apartments per acre
5 three-bedroom apartments per acre
4 four-bedroom apartments per acre
-3- •
Page Col. Par. . Line
- 45 L 1 (Continued)
or, any combination of the above which, multi-
plied by standard occupancy factors, does
not exceed 22 residents per acre. "
45 L 4 add paragraph to read "Mobile home parks may
be permitted in Single Family Residential
areas at the same densities as if they were
stick-built structures and may be permitted
in Multiple Family Residential areas as a
maximum of 11 dwellings per acre. "
45 R #6 delete " . ..with the number. . . the following
table: including the table
46 L #15 renumber "15" to "16" and amend to read,
"New condominium projects, planned mobile
home developments and stock cooperatives
shall be reviewed on an individual basis as
community housing needs, neighborhood character,
and site improvements will dictate. "
oo46 L #15 add "15. Where all factors are favorable,
board and care facilities could satisfactorily
be developed in designated neighborhood areas.
The use density shall not be permitted to
exceed that of High Density Multiple Family use. "
46 L #17 add "17 . To alleviate the problems arising from
the conversion of existing rental units, the
City may regulate condominium conversions. The
City shall revise its zoning ordinance and sub-
division ordinance regarding condominium con-
versions in order to:
(a) Establish criteria for the conversion of
existing multiple rental housing to con-
dominiums, community apartments, stock
cooperatives, and new or limited equity
stock cooperatives.
(b) Reduce the impact of such conversions on
residents in rental housing who may be
required to relocate due to conversion of
apartments to condominiums , community
apartments, stock cooperatives, and new
or limited equity stock cooperatives by
providing procedures for notification and
adequate time and assistance for such
relocation.
(c) Insure that the purchasers of converted
housing have been properly informed as to
the physical condition of the structure
which is offered for purchase.
-4- •
Page Col. Par. Line
46 L #1.7 (Continued)
(d) Insure that converted housing achieves
high quality appearance and safety and
is consistent with the goals of the City' s
General Plan.
(e) Encourage opportunities for housing owner-
ship of all types, for all levels of
income and in a variety of locations.
(f) Encourage a continuing supply of rental
housing for low and moderate income persons
and families.
46 R 1 delete the first paragraph including the table
47 L 2 10-12 delete last sentence referring to Countywide
Land Use Element
r 47 L 3 5-8 amend to read " . . . Santa Rosa Road. There are
many— for the immediate future. " deleting
" . . . it is recommended. . . 4. 4 acres in this
category. "
47 R #1 delete "completely"
47 R #4 delete "and dangerous"
- 48 R 3 under Neighborhood Commercial #2 reading, "On
the two northern corners of Morro Road and
Curbaril Avenue. " shall be deleted '
52 L #2 amend #2 to read "2. The area along the west
side of E1 Camino Real from Curbaril Avenue
south to the Commercial use at the Santa Rosa
overpass shall also be upgraded to the status
of Industrial Park. "
64 R 3 under the section entitled, "Areas of Open Space
that should be considered for acquisition by a
public agency and/or preserved for recreation" ,
add "County-owned lots fronting on Lakeview
adjacent to Atascadero Lake. "
66 L 3 8 change "County" to "City"
66 R 1 1, 2 the words "now in the initial stages of devel-
opment" should be changed to "which is nearly
completed"
-- 68 L 3 4 change "County" to "City"
76 R 2 delete the last two sentences and insert the
following-: "The City of Atascadero is in the
process of establishing its own police services. "
-5- •
Page Col. Par. Line
76 R 3 delete the entire paragraph
b. 77 L 1 2, 3 should be changed to read " . . .Fire Department
has made several recommendations to the Fire
Board. Among the. . . "
77 L 2 d. change "County-granted" to "City-granted"
77 R 2 4 add the following sentence, "The French Medical
Clinic, located on the south end of E1 Camino
Real, also provides medical services to the
community. "
77 R 3 6 delete sentence beginning, "It may be possi-
ble. . . " and insert the following, "A Dial-A-
Ride program is in operation. "
- 80 R #10 delete reference to Sheriff ' s Substation and
renumber
-; 87 R 4 add sentence to read "Proposed plans to realign
and improve Highway 41 from Freeway 101 shall
be dropped in order to prevent further bisecting
of the community. "
87 R 5 1 delete "temporary"
— 88 L C. delete "until the eastern portion of Highway
41 is rerouted. "
