The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Packet 02/25/1980 0 AGENDA = ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting February 25, 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 by the City Council 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 Consent Calendar and will be considered separately. Vote may be by roll call. A. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of the regular meeting of February 11, 1980 (RECOT,121iEND APPROVAL) 2.. Minutes of the special meeting of February 14 , 1980 (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) 3. Treasurer' s Report, 1-23-80 to 2-20-80 (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) 4 . Correspondence (RECOMMEND ITEM BE RECEIVED AND FILED) B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES AND REPORTS 1. Appearance of representative from the Economic Opportunity Commission requesting Council representation on EOC Board 2. Presentation by A. H. Stephenson of proposed Administration Building remodeling plans 3 . Public hearing on Atascadero General Plan - continued 4 . Public hearing on condominium conversion matter continued C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Ordinance No. 16 authorizing a contract with Public Employees' Retirement System - first reading D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Application for Conditional Use Permit to amend previous Use Permit to allow continued use of the .Church School at 8205 Curbaril Avenue Atascadero Gospel Chapel 2. Award bid for communications equipment 3 . Consideration of amendment to the Joint Powers Agreement with the San Luis Obispo Cities and County Area Planning Coordinating Council AGENDA - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting February 25, 1980 Page Two E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION 1. City Council 2. City Manager 3 . City Attorney y • • 141 MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting Pebrziar_y 1.1 , 1980. 7 : 30 p.m. Atascridero Administration Building , The meeting was called to order at 7 : 30 p.m. by Mayor Wilkins with the Pledge of Allegiance. Reverend Mel Schroer of the Community Church of Atascadero gave the invocation. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmen Highland, Mackey, Nelson, Stover and Mayor Wilkins ABSENT: Mone PUBLIC COMMENT 1. A lady from the audience asked the Council to establish a Beautification Committee. She said some interested citizens had met with Jerry Gale from the Zoo and Councilman Mackey regarding this matter. The Women' s Club was prepared to donate some money to the Committee if the Council would establish it officially. Mayor Wilkins did not feel that such a committee needed to be officially sanctioned by the Council since he hoped that any organization wishing to work on City projects would feel free to do se. He felt such committees could coordinate their activities with the City and he expressed his appreciation for beautification committee activities and interest. 2 . John McNeil read a statement concerning the General Plan. He objected to the number of documents which purport to be the General Plan or to be the General Plan Map. He objected to Councilman Highland ' s proposal to lower the minimum lot size in the area outside the urban services line from 2 1/2 acres to 1 1/2 acres. He asserted that the population of the community would be increased if this change was adopted. 3 . Ralph Eggers was concerned about a change from 1 1/2 acre minimum in the General Plan to 2 1/2 acre minimum. Council- man Highland reviewed these provisions. A. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 . Minutes of the regular meeting of January 28 , 1980 (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) MOTION: Councilman Nelson moved for approval of the Consent Calendar. The motion was seconded by Councilman Highland and unanimously carried. MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting February 11, 1980 Page Two B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES AND REPORTS 1 . Appeal of Albert Centeno from County denial of business license Mr. Warden provided the background of this matter. Application for a business license for an arcade operation at the Adobe Plaza was denied by the County Tax Collector on recommendation of the Sheriff . The City Attorney determined that, according to the appro- priate ordinance, the only reason for denying the license was if a false statement was made on the business license application. Since this did not occur, the City Attorney did not believe that there were grounds for denying the license. Councilman Nelson asked what the reasons were for denying the application and Mr. Grimes stated that the Sheriff thought it should not be granted. He noted that because of Privacy Act provisions, the City was unable to be furnished with any so-called "rap sheet" information which might have a bearing on the matter. Even so, County Ordinances do not provide for denial based upon such informa- tion Mr. Tom Page, representing Mr. Centeno, agreed with the City Attorney' s analysis and encouraged the City Council to grant the appeal . Mr. Ken Cave, a tenant at the Adobe Plaza, spoke in opposition to granting a license citing the parking and other design problems. It was noted that while his complaint may be valid, it is not a basis for denying the business license. MOTION: Councilman Highland moved that Council direct issuance of the license. The motion was seconded by Councilman Stover and unanimously carried. 2 . Appearance of Marina Rosa, County Division of Environmental Health, regarding a State Wide Litter Prevention and Control Campaign Marina Rosa of the County Health Department presented the Council with information concerning the State Wide Litter Prevention and Control Campaign and presented a slide show on enforcement of litter laws. She requested the Council ' s support of a proposed resolution endorsing this program. Because of the nature of the resolution which stated that the City would make staff available for enforce- ment of litter laws and staff is not yet available, the City Council decided to endorse the program by motion. MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting February 11 , 1980 Page Three MOTION: Councilman Mackey moved that Council endorse the County' s litter prevention and control campaign 3 . Proposed lot division (AT 79-077) , Santa Cruz Road - Hurdle (Hilliard) - continued Larry Stevens reviewed this project for Council . He stated that the County Subdivison Review Board had recommended approval with conditions, however, the Planning Commission denied the pro- ject because of the General Plan standard which requires changes in lot sizes based on the distance from the center of the community. Mr. Hilliard spoke in favor of allowing the lot division. Councilman Highland did not feel that the Council should act on this matter until the Planning Commission had made a determina- tion concerning lot sizes. He suggested that this matter be sent back to the Commission for reconsideration after they had made a determination on the lot size issue. MOTION: Councilman Nelson moved that this matter be referred back to the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Councilman Highland and unanimously carried. 4 . Proposed street name change - Montura Lane The Planning Commission had recommended approval of the name Montura Lane for this unnamed private road. The name meets with the Planning Commission policy that street names be Spanish names and names of non-living historic persons. Montura is a Spanish word meaning horse. MOTION: Councilman Nelson moved for the approval of naming the private road Montura Lane. The motion was seconded by Councilman Stover and unanimously carried. 5 . Public hearing on proposed lot division (AT 79-128) , Santa Rosa Road near Atascadero Lake - Wilhoite (Stewart) Larry Stevens reviewed this project stating that the County Subdivision Review Board had approved it with conditions. The Planning Commission recommended approval also, but modified condi- tion 11 so that the Preliminary Soils Report be required at time of issuance of the building permit rather than as a condition for filing the final map. MOTION: Councilman Highland moved that the lot division be approved subject to the conditions as modified by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Councilman Nelson and unanimously carried. MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting February 11, 1980 Page Four 6 . Public hearing on proposed lot division (AT 79-110) , on the west side of West Mall adjacent to Atascadero Creek - Hvolbol, et al (Schott) Mr. Stevens stated that the Subdivision Review Board had recommended approval with conditions in which the Planning Commission had concurred. The applicant agreed with the conditions. Councilman Mackey was concerned about a possible blind spot in the access way to this property. MOTION: Councilman Highland moved for approval of the project subject to the conditions. The motion was seconded by Councilman Nelson and carried with Councilman Mackey voting no. 7 . Consideration of proposed lot line adjustment (AL 79-68) , Curbaril Avenue - Van Saun (Hilliard) Larry Stevens reviewed the lot line adjustment and noted that approval of this request would provide better building sites. The Planning Commission had recommended approval subject to the condi- tions set by the Subdivision Review Board. MOTION: Councilman Nelson moved for approval subject to the conditions. The motion was seconded by Councilman Highland and unanimously carried. 8 . Consideration of proposed lot line adjustment (AL 79-46) , Rosario and Alamo Roads Garza Larry Stevens reviewed this project stating that the reason for the request is to equalize the lot sizes; also, there is a house straddling the property line. The Planning Commission had recommended approval subject to the Subdivision Review Board conditions. MOTION: Councilman Highland moved for approval of the lot line adjustment subject to the conditions. The motion was seconded by Councilman Stover and unanimously carried. 9 . Public hearing on condominium conversion ordinance - recommend item be continued to 2-25-80 MOTION: Councilman Highland moved that the public hearing on the condominium conversion matter be continued to February 25, 1980. The motion was seconded by Council- man Nelson and unanimously carried. Recess 9: 00 P.M. RECONVENED 9 : 12 p.m. MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting February 11, 1980 Page Five 10. Public hearing on Atascadero General Plan - continued Larry Stevens reviewed the six items the Council had previously referred to the Planning Commission. Council acted on each item as follows: a. Request by Floyd Cornell for a higher land use designation for property located along the easterly side of San Diego Way near E1 Camino Real. The Planning Commission recommended denial of this request. MOTION: Councilman Highland moved that the request be denied. The motion was seconded by Councilman Stover and unanimously carried. b. . Request by Capistrano Gardens for a High Density Multiple Family Residential designation for property on the east side of Capistrano north of Santa Ysabel. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the request and that the designation be extended northerly along Capistrano to Country Club Drive. MOTION: Councilman Highland moved that Council approve the recommendation of the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Councilman Stover and carried with Councilmen Mackey and Nelson voting no. C. Request by Wakefield/Switzer for Retail or Tourist Commercial designation for property located at the northwesterly corner of Coromar and Portola. