HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 11/24/1980 AGENDA - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting
November 24, 1980 7: 30 p.m.
Atascadero Administration Building
Call to Order
Pledge of Allegiance
Invocation
Roll Call
Public Comment
A. CONSENT CALENDAR
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
All matters listed under Item A Consent Calendar, are _considered
to be routine and will be enacted by one motion in the form listed
below. There will be no separate discussion of these items. If
discussion is required, that item will be removed from the Consent
Calendar and will be considered separately. Vote may be by roll call.
1. Minutes of the regular meeting of November 10, 1980
(RECOMMEND APPROVAL)
2. Acceptance of Final Map, 8965 San Gabriel Road, Parcel Map
AT 79-40 , Ronald and Linda Fairbanks (Hilliard) (RECOMMEND
APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION)
3. Acceptance of Final Map, Aguila Road, Parcel Map AT 77-236 ,
E.B. Finch (Stewart) (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF, PLANNING COM-
MISSION RECOMMENDATION)
4. Resolution No. 25-80 accepting work and giving notice of
completion for construction of chip seal coat on various
City streets (Bid No. 80-15), (RECOMMEND ADOPTION)
B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES AND REPORTS
1. Public hearing to consider the extension of the moratorium
on the approval of condominium uses, condominium subdivisions
and condominium conversions
2. Report No. 8 from the City Attorney
C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Ordinance No. 33, Animals - second reading
2. Ordinance No. 34 , Traffic Regulation second reading
D. NEW BUSINESS
1. Election procedures for City Clerk and City Treasurer
E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION
1. City Council
2 City Attorney
3. City Manager
MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting
• November 10, 1980 7: 30 p.m.
Atascadero Administration Building
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor Wilkins
with the Pledge of Allegiance. The invocation was given by Donald
Curtis.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmen Highland, Mackey, Nelson Stover and Mayor
Wilkins
ABSENT: None
PUBLIC COMMENT
1 Kathleen Daly requested that Council schedule a special
election for electing a City Clerk and City_Treasurer at
the earliest possible date. She suggested they also include on the
ballot the Voter's Fee Approval Ordinance initiative which has been
certified as having sufficient signatures by the City Clerk. She
noted that Ordinance No. 30 had been published late.
2. Mr. J. D. McDougall requested that Council consider lifting
• the moratorium on Morro Road. There was discussion re-
garding this matter and Mr. McDougall was requested to contact the
Planning Department for further consideration.
A. CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Minutes of the regular`meeting of October 27 , 19`80
(RECOMMEND APPROVAL)
2. Treasurer's Report, 10-1-80 to 10-31-80 (RECOMMEND APPROVAL)
3. Accetitance of Final Map, Parcel Map AT 78-100, Cristobal
Road, Douglas Moore (Hilliard) (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION)
4. Lot division, Parcel Map AT 80-95, Vista Road, Glen Lewis,
et al (Stewart) (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION,
RECOMMENDATION)
5. Conditional Use Permit to construct 22 unit apartment
project, 9905 E1 Camino Real, Atascadero Village/Hoff
(Nash Brown & Associates) (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF 'PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION)
Councilman Highland asked that Item A-5 be removed from the
Consent Calendar and considered separately.
MOTION: Councilman Mackey moved that the ConsentCalendar, Items
A-1 through A-4 be approved. The motion was seconded by
Councilman Highland and unanimously carried by roll call
vote.
MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting November 10-, 1980
Page Two
A-5 Conditional Use Permit to construct 22 unit apartment
project, 99`05 El Camino Real
Councilman Highland was concerned that this ;project exceeded,
by one unit, the density requirements for multiple family districts.
He felt that approving the project would set a precedent which the
City should avoid. Larry Stevens reviewed the Planning Commission' s
recommendations and stated that although the applicant had been in-
formed of the density limitations and the number of unitsallowed
before plans were submitted, the plans included an additional unit
whish the Planning Department, in reviewing the plans, did not catch. `
The Planning Commission decided that the additional unit would be
acceptable only if the proposed H.U.D. financing assures the provi-
sions of affordable housing units. Council agreed with this' provi-
sion noting that Atascadero was in need of low income_ housing.
This, however, was not to set a precedent for future requests for
additional units.
MOTION: Councilman Highland moved for approval of the Planning
Commission recommendation on this matter. The motion .
was seconded by Councilman Stover and unanimously carried
by roll call vote.
B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES AND REPORTS •
1. Public hearing on Highway 41 alignment
Mr.. Warden reviewed the General Plan designation of Curbaril as
an alternate route for 'Highway -41 and the Cal Trans purchase of
rights-of-ways along Mercedes to be used for construction of Highway
41 by way of Mercedes. He emphasized that there were absolutely no
plans for construction along either route at this time. Curbaril
is an alternate designation in the General Plan and should be changed
if Council desires to eliminate that as a possibility and to avoid
problems with zoning administration; Mercedes, as an alternate route,
is so far down the Cal Trans list of projects as to not be considered
for the near future. There are problems with both routes.
RECESS 8: 00 P.M. RECONVENED 8:05 p.m.
Larry Stevens reviewed the two routes on a display map. Mayor -
Wilkins declared the meeting open to the public and asked for comments.
Dave Cowan, Howard Marohn, Harriet Sackrider, Pers. Harris, Bernie
Norton, and Rosemary Jones gave their views on this issue; some were
not in favor of Curbaril as the alternate route and others were not
in favor of Mercedes.
Council members discussed this matter at some length. Council-
man Highland reviewed pre-incorporation Advisory Board .10
Councilman Mackey felt that the best plan was to remove Highway, 41
•
MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting November 10, 1980
iPage Three
from Capistrano and place it along Curbaril as an alternate route
only; no construction. Councilman Nelson did not see any reason
for abandoning the plan along Mercedes; he suggested sending the matter
to the Planning Commission for their review and recommendations.
MOTION: Councilman Nelson moved that this matter be referred
to the Planning Commission for their review and public
hearing to include input from Cal Trans. The motion
was seconded by Councilman Highland and unanimously
carried.
RECESS 9 : 00 P.M. RECONVENED 9 : 05 p.m.
C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Ordinance No. 12 , Fire Department - second reading
MOTION: Councilman Highland moved that Ordinance No. 32 be read
by title only. The motion was seconded by Councilman
Nelson and unanimously carried.
_Mayor Wilkins read Ordinance No. 32 by title only.
• MOTION: Councilman Nelson moved for the adoption of Ordinance
No. 32. The motion was seconded by Councilman Highland
and unanimously carried by roll call vote.
2. Mayor' s action in appointing a representative to the
Citizens' Transportation Advisory Committee
Mayor Wilkins stated that he had appointed a committee of citizens
to come up with a nomination for this position. Mel Donald was
selected by the committee and appointed by Mayor Wilkins.
3. Transfer of funds for communications equipment labor
Mr. Warden advised that this was a bill fromtheCounty for
services performed in July for installing the City' s dispatch communi-
cations system.
MOTION: Councilman Highland moved for approval of the transfer
of $3, 040 for this invoice. The motion was seconded
by Councilman Mackey and unanimously carried by roll
call vote.
D. NEW BUSINESS
• 1. Consideration of contract with Book Publishing Company for
codification of the municipal code
MOTION: Councilman Highland moved for approval of the contract
and authorization for the City Manager to sign. The
• •
MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting November 10, 1980
Page Four
motion was seconded by Councilman Stover and unanimouly
carried by roll call vote.
2. Ordinance No. 33, Animals - first reading ,
Mr. Warden reviewed this ordinance noting that the County is
the agency responsible for enforcing the ordinance, therefore, the
City's ordinance must basically comply with the County' s.
MOTION: Councilman Highland moved that Ordinance No. 33 be read
by title only. The motion was seconded by Councilman
Stover and unanimously carried.
Mayor Wilkins read Ordinance No. 33 by title only.
MOTION: Councilman Highland moved that this constitute the first
reading of Ordinance No. 33. The motion was seconded
by Councilman Nelson and unanimously carried by roll call
vote.
3. Ordinance No. 34 , Traffic Regulation - first reading
MOTION: Councilman Highland moved that Ordinance No. 34 be read •
by title only. The motion was seconded by Councilman
Stover and unanimously carried.
Mayor Wilkins read Ordinance No. 34 by title only.
Mr. Warden requested that Council make a correction on page 11,
section 4-3.906 in the third line from the bottom of the paragraph,
after the word "trimming" , the words, "shall become a lien upon the
property and" should be eliminated.
MOTION: Councilman Nelson moved that this constitute the first
reading of Ordinance No. 34. The motion was seconded
by Councilman Highland and unanimously carried by roll
call vote.
E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION
1. City Council
(a) Councilman Nelson requested that the matter of the
City Clerk/City Treasurer election be on the next
Council agenda for consideration.
(b) CouncilmanNelsonasked what Staff' s action would be
on the request from Mr. McDougall regarding the
Amapoa moratorium. Council discussed this and decided that it should•
be reviewed by Staff with a report to the Planning Commission and the
Planning Commission' s recommendations forwarded to the Council.
• •
MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting November 10 , 1980
Page Five
•
(c) Councilman Mackey asked about the chimp at the zoo;
who is paying for its keep, liability, etc. ?
Mr. Warden stated that as far as he knew, it was a donation to the
City.
(d) Councilman Mackey asked about the fact that the
Telegram Tribune had reported no building activity
in Atascadero during the last reporting period. Larry Stevens
thought that perhaps the City's mailings did not coincide with the
paper' s publication periods.
(e) Councilman Highland reported on the Water Advisory
Committee meeting.
(f) Councilman Nelson asked if the Parks and Recreation
Advisory Board had discussed the use of the Ranger' s
residence for City purposes. Mr. Warden did not know if that had
been discussed by the Board or not.
2. City Attorney
(a) Mr. Grimes advised that the City' s reply to the
matter of Kathleen Daly v. the City of Atascad_ ero
• should be filed this week.
(b) Mr. Grimes advised that the Firefighter' s suit was
filed on November 5, 1980, and the City has 30 days
to reply.
3. City Manager
(a) Mr. Warden reminded the public that the City was
accepting applications for Planning Commissioner
until November 29th.
(b) Mr. Warden reported on a workshop he had attended in
Los Angeles regarding complying with Proposition 4
bookkeeping requirements.
The meeting adjourned at 9 : 37 p.m.
Recorded by:
MURRAY L. WARDEN, City Clerk
By: Ardith Davis
Deputy City Clerk
•
• •
M E M O RAN D U M
TO: CITY MANAGER Novemb
FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: PARCEL MAP AT 79-40 - Acceptance of Final Map
LOCATION: 8965 San Gabriel Road - Lot 38 of Block 13
APPLICANT: Ronald and Linda Fairbanks (Hilliard)
The City Council approved Parcel Map AT 79-40 allowing creation
of two 2. 5 acre parcels on January 14 1980 subject to certain
conditions and in concurrence with the recommendation of the
Planning Commission. The zoning is A-1-12 and the General Plan
designation is Suburban Single Family Residential. Staff review
has determined that all conditions of approval have been complied
with. At their meeting of November 17, 1980 the Planning Commis-
sion reviewed the Final Map and recommends its acceptance.
•
LAWRENCE S E14SMU RAY ARDEN
Planning D ector CV_
manager
fps
O N 2^o3'4a"w sz-qo• rs
4 N2'03'¢2-W f2.4o' M
.✓33'39'S9'I✓ 3S."' r'/ - _=
s N 33'.4.9'39".✓ X.O.7z' H
s
'y2- " 2,7.-010'H
N 29'9/'oa•E 2�•8o'H _
Ao¢.8B'M > K
FoRo
R �G.9CEPTEO
s
_ -,;..�, ;;,.�.n "�3 �> `� �, �•.-�,��di'-�+�.�:� •; .?6o%�n.f-�9�3 —�'�' ,�r� -'�ic ±� -C�b --^wr��+-�g�
-
�"- NO yPECO.PO� ACCFFlEZJ � ':` � ���. •-.- �- � t..+
•�� �- ° � - ��� �/"V�L.L-.+fir � _ � � a,�M � .,. �`" � F�'�s� �
I-M ri.•��¢¢"t{ y - C +s -aS 5 h '7n: €�a . as £ ..h s. '��'w
'07x'�` x-'E� : 4.;,.�`. •1''` iii'
X79CJ
AA'f� S /12 5 727 '��w S�
98 AGe—.S To
V51 .41
r
2 fo n0
AR IRr
V`UV�Y /S Na9�9/ova [ �ivG TJd� " � °'
��-�,-w
T k
� =. s"'r 3 � $ � -� :�.�� � 4 •,�� .Y�� Fav°.� � Vie.:'�
Ae-�V�4Si�y�• i�^,. M �.� � y. d Y � � T 4' ��1 P. �..tpG•A��1/ ,` � 'Sb. + ks f p�°^"•
#;:�� 'SET �2 ���9.P LS x-"'176 --�-.,.< �nl � P�•O` s,p „� a t +"�'" \
r �' -} r'+ - _ � * .� ergs i� `a.wf ��F�. ..✓
- '°' �' J "• A ''^ '� v�. a� '2^"' , "g�aa.d,a.€�d3 +Hi- ,t'.h't •ir.
4*x s. "v-^. .° •6 "'ter. t ,�z z+�. .«�._: .$` 1'_'
le
� �•`o l�'P � � err �a�`� �
M E M O R A N D U M
•
TO: CITY MANAGER November 19, 1980
FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: PARCEL MAP AT 77-236 - Acceptance of Final Map
LOCATION: Aguila Road - Lot 3 of Block LB
APPLICANT: E.B. Finch (Stewart)
The County Board of Supervisors approved Parcel Map AT 77-236
allowing creation of three parcels with two at 0. 95 acres and
the third at 1. 06 acres on September 6 , 1977 subject to cer-
tain conditions and in concurrence with the recommendation of
the County Subdivision Review Board. The County Subdivision
Review Board granted an extension of time on October 4 , -1978
and the Atascadero City Council granted a second time exten-
sion on November 14, 1979. The Zoning is R-A and the General
Plan designation is Low Density Single Family Residential.