88 R 1 delete paragraph "To relieve congestion. . .
back to El Camino Real. "
90 R 1 b. delete "b. Designation of another. . . is of high
priority. "
91 L c rewrite this sentence to read, "The lot on
Entrada Avenue between 5975 Entrada Avenue and
the Post Office building. "
92 R #3 delete "temporary" and change "a" to "an"
-- 92 R #3 add a new " 3 and renumber 3-18 to 4-19 with
the new wording "3. Highway 41 shall not be
realigned and improved eastward of Freeway 101. "
97 R 4 delete last sentence "A proposal. . .has been
presented. "
97 R 5 delete references to County in sentence:
"Although a local Housing Authority. . .under the
current County Administration. "
134 L 9 3 change "County" to "City"
-6-
Page Col. Par. Line
Various places in text Use the word "shall" in place of "should"
and "will" in those instances where binding
standards are intended (i.e. , regulations,
principles) and retain the word "should" in
those instances where flexibility is desired
(i.e. , policy proposals, property acquisitions,
capital improvement) .
• • EXHIBIT "D"
S U P P L E M E N T
MAP CHANGES APPROVED BY THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
v 1. The CEMETERY shall be shown as a public facility on Map VII-3.
y"
2. Lots fronting on the southerly side of Palomar Avenue, adjacent
to the Atascadero Regional Park, shall be shown as Moderate
Density Single Family Residential.
3. Lots on the westerly side of Santa Ysabel from the Thrifty complex
to Pueblo and on the westerly side of Sinaloa between Pueblo and
Curbaril shall be shown as Low Density Multiple Family Residential.
�. 4. The west side of E1 Camino Real from Curbaril Avenue south to
the commercial use at the Santa Rosa overpass shall be shown as
Industrial Park.
! 5. The northwest corner of Coromar and Portola shall be shown as
Retail Commercial.
6. Certain property located on Ferro-Carril near Chico shall be
shown as Suburban Single Family Residential (see attached sketch
#1) .
7. The westerly side of Sombrilla between Pueblo and the Quail Ridge
development shall be shown as Low Density Multiple Family
Residential.
8. All land outside the Urban Services Line now designated as Low
Density Single Family Residential shall be shown as Suburban
Single Family Residential.
9. The easterly side of Capistrano extending from Santa Ysabel to
Country Club Drive and the north side of Santa Ysabel bounded
on the east side by the Quail Ridge development shall be shown
as High Density Multiple Family Residential; and, the lot with
frontage on Valle adjacent to this High Density Multiple area
shall be shown on Moderate Density Single Family Residential
(see attached sketch #2) .
5ALIHQ6 ltlV.-P-
..L
L'y
�Ao
v�
A
v'
•S
kj
ati
f
�TAIE.
GamM.
� a
r
0 � L
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Atascadero City Council DATE: March 19 , 1980
FROM: Planning Consultant/Director
SUBJECT: REQUEST OF ATASCADERO DOOR COMPANY, INC. AND COLONY
ASSOCIATES FOR REZONING OF A 13. 6 ACRE SITE ON THE WEST
SIDE OF FRONTAGE ROAD BETWEEN SANTA ROSA ROAD AND PORTOLA
ROAD FROM C-H AND R-A TO C-1
On March 10, the City Council conducted a public hearing and
moved to approve a change in zoning for the subject property to
C-1-D with the "D" to mean: "Departmental Review, with particular
attention to insuring attractive appearance from public roads by
means of appropriate landscaping and screening and with a Planned
Development allowing discretionary approval of the proposed uses
to be submitted prior to commencement of development activities. "
The attached ordinance and ordinance map are presented to the
City Council for first reading.
lam,-
LAWRENCE EVENSRRAY WARDEN
Planning onsultant/Director ity anagen
LS:kp
Attach.
ORDINANCE NO. 20
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AMENDING SECTION MAP 12-0-34
OF THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAPS OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO BY PLACING
CERTAIN PROPERTIES IN THE C-1-D ZONE.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO ORDAINS as follows:
Section 1. Council Findings.