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the request for a Retail-Commercial designation. MOTION: Councilman Stover moved that Council accept the Planning Commission' s recommendation on this matter. The motion was seconded by Councilman Highland and unanimously carried. d. Request from Palmer-Merriam for a Retail-Commercial designa- tion for the property located on the southerly side of El Camino Real and the westerly side of Pueblo. The Planning Commission recom- mended disapproval of this request, MOTION: Councilman Highland moved that Council approve the Planning Commission' s denial of this request. The motion was seconded by Councilman Mackey and unanimously carried, e. Councilman Highland' s request for adding language to the General Plan concerning condominium conversions. The Planning Commis- MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting February 11, 1980 Page Six sion recommended against including the specific language which called for no issuance of condominium permits for four years on the grounds that the specific action properly belongs in an ordin- ance. MOTION: Councilman Highland moved that Council accept the Planning Commission' s recommendation in this matter. The motion was seconded by Councilman Nelson and unanimously carried. f. Councilman Highland' s proposal to amend the first sen- tence on page 44 , left-hand column, paragraph 7 under Low Density Single Family Residential was continued pending receipt of Planning Commission recommendations. Several people spoke from the audience expressing the view that their property was being down-zoned by the proposed General Plan. These individuals were instructed to give their names and addresses to the Planning Director and each request would be re- ferred to the Planning Commission for recommendation to the Council. Howard Marohn expressed opposition to Councilman Highland ' s proposal for 1 1/2 acre minimum lot sizes outside the urban services area. Councilman Highland reviewed his proposed amendment to the General Plan and the background concerning it. Council continued with the page by page review of the General Plan. On page 48 , Council eliminated number 2 in the right hand column under Neighborhood Commercial, and re-numbered 3 to 2. Councilman Nelson requested that on pages 65 and 67, Planning Commission consider including the thirteen lots on Atascadero Lake owned by the County for recreational uses. MOTION: Councilman Nelson moved that the Planning Commission consider recreational uses for the thirteen lots on Atascadero Lake and that pages 65 and 67 reflect such use. The motion was seconded by Councilman Mackey and unanimously carried. Council continued further discussion of the General Plan to the next meeting beginning with page 68 . 11 . Report of City Manager on acquisition options for parking lot property Mr. Warden reviewed various options for the purchase of the MINUTES - ATASCADERO CI^1Y COUNCIL Regular Meeting February 11, 1980 Page Seven parking lot property across the street from the Administration Building. Councilman Nelson was not in favor of the purchase at this time with so many unknowns as far as revenues were concerned; he did not feel that this was a high priority item. Council dis- cussed the matter at length. MOTION: Councilman Mackey moved that Council proceed in attempt- ing to buy the lots on the first option as suggested by Mr. Warden' s memo, that the necessary papers for pur- chase be prepared for -he entire 26 , 000 square feet, and that the papers be returned to Council for approval. The motion was seconded by Councilman Stover and carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmen Highland, Mackey, Stover and Mayor Wilkins NOES: Councilman Nelson C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Consideration of Planning Commission residency requirements Mr. Warden reviewed the situation whereby one of the Planning Commissioners was considering moving outside the City limits. The Commission had requested that the Council consider the residency policy for Commissioners. Ordinance No. 2, which establishes the Planning Commission, requires Commissioners to live within the City limits. It was noted that if an exception was desired, then the ordinance would have to be amended by another ordinance. Councilmen Highland and Stover felt that certain exceptions should be allowed; perhaps the limit could be for Commissioners to live within one mile of the City limits. Councilman Mackey stated that the Commission was advisory to' the Council and Council members had to be residents of the City; she felt the Commissioners should also have this requirement. MOTION: Councilman Stover moved that anyone on the Planning Commission can continue on it as long as they are not further than one mile out of the City limits. The motion died for lack of a second. There was further discussion of the ordinance without any motion to change. MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting February 11, 1980 Page Eight 2 . County/City services contract amendment Mr. Grimes explained that the amendment clarifies the arrange- ments between the City and County with regard to ' appeal procedures, MOTION: Councilman Nelson moved that the amendment be approved, The motion was seconded by Councilman Mackey and unani- mously carried. 3 . Consideration of contracting for financial management services Mr. Warden explained that the firm of Alexander Grant would provide computer services for the City until final decisions are made as to the shared three-city computer system. In the meantime, the volume of activity is too high to continue by hand. MOTION: Councilman Highland moved that Council accept the proposal with an effective date of April 1, 1980 for entering into a contract with Alexander Grant for financial management services. The motion was seconded by Councilman Stover and unanimously carried by roll call vote. 4 . Setting salary and advertising for Account Clerk II This position is in the Finance Department and provides for account clerk functions under the direction of the Finance Director. MOTION: Councilman Mackey moved that Staff be authorized to advertise and fill this position. The motion was seconded by Councilman Nelson and unanimously carried. E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION 1 . City Council (a) Councilman Nelson stated that the re-striping of the crosswalks on E1 Camino is a definite improvement. (b) Mayor Wilkins noted that there is a special meeting between the Atascadero Fire Board and the City Council regarding the Fire Department and Public Safety Committee report on Thursday, February 14, 1980, at 7 : 30 p.m. in the Rotunda Room. 2 . City Attorney (a) Mr. Grimes stated that the points and authorities MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting February 11, 1980 Page Nine he had prepared in the Daly matter would be valuable to the City in determining what fees and charges they can establish. 3 . City Manager (a) Mr. Warden advised that he had received a letter from Mr. Fowler of the Automobile Club of Southern California. This agency is performing a pedestrian traffic safety survey on El Camino Real. (b) Por. Warden reviewed the possible impacts on the City should Proposition 4 become law. The meeting adjourned at 11:23 p.m. Recorded by: MURRAY L. WARDEN, City Clerk By: Ardith Davis Deputy City Clerk • 0 ,4CIZ MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Special Meeting February 14 , 1980 7 : 30 p.m. Atascadero Administration Building The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor Wilkins. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmen Highland, Nelson, Stover and Mayor Wilkins ABSENT: Councilman Mackey Mayor Wilkins noted that the meeting was for the Council and Atascadero Fire Board to discuss the status of the Fire Department' s transition to the City, the Fire Department budget, and the Public Safety Committee' s report. Fire Board members Mike Cox, Russ Wright, John Cole and Lloyd Degnan were present; Joe Rinehart was absent. The meeting consisted of general discussion between the Council and Fire Board regarding "consolidation" of the fire and police departments into a public safety department. It was stressed by Council that it was not their intention to have a fully integrated department and present firefighters will not be expected to train as police officers; nor will their current status as firefighters be changed. No action was taken at the meeting, however, Council decided that the Police and Fire Chiefs along with the City Manager would work together to further explore the problem and to arrive at con- crete suggestions and evaluations. The meeting adjourned at 9: 20 p.m. Recorded by: MURRAY L. WARDEN City Clerk TREASURER'S REPORT January 23, 1980 through February 20, 1980 Balance as of 1/22/80 $ 11, 392. 00 Receivables: Per attached deposit listing 74, 627. 49 Payroll: 1/30 $ 3, 857. 62 2/13 $ 4 , 000. 88 ( 7 , 858. 50) Payables: Per attached Expenditure List (66, 322. 69) Balance as of 2/20/80 11, 838 . 30 Other Funds: Petty Cash 20. 34 Local Agency Investment Fund, State of California 310, 000 . 00 Time Deposit, Mid-State Bank 13. 9% int. , matures 4/25/80 100, 000. 00 TOTAL $421, 858 . 64 DEPOSIT LISTING January 23, 1980 through February 20, 1980 Date Source Amount 2/7 State - Transfer from LAIF $ 5, 000. 00 2/11 County Revenues (2/80) 25,120. 18 2/15 State - Motor Vehicle "in lieu" (1/80) 26 , 505. 08 2/20 State - Cigarette Tax (1/80) 4 ,669 .45 2/20 State - Gas Tax (1/80) 13, 332. 78 TOTAL $74 , 627 . 49 � F EXPENDITURE LIST January 23 , 1980 through February 20, 1980 Payroll: 1/30 Checks 1232, 1233, 1234, 1235, 1236, 1237, 1238 $ 3, 857. 62 2/13 Checks 1271, 1272 , 1273 , 1274 , 1275, 1276, 1277 $ 4, 000. 88 $ 7, 858. 50 Payables: Dated Check No. Vendor Amount 1/30 1239 IRS FWH 1/12-1/25 $ 844 . 70 1/30 1240 EDD SIT 12/29-1/25 278. 50 1/30 1241 M. Warden- Car allowance 1/80 150. 00 1/30 1242 Arrowhead 1/80 18. 07 1/30 1243 Daily Press - ads 43. 20 1/30 1244 M. Warden — Travel, LOCC 173. 72 1/30 1245 L. Stevens - Mileage 46. 05 1/30 1246 O. Smith — Bldg. Seminar 23. 63 1/30 1247 Void --- 1/30 1248 Schenberger, Taylor - Appraisal 500. 00 1/30 1249 Nicholson & Co. - Appraisal 300. 00 1/30 1250 Atascadero News - ads 30. 66 1/30 1251 Western Office Supply - supplies 393. 37 2/7 1252 Paper Works copy 1/3-1/31 448. 71 2/7 1253 Atascadero News - ads 33. 60 2/7 1254 San Luis Blueprint 21. 37 2/7 1255 PG&E, Svc to 1/31 1, 694 . 33 2/7 1256 U S Post Office - postage 30 . 00 2/7 1257 Conf. Litigation 29 .45 2/7 1258 K&F Leasing - dictaphone 105. 80 2/7 1259 Office of Procurement - pubs 101. 05 2/7 1260 Physical, McHale 50. 00 2/7 1261 Atascadero News - ads 34. 85 2/7 1262 A. Grimes - Svc 1/1-1/31 2,423. 96 2/7 1263 Dues, Calif. Police Chiefs Assn. 25. 00 2/7 1264 Pacific Tel - Svc thru 1/20/80 283. 99 2/7 1265 Western Office Supply - Bid 80-1 1, 483. 27 2/7 1266 Western Office Supply - supplies 328. 40 2/7 1267 City Treasurer - Petty Cash 41. 51 2/8 1268 LOCO, Berkeley 288. 00 2/8 1269 Holiday Inn - Adv. Res. 180. 00 2/13 1270 Void --- 2/13 1278 IRS - FWH 1/26-2/8 917. 50 2/13 1279 Local Agency Investment Fund 15, 000. 00 2/15 1280 Void --- 2/15 1281 Local Agency Investment Fund 25, 000. 00 2/20 1282 Local Agency Investment Fund 15, 000. 00 $66, 322. 69 TOTAL $74,181. 