Staff review has determined that all conditions of approval
have been complied with including construction of Aguila Road .
• At their meeting of November 17, 1980 the Planning Commission
reviewed the Final Map and recommends its acceptance.
LAWRENCE S ENS MU RAY RDEN
Planning Director City Ma ager
• /ps
�I Af TINE A./VO SEWAOq—' ,p/SpOSAL SYSTEM /.t/STALL.,lM0A4.T ARE?O BE f3iACE0
eAOSE.2 —,WAW �5O J FTOM THE 7bP OF EX/S77A/4 GCEEiC 6 ViC OR
A7.w 7a 71E z
VA/OAl/ jsii i�o 13.�x F/K TAAIKS W/LL BE Ate/ ACI�PTABL6 ME7N00 OF S6WR�jE
o/s/�s/iL>P�OY/J/�t/C1 secs A"O 50Mi�V*S AIE LIF /►c 5Aw74BCB ;.
C. / / A7C 4gA/IJMB 47"CAjW � L k476e
TAILED
LDING PLAN SHOWING THE
A AVE _ G.,_ PA
a use eE LoeC ME D AND T YTION SUPERVISED APRIOR TO ISSUANCE Of A 8U DING PERMIT, A OCAT18M GF THE
-SOONND ECIRfsF1E0E 70�PUALL BE u 7104 IItOIpIT BMITTED. THE LEASEOL WON fYR7MERWAGE DISPOSAL ~
SOIL STUDIES BY A REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER PLANS TO BE PREPARED FOR APPROVAL OY THE
t?. I ...� �'• JA
KANNIN9
AND HEALTH OEPARTNE.NTS
r
4€c'ai' �F - _ // _ '...ars-f' •g 1
z^A`ta Y � •�/ fp}}�R<IJOu RCE 14994
OF
�! fP the ,;es, 4 4'. P9 M, - r, -•- -� g` v _ �=a�4 y,,�,
7i4T.-SNE "a .00y'�Y. s.; llJf.lJ•,�/ Q� SBT•23 3@ 1p r ��)I �� �" s+'ea`x+ a-tom
.� At PAP. 07 /797/ ,y /354.34 •�. �, _._ ° .
r� x (j nvs.aes/ Odin Isar r� �CSj' €
^"' .'.p'
r L 0 i _ 3/9 6•p .T.i '�
r
' `4.'y ,e'•C� r�ii.k ,„ w"' Y "'' '�/ � ;e 9, Af
_ p/•9 j.� a= ,.
lKJ
a
'"s..-K ..:ems[,.,, mss, . k .� : ,'�'�`'v-
q L T Vial! i��Y �i..yy6 ///r�J/ ', K tc• F +-:A.C.
T : -�'R z -YF
7 V
ia4, Fs-�s1- sq °•I,ey�x3-,:
Ar s.
/DEA TICAL POINT '
� Ad7• b•rI•ar ,^rsyP"k � .r+es.� £ � "' -ss..�' � �a�. �;
. !�'�E. ,„rroos•A:/ #;sig !� tsass� ,,,.�, � e ��- ,g'x
2/9ON
Xr-
.7a
S
40' APE,?
// 6.93,� NBT•27 p E '�rso.000 .
//pN�!// � __P�p/7•
v PARCEL
1
/.-063 ACRES cross � � � rm, f :
(.Boo Acres At, ` N-
AZ
_ v k E k
U
-;, rP -
�.� z � hPARCEL 3 �_
949 ACRES C7ross dM
�•'� t7'•" ^ Nee o9'zs a C (oylo Acres Kef� ' �b
A$•Wr -!
y 235.66 M ,.x�.`-, .-�' '� -�;a� �► p0�?� '' y
NO
- S,,
w PARCEL
0.349 ACRES
4 !z C 9Z4- Acr
es Ne7� ry
P Y<'� y 'Sad J. e 6M:yi, ft x �" Eats:,-t3E :"� .ia•- n.3 as s'".AC
x5
PE
�
r
a
a.,, �q•�1`v 913 ��
a,,,����_
t a • Sari ett �s�e� 3 '
c _
To-7-0 7NE
si-- yah{+ rt „�, ,gM. ' a&'~3 g M MOS I rc� _ A • '�T�t -s4` r
rnlenrloN pg b� 13• .t 9 �.., c p a
OAEN DO, s-_
Go-,
Of
V
4a• °
N7/P S N= VZ-
14. E 1rt ro N� f z �t rasc r . a
p ♦ IRsr3s h .:. Pj s /14s ;* o ° .a... .r
4 wrr xri sqs 3-s��'�^+, x^.ee� �f �� AQ .r y "'�� -:y,.�'t..!`°� w:4*j'�: "`�s.'^��'- � •z"''�� -s'�� 'Le �s^.;.
�'""�'.nl•'"� _. k��1G`iIY._' —� ,��`�i.a�` _^-o-., g,�-b � n"�-,��a _` ����,'�;"�- R Lc 'es � -u.� a„g-.
_ ,^n a^ ,��-sRa ,�--°a„�tz �v ?5t.^s*-"'�°L 4 .�"�'��+i"'--a. '_-,�. dao- x •- ' ..a �,�, -�--�••,. s- � ,.a�
Z/
RESOLUTION NO. 25-80
• RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK AND GIVING NOTICE OF
COMPLETION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A CHIP SEAL COAT ON
VARIOUS CITY STREETS -(BID NO. 80-15)
WHEREAS, the Atascadero City Council did, on October 13 ,
1980, award a contract to H. D. Peterson, P. 0. Box 36 ,
Atascadero, California, 93422 , for construction of a chip
seal coat on various City streets (Bid No. 80-15) ; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has certified that said
work has been completed in accordance with the provisions
of the contract.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that said work is
accepted as completed on November 24, 1980, and the City
Clerk is hereby directed to file a notice of completion in
the office of the recorder of the County of San Luis Obispo.
On motion by Councilman and seconded by
Councilman , the Atascadero City Council hereby
adopts the foregoing proposed resolution in its entirety
on the following roll call voter
• AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ADOPTED:
ROBERT J. WILKINS, JR. , Mayor
ATTEST:
MURRAY L. WARDEN, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ALLEN GRIMES, City Attorney
•
NOTICE OF COMPLETION
•
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN by the undersigned Clerk of the
City of Atascadero, San Luis Obispo County, California,
that the construction of a chip seal coat for various
streets for the City of Atascadero (Bid No. 80-15) , has
been completed by H. D Peterson, and that said work was
accepted as completed on November 24 , 1980 , by the
Atascadero City Council by adoption of Resolution No. 25-80
dated November 24 , 1980.
MURRAY L. WARDEN, City Clerk
The undersigned hereby deposes and says:
That heisthe Clerk of the City of ATASCADERO, San
Luis Obispo County, California; that he has read the
foregoing notice and knows the contents thereof; that the
same is true of his own knowledge.
I declare the foregoing to be true under penalty of
perjury.
Executed at Atascadero, California, this day of
November, 1980.
MURRAY L. WARDEN, City Clerk
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council
FROM: City Manager
SUBJECT: Condominium conversion moratorium
Attached is a memo from the Planning Director to the
Planning Commission and to me along with a draft ordinance
dealing with the condominium conversion moratorium. The
Commission spent a great deal of time discussing this matter
on November 17th and unanimously voted to let the current
moratorium lapse. The Planning Director' s memoranda are
extensive and cover a wide spectrum of considerations. I
fully concur with his recommendation and recommend to you
approval of the Commission's action.
Should you concur with their recommendation, the attached
ordinance will be unnecessary and Ordinance No. 17, , which
established the moratorium, will automatically lapse on
December 10th. Should you not agree with their recommenda-
tion, an extension of time will be necessary in order for
the Planning Director to formulate an appropriate ordinance.
• I have instructed the Planning Director to continue his
monitoring of the conversion and housing situation in order
to evaluate the impact of condominium conversions. This
effort will also provide a good data base upon which to base
any future actions.
If you concur with the recommendations, your agreement
should be expressed by motion and a vote to allow Ordinance
No. 17 to lapse.
OURAYj . WARDEN
L�nT:a
11-20-80
•
M E M O R A N D U M
TO CITY MANAGER November 19 , 1980
FROM PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: MORATORIUM ON CONDOMINIUMS AND CONDOMINIUM CONVERSIONS
On November 17, 1980 the Planning Commission reviewed the attached
Staff report and unanimously recommends as follows
A. Adoption of Findings 1-7 :
1. The scarce supply of rental housing is less affected by ,
the construction of new condominiums and the conversion
of apartments to condominiums than it is by the lack of
rental housing construction associated with the cost of
_land, the availability of financing, the scarcity of
properly zoned land and inflation.
2 . P-roblems associated with tenant displacement can best be
handled by encouraging an increased supply of rental
housing enhancing tenant mobility and choice.
3. Adequate provision for consumer protection and the d-is-
semination of information to prospective buyers is avail- •
able through the Public Report prepared by the Department
of Real Estate.
4 . Development standards required by lending institutions
in order to finance conversion projects should be ade-
quate to assure constructed and maintained dwelling units
are not converted without needed upgrading
5. For the most part, development and construction standards
for apartmentsand condominiums should not be significantly
different.,
6 . In an era where there is an apparent desire for less gov-
ernment, condominium owners should expect to operate and
maintain their own projects through C.C. and R' s .
7 . The free play of _market forces is the preferred alternative
in working towards solutions for existing housing problems.
B. That the moratorium on condominiums and condominium conversions
be allowed to lapse.
C. That Staff be directed to conduct' studies to evaluate the ef-
fects of existing general plan densities on multiple family •
housing construction and continue to survey housing stock,
Page Two /
Memorandum: Moratorium, Condominiums/Condominium Conversions
• conversions, vacancy rates and similar data with a report
back to the Planning Commission within six months .
In making the above recommendation the Planning Commission con-
sidered the following alternatives :
1. Allow the moratorium to lapse. This can' be combined with a
directive to do additional studies .
2 . Extend the current moratorium. Since a draft ordinance has
not been prepared, some extension should be made if revisions
are the accepted alternative. The Government Code would al-
low a maximum extension of one more year although a shorter
time could be specified. The minimum extension to allow for
preparation of an ordinance, public hearings, and adoption
and effective date of an ordinance would be approximately
four months.
3 . Modify the moratorium. Projects previously filed could be
allowed to proceed and projects with less than a certain num-
ber of units could be exempted from' the moratorium.
Each of these alternatives is available to the City Council and an
ordinance to effectuate the second alternative has been provided.
• There was considerable discussion amont the Commissioners on this
matter, but no comments were made by members of the public. Pri-
mary items discussed included the potential effects on tenants
displaced by conversions, the possible obstacle to new rental con-
struction posed by General Plan densities, and the desire to allow
the private sector to work with a minimum of unnecessary govern-
mental intervention. The consensus was that the problem did not
appear to be serious enough to warrant continuing the moratorium
but that continued monitoring of the situation was desirable.
LAWRENCE ST ENS MURRAY WARDEN
Planning Di ctor City Manager
•
/ps
ORDINANCE NO •
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO EXTENDING THE
MORATORIUM ON THE APPROVAL OF PERMITS FOR
CONDOMINIUM USES, CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISIONS, AND
CONDOMINIUM CONVERSIONS WITHIN THE CITY FOR A PERIOD
OF ONE YEAR AND DECLARING SAID ORDINANCE TO BE AN
EMERGENCY ORDINANCE
WHEREAS, the Council made certain findings in Ordinance No.
12 entitled, "An Ordinance Making Findings and Creating a Mora-
torium on the Approval of Permits for Condominium Uses , Condomin-
ium Subdivisions, and Condominium Conversions within the City of
Atascadero and Declaring Said Ordinance to be an Emergency Measure, "
and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 17 extending said moratorium for an
additional eight months was adopted on March 10 , 1980; and
WHEREAS, the Council finds that said findings remain valid •
in that additional time is required to complete the ongoing studies
and to prepare procedures and regulations governing condominiums
and condominium conversions; and
WHEREAS, the appropriate public hearings have been conducted
by the Council pursuant to Section 65858 of the State Government
Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does
ordain as follows:
Section 1. The existing moratorium on the issuance or ap-
proval of any permits for condominium uses, condominium subdivisions ,
and condominium conversions within the City as imposed by the pro-
visions of Ordinance Nos . 12 and 17 , is hereby extended for a
period of one (1) year.
• Ordinance No.
Page Two
Section 2. Urgency Measure. This ordinance is an urgency
ordinance necessary to preserve the public peace, health and safety
due to the facts as forth in Ordinance No. 12 , and is adopted
pursuant to Government Code Section 65858 .
Section 3 . Effective Date. This ordinance, being an urgency
ordinance for the immediate protection of the public health, safety
and general welfare, containing a declaration of the facts con-
stituting the urgency, and passed by a four-fifths (4/5) vote of
the Council shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
Section 4 . Publication. The City Clerk shall cause this or-
dinance to be published once within fifteen (15) days after its
passage in the Atascadero News, _ a newspaper of general circulation,
printed, published, and circulated in this City; shall certify to
the adoption and publication of this ordinance; and shall cause
this ordinance and its certification, together with proof of pub-
lication, to be entered in the Book of Ordinances of this City.
The foregoing ordinance was introduced, adopted, and ordered
published at a meeting of the City Council held on November 24 , 1980
by the following vote:
AYES :
NOES:
ABSENT
ROBERT J. WILKINS, Jr. Mayor
ATTEST:
MURRAY L. WARDEN, City Clerk
CITY OF ATASCADERO
FOUN
psis 9 � �•_ � i9�9
Planning Department November 17 , 1980
\�SC�EZio%/
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: Moratorium on Condominiums and Condominium Conversions
BACKGROUND
At the urging of the Planning Commission, the City Council enacted
Ordinance No. 12, an emergency measure establishing a moratorium
on condominiums and condominium conversions, in November , 1979.