After conducting a public hearing, the City Council finds and
determines that:
(a) The change of zone from R-A and C-H to C-1-D is consistent
with the Retail Commercial land use designation of the
Atascadero General Plan.
(b) Adoption of the "D" designation will reduce the visual
impact of the future commercial development and will
encourage a planned development of the property.
Based upon these findings, a change of zone from R-A and C-H to
C-1-D with the "D" to mean "Departmental Review, with particular
attention to insuring attractive appearance from public roads by
means of appropriate landscaping and screening and with a Planned
Development, allowing discretionary approval of proposed uses, to
be submitted prior to commencement of development activities. "
Section 2 . Zoning Change.
Map 12-0-34 of the Official Zoning Maps of the City of Atascadero
on file in the City Planning Department is hereby amended to reclas-
sify the following described property from R-A and C-H to C-1-D:
(a) Lots 8, 9 , 17 and 18 of Block 10 of Atascadero Colony.
Section 3 . Zoning Map.
Map 12-0-34 of the Official Zoning Maps of the City of Atascadero
on file in the City Planning Department is hereby amended as shown on
attached Exhibit "A" which is hereby made a part of this ordinance by
reference.
Section 4 . Publication.
The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published once
within fifteen (15) days after its passage in the Atascadero News,
a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published and circulated
in the City in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code;
shall certify the adoption and posting of this ordinance and shall
cause this ordinance and this certification together with proof of
posting to be entered into the Book of Ordinances of this City.
ORDINANCE NO. 20
Page Two
Section 5. Effective Date.
This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and
effect at 12 : 01 a.m. on the 31st day after its passage.
The foregoing ordinance was introduced on
and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council held on
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ROBERT J. WILKINS , Mayor
ATTEST:
MURRAY L. WARDEN, City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
ALLEN GRIMES, City Attorney
•4
b �
r
Z�b "
Q��•�O zz-
SCALE —NJ",= 2150'
3
a,
(CaENFr-AL SHOPPIN —
PLSlraNEU DE LOPME►JT)
t
0 44'
1s�� ��V I C'Vtlj W l�f h � ,y,—�•f.�.s, �G(.
�ron,t� yAl r_ trtieA bJ� rY<° n5 U$ �P�►vPr�� �F . ''y
IPnclSic�:v,c. �' � _CYCY�iI`,Jc Gi.Y�lf wi� 1 Ch
�GnrtP:` 7bcr'Vc i(II) v C4, CAI loo-,r.c c��sCrt.f�oru+Y
bPc::
prior-�o Cornn�r�<[�men� cx�- de✓ef�pm��-,� a�•�v��ir-�,
ORDINANCE ITO. 18
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO ACCEPTING THE
REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 13522 OF THE STATE
PENAL CODE RELATING TO TRA-INING OF LAW ENFORCEMEINT OFFICERS
Section 1 . The City of Atascadero declares that it desires
to qualify to receive aid from the State of California under the
provisions of Chapter 1 of Title 4, of Part 4 of the State Penal
Code.
Section 2 . The City of Atascadero will adhere to the
standards for recruitment and training established by the Cali-
fornia Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training pur-
suant to the provisions of Section 13522 of the State Penal Code.
Section 3 . 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; shall certify to the adop-
tion and publication of this ordinance; and shall cause this
ordinance and its certification, together with proof of publica-
tion, to be entered in the Book of Ordinance of this City.
Section 4. Effective date. This ordinance shall go into
effect and shall be in full force and effect at 12 : 01 a.m. on the
thirty-first day after its passage.
The foregoing ordinance was adopted at a regular meeting of
the Council held on March 1980.
Ordinance No. 18
Page Two
AYES :
NOES :
ABSENT:
ROBERT J. WILKINS, JR. , Mayor
ATTEST :
MURRAY L. WARDEN, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
MURRAY L. WARDEN, City Manager
RICHARD M. McHALE , Chief of Police
APPROVED AS TO F
t
ALLEN GRIPES , City Attorney
• • p.;)L
MEMO RANDUM
TO: City Manager
FROM: Police Consultant
SUBJECT: Police vehicle bids
On February 15 , 1980, requests for bid quotations of police
cars were mailed to eleven potential area vendors . Our City
received and opened (March 5, 1980) three sealed bids from:
1. Jerry Reneau Ford - Paso Robles
2 . Gayle Sharp Ford - Atascadero
3 . Roger Algee (private rancher) - Paso Robles
Attached is a synopsis of the proposed bids . Each of the
Ford dealers list some equipment exceptions and questions relative
to required options . I believe this may be due in part to unfamil-
iarity with "police package" type vehicles .