19 February 1, 1980 CALTRANS Department of Transportation P O. Box L San Luis Obispo, California 93406 Gentlemen: It is my understanding that Caltrans at one time proposed extending Highway 41 from the El Camino intersection to the East, connecting across the Salinas River with the established portion of Highway 41. It is also my under- standing that, at the present time, funds are not available for this project, although it still remains on Caltrans' list for possible future funding. If these understandings are correct, I would Rp?reciate your reply as to the priority status of the straightening or extension of Highway 41 eastward through Atascadero and your evaluation as to the likelihood of the project being funded in the future. For your general information, opinions have been expressed recommending opposition to the project and having it deleted from any project list. There are other opinions which have expressed support of the extension. I would appreciate your reply at your earliest convepience so that I can report back to the City Council as to the project status. Thank you very much for your cooperation. Sincerely, `. '" -I Pe � RRA WARDEN City anager MLW:ad I cLo -qv STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN JR.,Gov*rnor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P.O. BOX SAN LUIS 393406 RECEIVE FEB 7 i98A TELEPHONE: (805) 5493111111 February 6 , 1980 05 - SLO-41 City of Atascadero Mr. Murray L. Warden Atascadero City Manager P. 0. Box 747 Atascadero, CA 93422 Dear Mr . Warden: Your understanding concerning the status of Route 41 appears to be essentially correct. At the present time there are no funds available for extending Highway 41 from the El Camino intersection easterly to connect with the established portion of Route 41, and it does not appear in our short term five-year State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP) . The priority of this project on a statewide basis is very low. We do not believe that it will be funded in the foreseeable future. The problems of financing projects of this nature are being accentuated by the largely reduced buying power of a relatively fixed income. The once-proposed route extension currently appears in the Area Planning Council 's Regional Transportation Plan and in the County General Plan. If you wish to have this proposal eliminated it would be necessary for you to have it formally removed from the RTP and the General Plan, as well as furnishing an expression of your City Council' s position. If all agencies involved approve the removal , we will recommend that it be unadopted by the California Transportation Commission. Sincerely, E. F. GREGORY ` District Director of Transportation ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION OF SAN LUIS OBISPO CO.INC. February 20, 1980 Mayor Bob Wilkins City of Atascadero Post Office Box 747 Atascadero, California 93422 Dear Mayor Wilkins: As Atascadero is a new City, the EOC would like the opportunity to work with the City in projects of mutual benefit. We feel we can best accomplish this goal by offering the City of Atascadero a seat on our governing Board of Directors. What would be needed is that you, or a member of the City Council assume a seat on the EOC Board. Board membership entails two meetings per month: the regular Board Meeting (3rd Thursday)/and as a member of one of the regular standing committees. °"f rk-n- �,,,) ,� Q om, 't Perhaps the best way to deal with this would be allowing me a time slot on the City Council Agenda for February 25th. I could introduce myself and acquaint you with our Agency, and discuss how we feel the City of Atascadero can benefit from our experience and programs. I will have my secretary follow up regarding a meeting time. Sincerely, EC N IC OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION OF SAN UIS OBISPO COUNTY, INC. 1 Steven E. Otto Executive Director SEO/cs 1508 MARSH ST. SAN LUIS OBISPO, tl^ 93401 544-4355 -M-E MTO R_A^N_DTU M— TO: City Council FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: Review of Architect' s remodeling plans Mr. Stephenson will present to you a preliminary evaluation of modifictions to the Administration Building. These have been worked over with several conferences between Mr. Stephenson and Staff and appear to provide the requisite working space. If you concur, then it would be appropriate for you to express that concurrence through a motion and we will then proceed with the next step. The proposed plans are attached herewith for your review. gRRAY L. WARDEN LW:ad 2-21-80 • • b 4 M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council DATE: February 25, 1980 FROM: Planning Consultant/Director SUBJECT: CONDOMINIUM AND CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION STUDY At their meeting of February 11, the City Council continued the public hearing on the condominium/condominium conversion study to allow the Planning Commission to complete its studies. As of this date, the draft ordinance has not yet been completed. Even if the draft had been completed, it still necessary to seek City Attorney review before submitting the ordinance to the Planning Commission. Since the ordinance is incomplete, it is appropriate at this time to consider alternative actions relative to the moratorium. The current moratorium will expire on March 14 unless action is taken to extend it at the City Council meeting of March 10. After considering several alternatives, it is the recommendation of the Planning Commission to: 1. Extend the moratorium for eight months with the intent of terminating sooner when an ordinance is adopted and consider setting forth standards or other provisions that would allow some processing during the moratorium (i.e. , time extension requests, final maps, etc. ) . As part of this, it is desirable to include new construction projects in the moratorium. 2. Table the current public hearing directing Staff to publish for new hearings when the draft ordinance is complete. 3. Direct Staff to bring a draft ordinance back within 60 days, but sooner if possible. In any event, Council should direct Staff to set a public hearing for March 10 to consider the condominium/condominium conversion moratorium. LAWRENCE EVENS Planning onsultant/Director Z �� XV M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Manager FROM: Finance Director SUBJECT: Ordinance authorizing a contract with Public Employees ' Retirement System, first reading Adoption of the attached ordinance and contract is the final action required by Council for. the City to enter into a contract with the Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) . Upon final adoption of the ordinance on March 10th, the contract and paper work will be forwarded to PERS for their approval. It is anticipated that the contract will go into effect commencing with the pay period of April 19, 1980, providing the ordinance is effective on April 10, 1980. Recommend first reading of this ordinance. jvdi> RALPH H. DOWELL, JR. RHD:ad 2-20-80 a/L.i/ 8v • i ORDINANCE NO. 16 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL _ of the Name of Governing Body authorizing a Name of Public Agency CONTRACT BETWEEN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO Governing Body AND THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM. The COUNCIL of the CITY OF ATASCADERO Name of Governing Body Name of Public Agency does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. That a Contract between the COUNCIL Name of Governing Body of the CITY OF ATASCADERO and the Board of Administration, Name of Public Agency California Public Employees' Retirement System is hereby authorized, a copy of said Contract being attached hereto, marked "Exhibit A", and by such reference made a part hereof as though herein set out in full. SECTION 2. The MAYOR of the (Title o Presiding Officer �OUNCIL is hereby authorized, empowered, and Name of Governing Body directed to execute said Contract for and on behalf of said ".gency. SECTION 3. This Ordinance shall take effect 30 days after the date of its adoption, and prior to the expiration of 15 days from the passage thereof . shall be published at least once in the ATASCADERO NEWS Name of Newspaper a.newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the CITY OF Name of ATASCADERO and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall Public Agency be in full force and effect. Adopted and approved this day of Attest: Presiding Officer Approved as t form: Clerk ALLEN GRIMES, City Attorney PERS-CON-11 (Contract) (3/78) Cr`!TRACT BE-71EEN THE BOARD OF AD14INISTRATION - PUBLIC ENPLOYE.FS' RETIREMENT SYSTE14 AND THE i CITY COUNCIL OF THE - CITY OF ATASCADFRO In consideration of the covenants and agreement hereafter' contained and oil' the part of both parties to be kept and performed, the governing body of above public agency, hereafter referred to as "Public Agency" , and the Board of Administration, Public Employees' Retirement System, hereafter referred to as "Board" , hereby agree as follows: 1. All words and terms used herein which are defined in the Public Employees' Retirement Law shall have the meaning as defined therein unless otherwise specifically provided. "Normal retirement age" shall mean age 60 for local miscellaneous and age 55 for local safety members. 2. Public Agency shall participate in the Public Employees' Retirement System from and after A p, : 9 , i making its employees as hereinafter provided, members of said System subject to all provisions of the Public Employees' Retirement Law except such as apply only on election of a contracting agency and are not provided for herein and to all amendments to said Law hereafter enacted except such as by express provisions thereof apply only on the election of contracting agencies. 3. Employees of Public Agency in the following classes shall become members of said Retirement System except such in each such class as are excluded by law or this agreement: a. Local Policemen (herein referred to as local safety members); b. Employees other than local safety members (herein referred to as ' local miscellaneous members) . In addition to the classes of employees excluded from membership by said Retirement Law, the following classes of employees shall not become members of said Retirement System NO ADDITIONAL EXCLUSIONS 4. The fraction of final compensation to be provided for each year of credited prior and current service as a local miscellaneous member shall be determined in accordance with Section 21251.13 of said Retirement Law (21 at age 30) . 5. The fraction of final e^rnf:;rZZ tion to �be provided for each year of credited prior and current service as a local safety member shall be determined in accordance with Sect'ioh 21252.6 of said Retirement Law (2% at age 55) . 6. The following additional provisions of the Public Employees' Retire— ment Law which apply only upon election of a contracting agency shall apply to the Public Agency and its employees: a. Section 20952.5 (Age 50 voluntary retirement) for local safety members only. b. Section 20983.6 (Waiver of age 70 retirement) for local miscel— laneous members only. 7. Public Agency, in accordance with Section 20759. 