At that time, a study was directed to evaluate procedures and regu-
lations on the subject.
A background report, which included information on State Controls,
local zoning and subdivision authority, major issues, alternative
approaches, and a local housing survey was prepared by the Planning
Department for Planning Commission and City Council review in Jan-
uary - February, 1980.
Ordinance No. 17 , extending the moratorium for an additional eight
months was adopted by the City Council in March, 1980 to allow
additional time to study the matter. The intent was to prepare a
draft ordinance for additional discussion before the Planning Com l
mission and City Council.
EXISTING REGULATIONS
1. ATASCADERO GENERAL PLAN
Two residential policy proposals have been adopted which pertain
directly to this subject:
"16. New condominium projects, planned mobile home developments
and stock cooperatives shall be reviewed on an individual
basis as community housing needs, neighborhood character,
and site improvements will dictate.
17 . To alleviate the problems arising from the conversion of
existing rental units, the City may regulate condominium
conversions. The City shall revise its zoning ordinance
and subdivision ordinance regarding condominium con-
versions in order to:
(a) Establish criteria for the conversion of existing
multiple rental housing to condominiums, community
apartments, stock cooperatives, and new or limited
equity stock cooperatives.
Page Two
Staff Report - Moratorium on Condominiums and Condominium Conversions
•
(b) Reduce the impact of such conversions on residents
in rental housing who may be required to relocate
due to conversion of apartments to condominiums,
community apartments, stock cooperatives, and new
or limited equity stock cooperatives by providing
procedures for notification and adequate time and
assistance for such relocation.
(c) Insure that the purchasers of converted housing have
been properly informed as to the physical condition
of the structure which is offered for purchase.
(d) Insure that converted housing achieves high quality
appearance and safety and is consistent with the
goals of the City' s general plan
(e) Encourage opportunities for housing ownership of all
types, for all levels of income and in a variety of
locations.
(f) Encourage a continuing supply of rental housing for .
low and moderate income persons and families. "
In effect, these authorize regulatory action through ordinances
• if and when a problem is perceived and a response is dictated.
2 . ZONING ORDINANCE
No specific mention is made concerning condominiums or their
conversions. As a result they are treated in an identical manner
with apartments and similar multiple dwelling units. For a
new condominium this would mean a permitted use , departmental
review or conditional use permit depending upon the zoning and
the number of units proposed. For a conversion, it is probable
that no zoning action would be necessary unless some additional
improvements are proposed.
3. SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
A parcel or tract map is required depending on the number of
units involved. Certain findings are required through this
process (see Section entitled "Authority Subdivision Map Act")
the most important of which relate to general plan consistency.
The findings are primarily related to new construction rather
than conversions. Furthermore, the findings seem general and
vague rather than specific.
4 . STATE REGULATION - DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE
Direct State regulation of condominiums, community apartments,
and stock cooperatives occurs through the State Department of
Page Three
Staff Report - Moratorium on Condominiums and Condominium Conversions
0
Real Estate and is primarily oriented towards consumer protection.
In conjunction with the sale of units, the Department of Real
Estate issues a public report which provides information con-
cerning the project to the potential buyer. This report allows
the developer to sell a particular unit and must be delivered to
and acknowledged by the buyer. Normally the report is prepared
towards the end of or after the local government review. The
following information is usually required to be submitted:
names and addresses of owners and subdividers
- a statement of the condition of the legal title
- a statement of the conditions of sale
- provision for public utilities
- proposed uses
- any provision limiting uses (i.e. , CC&R' s)
- soil conditions and geologic report
any liens
- estimate of indebtedness
- public school services
- locations of existing and proposed airports
In the case of planned developments, condominiums, community
apartments and stock cooperatives the Department of Real Estate
also has jurisdiction over the adequacy of provisions to complet
improvements, transfer title to purchasers, and form and operate
a homeowners ' association. Additional information usually re-
quired to be submitted includes:
- date of renovation or replacement of the building and its
mechanical components
statement of conformity to code
- engineering reports on foundation, mechanical components ,
plumbing and roof and structural pest control inspection
report, if available
renovation of common areas and operation of homeowners'
association
- escrow conditions for impounding purchase monies
provision for public services
- building plans (optional)
- plan for financing sale
The Department of Real Estate may generally halt a project if it
is determined that there is fraud, misrepresentation, title prob-
lems, lack of adequate water supply, inadequate financial ar-
rangements for improvements, and inadequate arrangements for
management of common areas. However, there is limited regula-
tory authority over some of these areas in that failure to
provide the information would result in a statement that the
information was not provided rather than a requirement to
provide it.
Page Four
Staff Report - Moratorium on Condominiums and Condominium Conversions
•
DEFINITIONS
Prior to embarking on a detailed discussion of the issues and alter-
native responses to them, it seems beneficial to provide some
definitions of common terminology:
- apartment - A dwelling in a structure which is designed or used
to house two or more families
- community apartment An undivided interest in the land coupled
with the right of exclusive occupancy of any apartment located
thereon.
- condominium - An estate in real property consisting of an undivi-
ded interest in common in a portion of a parcel of real property
together with a separate interest in space in a building on such
real property.
- stock cooperative - A corporation which is created for the pur-
pose of holding title to improve real property either in fee
simple or for a term of years, provided that all of the share-
holders of such corporation receive a right of exclusive occu-
pancy in a portion of the real property. The title of the real
property is held by the corporation and the right of occupancy
is transferrable only concurrently with the transfer of the
share or shares of the stock in the corporation held by the
person having such right of occupancy.
• - organizational documents - The Declaration of Covenants , Conditions,
and Restrictions (CC&R' s) , articles of incorporation, by-laws
and any contracts for the maintenance, management, or operation
of all or any part of a project.
conversion - A proposed change in the type of ownership of parcel
or parcels of land and the existing structures thereon.
- vacancy rate - The number of apartments being offered for rent or
lease as a percentage of the total number of apartments.
- association - The organization of persons who own a condominium
unit or right of exclusive occupancy in a community apartment.
AUTHORITY
The legal authority for local regulation of condominiums, community
apartments, stock cooperatives and conversions to these uses evolves
from several sources including the Subdivision Map Act, the General
Plan, the California Environmental Quality Act and the general
police power.
1. SUBDIVISION MAP ACT
The creation of a unit for sale falls under the auspices of the
Subdivision Map Act meaning that a parcel map or a tract map
must be applied for, approved, and recorded. There are a variety
of mechanisms within the Subdivision Map Act that affect the
tentative map review processes. The most important of these is
the requirement that subdivisions can be approved only if they
are consistent with the General Plan (see Section 66473.5). The
implication is that a community must have an adopted general plan
Page Five
Staff Report - Moratorium on Condominiums and Condominium Conversions
0
and that it must make some provision for the consideration of
these uses and conversions to them. The Subdivision Map Act also
delegates the power to adopt ordinances regulating the physical
design and improvement of a subdivision and, in fact, specifies
mandatory denial if any of the following findings are made (see
Section 66474) :
- That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable
general and specific plans
- That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision
is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans
That the site is not physically suitable for the type of
development
- That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improve-
ments are likely to cause substantial environmental damage
or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife in
their habitat
- That the design of the subdivision or the type of improve-
ments is likely to cause serious public health problems
- That the design of the subdivision or the type of improve-
ments will conflict with easements, acquired by the public
at large, for access through or use of, property within
the proposed subdivision.
While it is obvious that these findings are primarily oriented •
towards undeveloped land being prepared for single-family dwell-
ings, some of them can nevertheless be applied towards new
multiple family developments and the conversion of existing
structures. Only Section 66427 . 1 of the Subdivision Map Act
specifically addresses conversions and it requires that tenants
of a proposed project must receive 120 days written notice be-
fore they must move and 60 days right of refusal to purchase
their units. Senate Bill 1646 , passed and signed in the last
session of the legislature, will increase the notice and right
of refusal time periods for tenants in conversion projects.
Two bills (SB 1645 and SB 1838) make provision for improved notice
to tenants during local hearing. In addition, SB 1838 includes
a requirement that 400 of the tenants must agree to purchase
their units or conversion is prohibited. Copies of each of these
bills have been requested so their specific impacts can be eval-
uated
2. GENERAL PLAN
A 1975 Attorney General ' s opinion emphasizes that the key to
economic and social regulations in the Subdivision Map Act is
general and specific plan consistency. It was noted that the
housing element requires adequate provision for the housing neei
of all economic segments of the community indicating that ob-
jectives, policies, and programs intended to minimize tenant
0 0
Page Six
Staff Report - Moratorium on Condominiums and Condominium Conversions
•
displacement problems and to maintain a supply of affordable
housing are properly included within a general plan and can serve
as a basis for approving or disapproving a project. In fact,
Section 66427 . 2 of the Map Act provides that a conversion cannot
be reviewed for consistency unless the general plan addresses
the issue.
3. POLICE POWER (ZONING)
The police power is a very broad grant of authority stemming
from the State Constitution and it authorizes control not only
over the traditional physical characteristics of land use but
also over social and economic concerns. In planninc;-, it is
traditionally exercised through the zoning ordinance which does
not usually contain social and/or economic standards--at least
overtly. The most common zoning technique is the conditional
use permit although other approaches are possible. It should,
however, be pointed out that conversions can be regulated through
a zoning ordinance only if the ordinance clearly expresses its
intent to treat conversions differently because of their form
of ownership. A more extensive discussion of specific oppor-
tunities to regulate these uses under the police power will
follow in subsequent sections of this report.
• 4 . CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
Subdivision projects are also subject to compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act except that condominium
conversions are categorically exempt because they involve
existing buildings. However, consideration of the cumulative
impact of numerous conversion projects or a finding of signifi-
cant environmental effect due to displacement of a large number
of people can make such an exemption inapplicable. Generally,
the CEQA process is an informational one intended to identify
problems and provide mitigation measures with the subsequent
zoning and subdivision processes accepting the brunt of the
approval/conditional approval/disapproval focus.
MAJOR ISSUES
The recent popularity of condominiums, community apartments, stock
cooperatives and conversions to these uses has forced most local
governments to take a hard look at them and their impacts. A num-
ber of reasons for this popularity can be identified including profit
potential for the owner/developer, the consumer demand for reason-
able priced ownership housing, the fear/threat of rent control , and
the availability of financing. This popularity has also been asso-
ciated with a downturn in rental housing construction. Some of the
factors in this downturn include inflation, high land costs , lack of
• available financing, lack of available land for multiple family
development, and increasing local and State controls. The end re-
sults create turmoil and conflict between owners and developers and
their displaced tenants with local government often placed right
in the middle.
Page Seven
Staff Report - Moratorium on Condominiums and Condominium Conversions
0
1. DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN APARTMENTS AND CONDOMINIUMS
One of the issues to be addressed is whether or not there is a
distinction between apartments and these ownership forms of
housing. Section 1370 of the California Civil Code states that
like uses must be treated in the same manner indicating that a
"contrary intent provision" must be enacted within the ordinance
if different procedures, development standards or other regu-
lations are applied to these uses. Conditions attached to a use
permit, variance or similar regulatory device, if applied to the
ownership forms of housing, must be rationally related to the
distinctions between these types of uses. Some conditions
(i.e. , lesser density, more off-street parking, garage door
openers, more open space, more storage space, etc. ) appear to be
based upon the assumption that persons who live in the ownership
forms of housing are entitled, or expect, higher quality housing
than persons who live in apartments. However, some other con-
ditions (i.e. , sound insulation between units, energy standards ,
separate utility connections, upgrading of common areas, shock
mounting of mechanical equipment, etc. ) may be more reasonable
since these features are not easily observed until the unit is
occupied and since owners cannot move out as readily as renters. .
Consideration should also be given to the fact that such re-
quirements tend to increase the purchase price and may preclude
conversion of existing apartments. Perhaps the most apparent •
distinction is attributable to the change from a single re-
sponsible management party (i.e. , the owner or landlord) to an
association form of management. This distinction has been
identified by at least one California case (Norsco Enterprises
vs. City of Fremont) which upheld an ordinance which stated
" . . . that unlike apartments with rental units, condominium devel-
opments, with a lack of guaranteed effective and continuous
management, present special land use problems. . . " . Some of the
problems include the ability to collect Homeowners ' Associa-
tion dues and its impact on the continuing financial obligations
(i.e. , utilities if not separately metered and renovation and
upgrading of common facilities (i.e . , roof, building exterior,
landscaping) especially if costly and unexpected.
It must however be understood that existing ordinances of the
City do not make any distinction between apartments and condo-
miniums. Careful consideration should be given in this regard
in order to avoid treating rental units as "second-class
citizens. " It seems difficult to justify that the same unit
should be built differently depending on whether the occupant
is a renter or an owner.
2 LAND AVAILABILITY
A second issue is related to the availability of land zoned or •
planned for multiple family development since this land must be
Page Eight
Staff Report - Moratorium on Condominiums and Condominium Conversions
•
"shared" by both apartments and the ownership forms of housing.
The impact on the rental market is most often associated with
the conversion process (that will be discussed shortly) but
may also be a consideration of new multiple family ownership
housing. This occurs when market conditions, profit potential ,
tax advantages, availability of financing, community policies
and similar factors strongly favor ownership housing over ren-
tal housing. New construction of ownership housing would occur
using a disproportionate share of the available eventually
squeezing the rental market unless adequate provision is made
through the planning and zoning process to assure a ready sup-
ply for both. There has, however, been a tremendous decrease in
apartment construction over the last few years. The resulting
tight rental market associated with inadequate housing supply
can create hardships on those who make a conscious choice to
rent and those who are forced to rent because they cannot afford
to own.