The bid proposal as submitted by Gayle Sharp Ford indicates
one exception in the maintenance "service schedule" which states ,
"All required maintenance other than brakes . . . " I am told that
the annual 'cost to the City per car should not exceed $100. 00 per
unit or a total of $600. 00 per year. With this amount added to
Sharp ' s bid, they still remain the low bidder ($1, 582. 56 less than
Reneau) .
I am recommending award of the bid lease package to Gayle
Sharp Ford on the following bases :
1. Cost difference between lowest (Sharp) and next lowest
(Reneau) is $2 , 182 . 56 per year.
2 . Location of maintenance facilities . Sharp Ford is a
couple of minutes from City Offices , while Reneau Ford
is approximately twenty minutes driving time one-way.
3. The vehicles offered by Sharp Ford seem to exceed those
proposed by Reneau. (Reneau proposed two Fairmonts of
the six vehicles while Sharp proposed all LTD' s . )
I would not recommend further consideration of Algee' s proposal
as there are too many unanswered questions and he failed to develop
a package reflecting a product as specified.
Following award of the bid for vehicle lease, I would suggest
color selection as follows :
1 . Four "marked" patrol cars to be all white with a wide
blue hand on the sides .
2 . Two unmarked cars (to be used for patrol back-up, investi-
gation, youth services and administration) to be selected
from standard, solid factory colors available.
Memorandum - Police vehicle bids
Page Two
The front doors of the marked cars shall be all white so that
appropriate decals may be affixed thereto. I have proposed white
patrol cars because they are generally easier to keep clean and
they will be easily distinguished from the Sheriff' s Department and
CHP vehicles in the area.
In considering vehicle color selection, I learned that the City
of San Luis Obispo has adopted a policy whereby most city vehicles
are purchased all white at which time the city attaches decal stripes
to the sides of the cars . Each department within thecity is desig-
nated by a different colored stripe; police - blue, planning - green,
engineering - yellow, etc. I feel this to be a good system and
suggest we give it consideration as we begin to acquire a fleet.
RICHARD H. McHALE
RHM: ad
3-20-80
APPROVED:
7RRAY777VARDEN
•� • to
u m u
w ca a)
P •r•I4-I O U) = P4
ca
0)) o ° a ca N
P. u
aui u a. •� p u a04 P
10
� ro 4 a) 0 copa :J
CO14 Cr U P -ri :J9 ��
U O a) ,0 4-)r-4O
LLO' O > x� I I �
a ;j p
u P. O a) cd-d o o +�
•r1 •r1 4.J u a) u o o cd
r-4 P O +W r'4 O b o o +�
O u w u {.J •r1
% c -vo�-
Oo o �
"d ° a °r4 t4-4-� > 4 , �
I "— a)
Et - v
u •r4vPa.,ru ai
U) 4-1 r•4 ,0 O U
co b •
r4 r4 rO C U cif 44 44 � r
r-I 4 J a) {.J O O +-)
O (1) •r1 P. M cd }�
,C •r•I CO U) N P.