1 Government Code, shall not be considered an "employer" for purposes of Chapter 6 of the Public Employees' Retirement Law. Contributions of the Public Agency shall be fixed and determined as provided in Section 20759, Government Code, and such contributions hereafter made shall be held by the Board as provided in Section 20759, Government Code. 8. Public Agency shall contribute to said Retirement System as follows: a. With respect to miscellaneous members, the agency shall con— tribute the following percentages of monthly salaries earned as miscellaneous members of said Retirement System: (1 ) 0.364 percent until June 30, 1999 on account of the liability for prior service. benefits. (2) 12.405 percent on account of the liability for current service benefits. b. With respect to local safety members, the agency shall contribute the following percentages of monthly salaries earned as local safety members of said Retirement System: (1 ) 14.575 percent on account of the liability for current service benefits. C. A reasonable amount per annum, as fixed by the Board to cover the costs of administering said System as it affects the employees of Public Agency, not including the costs of special valuations or of the periodic investi3ation and valuations required by law. d. A reasonable amount as fixed by the Board, payable 'in one install— ment as the occasions arise, to cover the costs of special valua— tions on account of employees of Public Agency, and costs of the periodic investigation and valuations required by law. 9. Contributions required of Public Agency and its employees shall be subject to adjustment by Board on account of amendments to the Public Employees' Retirement Law, and on account of the experience under the Retirement System as determined by the periodic investigation and valuation required by said Retirement Law. 10. Contributions required of Public Agency and its employees shall be paid by Public Agency to the Retirement System within thirty days after , the_end of the period to which said contributions refer or as may be prescribed by Board regulation. If more or less than the correct amount of contributions is paid for any period, proper adjustment shall be made in connection with subsequent remittances, or adjustments on account of errors in contributions required of any employee may be made by direct cash payments between the employee and the Board. Payments by Public Agency to Board may be made in the form of warrants, bank checks, bank drafts, certified checks, money orders or cash. Witness our hands the day of 19_,,_. BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF III CITY OF ATASCADERO BY BY Carl J. Blechinger, Executive Officer Presiding Officer Approved as to form: Attest:' � I, Othia'44G, ges6m6r, Legal Office, Date Clerk PERS CON-702 APPROVED AS TO FORM GTYATfTo`RNEY` STATEMENT OF ELAINE OGLESBY AND ROBERT LILLEY AS TO THE MINORITY POSITION TAKEN ON THE VOTE PERTAINING TO THE TWO AND ONE-HALF ACRE VERSUS ONE AND ONE-HALF ACRE MINIMUM OUTSIDE OF THE URBAN SERVICES LINE. Our belief is that there should not be a freeze outside of the Urban Services Line of two and one-half (2 1/2) acres, but rather that development down to one and one-half acres (1 1/2) is preferable. This parcel size would apply to the area designated as single family, low density area on the Plan Map, and is predicated on the following: 1. To freeze parcels at two and one-half (2 1/2) acres at this point beyond the Urban Services Line is a substantial departure in philosophy from the original philosophy adopted by the Advisory Com- Mittee in preparing the General Plan in that it would force develop- ment of the core of the city by confining development to that area in parcels smaller than two and one-half (2 1/2) acres. The time of the original discussions leading to the adoption of the General Plan and the forming of the plan, there was a major dispute between the County planning staff and members of the Advisory Committee as to which philosophy would prevail. It was the feeling of the Advisory Committee that Atascadero is unique in that it characteristically has developed by way of gradated density with a higher denisty being toward the center of the core and then gradually lowering the density as .you proceed out from the city core. It would appear that in light of the one and one-half (1 1/2) acre minimum, a substantial hardship is not going to be pressed upon city services, schools or fire departments, and there is no demon- strable evidence to that fact as of this date. 2. The ability of property owners to have a small parcel of land such as an acre and a half throughout the Atascadero city area is what contributes to the unique rural lifestyle of our community. To arbitrarily limit that to within the Urban Services Line would, in fact, destroy rather than enhance our rural character. 3. To arbitrarily limit further division from two and one-half (2 1/2) to one and one-half (l 1/2) acres and freeze it at two and one-half (2 1/2) acres would add fuel to the argument that we are becoming a rich man' s community and would tend to substantially disenfranchise a large portion of people from the ability to own property of sufficient size at a reasonable price on which to main- tain animals and to enjoy a rural lifestyle. 4. Of the approximate 1200 lots which would be affected out- side of the Urban Services Line, all of those lots which are subject to division have been, apparently, divided to one and one-half (1 1/2) acre or less with the exception of approximately 41 lots. On balance, whatever possible gain might be obtained by preventing the division of those 41 lots from the standpoint of an overload on community ser- vices, would appear to be substantially outweighed by the discrimina- tory effect on the property owners of those 41 lots. The resultant impact, assuming that the remaining 41 lots are split, upon commun- ity services, would certainly not be of a substantial character. Assuming the 41 lots were divided down to an acre and a half, the resultant population increase would be far more in the vicinity of 300 rather than 3, 00.0, and we feel thatthisfact was clearly missed at the time of our review of this matter at the time of the Commission hearing. Respectfully submitted, ELAINE OGLESBY and ROBERT LILLEY t ` '"""'"'Report and Recommeretions on Revisions to Atascadero General Plan Page Six 4. Request by Jack McCown for High Density Single Family Residential or similar for his property located on the westerly side of Pino Solo. The present zoning is R-A and the recommended General Plan designation is Moderate Density Single Family. The Moderate Density Single Family designation provides for a one acre minimum within the Urban Services Area. The proponent feels that the General Plan map change would be appropriate since the High Density Single Family Residential designation permits half-acre lots thereby allowing his lot of approximately one acre to be split. The proponent points out that there are numerous lots of approximately one-half acre size in the immediate neighborhood. It should be pointed out that a number of lots on Pino Solo have been divided, but there are also a number that have not In any situation where densities or lot sizes are modified, this type of problem is likely to occur. In the event that the High Density Single Family Residential designation is deemed appropriate, consideration should be given to placing this designation on an area larger than the applicant' s property. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the subject request not be favorably considered. It was the consensus of the Commission that the primary reasons for the recommendation are: -- The existing designation may still allow some split of the proponent' s property. -- The General Plan does call for lower densities if not in the core area. -- Half-acre lot splits would not be desirable. 5. County-owned lots on Lakeview surrounding Atascadero Lake The City Council has suggested that wording be added to the Open Space section identifying these properties as desirable for future purchase if and when available. Based upon previous direction by the City Council, the City Manager had contacted the County to obtain additional information on these lots. While it would appear that the County has not declared the property surplus at this time, there is still some potential for that to happen in the future. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends the subject proposal be favorably considered. It is recommended that the following revision be approved on page 64 , 3rd paragraph, of the section entitled, "Areas of Open Space that should be considered for acquisition by a public agency and/or preserved for recreation" : "County-owned lots fronting on Lakeview adjacent to Atas- cadero Lake" Report and RecommenOtion on Revisions to Atascadero General Plan Page Seven It was the consensus of the Commission that the primary reasons for this recommendation are: -- The desirability of preserving open space adjacent to existing major open space areas. -- The opportunity to enhance existing open space areas and similar proposals identified throughout the General Plan. SA`INAS P POSED 6E/%4FRAL ALM L v E a a F rt s ltE c�vE s T L p5 , I o S Ity' rA ~�/�a :� ,, �1�� PRo PoSF.P GEN ER�r1• Plo►rl SOM�3RlGL/� �LEQ�IES% E �Stinf6 2on11n1Es N � M• � F ,�� - PRo P o SED GENERAL PIAN rA �rl Am 11.1 M Cows/ REqvb�ST 4F Exl5?/nl G 24W IM G A-1 O M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council DATE: February 21, 1980 FROM: Planning Consultant/Director SUBJECT: U791130: 2 - ATASCADERO GOSPEL CHAPEL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO AMEND PREVIOUS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT U770720: 1 TO ALLOW CONTINUED USE OF CHURCH SCHOOL IN THE R-A ZONE The Planning Commission recommends approval of U791130: 2 allowing North County Christian School adc?itional time to occupy the subject property while seeking a site of their own, subject to the following conditions: 1. The North County Christian School shall vacate the premises no later than August 31, 1981. No further time extensions for operation of the school shall be granted. 2. All conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit U770720: 1 other than No. 1 shall remain in effect. 3. The applicants shall meet with City Staff to consider alternatives to relieve traffic problems along Curbaril. The Planning Commission concurs with Findings set forth in the County Planning Department report but modified the time granted to coincide with the start of the school year. LAWRENCE STsENS Planning Co ultant/Director kp / PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: February 19 , 1980 FROM: Development Review Section SUBJECT: U791130 : 2 - ATASCADERO GOSPEL CHAPEL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO AMEND PREVIOUS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT U770720 : 1 TO ALLOW CONTINUED USE OF THE CHURCH SCHOOL IN THE R-A ZONE, ATASCADERO (Accepted November 30, 1979) SPECIFIC REQUEST AND PROJECT BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to amend a previous Conditional Use Permit (U770720: 1) to allow the North Coast Christian Elementary School to remain for an additional two years at their present location on the Atascadero Gospel Chapel property at 8205 Curbaril Avenue. The previous Conditional Use Permit allowed the construction of a 6, 160 square foot addition to an existing church and Sunday School classroom facility. Condition No. l of that approval required the North County Christian School to vacate the premises within two years--by November 14 , 1979 . The intent was to allow the school to use the facilities on the weekdays on an interim basis until a permanent location could be found. Problems have been encountered in finding a new location for the school and the applicants have requested this amendment to the previous Conditional Use Permit to allow operations to be continued once more until a new school site is secured. Detailed information regarding zoning, site and area considerations is presented in the attached Staff Report dated October 27 , 1977, and will not be repeated in this Staff Report. STAFF COMMENTS Use of the Atascadero Gospel Chapel site for an elementary school was questioned at the time the previous Conditional Use Permit was considered. This concern was based on the lack of any outdoor acti- vity areas and the relatively small size of the site. However, because the school was looking for an alternate site, it was allowed to remain for two years on an interim basis only. The concerns expressed in the Staff Report for the previous Conditional Use Permit are still applicable today. While the gymnasium facilties are com- pleted and in use by the school, outdoor recreational facilities and other amenities are still limited. The existing church facility alone continues to be out of scale with the characteristics of the site and the surrounding neighborhood and the presence of the elementary school further aggravates this situation. The applicants have made concerted attempts to find a new location for the school, and have indicated that they will continue to do so. Because of this commitment, one more interim period for continued operation of the school would not seem unreasonable. However, it should be made clear that the school should not remain at this location any longer than two more years. No further extensions of the school ' s operation should be allowed beyond the present request. U791130: 2 - Atascatko Gospel Chapel Page Two RECOMMENDATION It is the Staff recommendation that this application be approved subject to the following: Findings: A. With a time limitation of two years, extension of the elementary school use would not be incompatible with the surrounding uses in the area on an interim basis only. B. The proposed project is consistent with the mandatory findings set forth in Section 22 . 