It should be pointed out that many factors affect the problem of
housing supply. The City can, through its actions, affect some
of them including adequate land zoned for such use, reasonable
development standards (density, parking, etc. ) , and responsibe
review processes. Some are beyond local government purview
• especially in the area of financing, inflation, labor costs ,
material costs, etc. although there has been in recent years
considerable more effort to put government most directly into
the housing field via increased Federal and State funding, local
housing authorities, new legislation and a variety of other
mechanisms
3 . TENANT IMPACTS
The majority of the sensitive issues, and perhaps the primary
concern of the City of Atascadero, are related to the conversion
of existing rental projects to ownership forms of housing. Con-
versions displace the tenants occupying those buildings, make
it harder for them to find new living quarters by reducing the
supply of rental housing, result in higher rents for these
people and generally stir the emotional pot. Conversions can
also have adverse effects on their new owners if the buildings
were not designed for that type of use, are not properly reno-
vated, or do not make adequate provision for management.
Studies show that the majority of tenants in converted apart-
ments do not buy their units largely because they cannot afford
them. This can be attributed to the lack of ready financial
resources needed to make a down payment and the tremendous in-
crease in monthly payments to make the change. These can be
• especially difficult for elderly on fixed incomes, the disabled
who may have special accessibility problems, and families with
children. Each of these groups would have difficulties in find-
ing suitable substitute rental housing, especially if a tight
or otherwise limited rental market exists.
Page Nine
Staff Report - Moratorium on Condominiums and Condominium Conversions
•
4. THE HOUSING SHORTAGE
The State of California has a serious housing shortage with demand
falling further behind supply each year. The lack of new apart-
ment construction has intensified this shortage problem forcing
rents higher and reducing vacancy rates below the level desired
to maintain a competitive market. Generally, a 5% vacancy
rate would indicate a rental housing shortage. The vacancy
information seems to provide the most valid premise to reg-
ulate, and even prohibit, conversion activity but is unfortun-
ately not readily available information. It should be pointed
out that rental vacancy rates seldom include those single family
dwellings which are available for rental occupancy. These types
of shortages are felt primarily by those who are least able to
afford it such as the elderly; the disabled; and, in some cases ,
families with children.
Several recent Federal studies indicate that the shortage of
rental housing supply is more properly associated with the lack of
rental housing construction rather than the conversion of exist-
ing rental housing to condominiums. Nationwide statistics
indicate that since 1970 only 1. 3 percent of the rental stock
has been converted. These studies also indicate that the desire
for home ownership (i.e. market demand) is the usual driving
force behind conversion. This suggests that the proper solutio•
to the problem is to increase rental construction opportunities
rather than to restrict condominium conversions.
5. CONSUMER PROTECTION
Another issue is that of consumer protection. In California ,
in general, and in a community with the rural character of
Atascadero, there is a bias favorable to detached single family
dwellings creating a general unfamiliarity with problems encount-
ered in group ownership of larger, attached buildings. Purchasers
are less likely to spot structural or similar problems which
may become known only after the sale. Even though the Depart-
ment of Real Estate reviews maintenance and improvement budgets ,
it does not perform detailed inspections that might identify
potential problems. Purchasers may not understand the respon-
sibilities and needs of a homeowners' association since they
often expect .less responsibility and maintenance than with a
single family dwelling. However, the operation of an associ-
ation may require extensive group participation in management
and decision-making. While the premise of "let the buyer be-
ware" is oft-quoted, there seems to be a growing mood towards
added consumer protection.
6 . SUMMARY
It must, however, be clearly established that there are no clea�
cut answers to the issues raised here. Different communities
Page Ten
Staff Report - Moratorium on Condominiums and Condominium Conversions
•
will and must treat the issues differently based upon the make-up
of the community and the goals, objectives, policies, and pro-
grams of the community. Nevertheless, some of the pros and cons
related to condominiums, community apartments, stock cooperatives
and conversions to these uses can be identified.
PROS CONS
increases home ownership decreases supply of rental
housing
- reduces transiency/increased
stability - removal of housing afford-
able to low and moderate
- provides added opportunity income persons
for home ownership to
lower income persons - results in overall higher
housing prices
- encourage renovation of
existing building (conver ..` - displaces tenants
sion) or recycling of older
building into higher densi group ownership has potential
ties (new construction) for special participatory
management problems
- conversions result in
• increased assessed value
Certainly there are some contradictions evident in the above and
it seems essential to evaluate the pros and cons in dight of
community values and concerns.
ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES
As was previously noted, many communities are studying these problems
and many have already enacted various types of controls. Rather
than simply attaching a number of sample ordinances , this effort
will be directed towards listing the types of controls that are
being considered or are in effect. It should be pointed out that many
of these controls are directed towards conversions but can also be
looked at in general application. An attempt has been made to
organize the information by purpose or intent but clear-cut dis-
tinctions are not always possible.
1. MAINTAINING A REASONABLE SUPPLY OF RENTAL HOUSING
- establish a desired mix of rental vs. ownership housing and deny
projects which will adversely affect that percentage ratio.
- establish a rental vacancy rate which will allow denial of con-
version projects when a shortage exists
- limit the number of conversions to a specified number (sometimes
based upon rental construction in the prior year)
Page Eleven
Staff Report - Moratorium on Condominiums and Condominium Conversions
prohibit conversion of buildings that are part of the community' so
low and moderate income housing stock
require a reasonable percentage of new or converted units to be
reserved for persons of low and moderate income
require "in lieu" fees from a developer to be placed in a fund
for the purpose of providing new low and moderate income housing .
- increase densities or offer density bonuses for certain types of
multiple projects
review amount of land available for multiple family developments
encourage lending institutions to finance rental and ownership
multiple family housing developments
- evaluate local government mechanisms and funding sources to more
directly intervene into the housing market (i.e . housing authority, -
CDBG funds, etc. )
2 . TENANT PROTECTION (CONVERSIONS)
- provide notice to tenants of consideration by the local government
of a conversion request (SB 1645 now does this) •
- consider conversion request based upon ability of low and mod-
erate income tenants to find comparable housing within the
community
- require consent of a percentage of the tenants before a conversion
can be approved
- require a percentage of tenants to sign purchase agreements be-
fore a conversion can be approved (SB 1838 does this)
- require a number of units to be maintained as rentals for certain
hardship cases
- allow long-time residents to retain their rental status for a spec-
ified period of time including the possibility of lifetime leases
for the elderly
- require developer to provide housing assistance payments to aid
eligible low and moderate income persons
- assure compliance with notice of intent to convert as set forth
in Map Act
- require notice of repair or remodelling to tenants •
Page Twelve
Staff Report - Moratorium on Condominiums and Condominium Conversions
•
3. ASSISTING OR EASING THE TENANTS ' MOVE (CONVERSIONS)
require provision of up-to-date information on comparable apart-
ments
- prohibit rent increases once notice of intent to convert is made
- require return of various deposits made by tenants
- provide for additional time for elderly, disabled, or persons with
demonstrated special problems to find new housing
- require developer to reimburse tenants for reasonable moving
expenses
4 . FACILITATING OWNERSHIP
- encourage discounts or other favorable terms for tenants pur-
chasing their ownunitsin conversion projects
- discourage speculation by requiring buyers to live in units for a
specified period of time
- discourage initial speculation by limiting sales to one per indi-
vidual
- restrict sales prices of converted units so that they are not
removed from the low and moderate income housing supply
5. BUYER PROTECTION
- require pre-sale inspection of converted buildings with infor-
mation on building condition, any violations, etc. given to
prospective buyers
- require building history of converted buildings to be given to
prospective buyers
- require a warranty on the building and its systems
- provide for a cooling-off period during which a prospective'
buyer may change his mind
- require a developer to establish an operating budget which contains
a "sinking fund" to cover expected major maintenance and repair
- require a professional management firm to assist the homeowners'
association
• - prohibit discrimination against groups such as the elderly, the
disabled, families with children
Page Thirteen
Staff Report - Moratorium on Condominiums and Condominium Conversions
- review the CC&R' s and provide for local government parti-
cipation •
in certain aspects of the maintenance and management
of the homeowners ' association
6 . DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
require compliance with all building, fire, zoning and related
codes in effect at the time a building is converted (rather
than when it was constructed)
- require correction of all violations for buildings which are
converted
require individual metering of all utilities
- require shock-mounting of all mechanical equipment including
major appliances
establish higher building construction standards including, but
not limited to, impact insulation, sound insulation, fire walls,
and similar
- provide for additional storage space
require additional parking spaces including garages with auto- •
matic openers
- provide for laundry facilities within each unit
- allow lower densities than for apartments
- establish additional design criteria such as prohibiting "stacked"
units, shared stairways, and similar
require more open space and improvement or amenities within
the open space
- provide for upgrading renovation of common areas in converted
buildings
encourage use of low maintenance building and landscaping
materials
It seems obvious that a whole range of alternatives is being tried.
Certainly, some are unpallatable, unworkable and unnecessary for
the City of Atascadero. Many will also necessitate costly, cumber-
some, and complex mechanisms in order to be effectively implemented.
It should be pointed out that this listing was not provided with
the intent of implementing them in this City, but rather to illustrate
the range of alternatives and levels of involvements that are •
possible.
Page Fourteen
Staff Report - Moratorium on Condominiums and Condominium Conversions
•
THE ATASCADERO SITUATION
Oftentimes, the specific community considerations are based upon
a wealth of statistical information most of which is either out-
dated and not available in a desired form. At the direction of
the Planning Commission, the Staff has conducted a quick and brief
survey of housing in January, 1980 which included the following
steps :
1. Obtain best available housing data from County including
purchase price, rental cost, income, total units with
breakdowns, vacancy information, construction trends and
similar information.
2. Contact San Luis Obispo Housing Authority to get informa-
tion on assisted housing programs and for any other rental
data that is available.
3. Contact Board of Realtors, local realtors in rental market,
Chamber of Commerce to get best available information con-
cerning rental units now on market (number, location, cost,
size, trends) including overall assessment of situation.
4 . Get the want ads for each unit now being advertised in the
• local newspapers and contact to get information (number,
location, size of project, rent, size, etc. ) including over-
all assessment of situation.
It should be noted that the data that follows comes from a variety
of sources and is not internally consistent. In addition, some
estimation and approximation has been applied to the "numbers .
As a result, the data should be understood to be generalized
rather than specific.
Construction trends can be noted in the following table:
UNITS : SFR/MH MFR MISC TOTAL
1976 3 , 975 571 41 4 , 569
1979 4,723 911 52 5,686
APT.
CONST. : Nov 1976 1977 1978 1979 Jan 1980
Issued 3 240 78 15 3
Finalled --- 29 206 53 ---
No Final --- --- 33 20 ---
(avg. prof .
size - 3 . 84)
This table shows an increase in multiple family units between 1976
• and 1979 but also indicates tha most of the increase occurred in
1977 and and early 1978 with a significant downturn in the latter
part of 1978 and in 1979 . Nevertheless, it is clear that the
dominance of the single family residence (nearly 90%) over the
multiple family residence (approximately 10%) will continue.
Page Fifteen
Staff Report - Moratorium on Condominiums and Condominium Conversions
Information gathered on existing and unoccupied building sites
would tend to retain a similar ratio. With this small number
of multiple units, the conversion of as little as 30 or so units
can represent an impact on the rental housing market. Furthermore,
land use policy proposals will not significantly alter this trend.
There has been no condominium or condominium conversion activity
in Atascadero although approximately 180 units are pending.
CONDO 4/71 - 1/80 0 CONDO 4/71 1/80 0
appl. but not built 88 CONV. Moratorium 57
no application 12 57
moratorium 34
134
An effort has also been made as part of the survey to generate some
cost data. The San Luis Obispo Housing Authority continueally up-
dates realtors and local newspapers as information sources .
0 bdrm 1 bdrm 2 bdrms 3 bdrms 4 bdrms
April, 1979 178 199 264 333 ---
September, 1979 156 210 265 323 ---
Fair Market Rents 178 217 276 316 357 •
It was also indicated that the Housing Authority assists 41
families living in Atascadero with their rent. As a comparison,
the median sales price for a house in Atascadero is approximately
$78 ,000 . Certain rough rules of thumb can be applied to housing
costs and these are as follows :
Monthly payment (incl. taxes and insurance) :
1% of loan
Housing costs per month (rent or buy) :
250-33% of income
Purchase Costs
2 .5-3 times gross annual income
Using a median income of $16 , 250 , rental costs generally fall within
these guidelines while purchase costs generally exceed levels of
affordability. Obviously those below median income levels have a
greater difficulty with the income/housing cost ratios .
The survey that was conducted also evaluated the vacancy rate. Each
local newspaper was checked and all local realtors who actively par-
ticipate in the rental market were also contacted. This procedure •
should result in finding most current vacancies.
Page Sixteen
Staff Report - Moratorium on Condominiums and Condominium Conversions
•
SURVEY OF "VACANT FOR RENT"
units range
available of rents avg. rent
0 bedrooms 1 --- ---
1 bedroom 5 180-230 211
2 bedrooms 19* 225-330 295
3 bedrooms 0 --- ---
4 bedrooms 0 -- ---
25
*8 two bedroom units are available for rent ($375/month) or "
sale in the Quail Ridge development, but are not included
in this data.
Excluding the Quail Ridge units, the apartment vacancy rate within
Atascadero is 30 . This figure is generally the lowest desirable
one to allow reasonable mobility for renters .
In all likelihood, the above information is indicative of a "tight
rental housing market which, coupled with limited new apartment
construction, is probably going to continue for some time into
the future. Knowing this should affect the level of control to
• be implemented as a result of this study. However, it should
also be pointed out that the General Plan places strong faith
in the "free play of market forces ."