cd .0 O v b H
cn r•I •r1 - CO cd • CO -It
u r-4 r-4 b Ra C.) u. � �t O
r-1 I to .I_I 4.J O -C� N �•I
Ca •H (3) U) a.J m •rl co Lr) u
E� 4-J G �>, r40 .� - m
a r-1 CO 0 4.J •1-4 0 Lr, cd
r-•I {.J •rl •r1 CO•rl O H cn .I•J
ls7 Qi M 4J U ;•J •LJ �4 v}•
cd
u u
m U)
.n Cd 0
o >
rl •r1 cd
3 0 'N0' -0 cd
o 00 Lr)
a) - O (L) (1) •r1 Ir)-It
r-I r- u rn
r4 U) cd >~ 0) u1 11
3 I a-J r-I •• O r-4 Lr) O a)
S-I I G r4 +J •rl a) U) 00 r-I
a fs+ W 44 U) •rl I- (n
O +J r4 •r•I H cd ch Cd
moi•N r-I U) •r-I r-1 P-1
cn
ww
H z Z
E40
Ww H w rx Oz
w � � raw �' .. � w � HHS
A HU w E-+ E-I z
Q xU) HU U) H zdSC vH
H W W O9C Oz :E� wH O
U �D � acn a c7
• - s
• • 03
_M_E M_O_R_A_N_D_U M_
TO: City Manager
FROM: Finance Director
SUBJECT: Copy machine requirements
A Staff review of our copy machine needs has been completed
based on both past and future requirements . This analysis included
not only our present and future demands by numbers , but the cost of
maintenance support and supplies .
It is anticipated that our copy volumes will reach between
24, 000 and 30,000 copies per month after July 1, 1980. This figure
is substantiated by both Staff estimates and present loads being
experienced by other cities in the area.
The following criteria is recommended in our review of available
machines on the market and our anticipated needs :
Automatic back-to-back copy capability insures a
definite savings in paper, mailing and filing costs .
Reduction capability which insures a standard
letter size filing structure throughout the City.
It also saves the cost of paper, mailing , filing
costs and allows flexibility in format design.
Collation insures speed and accuracy in formating
documents such as agenda, handouts , pamphlets, etc.
Centralized location within the building will insure
availability to all offices .
The "key" method of control be used so that each
department can budget and be charged for their usage.
The IBM Series III Copier, Model 20 (with reduction) plus a
20 bin Collator Module is the only single unit on the market that
meets the above criteria. This unit can be purchased on a lease-
purchase program which will allow monthly accruals toward purchase
accumulating to 50% of total purchase price. This program is as
follows :
Model 20 (with reduction)
Monthly minimum (incl. 15, 000 copies) $ 661.00
10 , 000 add. copies @ $ . 0183 183 . 00
Monthly accrual toward purchase 485 . 00
Purchase price 25 , 254. 00
Memorandum Copy machine
Page Two
COLLATOR MODULES
20 bin $ 107 .07
Monthly accruals toward purchase 60. 50
Purchase price 4,405 . 70
METER CONTROL
Monthly rate 13 . 65
Monthly accruals toward purchase 7 . 50
Purchase price 295 . 00
Total monthly lease-purchase cost, including
service contract @ 25 ,000 copies per month $ 964. 72
The City is presently doing all reproduction locally at 5�_ per
copy. This cost would equate to $1, 250 per month for 25,000 copies
plus man-hours for delivery and pick-up. I have discussed our
analysis with the owner of The Paper Works , and he concurs that our
volume of activity, both now and future, warrants obtaining our own
unit.
The cost of paper is a very important factor both in back-to-
back and reduction capability. Present cost of paper on the com-
mercial market for 5, 000 sheets is $23 . 30. If 15, 000 sheets of the
25 , 000 monthly estimate is accomplished back-to-back, it would save
7 , 500 sheets or $34. 95 each month. Reducing from legal size to
standard also saves approximately 20% per ream plus it reduces size
(cost) of filing cabinets , floor space and total filing volume. In
addition, computer records can be reduced for ease of handling and
filing.
It is recommended that consideration be given to authorizing
the lease-purchase of an IBM Series III Copier Model 20 (with reduc-
tion) , 20 bin Collator Module and Meter Control . Service Contract
is included as part of the lease-purchase agreement which is known
as the Extended Term Fiscal Agreement . Cost per month will vary
from the 15, 000 copy minimum at $781. 72 to approximately 25 ,000
copies per month at $964. 72 . It is further recommended that this
lease-purchase agreement be re-evaluated once the maximum (50%)
accrual towards purchase is achieved with consideration being given
to pay-off or refinancing the existing contract. This consideration
would also include the cost of a Service Contract once a machine is
purchased. There is $3 , 600 remaining in the Reproduction Account
for the April-June quarter of Fiscal Year 1979-80 which is more than
sufficient for this budget year.
�� '�/,V Ise
RALPH H. DOWELL, JR.
RHD:ad '
3-18-80