92 . 080 (1) of the County Zoning Ordinance. C. As an interim use, the proposed project is not inconsistent with the Moderate Density Single Family designation of the 1978 Atascadero General Plan. Conditions: 1. The North County Christian School shall vacate -the premises within two years of the date of this approval. No further time extensions for operation of the school shall be granted. 2. All conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit U770720: 1 other than No. 1 shall remain in effect. Report prepared by Rory Anne Walsh and approved by Warren Hoag, Supervisor Development Review Section IN THE BOARD' OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO,STATE OF CALIFORNIA ;ton November 1477 - da5 -----------------------,19----- ' PRESENT: Supervisors Hans Heilmann, M. E. tdilleford, Kurt P. Kunoer Richard J. Krejsa, and Chairman Howard D. Hankins ABSENT: None Resolution No. 77-740 RESOLUTION RELATIVE TO THE GRANTING OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WHEREAS, The County Planning Commission of the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, did, on the 27th day of October 1977, consider the application of Atascadero Gospel Church for a Conditional Use Permit (U770720:1) to allow the addition of school facilities located at the northeast corner of Curbaril and Atascadero Avenues, being a portion of Lot 1 and Lots 2 and 3, Block PB, Atascadero Colony, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California. • WHEREAS, The Planning Commission, after considering the facts relating to said application, did .find• that the establish- y ment, maintenance, and/or conducting of the use for which the Conditional Use Permit is sought will not under the circumstances and conditions applied in this particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such use and will not, under the circum- stances and conditions applied in this particular case, be detri- mental to the public welfare, injurious. to property or improvements in said neighborhood, nor shall be inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood or contrary to its orderly development nor shall conditions created by the use be inordinate to the normal traffic volume, and therefore did recommend that this Board grant said Use Permit subject to- the conditions as hereinafter set forth. WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has, in recommending this Conditional Use Permit, made the following findings: A. With the reductions in scale required by the recommended conditions of approval, the proposed expansion will be con- sistent with the character of the neighboAt}tt 'El V E D B. The revised project will be consistent with the intent of the R-A Zone and the Atascadero General P fti 81977 S.L.O. COUNTY PLANNING DEPT. PA-M c NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, in a Regular Meeting assembled on the 14 day of November 197' does hereby grant the aforesaid Use Permit, incorporating the findings of the Planning Commission and subject to the following conditions: See Attached Exhibit "A". If the use authorized by any Conditional Use Permit or modification has not been established or if substantial work on the property towards the establishment of the use is not in progress after a period of twelve (12) months from the date of such authorization or such other time period as may be designated in the Conditional Use Pemit or the conditions have not been met, said Conditional Use Permit or modifications shall become null and void and of no effect. The Planning Commissioh may extend the Conditional Use Permit for additional periods of six (6) months if for reasons beyond the. control of the applicant the use had not been established. A written request to extend the date and sufficient evidence showing .. the applicant's inability to comply must be filed with the Planning Department ten (10) days prior to the expiration date of the Conditional Use Permit. If the use authorized by any Conditional Use Permit or modification, once established, is or has been unused, abandoned, discontinued, or has ceased for a period of six months (6) or conditions have not been complied with, said Conditional Use Permit or modification shall become null and void and have no effect. Regularly passed and adopted by the Board of Super- visors of the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, on the 14 _ day of November 1977, in a regular meeting of.said Board by the following roll call vote, to- wit: AYES: Sur>ervisors Willeford, Heilmann, Kupper, Krejsa, Chairman Hankins NOES: None ABSENT: None /s/ Howard D. Mankins Chairman of the Board of Supervisors ATTEST: - a... /s/ Misbeth Wollam Clerk of the Board of Supervisors (SEAL) nc 1.' I r ------------ _ i Exhibit A-Conditions of Approval-ATASCADERO GOSPEL CHAPEL 1. The North County Christian School shall vacate the premises within 2 years of the date of this approval. 2. Submit a revised site plan for Planning Department review and approval prior to application for a build- ing permit, said plan to indicate reductions in pro- posed building and paving areas to maximize on-site open space; and redesign of proposed parking spaces to meet Zoning Ordinance standards. 3. Submit revised architectural elevations for Planning Department review and approval prior to application for a building permit, said elevations to indicate a single-story addition to the existing church. 4. Submit detailed landscaping plans for Planning Depart- ment review and approval prior to issuance of a build- ing permit, said plans to include location, species, size, method of maintenance of all proposed plant materials, and location of any pedestrian walks, outdoor furniture, lighting, or trash disposal areas. All proposed plant materials shall be sized to provide a mature appearance within three years of installation. 5. All approved landscaping shall be installed or bonded for prior to final building inspection and thereafter maintained in a viable condition on a continuing basis. If bonded for, landscaping shall be installed within 60 days of final building inspection. .. 6 Submit site. grading and drainage plans for review and approval by the County Engineering Department prior to issuance of a building or grading permit. If so required by the County Engineering Department, said plans to be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and, if required, shall include provisions for on-site retention of storm water run-off. 7. Provide a minimum of 75 off-street parking spaces. Vehicle parking and access areas shall be paved with a minimum of two inches of A.C. over rock base; individual parking spaces shall be paint-striped or otherwise indicated, and provided with concrete wheel stops or approved functional equivalent. 8. Submit plans to the Atascadero Fire Department for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. 9. All trash disposal areas shall be screened from view with a solid wall or solid fencing. Submit drawings of screening structures prior to issuance of a building permit. 10. Any roof-mounted air donditioning units shall be architecturally screened from view. If such units are proposed, submit revised architectural elevations indicating method of screening for Planning Department review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT TO: PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 10/27/77 FROM: PAUL CRAWFORD SUBJECT: U770720: 1 - ATASCADERO GOSPEL CHAPEL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING CHURCH AND PRIVATE SCHOOL FACILITIES IN AN R-A ZONE, ATASCADERO SPECIFIC REQUEST AND PROJECT BACKGROUND The applicants propose to construct a 6, 160 square foot addition to an existing church and Sunday-school classroom facility, and are also requesting approval for the use of existing church and school facilities by the North County Christian School . The proposed constructiori would include a two-story concrete block and stucco structure with a composition roof , which would contain classrooms, restrooms , kitchen and a large central room indicated as a gymnasium. The church officials have indicated that the new facilities are to be used for Sunday-school only. Other construction proposed on the site would be considerable additional off- street parking, totalling 109 spaces . The new facilities would result in approximately 87% site coverage by structures and paving. The request for approval of weekday use of the Gospel Chapel School facilities by the North County Christian School was filed after the use had been established. The private elementary school has 101 students and utilizes four of the existing Sunday-school classrooms on weekdays . Use of Gospel Chapel facilities by the Christian School is proposed to last a maximum of two years, while the school acquires property and constructs a permanent facility of its own . The subject site was previously reviewed by the Planning Commission on May 26, 1977, when it was recommended to the Board of Supervisors that the site be rezoned from R-1-B-2-D to R-A, to eliminate the previous non-conforming use status of the church, and enable the processing of a Conditional Use Permit for the expansion of the existing facilities . The rezoning was approved by the Board of Supervisors on July 5, 1977. ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN INFORMATION The site is zoned R-A, the Suburban District , which allows churches and schools subject to Conditional Use Permit approval. The existing church was constructed prior to present zoning requirements and has received no previous Use Permit approval . The Zoning Ordinance requires that CD-1065 U770720: 1 - ATASCADERO GOSPEL CHAPEL Page 2 October 27, 1977 parking be provided churches at a ratio of one space for every four auditorium seats . The adopted Atascadero General Plan indicates the site as single family - high density, with J to J acre per dwelling unit . SITE CONDITIONS The site is a 2. 