STAFF COMMENTS
In reviewing numerous draft ordinances, reports, studies , newspaper
articles and similar media related to this controversial issue, it
does appear that many address the symptoms rather than the problems .
Addressing the symptoms achieves certain short term results, mini-
mizes some controversies, and salves the emotions but does not
attack the real problems . It appears that the primary efforts
should be directed towards the construction of rental housing.
In this regard a review of development standards especially the
density limitations contained in the General Plan seems highly
appropriate. Furthermore, a review of land use and zoning for
multiple family development could also be considered. The immedi-
acy of these actions does not, however, seem imperative. - Much of
the rest of the effort should fall on the private sector (lenders ,
builders) and on State and Federal actions. If these efforts are
not successful, then the City could eventually focus on more inter-
vention by investigating other funding sources and mechanisms .
Since this report and these comments are made in conjunction with
• consideration of the current moratorium, it is necessary to point
out the possible actions that are available. These include:
Page Seventeen
Staff Report - Moratorium on Condominiums and Condominium Conversions
1. Allow the moratorium to lapse. This can be combined with a •
directive to do additional studies as suggested in the "Comments
section above.
2. Extend the current moratorium. Since a draft ordinance has not
been prepared, some extension must be made if revisions are the
accepted alternative. The Government Code would allow a maxi-
mum extension of one more year although a shorter time could
be specified. The minimum extension to allow for preparation
of an ordinance, public hearings , and adoption and effective
date of an ordinance would be approximately four months .
3 . Modify the moratorium. Projects previously filed could be al-
lowed to proceed and projects with less than a certain number
of units could be exempted from the moratorium.
In the event that Alternative #2 is recommended, Staff will be pre-
pared at the Commission meeting with a _"shopping list" of possible
ordinance provisions for discussion and comment. This will facili-
tate the preparation of a draft ordinance minimizing any further
time delays necessitated by the moratorium. It will also provide
Staff with a better idea of the Commission' s perception of the
problems . To prepare for this, a close review of possible ordinance
provisions is available in the "Alternatives" section of the report.
In addition, numerous ordinances from other jurisdictions are avail-
able
vail able for review in the Planning Department.
FINDINGS
1. The scarce supply of rental housing is less affected by the
construction of new condominiums and the conversion of apart-
ments to condominiums than it by the lack of rental housing
construction associated with the cost of land, the availability
of financing, the scarcity of properly zoned land and inflation.
2 . Problems associated with tenant displacement can best be hand-
led by encouraging an increased supply of rental housing en-
hancing tenant mobility and choice.
3 . Adequate provision for consumer protection and the dissemination
of information to prospective buyers is available through the
Public Report prepared by the Department of Real Estate.
4 . Development standards required by lending institutions in order
to finance conversion projects should be adequate to assure
constructed and maintained dwelling units are not converted
without needed upgrading.
5 . For the most part, development and construction standards for
apartments and condominiums should not be significantly different•
6 . In an era where there is an apparent desire for less government,
condominium owners should expect to operate and maintain their
Page Eighteen
Staff Report - Moratorium on Condominiums and Condominium Conversions
• ownr '
p o�ects through C.C. and R s .
7. The free play of market forces is the preferred alternative
in working towards solutions for existing housing problems .
RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the Findings, the Planning Department recommends as
follows :
1. The moratorium on condominiums and condominium conversions
be allowed to lapse.
2. Studies be made to evaluate the effect of existing zoning
regulations on multiple family housing construction.
ACTION
The Planning Commission should by motion direct Staff to transmit
a recommendation on the moratorium for consideration by City Coun-
cil at the public hearing on November 24 , 1980
•
REPORT PREPARED BY: ZaA.,",�
L IRENCE S YENS
Planning D ector
/Ps
•
ROBERT J.W ILKINS.Jt.
MAYOR
WILLIAM H.STOVER
MAYOR PRO-TEMPORE aee
ts
GEORGE P. HIGHLAND
"Q*ajM
MARJORIE B. MACKEY INCORPORATED JULY 2. 1979
ROLFE NELSON
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
MURRAY L.WARDEN ,c
CITY MANAGER/CLERK POST OFFICE BOX 747
ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93422 FIRE DEPARTMENT
PHONE (805) 466.8000 6005 LEWIS AVENUE
ATASCADERO,CA 93422
(805) 466.2141...
REPORT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY
For the
Council Meeting ,of November 24, 1980
No. 8
• 1. CITY OF ATASCADERO, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT, VS. KATHLEEN E. DALY, ET AL. ,
DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS
The City of Atascadero submitted its reply brief in the above case last week.
Appellants now have 30 days within which to file their reply brief. Copies
of the City's brief have been made available to members of the Council.
2. ROLAND SNOW, ATASCADERO FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION, PETITIONERS, VS. CITY OF
ATASCADERO, CITY COUNCIL OF CITY OF ATASCADERO, AND MURRAY WARDEN, CITY
MANAGER, RESPONDENTS
This case was filed on November 5, 1980 with the County Clerk of San Luis
Obispo County, but has not been served on Respondents since the case was
filed, although it was served prior to the time of its filing. The object
of the case is to obtain a courtordermandating the City to recognize the
provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding entered into on June 24, 1979
between the Atascadero Fire,Protection District and the Atascadero Fire-
fighters Association. The City Attorney will respond to the petition.
3. REPORT OF THE- LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES LEGAL ADVOCACY COMMITTEE
The Legal Advocacy Committee Report of November 13, 1980 is attached for your
information. Of the 50 cases of significance to cities reviewed by the Com-
mittee, only two were approved for amicus participation. I do not feel that
we have a substantial interest in either of those,- and therefore make no
recommendations for amicus participation at this time.
REPORT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY
No. 8 - Page 2
4. RECENT DECISIONS OF INTEREST
a. Civil Procedure Applicable to Government
The C.A. 5th has held that a class action claim may satisfy the statutory
requirements set forth in the Government Tort Claims Act for filing claims
against governmental agencies. (Dhuyvetter v. City of Fresno, September
25, 1980)
b. Freedom of Information Act
The U.S. Court of Appeal for D.C. has held that a legal advisor's advice
to a governmental agency is exempt from Freedom of Information Act dis-
closure under Exemption 5 as interagency memoranda and part of the delib-
erative process, though not necessarily under the attorney-client privilege.
(Brinton v. Dept. of State)
C. City Trespass Law
The C.A. 2nd has held that state general laws governing trespass on
public school property do not preempt municipal trespass ordinances.
(Rudolfo, Q.A., A Minor, October 2, 1980)
d. Suit for Emotional Distress
The C.A. 4th has held that an employee who alleges that his employer or ,
co-employees acted outside the course of their employment to inflict emo-
tional distress on him is not limited to a worker's compensation claim
for benefits, even if the worker claims he also suffered bodily injury.
(Lagies v. Copley, October 6, 1980)
e. Adopting Development Plan
The C.A. 4th has ruled that the enactment of a general plan for future
development of an area which indicates a potential public use of privately-
owned land does not amount to inverse condemnation. The Court noted that
local government activity of this sort may be held invalid only when its
effect is to deprive the landowner of substantially all reasonable use of
his property. The Court concluded that neither the zoning ordinances,
the annexation procedures, nor the general plan of the county so deprived
the partnership of all reasonable use of the land, since many uses could
still be made of the property. (Rancho La Costa v. County of San Diego,
October 9, 1980)
f. County Employee: False Imprisonment
The Court of Appeal has held that a public employee who maliciously
arrests and imprisons a person by personally serving an arrest warrant
obtained through ,false information may not claim governmental immunity.
Thus, although employees are immune from malicious prosecution claims,
they may be liable for false imprisonment, under the court opinion.
(McKay v. County of San Diego, October 24, 1980) is
REPORT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY
• No. 8 - Page 3
g. Water Shut Off for Nonpayment of Garbage Bill
The Supreme Court of California has held that due process guarantees were
satisfied by city ordinances which provided that water service, sewer
service, and garbage collection and disposal service should be billed to
residents on a unified basis, and that upon failure to pay the bill in
full, water service should be discontinued. (Perez v. City of San Bruno, `
August 14, 1980, 27 C.3d 875)
h. Public Employees Retirement System
The Appellate Court has held that PERS "safety member" election for male
police communications workers is unconstitutional, and it extended to
females the applicability of Government Code Section 20020, making females
eligible to become "safety members". (Fenske v. Board of Administration,
March 20, 1980, 103 C.A.3d 590)
i. Fund Solicitation
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that an ordinance prohibiting fund solici-
tation under certain specified regulations is unconstitutional as overbroad
and violating First Amendment rights. The ordinance was a city ordinance
prohibiting the door-to-door or on-street solicitation of contributions
by charitable organizations that did not use at least 75 percent of the
• receipts for charitable purposes, etc. (Schaumburg v. Citizens for Better
Enviro nt, February 20, 1980, 63 L.Ed.2d 73)
Respectfully s mitted,
ALLEN GRIMES
City Attorney
AG:fr
Attachment
•
+1
�I (�fqa cYq'/�'7 n�� [,�7• � cry�. "F,.W.r1�r�1 6a' `) '7,' )fl'-t- '}
L�a�\r✓1�w 4.e V`r'r� ce✓r `,ryV.a.:�V.�� .c u�.✓.: ..,i�u:..I v.r7W
California Cities Sacramento, CA
Work Together November 13, 1980
TO: All City Attorneys
RE: Legal Advocacy Committee Report and Recommendations
At its regular meeting on October 17, the Legal Advocacy Committee reviewed approximately
fifty cases of significance to cities now pending in both the federal and state courts,
at the trial and appellate levels. In two of these, the Committee and the League Board
of Directors have taken action approving amicus participation by consenting cities. All
City Attorneys are urged to make special note of these cases first reported below.
AMICUS APPEARANCE BY CONSENTING CITIES APPROVED
The case of City of Huntington Park v. Wood, now pending on appeal by the City, involves
a constitutional challenge to Civil Code §3333.1which was added as a part of the
California Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act in 1975 during the so-called health
care or medical malpractice crisis. This law prevents the employer of a medical mal-
practice victim from recovering any worker's compensation benefits paid because of the
malpractice. The City of Huntington Park is self-insured for worker's compensation
and spent approximately $155,000 because an employee was the victim of medical mal-
practice. When the City sought to recover this amount from the negligent physician •
and hospitals, the trial court denied the claim on the basis of §3333.1. On appeal
the City contends that this statute, which prohibits recovery of worker's compensation
payments simply because the third party tort feasor is a physician, violates constitutional
equal protection and due process guarantees. Recognizing the present and potential
impact of the statute and an adverse ruling on appeal, the Committee and Board of Directors
have recommended that consenting cities join in an amicus curiae brief to be filed in.
support of the City of Huntington Park. All City Attorneys are urged to consider joining
as amici in the case and to do so should contact:
Robert Flandrick
Attorney at Law
Burke, Williams & Sorensen
707 Wilshire Blvd. , #3300
Los Angeles, CA 90017
(213) 485-0101
An amicus recommendation was also made with respect to the case of City of Chula Vista
v. California Coastal Commission, a mandate action pending in the trial court in which
the City seeks to require the Commission to approve its local coastal plan. The action
was commenced following certification of the City's plan because the Commission imposed
conditions on its certification which the City alleges "effectively gut the City's LCP"
and as so conditioned the LCP is infeasible of implementation. The LCP as submitted
for certification was the product of several years planning for the development of the
City's bayfront which preceded the enactment of the Coastal Act and because of the
progress which had been made in the plan at that time the Commission agreed to process
the plan as a "pilot project" under the Act. Despite the City's continued coordination •
with several governmental agencies to resolve the environmental concerns raised by the
400K STREET•SACRAMENTO 95814 HOTEL CLAREMONT BERKELEY 94705 900 WILSHIRE BLVD.SUITE 702 LOS ANGELES 90017
t9 t til•:4.1-�:ilQ
0 t 5)g.Ci;GS3 (213)624.4934
0
1
LCP, the holding of a total of 14 public hearings respecting it, and approval of the
LCP by the Regional Commission, following staff recommendations the State Com-nissin
certified the City's LCP with conditions which substantially change the plan. While ,
many other contentions are made, the thrust of the City's action is that the certifi-
cation of a local coastal program by the Commission with conditions is contrary to the
certification procedure required by Public Resources Code §30512 which states in part
that the Commission "shall . . . either refuse certification or certify in whole or in
part, the land use plan." While the State Commission's resolution of certification
pursuant to §30512 "certifies the total local coastal program for the City of Chula
Vista" it proceeds to qualify the certification by indicating that it is subject to
conditions. It is therefore argued that since §30512 (c) does not provide for adding
conditions to the certification of an LCP, the Commission's action with regard to the
Chula Vista plan is in violation of clear statutory requirements. Some cities have
already either filed amicus curiae briefs in the case or have indicated support for the
Chula Vista position. The City Attorney of Santa Barbara is presently preparing an
amicus curiae brief in which other interested cities are invited to join. In accordance
with the recommendations of the Committee and League Board of Directors those wishing
to join as amici in the Santa Barbara brief should so indicate no later than December 1
to
Fred Clough
City Attorney
City Hall - P.O. Drawer P-P
Santa Barbara, CA 93102
(805) 963-0611
FILING OF INDIVIDUAL AMICUS BRIEFS INVITED
In light of the U.S. Supreme Court action noting probable jurisdiction in Metromedia Inc.