3 acre L-shaped ownership located on the northeast corner of Atascadero Road and Curbaril Avenue. The site is developed with a U-shaped, single-story church and classroom building (the church auditorium seats 250) gravelled off-street parking and a playground (which is proposed to be removed to accommodate additional parking) . The site is presently served by two access points on Curbaril and one on Atascadero Avenue. AREA CONSIDERATIONS The neighborhood surrounding the subject site is a predominantly single-family residential area. Land uses immediately adjacent to the site include single family homes to the north, east and northwest, and vacant parcels to the south and west . Though Curbaril Avenue is designated a collector, it is of lesser width than Atascadero Avenue, and has less adequate sight distance. STAFF COMMENTS The proposed Gospel Chapel expansion would appear to be both out of scale with the surrounding neighborhood and excessive in terms of the size and character of the site. 87% coverage of a property zoned suburban residential would appear to be inconsistent with both the intent of the R-A Zone and the General Plan designation of single family residential . The proposed building addition is massive, architecturally undistinguished and overly institutional in appearance. The Staff would also question the appropriateness of gymnasium facilities if the proposed expansion is to be utilized for Sunday-school only . Regarding the use of the site for a weekday elementary school , the lack of any outdoor activity areas and relatively small size of the site (an elementary school of 100 students should have a minimum of three acres entirely committed to school use) suggest that it is an inappropriate location for that use . The size of the subject site and open, suburban character of the surrounding neighborhood suggest that any expansion of buildings and parking on the site should be considerably smaller than that proposed. The Zoning Ordinance requires that the existing church have 62 parking spaces based upon -2- U770720: 1 - ATASCADERO GOSPEL CHAPEL Page 3 October 27, 1977 the capacity of the church auditorium (which is not proposed to be increased) and sets no requirements for Sunday-school facilities. The size of the existing church and proposed use of the expansion suggest that 75 parking spaces would be sufficient . That reduction in the number of proposed spaces would enable retention of additional open space on the site. RECOMMENDATION It is the preliminary Staff recommendation that this appli- cation be approved subject to the following: Findings: a. With the reductions in scale required by the recommended conditions of approval, the proposed expansion will be consistent with the chara, ter of the neighborhood. / b. The revised project will be consistent with the intent of the R-A Zone and the Atascadero General Plan. Conditions of Approval : 1 . The North County Christian School shall vacate the premises within 90 days of the date of this approval'. 2. Submit a revised site plan for Planning Department review and approval prior to application for a building permit , said plan to indicate reductions in proposed building and paving areas to maximize on-site open space; and redesign of proposed parking spaces to meet Zoning Ordinance standards . 3. Submit revised architectural elevations for Planning Department review and approval prior to application for a building permit , said elevations to indicate a single-story addition to the existing church. 4. Submit detailed landscaping plans for Planning Department review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit , said plans to include location , species, size, method of maintenance of all proposed plant materials , and location of any pedestrian walks, outdoor furniture, lighting, or trash disposal areas. All proposed plant materials shall be sized to provide a mature appearance within three years of installation . -3- U770720: 1 - ATASCADERO GOSPEL CHAPEL Page 4 October 27, 1977 5. All approved landscaping shall be installed or bonded for prior to final building inspection and thereafter maintained in a viable condition on a continuing basis. If bonded for, landscaping shall be installed within 60 days of final building inspection. 6. Submit site grading and drainage plans for review and approval by the County Engineering Department prior to issuance of a building or grading permit . If so required by the County Engineering Department , said plans to be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and, if required, shall include provisions for on-site retention of storm water run-off . 7. Provide a minimum of 75 off-street parking spaces . Vehicle parking and access areas shall be paved with a minimum of two inches of A.C. over rock base; individual parking spaces shall be paint- striped or otherwise indicated, and provided with concrete wheel stops or approved functional equivalent . 8 . Submit plans to the Atascadero Fire Department for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit . 9. All trash disposal areas shall be screened from view with a solid wall or solid fencing. Submit drawings of screening structures prior to issuance of a building permit . 10. Any roof-mounted air conditioning units shall be architecturally screened from view. If such units are proposed, submit revised architectural elevations indicating method of screening for Planning Department review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit . PCC/nkh -4- ��' i• � ��: � �` � �•�� T ��• � a, � tin tJ.,y4 ,41 •.�, `'%'��(J` tom,-`±�: � -.1~ �� t �`• y � 'h�r''�':.1"' y. 4,41p 4v 4w 4w- o4r- 4w, v4w- 4w 4v �/ t M r•M. r +. .: f MOD. DENSITY SINGLE FAMILYr', :;t, • •� ♦• �1 II SPECIAL COMMERCIAL —s rir g :. . . SITE77r t`�''ifs � ��h � •��• _�.' .,J :t _j / _ ; r. yPROFESSIONAL OFFICES i ` .� a•, f V •1'-.: �!- HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY is � •.'• •``•• l��- r� \ _ 4��v� ��? \a +� .... •• �... :,: .��:�':• �:.�� a ,,.;-` �-., ase `1441NAdl � J✓. �`` ` t .�; :�\ �. FQO \yap •� .�( \.. GENERAL P Adak / �-�� z `' I� � '� • gyp/". 1,2�`i � � . i �_ ?..tet r• /•':• N1, LL Zo X. Water 0" . •�`r`••¢4 -960 •.''.I,�� `r_y,4 _Tank _ .� - _� - -84� ArmoZ. i , ice •i, ' .; ✓e y�•4;/• ' 4L /, X200 — 846 ``• /rte\'3 ;� r/, f� '\ F ? - ®10 �`J.•• <�� Golf i�o�� ,"�'Njr"Henry J j q `10 ;:� ��. �' C o u f s� I LA 4 +��--�' -85'1•.x, \ j�,� • •yi n•'-Ii7'♦• /••', -• t/��•_.-__ ,� //..-/ \ •�i.l•� �'� `• / Hig= Schfir ` i9 ' •�. ` ; "` :.-Sf �'r o ��. .c ��f•ys� lic' �C �/ '9� rp q TE�'xg' �\�-rte [_^i.`� •• r _ �'1 082J — �•. — i -� �` _� - L,� � � ;Spy• �-'•� 'S/ .V �-1--1v-� _ _ i • 't-a � 4 �•��1. •, . i •,`_".'�'�o� Ix7. 'i / ��.�. !!L•, `•- k 1:.� it n 120 I-• r •-, / '\ �`PC?R 7�CLq� �7/7�•�/� � �✓ • � • ! �F�� ►-- �� _ • \ r �x?� may. �..y 00 ' C ,� �' CCI� Lu Ii P, .��OCO i y�,, '� ;;'�. ♦ -; i Sant' o6a .�• �'• w '��•E: '- .� • r -r'. �;' ` VICINITY M A.P, Adilk lb _ •a --��~�. �(— {3• � �•�'�G-r'''' t`I''� 't��' .::1 err _4 ,^ lk .N ..... . j .f- •� { G-Q V - • r f.• - b- -Gt.JF- j,� � . ,=; � -�, p�2• • �• —'� „-- s, 3.! - �' _ `Q-�I A 30 9- — s7 t f��b 20 0.1 ld ,rbc "�' ��t;'"n { 6:7y „�:• ,- t• A:y � � ��r., Rs•. ` :/ �.�� - \� •. �_ � t..ti•?-F '�.' (�("" y r•�Wil•' �.r`_y � �IJor 7. -'.. f'. Y. ♦ 1. -t-'' Wo p-222 Rl t,i• � +'`� rY� � 1 ,� � r• � r p-200 - ' � :l ar,�1 ...t .j Se' t �� h .l f � 'r tilo• ,� Y i17tiff _ ��c7 t-, e3. 1 p /"�-^'� rte-,- ;`_� - , - >... -'�Q lY` •"10 8 ••� p� �_ 'f•.P X20 ��. � 9 -�.<__. 1_2' -. ,:77Tr .t- =.k:} 509 . - 25 JJ��" - �f Qlcf7 3., t. •, ...' cP ZONING Aw ---- ----- -- e W 1 _ ul 1 Q I I, I j --� _z , SITE PLAN _M E_M_O_R_A N_D_U M_ ��L�/ID 7, TO: City Manager — FROM: Police Consultant SUBJECT: Communications equipment bid - recommendation of award In response to the City' s request .for bids on our communica- tions needs, proposals were received from: 1 . Comm Center Corporation (console only) Van Nuys, Ca 2 . General Electric Company (all equipment except console) Canoga Park, Ca. 3 . Motorola Communications & Electronics (all equipment) Bakersfield, Ca. As you know, Mr. Ray Kubly, Communications Manager, San Luis Obispo County, has been most gracious in having spent countless numbers of hours in the preparation of this project and, to our advantage, has demonstrated a willingness to work very closely with our newly forming City Staff. The specifications for the equipment requested were developed by Mr. Kubly (following Staff input) based upon the day-to-day needs for our use in general government functions including police, fire, public works, city administration and building inspection and with the installation of the equipment, we will have a communica- tions center with a capability of providing an effective means for managing any emergency situation. So that we might receive a greater number of bids in this process, we allowed vendors the opportunity to bid on all or part of the equipment specified. As indicated, two of the companies responding bid. on only parts of the packageinasmuch as their companies are unable to furnish the entire array of equipment. .Mr. Kubly and I screened the bid proposals in great detail (from my perspective as a user of the equipment and from Mr. Kubly' s point of view as a communications technician and expert) and we hereby recommend awarding the bid as follows: 1. Communications Console (dispatch desk with related equipment) ; Companies Bidding Price Comm Center Corp $21,277 . 00 Motorola C & E Co. $23 , 311 .00 Memorandum - Communications equipment bid Page Two Recommend award to: Comm Center Corp. NOTE: Comm Center Corporation developed an excellent bid pre- sentation and left no doubts in our minds about what is to be provided, how it will work and what it will look like. Motorola ' s presentation left us with ques- tions and did not clearly define the operational aspects as we would have hoped. Comm Center Corporation comes well recommended by practitioners and I 'm sure we' ll feel comfortable dealing with them. 2. Base station hardware, mobile radios and portable,. hand- held radios: Companies Bidding Price General Electric Co. $35, 591 . 00 , Motorola C & E Co. $35, 577 . 00 Recommend award to: General Electric Company Motorola' s bid response is unclear in many instances in regard to whether in fact the stated line-item equipment will perform in total to the City' s functional specifications. Questions in this regard have yet to be answered by the motorola sales executive. While I am familiar with Motorola' s quality equipment, I am not comfortable with the bid package prepared by them and I 'm concerned that their package does not provide all aspects as required. Another major consideration in our selection of General Electric equipment is the future maintenance of all of the hard- ware. Our City must consider negotiating a contract for the regular maintenance of each piece of of equipment specified in this bid package. In speaking with Mr. Kubly, a preliminary offer was made to care for all of the equipment as needed, plus a quarterly systems check to insureefficiencyand reliability. Additionally, I 'm told by Mr. Kubly that his shop is equipped such that the General Electric portables can be repaired locally (parts are available on County shelves) without having to send them away for service/repair; such is not the case with Motorola portables which must be sent away. The current hourly fee for required radio service is $20. 00 at San Luis Obispo County shops. In contrast, private communica- tions shops are charging $36 . 00 per hour in the shop and $42. 00 per hour in the field. There is a private firm in Santa Maria which can provide us with an adequate maintenance program, however, there is an added expense incurred by virtue of the extended mileage between the two cities. Memorandum - Communications equipment bid Page Three In addition to the radio equipment as bid, City must also purchase the following ancillary equipment: Item Price 1. Calif. Law Enforcement teletype and National Crime Information Center Terminal (for want & warrant checks; vehicle registration & driver' s license information) $ 3 , 500. 00 *2. Antenna equipment for all radios (includes base station, Pine Mountain tower installation, mobiles & port- ables) Purchase = $ 9, 300. 00 3 . Install/rebuild radio equipment build- ing (10 'x7 ' ) on Pine Mountain (includes temperature-control unit) Estimate = $ 3 , 500. 00 4 . Battery charger and heavy duty truck- type batteries $ 1 ,325. 00 Package as bid by vendors $56, 868 . 00 Related equipment & building $17 , 625. 00 Communications package grand total $74,493 . 