• v. City of San Diego, the Committee took action inviting the filing of individual amicus
curiae briefs in support of the City before that court. The issues are basically those
which were decided favorably by the State Supreme Court in its opinion on rehearing
(26 Cal. 3d 848). Therein the city ordinance banning all off-site advertising billboards
and requiring the removal of existing billboards following expiration of an amortization
period was upheld on grounds that its recited purposes of eliminating traffic hazards and
improving the appearance of the city were proper police power objectives. The state ,
court further held that the ordinance ban on commercial off-site billboards did not
abridge freedom of speech or press since it did not seek to suppress the content of the
advertiser's message, served significant governmental interests and left open adequate
alternative means of communication. The state court did, however, hold that the
ordinance was partially preempted by the State Outdoor Advertising Act to the extent that
the ordinance required removal without compensation of billboards within 660 feet of
federal interstate, and primary highways for which compensation is required and to that
extent the ordinance was invalid. Any City Attorney interested in filing an amicus brief
in support of San Diego before the U.S. Supreme Court is urged to notifiy:
John W. Witt
City Attorney ,
City Administration Building
202 C Street
San Diego, CA 92101
(714) 236-6220
INFORMATION ONLY
• The Conumftcec took notion simply directing, the dissemination of information with respect
C►� l:l►a l:oJ.luw1��K .�eas�a:
-2-
f. # 0
The Sierra Club v. Board of Supervisors of Los Angeles County et al, an action by which
plaintiff sought to halt a large residential development in a section of the Santa Monica
mountains, alleging that the zoning change and subdivision approval permitting the
development were invalid because the County's general plan was legally inadequate for
lack of an adequate housing element. In granting the preliminary injunction the Superior
Court noted that the zone change and subdivision approval were effectuated during the
so-called "hiatus period" when the county was without an authorized extension granted
by HCD for the adoption of a housing element. While the County had argued strongly
against the contention that the state housing element guidelines are mandatory and the
court construed those guidelines as -mandatory, the ruling with respect to the adequacy
of the County's housing element appears to have been directly based upon a determination
that the element failed to meet the statutory requirements for same, the court noting
that the County's housing element "does not appear to have content sufficient to satisfy
requirements mandated by the 1971 and 1973 amendments to §65302 (c) , and, therefore,
appears to be inadequate under the present statute." The County Counsel's office has
indicated that the case will not be pursued further.
City of Sunnyvale v. Cory et al, an action pending in the Sacramento County Superior
Court by which the City seeks to recover the full amount of its bail-out funds under
Government Code §§ 16250 et seq. While the Controller had first made a "final deter-
mination" that the City's reserves were so high that it would be entitled to no part
of its share of the bail-out monies, extensive negotiations led to the securing of the
payment of a portion thereof. In the present action to recover the remainder, the
issues involve the characterization by the Controller,as "general reserves", funds held
by the City in the form of non-negotiable certificates of deposit treated by the City
as investments, annual rental payments owed by the City to its Redevelopment Agency
for a downtown parking facility which should have been treated as a contractual obli-
gation of the City, and amounts committed to a capital outlay project prior to June 6,
1978 which were not properly excluded from general fund reserves by the Controller •
because of his failure to recognize the method of such commitment employed in the
City's unique budgetary system. The case is pending and awaits a trial date.
I.S.L.E. v. County of Santa Clara et al, an action pending in the Santa Clara County
Superior Court by which plaintiffs seek to set aside 16 island annexations to Sunnyvale.
The action is based upon allegations that the island annexation provisions of the
MORGA are unconstitutional in that they deny to the residents of the territories the
right to vote on the issue of annexation. Plaintiffs also contend that because
multiple island annexations were conducted at one time the annexation should have been
treated and conducted as a municipal reorganization, thus providing the right to protest
and to vote. The City's demurrer has been overruled and the court has indicated that
an early trial date should be sought, apparently with a view toward likely appellate
review. Of note is the earlier ruling of the court that for purposes of Government
Code §35004 an action attacking the regularity or validity of proceedings completed
under the MORGA is "brought" when it is filed rather than upon completion of jurisdiction
as set forth in CCP §862.
Ferrini et al. v. City of San Luis Obispo et al, an action for declaratory relief
challenging the validity of an initiative measure approved by the city electorate which
amended the City Charter purporting to condition the annexation of territory to the city
upon approval by a vote of the city electorate. By a ruling filed in July the trial
court concluded that the charter amendment is invalid as without authority under the
State Constitution and is preempted by statute, the court noting that the MORGA
"represents a delicately balanced, comprehensive set of annexation procedures which
precludes supplemental legislation at a local level." An appeal from the ruling has
been filed by the City.
•
-3-
r � •
v
Pugh v. City of Sacramento, an action challenging the validity of the City's real
• property transfer tax ordinance which was adopted as an urgency measure on June 29, 1978,
after the election on Proposition 13 but before its presumed effective date. The case
is now pending in the Third District Court of Appeal on an appeal by the plaintiff
following a trial court ruling sustaining the City's demurrer without leave to amend.
The sole issue involved is whether Proposition 13 was effective on the date of the
election or on July 1, 1978. City Attorneys interested in further details or possibly
assisting the City at the appellate level are urged to contact Theodore M. Kobey,
Assistant City Attorney, 812 10th Street 11201, Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 449-5346.
Oates v. City of Sacramento, another challenge to the City's real property transfer tax
which is pending in the trial court and will not be pursued until the issue in the Pugh
case is resolved. An additional issue raised relates to the validity of the urgency
ordinance under the pertinant charter provision which unlike most city charters does
not include tax measures as a proper subject for an urgency ordinance.
_City of San Jose v. South, a validation action brought to establish the validity and
exempt status under Constitution Articles XIII A and B of maintenance districts formed
by charter cities on a benefit formula. A favorable trial court ruling was expected and
an appeal planned in order to establish precedence similar to Malmstrom v. County of
Fresno, the Proposition 13 special assessment validation action.
San Luis Obispo Housing Coalition et al. v. City Council of Arroyo Grande et al, an
action brought by an association of residents of the County of San Luis Obispo formed
for the purpose of developing and advocating the development of low and moderate income
housing in all areas of the county. Arguing that the state housing element guidlines
are mandatory and require each city to include in its housing element provision for
low and moderate income housing, plaintiffs sought to halt further city zoning actions
• and subdivision approvals on the basis that such could not meet the general plan
consistency requirements because lacking a conforming housing element there was no
legally adequate general plan. Ruling in favor of the City's argument that the state
housing element guidelines are simply advisory, the trial court granted the City's
motion to dismiss. While there were indications that plaintiffs would file an appeal,
there is some question whether the declared intent to do so will be pursued in light
of the enactment of AB 2853 (Chapter 1143) which declares that the housing element
guidelines are advisory only.
Citi of Hayward v. California Transportation Commission et al, an action seeking to
compel the state to honor its freeway ageements with the City to complete the construction
of state freeway routes 238 and 92 through the city. The suit was filed following the
actions of the State Transportation Commission indicating its intention to recind the
freeway routes through the city and sell the land as surplus property at a point in time
when it had acquired by negotiation and/or condemnation approximately 85% of the property
required and necessary for the construction of both routes, had cleared a portion of the
right-of-way acquired, and caused the City to effectuate street closures and the
relocation of streets and utilities. The case is in the early pleading stages.
Citv of South Lake Tahoe et al. v. California Tahoe Re ional Planning Agency et al, now
pending before the U.S. Supreme Court on petition for certiorari by the City following
decisions by the federal trial court invoking the abstention doctrine and the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeal declining to rule on the abstention or merits of the case on the
basis that the City and its elected officials had no standing to assert constitutional
rights against the state. By its action the City sought injunctive and declaratory
relief with respect to the constitutionality of certain ordinances and plans propounded
by the defendant agency as they relate to the City's police power. In its petition to
the U.S. Supreme Court the City contends, inter alia, that locally elected officials
have standing to pursue constitutional issues as against the state due to their own
potential personal liability while serving on regional_agenciesand by virtue of their
-4-
oaths of office and that the Ninth Circuit ruling on the standing issue was in
direct conflict with the court's decision in Owen v. City of Independence in that the
elimination of the good faith immunity in civil rights actions gives the city a direct
financial stake from a liability standpoint in the issue of the validity of ordinances
which it is required to adopt and carry out. In the event certiorari is granted the
City will be seeking amicus assistance.
People v. Tolman, in which by a 2 to 1 decision the Appellate Department of the
Los Angeles County Superior Court has upheld a judgment of conviction of defendant for
permitting a 7 1/2 ton truck-tractor to be parked in the driveway of her residence in
violation of the Temple City zoning ordinance prohibiting the parking of commercial
vehicles in excess of 3 tons on any part of R-zoned property in excess of 30 consecutive
minutes unless actual loading or unloading of the vehicle was in progress. Against
defendant's constitutional challenges and relying heavily upon the Metromedia decision
(26 Cal. 3rd 848) , the Court concluded that "the ordinance bears an adequate relation
to the general welfare by being considered as a regulation of the aesthetic appearance
of residential neighborhoods" and denied that the ordinance deprived defendant of her
property without due process of law noting that the "amortization period" sanctioned
by the court in Metromedia could be here considered as the time from the adoption of the
ordinance to its enforcement against defendant which was a period of fourteen months.
Also holding that the ordinance did not deny defendant equal protection by distinguishing
between commercial trucks of under 3 tons and campers on the one hand and vehicles such
as defendant's on the other, the Court commented that "it is not necessary for a public
body to regulate all possible harms at one time- [and] small pickups and campers could
easily be viewed as more associated with residential and recreational purposes than the
truck-tractor involved here and other heavy commercial vehicles".
People v. Sekona, in which, at the instance of the City of Culver City, the Los Angeles
County District Attorney's office obtained a conviction of one count of perjury against
defendant. The criminal action was instituted following a decision in Sekona v. City
of Culver City by which the City was required to pay workers' compensation benefits to
plaintiff as a tree-trimmer employee of the City. In the workers' compensation proceedings
the employee had denied that he was capable of working but surveillance films showed him
to be self-employed as a tree-trimmer during the period he claimed to be disabled. As a
part of the sentence on the perjury conviction the defendant was required to make
restitution to the City of the workers' compensation payments.
City of Modesto v. Fair Employment and Housing Commission, Reddig Real Party in Interest,
wherein the San Francisco Superior Court has granted the City's petition for writ of
mandamus directing the defendant Commission to set aside its decision that the City had
violated Labor Code §1420 (a) by discharging Mr. Reddig. The discharge occurred after
Reddig, who had been a temporary city employee, applied for a permanent building inspector
position with the City, was offered that position contingent upon his passing a physical
examination, and recommendations of the City's physician and risk management consultant
that Reddig's chronic heart and lung ailments placed him in a very high risk category
relative to disability while working. Following discharge, a complaint was filed with
the Commission which led to the filing of a formal accusation alleging that the City had
violated 41420 (a) which prohibits discharging an employee due to physical handicap.
Against the City's principal affirmative defense that Reddig's physical condition
authorized the discharge under §1420 (a) (1) permitting an employer to discharge a
physically handicapped employee due to such handicap, an administrative law judge and
subsequently the Commission found the City in violation of §1420 (a) and ordered Reddig's
reinstatement with back pay. A hearing is presently set for the purpose of settling .
findings of fact and conclusions of law and it is expected that the Commission will file
an appeal in the case.
-S-
f
OTHER CASES CONSIDERED
• The Committee also received status or original reports as indicated with respect to the
following cases:
City of Pomona v. The Christian FellowshiR Center et al, in which defendants have noticed
an appeal following a ruling of the trial court that the City's gross receipts business
license tax imposed on organizations licensed to play bingo was valid. By its action
for money due on unpaid license tax assessment, the City argued successfully that the
business license tax which exceeded the maximum amount allowed under Penal Code §326.5
was nonetheless valid under the municipal affairs authority of the charter city.
Agreeing with this position, the court in its ruling noted that the City is "a charter
city will full authority in municipal affairs including the power of imposing taxes to
raise revenue; a power that is indispensible to its existence." Committee consideration
of possible amicus assistance was deferred until the next meeting.
City of San Mateo v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board and Weber, now pending on
appeal by the City from a WCAB ruling made pursuant to Government Code §21026 giving
the Board jurisdiction to resolve disputed "causation" of a disability for which a
local safety member of PERS has been retired. The City had retired a fire fighter for
his inherent predisposition to bronchospasm upon exposure to smoke or fumes and the
workers' compensation judge ruled that the aggravation of the predisposition rendered
the disability industrial. It is the City's position that the WCAB exceeded its
jurisdiction under §21026 by independently determinirig that an alleged non-industrial
disability, upon aggravation by an industrial occurrence, supported industrial disability
retirement since the Board's jurisdiction is limited "solely to the issue of industrial
causation", i.e. to a factual ruling on the preponderance of the evidence that the
disability determined by the employer to be disabling is or is not industrially caused.
The City will, therefore, contend that the WCAB ignored the City's evidence as to
• fundamental causation. Since the case on appeal may well be one of first impression the
Committee has appointed a subcommittee to review the details of the litigation toward
the possibility of recommending affirmative action by the Executive Committee on the
amicus request.
Cherrylee Gardens v. County of Los Angeles and City of El Monte, an action recently
filed seeking a tax refund of the amounts paid for the 1978-79 tax year levied by the
County for the City to fund a prior voter approved pension system. Because this, as well
as the Watsonville and San Gabriel pension override tax cases raising similar issues as
to the meaning of the term "indebtedness" in Proposition 13, are at the trial court
level, final Committee action with respect to amicus participation by other interested
cities has been deferred.
People Ex Rel. Stutrud v. City of Novato et al, an action previously reported in detail
and in which the trial court has ruled that the City's general plan is inadequate for
failure to have legally adequate housing, noise, land use, open space, and seismic
safety elements and because the general plan is not internally consistent or integrated
as required by Government Code §65300.5. While the trial court did not hesitate to
conclude that the state housing guidelines are advisory only, it granted a preemptory
writ requiring the City to bring its general plan into compliance with law as promptly
as possible, ordered it to submit evidence that an extension agreement has been entered
into with the Office of Planning and Research, and ordered that no developments or
subdivision maps be approved and no permits issued or zoning ordinances adopted except
in full compliance with such agreement. The City has been negotiating with OPR for
such an extension agreement, and findings of fact and conclusions of law are being
• formulated. r
-6
G
People v. Alexander, in which as previously reported the Appellate Department of she
Superior Court of Los Angeles County filed an opinion and judgment upholding the Los
" Angeles rent control ordinance. Publication of the Appellate Department ruling as •
requested by the City was refused and thus the case is final.
County of Los Angeles v. Marshall, the unemployment insurance case by which the public
agency plaintiff sought to have the U.S. Supreme Court. determine that this federal law
extending its coverage to state and local governments is unconstitutional. It was
noted that the Supreme Court at the beginning of this term denied the petition for
certiorari.
Toso v. City of Santa Barbara, 101 Cal. App. 3d 934, wherein the appellate court held
that the City's "precondemnation" activities were not so unreasonable as to warrant
damages in inverse condemnation and held that the trial court erred in its conclusion
that the denial of the developer's rezoning application was a quasi judicial act
reviewable under CCP §1094.5 rather than a legislative act subject to §1085. It was
noted that this appellate opinion is now final, both the state and U.S. Supreme Courts
having denied review Lhereof.
Bock v. City Council of Lompoc , 109 Cal. App. 3d 52, in which the appellate court
held that a proposed initiative establishing city owned electrical utility rates was
properly rejected for the ballot but that such rates are not "taxes" so as to bring
the initiative within the context of the "special taxes" provisions of Proposition 13
and the initiative process. It was noted that a petition for hearing has been filed
and the Supreme Court has extended to December 10 its own time for acting on the
petition.
County of Los Angeles v. Berk, 26 Cal. 3d 201, in which the court confirmed the •
establishment of an implied in law dedication as a public beach recreation easement
on certain private shoreline property. It was noted that the property owner's
petition for writ of certiorari was recently denied by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Martin v. City of Beverly Hills, in which as previously reported in detail the City
had filed across-complaint against the state for failure to comply with statutorily
mandated duties to assist cities in interpreting and enforcing the provisions of the
Health and Safety Code relative to access to public accommodations by physically
handicapped persons which in the principal action plaintiff claims the City violated.
It was noted that the trial court overruled the demurrer filed by cross-defendants
to the City's cross-complaint on the stated grounds that under the circumstances
alleged in the cross-complaint the City had stated a cause of action against the Attorney
General, the Director of the Department of Rehabilitation and the State Architect.
Music Plus Four, Inc. et al. v. Duncan et al. , now pending on appeal following trial
court invalidation of the drug paraphernalia ordinance of the City of Orange which
prohibits the entry of minors into any room or enclosure in any "swap meet" or place
of business selling or displaying for the purpose of sale any such paraphernalia unless
accompanied by a parent or,legal guardian. It was noted that the City Attorney of
Lakewood has filed an amicus curiae brief in the appellate court and anticipates that
the case will be orally argued in 'November.
The Record Factory v. City of Fremont, in which the Alameda County Superior Court granted
the City's motion for summary judgment after denying injunctive relief to plaintiff in
its action attacking the validity of the City's Lakewood-type ordinance prohibiting •
the display of drug paraphernalia in the city. ,
-7-
1
.1
Mober _v. Civil Service Commission, an action by a non-probationary police officer who
after refusal to return to work on the police chief's order was declared to have
• abandoned his job. The principal issue in the case is whether the 90-day statute of
limitations to seek judicial review of employment termina�:ion, established by an ordinance
adopted by the City pursuant to CCP §1094.6, may be equitably tolled for the period of time
that the employee was pursuing worker's compensation and unemployment benefits claims.
After the trial court sustained the City's demurrer to the complaint, petitioner filed
an amended complaint and the City filed a motion for summary judgment which it expects
will be granted.
Brighton Park-Riverside et al. v. City of Riverside et al. , an action by developers for
general and punitive damages based on the alleged failure of city building officials
to carry out the alleged mandatory inspection and other duties imposed on them by the
Uniform Building Code which allegedly resulted in the construction of an apartment
project by plaintiffs in violation of that code and required expenditures by plaintiffs
to bring the project up to code standards. The City expects that its demurrer will be
granted without leave to amend.
Gaines v. Chamber of Commerce of Morro Bay et al. , an action by which plaintiff seeks
repayment to the city of the sum it paid to the Chamber of Commerce under contract
entered into pursuant to action of the three member City Council allegedly in violation
of an initiative ordinance limiting city expenditures for "community promotion activities"
and allegedly in violation of Government Code §1090 et seq. in that one of- the three
council members had a disqualifying interest in the contract as an officer and member
of the Chamber of Commerce. The City has demurred to the complaint and the case is
under submission.
Solano Irrigation District v. Solano County et al. , presently pending on appeal by
• petitioner following a trial court ruling in favor of the City of Fairfield in the
mandate action. The issues presented are whether Government Code §35102 require a
plan for providing services when a property owner initiates annexation, whether
Government Code §54790.2 requires that LAFCO not approve annexation of open space 'lands
when there is undeveloped vacant land within the city, and whether Government Code §65402
(a) requires County Planning Commission review prior to LAFCO consideration of annexation
where the land in question is pre-zoned.
The next regular meeting of the Committee will be held on January 16. Information
concerning any case submitted for consideration by the Committee should be conveyed
to the appropriate member and the Sacramento office of the League at least one week
in advance of that meeting.
Carlyn F. Galway
Senior Staff Attorney
CFG/mba
-8-
ORDINANCE NO. 33
• AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO ADDING
CHAPTER 1 TO TITLE 4 OF THE ATASCADERO
MUNICIPAL CODE, ENTITLED ANIMALS
The Council of the City of Atascadero ordains as follows:
Section 1 . Chapter 1 of Title 4 is added to the Atascadero
Municipal Code to read as follows :
TITLE 4 PUBLIC SAFETY
Chapter 1 . Animals
Article 1 General Provisions
4-1. 101. Establishment of public pound.
A public pound is authorized and established, and it and any
of its branches shall be located at such place as shall be fixed
from time to time by the City Council . The public pound, and any
of its branches, shall be provided with suitable buildings and
enclosures to adequately keep and safely hold: all dogs, cats, or
household pets subject to be impounded by the provisions of .this
• Chapter.
4-1.102 . Contract for animal control services.
The City Council may contract with the County of San Luis Obispo
for the performance of such animalcontrolservices as may be desired
to implement, enforce or execute the provisions of this Chapter. In
the event such contract is entered into, then the authority, duties,
obligations and responsibilities assigned herein to the Animal Con-
trol Officer, as defined or limited by such contract, shall become
the authority, duties, obligations and responsibilities of the Di-
rector, Department of Animal Regulation, County of San Luis Obispo.
4-1. 103 . Authority of Chief of Police.
The provisions of Section 4-1. 101, above, notwithstanding, the
Chief of Police shall be responsible for and shall have authority
to exercise the duties, obligations and responsibility for all pro-
visions of this Chapter not otherwise provided for by contract
executed under Section 4-1. 102 above
4-1. 104 . Animal Control Officer - Duties.
There shall be in this City a Chief Animal Control Officer
resnonsible for the administration of animal control regulations.
• It shall be the duty of the Chief Animal Control Officer and his
duly authorized deputies and employees to carry out and enforce the
provisions of this title and all applicable statutes of the State
and to be in charge of the public pound. It shall be the duty of
ORDINANCE NO. 33
the Chief Animal Control Officer to provide patrols of the City
from time to time and without public notice for the purpose of en,-
forcing the provisions of this Chapter.
4-1. 105. Animal Control Officer - Citation authority - Authority,
to carry weapons.
(a) The Chief Animal Control Officer and his duly authorized
deputies shall have the power to issue citations pursuant
to Chapter 4 , Ordinance No. 10, dated August 13 1979 ,
establishing City of Atascadero Municipal Code.
(b) Animal Control Officers, when acting in the course and
scope of their employment, shall be and are authorized to
carry on their person, or in official vehicles, loaded
firearms or weapons of the type approved by the Chief An-
mal Control Officer for the limited purpose of use with
respect to rabid or injured animals. Each officer shall
qualify under California Penal Code Section 832 in the use
of firearms,
4-1. 106. Badges
The Chief Animal Control Officer and his duly authorized and
appointed deputies, while engaged in the execution of their duties ,
shall each wear in plain view a badge having, in the case of the
Chief Animal Control Officer, the words "Chief Animal Control Office
and in the case of the Deputy Animal Control Officers, the words
"Deputy Animal Control Officer" engraved thereon. Any person who has
not been appointed as an Animal Control Officer, or whose appointment
has been revoked, who shall represent himself to be or shall attempt
to act as an Animal Control Officer shall be guilty of a misdeameanor.
4-1. 107. Record of -poundmaster.
The poundmaster -shall keep a written record of the number, des-
cription and disposition of all dogs, cats and household pets
impounded, showing in detail in the case of each, the date of receipt,
the date and manner of disposal, the name of the person reclaiming ,
redeeming or receiving such dogs, cats or household pets, the reason
for destruction and such additional records as from time to time may
be necessary.
4-1. 108. Reports
The Chief Animal Control officer shall make a monthly report to
the City Manager, or as often as may be required, of the actions ,
transactions and operations of the public pound.
4-1. 109. Unnecessary noise.
It is unlawful for any person to keep, maintain, or permit on
any lot or parcel of land, any dogs, cats , or household pets, poultr*
or other animal, which by any sound or cry shall disturb the peace
2 _
ORDINANCE NO. 33
• and comfort of the neighborhood.
4-1 . 110 . Abatement of noise or nuisance.
Whenever it shall be affirmed in writing by three (3) or more
persons living in separate dwelling units in the neighborhood that
any dog, cat, animal , poultry or household pet is a nuisance by
reason of howling, barking, or other noise, or is in any other manner
causing undue annoyance, that shall constitute a public nuisance,
the Animal Control Officer, if he finds such public nuisance to exist ,
shall serve notice upon the owner or custodian that the public nui-
sance shall be abated or the animal shall be impounded in a legal
manner. If the nuisance and annoyance cannot be successfully abated
and the Animal Control Officer determines it necessary to impound
such dog, cat; animal , poultry or household pet, he shall not permit
the reclaiming or redemption of the animal to the owner or custodian
unless adequate arrangements have been made by the owner or custod-
ian to ensure abatement of the annoyance or public nuisance .
4-1. 111 . Unlawful disposal of dead animals , dogs, cats, poultry and
household pets.
It is unlawful for any owner or person who, having had the posses-
sion or control of any animal , dog, cat or household pet while alive, .
to place the body of such animal, dog, cat or household pet, after
its death, or cause to permit it to be place or to knowingly allow
• or permit it to remain, in or upon any public road, highway, street,
alley, square, park, school ground or other public place, or in or
upon any lot, premises , or property of another.
4-1. 112 . Disposition of dead animals, dogs , cats, poultry and house-
hold pets upon request.
It shall be the duty of the Animal Control Officer upon request
of any owner of any dead animal, dog, cat, poultry, or household pet
which was kept or maintained in the City immediately prior to its
death, or upon the request of any person or persons discovering a
dead animal , dog, cat , poultry or household pet upon his premises or
upon any public road, highway, street, alley, square, park, school
ground or other public place, or in or upon any lot or premises, to
forthwith bury or dispose of such animal, dog, cat, poultry, or house-
hold pet in such a manner as may be preseribed by law. The Animal
Control Officer may charge and collect fees for the transportation
and disposal of the animal , dog, cat, poultry or household pet from
the owner or person having had the possession or control of the ani-
mal , dog, cat, poultry or household pet if such owner or person can
be ascertained.
4-1. 113 . Definitions.
(a) "Animals" shall mean and include horses , ponies , mules,
• jacks, jennies, cows , bulls, calves , heifers , sheep, goats ,
swine, rabbits, and 'all other domestic or domesticated
_ 3 -
ORDINANCE NO. 33
animals other than household pets.
(b) "Poultry" shall mean and include pigeons, ducks, geese,
turkeys, chickens, and all other domestic or domestica-
ted fowl other than household pets.
(c) "Household pets" shall mean and include cats, dogs , canar-
ies, parrots and other kindred animals and birds usually
and ordinarily kept as household pets.
(d) "Dog kennel" shall mean any lot, building, structure
enclosure or premises whereon or wherein four (4) or more
dogs four (4) months of age or older, are kept or main-
tained for any purpose whatsoever except dogs kept for the
owners use in herding livestock or hunting; provided,
however, that if other animals or birds or fowl are bought,
sold or bartered, the classification to apply shall be that
of a pet shop; and provided, further, that this definition
of "dog kennel" shall not be construed as applying to a
duly licensed veterinary hospital or any public pound.
(e) "Boarding kennel" shall mean any dog kennel in which dogs
not owned by the kennel, or the owner or owners of the
kennel, are kept and cared for, and a fee is charged for
such lodging and care.
(f) "Commercial kennel" shall mean any dog kennel in which dog*
are kept for commercial reasons, for sale or for commer-
cial breeding.
(g) "Non-commercial kennel" shall mean any dog kennel in which
four (4) or more dogs are kept for non-commercial reasons ,
including hunting and herding livestock . The sale of
animals from such a kennel shall be limited to one litter
per year, and shall be considered an accessory residential
use and will be construed as a commercial use or activity.
Each dog in such kennel shall be individually licensed as
provided for in Section 4-1. 224 .
(h) "Pet shop" shall mean any lot, building, structure, en-
closure or premises whereon or wherein a business of buying
and selling or bartering birds , animals or fowl is carried
on; but this definition shall not be construed as applying
to the buying or selling of livestock, nor to the business
or activities of a duly licensed veterinary hospital ,
nor to the business or activities of any public pound.
(i) "Poundmaster" shall mean the Chief Animal Control Officer
of the City.