00 Recognizing that this is a large cash outlay, City may wish to explore the feasibility of leasing this equipment through a lending institution. R. H. McHALE RHM:ad 2-25-80 *Antenna-related equipment may be purchased soon so that the County shop may begin installation in the very near future. This equip- ment is a standard brand and is used throughout the industry, thus, there is no benefit or need to bid this part of the package. p3 M E M O RAND U M TO: City Council FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: Contract amendment, SLO COG Attached is the Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) for the Council of Governments (COG) which officially makes Atascadero part of the organization. This JPA resulted after considerable discussion between the cities and the County several years ago. The original Area Planning and Coordinating Council agreement was reached in 1968 and was subsequently amended. The actual document has already been considered by several cities in the County and changes agreed to except that the name San Luis Obispo County Area Council of Governments (SLO COG) was not approved by all cities. Originally the approved name was San Luis Obispo Cities and County Area Planning and Coordinating Council. This name was acceptable to the cities because it avoided any connotation of a regional government and clearly indicated the cities desires that the agency was a cooperative, coordinating organization as needed to satisfy certain Federal and State requirements dealing with grant applications and planning matters. Some of the staff members have desired a name which reflected the Council of Government approach as opposed to emphasizing the cooperative planning function. This document recommends that change and refleccs those desires. So far, Paso Robles, Arroyo Grande, and Grover City have taken action to preserve the original name. Perhaps we would like to join with these cities in preserving the cooperative identity. If _.you agree, you should approve JPA b_y adopting the attached resolu- tion. If you agree with the JPA document as drafted, the approval by motion would be appropriate. RAY ADEN MLW:ad 2-21-80 RESOLUTION NO. 2-80 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO APPROVING A JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT, AS AMENDED, FOR THE "CITIES AND COUNTY AREA PLANNING AND COORDINATING COUNCIL" WHEREAS, a Joint Powers Agreement, as amended, has been submitted to the City of Atascadero for approval of the City of Atascadero; and WHEREAS, the proposed Joint Powers Agreement, as amended, is satisfactory to the Council of the City of Atascadero except for the change of name of the Council to the San Luis Obispo County Area Council of Governments; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Atascadero approves the Joint Powers Agreement, as amended, except for the change of the name of the Council from Cities and County Area Planning and Coordinat- ing Council to San Luis Obispo County Area Council of Governments (slo cog) , and authorizes the Mayor to execute it on behalf of the City. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall cause this resolution and his certification to be entered in the Book of Resolutions of the Council of this City. Adopted 1980. Robert J. Wilkins, Jr. , Mayor ATTEST: Murray L. Warden, City Clerk Approved as to dontent: Approved as to form: t Murray L. Warden, City Manager Allen Grimes, City Attorney S10 , SAN LUIS OB1SP0 COUNTY AREA 9 COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS 979 Osos Street Suite RECEIVED ,; N c 2 S go San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 8051549-5710 January 21, 1980 Honorable City Council P. 0. Box 747 Atascadero, CA 93422 Honorable City Council: An amended Joint Powers Agreement is hereby forwarded for your consideration. The amendmentR nre necessary, in part , by the membership of the City of Atascadero . The amendments include appropriate references to the City of Atascadero and voting procedures in Operations, Section V, Article 5, which increases the number of affirmative vot6s from seven to eight if demanded by any agency. In addition, under Section II , Powers , the reference to Area Council is proposed to be changed to "SLO COG" to reflect the name commonly referred to . Your Honorable Council is respectfully requested to take action by resolution or such manner as you deem appropriate to approve the amended Joint Powers Agreement . Please forward a copy of your action to the SLO COG office. Sincerely, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Norma Dengler Director of Administration ND/dkr Enclosure v JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT FOR SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS THIS JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of _ _ _ 19 _, by and among such of the incorpo- rated cities of Arroyo Grande, Atascadero, E1 Paso de Robles, Grover City, Morro Bay, Pismo Beach, and San Luis Obispo, all being municipal corporations of the State of California and located within the boundaries of the County of San Luis Obispo, California, as may execute this Agreement, hereinafter called "CITIES, " and tbo County of San Luis Obispo, a body politic and corporate and a subdivision of the State of California, herein- a 'Le called "COUNTY, " as follows: WHEREAS, Section 6500•, et seq. , of the California Government Code (Title 1, Division 7, Chapter 5, Article 1) provides for agreements between two or more public agencies to jointly exercise any power common to the contracting parties, subject to certain mandatory provisions contained therein; and WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo by virtue of its charter, and the other incorporated cities in the County, parties hereto, by virtue of Sections 65600 through 65604, inclusive, of the California Government Code have the joint and mutual power to create an area planning commission, herein designated 'San Luis Obispo County Area Council of Govenments" ; and WHEREAS, COUNTY and CITIES did, in 1968, jointly execute an agreement establishing such a planning council and now wish to amend and supersede the same; and JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT Page 2 WHEREAS, Section 29532, California Government Code, provides that such a council of governments shall be designated the regional transportation planning agency to act in matters of transit and transportation planning; and . WHEREAS, it is desirable that a single agency be created by and with the consent of CITIES and COUNTY to advise, plan for, and suggest solutions to common problems; assist in the prepara- tion of plans and programs by utilizing planning talents and general plans of the various governmental jurisdictions in the County and of experts in various other fields and to coordinate their efforts; and WHEREAS, creation of such an agency and action by it upon certain plans and programs is necessary to comply with require- ments of federal and state legislation in order to participate in the allocation and disbursement of State and Federal funds which may be desired by COUNTY and CITIES in the implementation of plans and programs which have been adopted and approved by their respective governing bodies; NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed as follows: I . PURPOSE The San Luis Obispo County Area Council of Governments is organized for the permanent establishment of a forum for planning, discussion and study of area-wide problems of mutual interest and concern to COUNTY and to CITIES ; for the development of studies and adoption of regional plans; to serve as a regional agency for certain federal and state programs; and for other actions commensurate with the desires of the member governments. JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT Page 3 II . POWERS The San Luis Obispo County Area Council of Governments, hereinafter called "SLO COG, " is hereby created as a voluntary agency pursuant to applicable provisions of the California Government Code with the power to carry out the purposes herein- above stated and to implement the annual work program approved by COUNTY and CITIES, including the power to contract for goods and services, to provide for employment of necessary personnel, experts and consultants; to accept gifts, loans, grants; and to administer the affairs of the SLO COG hereby created in accord- ance with this Agreement . Pursuant to Section 6508. 1, California Government Code, it is hereby declared by COUNTY and CITIES that the debts, liabilities and obligations of the San Luis Obispo County Area Council of Governments shall not be the debts, liabilities and obligations of any of the parties to this Agreement, except as otherwise provided herein. III . NAME The official name of the Organization hereby created shall be the "San Luis Obispo County Area Council of Governments. " IV. MEMBERSHIP 1 . Membership in the SLO COG shall be voluntary, but only the County of San Luis Obispo and all cities incorporated in the County of San Luis Obispo presently or in the future, are declared eligible for membership in the SLO COG. 2. Representatives of the COUNTY and CITIES shall be appointed to serve on the SLO COG in accordance with procedures JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT Page 4 established by each of the governing bodies of the member agencies . Representatives to the SLO COG shall consist of the five members of the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Luis Obispo from time to time in office and of one additional member from the governing body of each incorporated city within the boundaries of the County of San Luis Obispo which is a party to this Agree- ment , with each incorporated area being limited to one representa- tive. Representatives shall serve so long as they hold office with their member agency or until they shall resign or be removed by a majority vote of their respective governing bodies. Vacancies among representatives shall be filled in the same manner as the first appointment . 3 . Member agencies may elect to have an alternate member in addition to any official member, but said alternate shall be able to vote only in the absence of the official representative . 4 . Designation of the official representative or alternate, or changes thereto, shall be transmitted in writing to the Secretary of the SLO COG by the appointing city or the county. 5. In addition to the incorporated cities presently .a party to this Agreement, any other city which may hereafter be incorpo- rated within the boundaries of the County of San Luis Obispo and which may desire to participate in the activities of the SLO COG may do so by executing this Agreement without prior approval or ratification of the named parties to this Agreement and shall thereafter be governed by all the terms and provisions of this Agreement as of the date of execution. P JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT • Page 5 6. Membership shall be contingent upon the execution of this Joint Powers Agreement and subsequent annual ratification by all agencies party to this agreement. V. OPERATION 1 . The powers of the San Luis Obispo County Area Council of Governments are advisory to the member agencies which execute this Agreement except for those actions mandated by State or Federal law for the processing of applications submitted by any of the member agencies for Federal and State grants or funds which require action by the SLO COG. Nothing herein shall be construed to limit in any manner the power of any of the parties to initiate and complete a local project within their respective jurisdictions with their own funds. It is understood, however, that the recommendations of the SLO COG may have the effect of precluding any favorable action by an agency of the State or Federal government in support of such a project if other than local financing is sought , as determined by the respective State or Federal agency under law, regulations and policies applicable to them. 2. Except as otherwise provided herein, there shall be no costs incurred by SLO COG pursuant hereto, other than expenses of its members, which are to be borne by their respective entities, and the cost of services by the officers and personnel of the respective entities to said council , upon approval of such services by the governing bodies thereof, shall likewise be borne by the respective entities. JOINT POWERS AGREEATENT • Page 6 All costs incurred by SLO COG performing functions as the regional transportation agency for San Luis Obispo County as designated by the State shall be paid out of the transportation fund established pursuant to Section 29530, et seq., Government Code as provided for therein. 3 . Costs of SLO COG for each fiscal year which are necessary for the ordinary operation of the council , including but not limited to office space, furniture, supplies and postage; and excepting those functions performed as the regional transportation agency, shall be borne by COUNTY in an amount approved by the Board of Supervisors in the annual county budget . Extraordinary costs as reccmm,e..ded by the SLO COG shall be borne by contributions from the member entities as approved by their governing bodies. Costs of all activities undertaken by SLO COG as the . regional transportation planning agency shall be set forth in the budget as part of the annual work program of SLO COG and shall be funded from the transportation fund pursuant to applicable state statutes. 4 . The annual work program and budget , when adopted shall be the basis for operation of SLO COG for the fiscal year. Any deviation from the work program not affecting the budget shall be returned to the member agencies for approval. 5. The purposes of conducting business, there shall be present a quorum consisting of a majority of representatives, including two COUNTY representatives . No action shall be effective without- the affirmative votes of a majority of JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT Page 7 representatives. However, eight (8) affirmative votes shall be required for taking any action in the event any agency demands such a vote. The representatives to the council shall adopt such procedures as are consistent with this Agreement and necessary to conduct the business of SLO COG in an orderly manner. VI . OFFICERS 1 . The officers of the council shall consist of a President and Vice-President elected for a term of one year by a majority vote of member agency representatives to the council. 2. Both the President and Vice-President of SLO COG shall be elected at the May meeting (annual meeting) . 3. The cfiicers shall serve until their successors are elected. 4. The duties of the officers shall be as follows : a. President 1) Shall preside over all meetings of the council as Chairman. 2) Shall appoint all standing committees. 3) Shall exercise general supervision over all activities of said council . 4) Shall be an ex-officio member of all committees. 5) Shall execute all contracts and legal documents on behalf of the SLO COG. b. Vice-President 1 . Shall serve as Chairman pro-tempor in the absence of the President . JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT Page 8 2) Shall give whatever aid necessary to the President in administering of the SLO COG. 3) Shall be an ex-officio member of all committees. 5. In the event of a vacancy occurring in the office of either the President or Vice-President upon said officer ' s death, resignation, removal or his ceasing to be an official representative of a member city of the County of San Luis Obispo, such vacancy will be filled by majority vote of the SLO COG, the officer elected to serve for the balance of the unexpired term. VII . STAFF 1 . The SLO COG shall appoint a Secretary to serve at its pleasure, who will perform the following duties and such others as may be assigned by SLO COG. a. Prepare and submit the annual work program and budget to the SLO COG for its approval and to the parties hereto for ratification. b. Shall keep an accurate account and file of all meetings. C. Shall disburse all funds in accordance with the policies of the County Treasurer and the County Auditor/Controller and the budget and work program adopted by the SLO COG. d. Shall have charge of all correspondence. e. Shall keep and maintain the reports of the SLO COG on all committees. f . Shall insure that SLO COG renders a written year end report reflecting activities of the preceding fiscal JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT Page 9 year, said year end report to be distributed to each of the participating member bodies . g. Shall be responsible for directing those employees authorized by the SLO COG in the budget . Employees are to be appointed by the SLO COG on the recommenda- tion of the Secretary and to serve at the pleasure of the SLO COG. 2. The Secretary of the SLO COG shall have charge of , handle and have access to any property of the San Luis Obispo County Area Council of Governments. Said Secretary shall file with the SLO COG his official bond in the amount of ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($1, 000. 00) or such other additional amount as may be determined by the SLO COG. VIII . MEETINGS 1 . Regular meetings of the SLO COG shall be held at least six (6) times a year or at more frequent intervals as approved by the SLO COG. 2 . Special meetings may be called by the President or upon written request of at least three (3) representatives of the SLO COG. Actual notice of special meetings must be given at least three (3) business days in advance. 3 . Meetings shall be open to the public as required by state law. 4. Regular meetings shall be held in the first week of January , March, May, July, September and November . The May meeting shall be designated the "annual meeting. " a JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT Page 10 5. The Secretary of the SLO COG will direct the publica- tion of notices of all meetings pursuant to state law. 6. Only official representatives or alternates shall represent a member of the SLO COG or vote on any motion before the SLO COG. 7. The meeting agenda shall be prepared by the Secretary to the SLO COG. Agenda material shall be submitted to the Secretary at least twenty-one (21) calendar days prior to the next regular meeting and distributed to members at least fourteen (14) calendar days prior to the next regular meeting to allow member agencies to instruct their representatives on voting direction. Unless authorized by majority vote of the representa- tives at a regular meeting, only agenda items shall be considered by the SLO COG. 8 . The SLO COG, at the discretion of the President , may memorialize any of its actions by resolution. 9. Robert ' s Rules of Order or such other rules as the SLO COG may adopt will govern all proceedings not specifically provided for herein. 10. Executive sessions shall be held in accordance with applicable law. 11 . The SLO COG shall hold public hearings for the adoption of Regional Plans. 12 . Minutes of all SLO COG meetings shall be kept by the Secretary to the SLO COG and shall be submitted to member agencies . JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT Page 11 j IX. COMMITTEES 1. Committees and subcommittees may be . established as the SLO COG may deem appropriate. 2. Membership on committees shall be at the discretion of the President . Nothing herein shall be construed to limit membership on these aforesaid committees to officials of the member agencies . The President nray appoint any individual deemed qualified to serve on a committee. Standing committees shall include the Administration Committee, comprised of all managers and administrators of member jurisdictions; the Legal Committee , comprised of all city and designated county attorneys ; the Planning Committee, comprised of all agency planning officials; nominated by their respective agencies ; the Public Works Committee, comprised of all agency engineering officials nominated by their respective agencies ; and the Transportation Committee. The SLO COG may organize such other technical advisory committees as it deems necessary to carry out SLO COG functions . 3 . No committee shall commit the SLO COG on any matter or questions of policy. Such matters or questions can only be decided by the SLO COG. 4 . All committees shall receive clerical assistance from the SLO COG staff for the purpose of maintaining minutes of meetings and other such duties as the Secretary may direct . The chairman of each committee shall sign the original copy of the minutes indicating his verification of contents . Copies of minutes of all meetings shall be sent to members of the SLO COG and the Secretary. JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT Page 12 X. FINANCE 1. The SLO COG shall have no power to expend funds on any project for which funds have not been budgeted, nor on any item in excess of the budgeted amount without specific approval of two-thirds of the governing bodies of the member agencies including COUNTY. 2. The Treasurer of the County of San Luis Obispo is designated the depositary, and he shall have custody of all money of the SLO COG from whatever source received. It is further understood that the Auditor/Controller of the County of San Luis Obispo is, as such, auditor of the SLO COG. XI . WITHDRAWAL AND DISSOLUTION 1. The parties to this Agreement pledge full cooperation and agree to assign representatives to serve as official members of the SLO COG or any committee or subcommittee thereof who shall act for an on behalf of their city or county in any or all matters which shall come before the SLO COG, subject to any necessary approval of their acts by the governing bodies of CITIES and COUNTY. 2. Any party to this Agreement may withdraw from the San Luis Obispo County Area Council of Governments and terminate its participation in this Agreement by resolution of its governing body . The withdrawal of the member shall have no effect on the continuance of this Agreement among the remaining members and the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect as respects the remaining members. JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT Page 13 3. A member withdrawing shall not be liable for the payment of further contributions falling due beyond the date of withdrawal and shall have no right to reimbursement of any monies previously paid to SLO COG, provided, however, that SLO COG may authorize a reimbursement if in its judgment such reimbursement is fair and equitable and can be done without jeopardy to the operation of the SLO COG. If any party hereto farts to pay its contribution, as determined by SLO COG, said entity shall be deemed to have voluntarily withdrawn from the SLO COG. 4. SLO COG may be dissolved at any time and this Agreement rescinded by a joint agreement executed by COUNTY and CITIES which are parties hereto. Said rescision Agreement shall provide for the orderly payment of all outstanding debts and obligations and for the return of any surplus funds of SLO COG in proportion to the contributions made. XII . EFFECTIVITY This Agreement shall take effect upon its execution by the chairman or mayor and clerks of the governing bodies of the County of San Luis Obispo and at least four (4) cities, pursuant to resolutions of such governing bodies authorizing such execution and shall remain in full force and effect until dissolved pursuant to the provisions herein. This Agreement -may be executed in eight (8) counterparts which together shall constitute a single agreement . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first hereinabove written . t JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT Page 14 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE By : Date: Mayor Resolution No . Clerk CITY OF ATASCADERO By : Date : Mayor Resolution No . Clerk CITY OF GROVER CITY By : Date : Mayor Resolution No . Clerk CITY OF MORRO BAY By : Date: Mayor Resolution No . Clerk CITY OF PASO ROBLES By : Date : Mayor Resolution No . Clerk CITY OF PISMO BEACH By : Date : Mayor Resolution No . Clerk Pa gTe 15 JOINT POWERS AGRLI:AITNT CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO By : Date : Mayor Resolution No . Clerk COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO By : Date : Mayor Resolution No . Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM Carr /►YT NEY