4-1. 114 . Dog Kennels, Pet Shops, Regulations . •
It shall be unlawful for any person to erect, establish or
4 _
ORDINANCE NO. 33
maintain any boarding kennel, commercial kennel , non=commercial
kennel , or pet shop as herein defined, without first obtaining the
permit from the Chief Animal Control Officer. The granting of such
permit shall be in the discretion of the Chief Animal Control Officer,
who shall take into consideration the type of construction to be
employed as it relates to sanitation, and the manner in which the
animals, birds or fowl are to be housed. Prior to issuing such permit,
the Chief Animal Control Officer shall receive the approval of the
Planning Director so as to assure compliance with such zoning regu-
lations as may be in effect. The permit shall be for a calendar
year, with a permit fee due and payable on January lst of each year .
The amount of said fee shall be set by Resolution of the City Council.
4-1.115 . Requirement of Business License - Posting of emergency
notices.
It is unlawful for any person to erect, establish or maintain
any boarding kennel, commercial kennel , or pet shop, as defined in
this Title, without first obtaining a license from the City Tax
Administrator. After approval by the Chief Animal Control Officer of
the permit that is required by this Chapter, the Tax Administrator,
upon the payment of the -required annual license fee for the privil-
ege of maintaining such dog kennels or pet shops, shall issue to the
applicant a license in such _form as he may prescribe . Such license
shall be for the calendar year or any part thereof during which the
• dog kennel or pet shop shall be maintained, and shall be due and pav-
able in advance on January lst of each year, and shall expire on
December 31st of such year, provided the above mentioned permit has
not been revoked. Every person, firm, or corporation maintaining a
boarding kennel , commercial kennel , or pet shop shall post a notice
in a conspicuous place where it may be seen outside the locked prem-
ises, listing names, addresses and telephone numbers of persons who
may be contacted in the event of an emergency.
4-1. 116 . Kennel and Pet Shop Permits - Refusal, Suspension or
Revocation Thereof.
(a) The permit for the maintenance and operation of a boarding
kennel , commercial kennel, non-commercial kennel or pet
shop shall be refused by the Chief Animal Control Officer
upon a finding that any of the applicable provisions of this
Chapter have not been complied with.
(b) A permit may be immediately suspended by the Chief Animal
Control Officer for violation of any provision of this
Chapter when, in his opinion, the danger to public health
is so imminent, immediate and threatening as not to admit
of delay. In the event of such suspension, the holder shall
be given an opportunity for an office hearing before an im-
partial hearing officer within forty-eight (48) hours of
• the time of suspension. Upon conclusion of the office
- 5 -
ORDINANCE NO. 33
hearing, the hearing officer may decide to: •
(1) Dismiss the changes and reinstate the permit; or
(2) Reinstate the permit conditioned upon correction of
the violation; or
(3) Revoke the permit.
(c) If, in the opinion of the Chief Animal Control Officer,
the danger to public health is not so imminent, immediate
and threatening as to admit of delay, he shall send a
notice of violation to the permittee and seek to achieve
compliance informally by means of a correction schedule and
reasonable inspections. If , as a result of subsequent in-
spection, it is determined that the permittee has failed to
comply with the schedule and correct the noticed deficien-
cies, the Chief Animal Control Officer shall send a notice
to the permittee advising the permittee of the remaining
deficiencies and the convening of an office hearing to
determine whether or not the permit should be revoked.
Upon conclusion of the office hearing ; the hearing officer
may decide to:
(1) Dismiss the charges; or •
(2) Establish a correction schedule; or
(3) Revoke the permit.
(d) All office hearingsreferred to herein shall be conducted '
in accordance with procedures adopted by the Animal Regu-
lation Department. The Chief Animal Control Officer shall
insure that an informal record of the proceedings is
maintained.
(e) Whenever the issuance of a permit is refused, or a permit
is revoked and the required office hearing has been held,
the applicant or permittee may appeal the action of the
Chief Animal Control Officer to the City Manager_ , within
ten (10) days of the action by the Chief Animal Control
Officer. The City Manager shall hear the matter at the
earliest possible date and shall give reasonable notice of
the time and place thereof to the applicant or permittee
and to the Chief Animal Control Officer and shall render
a decision in writing within ten (10) days of the hearing.
In the event that the applicant or permittee wishes to
appeal such decision, he shall do so in accordance with the
provisions of Ordinance No. 10 , Chapter 2 , Sections 22
through 25 .
4-1. 117 . Interference with performance of duties. •
- 6 -
ORDINANCE NO. 33
• It is unlawful for any person to resist, hinder, or obstruct
the Chief Animal Control Officer or any of his deputies or employees
in the exercise of their duties, Any person who violates this sec-
tion is quilty of a misdmeanor.
4-1. 118 . Violation of Order.
Any person who, after notice, violates, or who upon the demand
of any Animal Control Officer or Deputy, refuses or neglects to
conform to any rules, order, or regulation prescribed by the Animal
Regulation Department, is guilty of an infraction.
4-1 . 119 . Keeping Animals Limitations.
It is unlawful for any person, or persons , to own`, harbor or
maintain, at any single-family dwelling, more than three (3) dogs
or cats four (4) months of age or older.
4-1. 120. Violation.
No person shall tie , stake, or pasture, or permit the tying ,
staking, or pasturing of any animal or poultry upon any public or
private property without the consent of the owner or occupant of such
property or in such a way as to permit any such animal to trespass
upon any street or public place or upon such private property. All
• such animals shall be provided with adequate food, water, and shelter
or protection from the weather.`
All fences or enclosuresused for the purpose set forth in this
section shall be of such material and maintained in such. manner as
humane for the safety and protection of such animals.
ARTICLE 2. Dogs
4-1. 201. Stray dogs defined.
A "stray dog" is any dog licensed or unlicensed, which is in or
on any public road, highway, street, alley, square, park , school
ground or other public place, or in or upon any lot, premises or
property of another when not accompanied in the near vicinity by the
person owning, having interest in, harboring, or having charge, care ,
control , custody or possession of such dog Any stray dog shall be
immediately seized and impounded by the Poundmaster.
4-1. 202 . Leash lana.
It is unlawful for any person to permit any dog _owned, harbored ,
or controlled by him to be on any public street, alley, lane , park
or place of whatever nature open to and used by the public in the
incorporated areas of the City unless such dog is securely leashed
• and the leash is held continuously in the hand of a responsible per -
son capable of controlling such dog, or unless the dog is securely
confined in a vehicle, or unless the dog. is at "heel" beside a com---
petent person and obedient to that person ' s command.
ORDINANCE NO. 33
Dogs used on farms and ranches for the, primary purpose of •
herding livestock are not required to be leashed or at "heel"
beside their owner or person controlling the use of these dogs while
on a public street, alley, lane, or place of whatever nature open
to and used by the public while herding such livestock and as long
as these dogs are obedient to the commands of the person controlling
their use for this purpose. Dogs used for the primary purpose of
hunting are not required to be leashed or a "heel while used in
hunting as long as these dogs are obedient to the commands of the
person controlling their use for this purpose .
4-1. 203 . Duty of Poundmaster to seize and impound stray dogs.
It shall be the duty of the Poundmaster to seize and impound,
in a lawful manner, and subject to the provisions of this Chapter,
all stray or unlicensed dogs found within the City.
4-1. 204 . Dogs running at large.
Any dog found trespassing on any private property in the City
may be taken up by the owner or possessor of the property and de-
livered to the Poundmaster or detained on the property until picked
up by the Poundmaster.
4-1. 205 . Delivery to Poundmaster by private persons.
Every person taking up any dog under the provisions of this •
Chapter and every person finding any lost, strayed or stolen dog,
shall within twenty-four (24) hours thereafter, give notice thereof
to the Poundmaster and every such person in whose custody such dog
may, in the meantime, be placed shall surrender such animal to the
Poundmaster without fee or charge and the Poundmaster shall there-
upon hold and dispose of such dog in the same manner as though such
dog had been found running at large and impounded by him.
4-1. 206. Notice of impounding dog.
As soon as possible, but not later than twenty-four (24) hours
after impounding any dog properly registered under the provisions
of this Chapter, the Poundmaster shall notify the registered owner or
person having control of the dog by telephone, mail or personally
that such dog is impounded and that it can be redeemed within three
(3) days from the date of such impounding and unless redeemed the
dog will be disposed of in any manner as provided by this Chapter.
4-1. 207 . Redemption of impounded dogs.
The Poundmaster shall securely keep any dog impounded for a
period of three (3) days unless the dog be sooner reclaimed or re-
deemed by the owner or person having control thereof. Except as may
be provided in Section 4-1. 208 , the owner or person entitled to the •
custody of the dog so impounded may, at any time before the sale or
- 8 -
ORDINANCE NO. 33
• other disposition thereof, during the office hours of the pound,
reclaim or redeem the dog by exhibiting to the Poundmaster the
license certificate or license tag showing that the license for the
dog for the then current year has been paid and by paying the Pound-
master any charges provided for.
No fees whatsoever shall be charged or collected for or on
account of any dog which has been unlawfully taken up or impounded.
If the owner or person entitled to the custody of the dog believes
that the dog has been unlawfully taken up or impounded, that owner
or person may, within the seventy-two (72) hour redemption period,
request that an impartial hearing be conducted to determine the sole
issue of whether the dog was lawfully seized and impounded. If
a dog has been unlawfully taken up or impounded, it shall be returned
to its owner or the person entitled to the custody thereof .
4-1. 208 . Redemption fees.
The owner or person entitled to the custody of a dog impounded
shall pay the following fees to the Poundmaster before such dog is
released:
(a) Registration or license fee for the then current year
unless such fee has been previously paid and evidence of
paid fee adequately exhibited;
• (b) Impound fee of ten ($10) dollars for the first occasion
of any dog impounded within a calendar year;
(c) Impound fee of twenty-five ($25) dollars for the second
occasion of any dog impounded within a calendar year;
(d) Impound fee of fifty ($50) dollars for the third and each
such subsequent occasion of any dog impounded within a
calendar year.
4-1. 209 . Sale, gift, or destruction of dogs.
At any time after the expiration of the period of three (3)
days, the Poundmaster may, without further notice, and without
advertising in any manner, sell, give away or dispose of in a humane
way, any dog not reclaimed or redeemedasaforesaid. Provided, how-
ever, the Poundmaster may not sell, give away or transfer title to
any dog or any other animal to any institution engaged in the diag-
nosis or treatment of human or animal disease, or in research for
the advancement of veterinary, dental , medical , or biologic sci-
ences, or in the testing or diagnosis, improvement or standardization
of laboratory specimens, biologic products, pharmaceuticals, or drugs .
4-1. 210. Injured and diseased dogs.
• Every dog taken into custody by the Poundmaster which by reason
9 _
ORDINANCE NO. 33
of injury, disease or other good cause as determined by a licensed
veterinarian as dangerous or inhumane to keep impounded, shall be
forthwith destroyed by the Poundmaster in a humane manner unless
the owner or person entitled to the custody of the dog can be
notified by the Poundmaster within a reasonable period of time to
arrange and provide for medical care. The Poundmaster shall release
such dog to its owner or person having control thereof upon payment
of the redemption fees and other charges as provided in this Chap-
ter. However, if the licensed veterinarian determines that the dog
is diseased and by reason of such disease is dangerous to persons
or to other animals, or to the general health and welfare of the
City, the Poundmaster shall destroy the dog.
4-1. 211 . Care of dog while impounded.
The Poundmaster shall provide all dogs in his custody with
proper food and water, and shall give them all necessary care and
attention. The Poundmaster may charge a fee for recovery of actual
costs for food and care at the time an impounded dog is redeemed
by its owner or person having custody or may charge these fees at
such time an unclaimed dog is sold.-
4-1. 212 .
old:4-1. 212 . Vicious and dangerous dogs.
If any dog within the City is known to have bitten any person
or persons on at least two separate occasions, the Chief Animal •
Control Officer shall notify the owner or person having control of
such dog to so keep or surrender the dog in such manner as the Chief
Animal Control Officer shall direct. If it is determined by the
Chief Animal Control Officer that the dog cannot be properly con-
trolled in order to ensure public safety, then the Chief Animal
Control Officer shall destroy the dog in a humane manner.
If any dog within the City is determined by the Chief Animal
Control Officer to be vicious and dangerous to the safety of any
person or persons, the Chief Animal Control Officer shall notify
the owner or person having control of such dog to keep or surren-
der the dog, in such manner as the Chief Animal Control Officer
shall direct. If it is determined by the Chief Animal Control Offi-
cer that the dog cannot be properly controlled in order to ensure
public safety, the Chief Animal Control Officer shall destroy the
dog in a humane manner.
It shall be the duty of the owner or person having control of
a vicious and dangerous dog, or a dog which has bitten human being,
to surrender the dog as may be ordered by the Chief Animal Control
Officer.
4-1. 213 . Biting dogs
It is unlawful for any person to suffer or permit any dog
owned, harbored, or controlled by him to inflict upon any human
being a bite, that penetrates the skin, while the person bitten is
10 -
ORDINANCE NO. 33
on any public place, or legally upon any private property. The
person bitten may request the Animal Control Officer to initiate
criminal proceedings against such other person by submitting a signed,
written complaint.
4-1. 214 . Impounding of biting dogs.
Upon written notice by the Health Officer, the owner or person
having the control of any dog which has, within the preceding ten
(10) days, bitten any person or animal shall, upon demand, and in
the discretion of the Health Officer, follow one of the following
procedures:
(a) Confine the dog to his own premises; or
(b) Surrender the dog to the Poundmaster who shall impound
and keep the dog at the public pound in a separate kennel
for a period of not less than ten (10) days; or
(c) Surrender the dog to a licensed veterinarian as designated
by the Health Officer; or
(d) Surrender the dog to the Poundmaster for quarantine at
any other location or facility designated and approved
by the Health Officer.
• If the dog is quarantined on the premises of the owner, the
Poundmaster may post a quarantine sign on such premises, and it is
unlawful for any person to remove the sign during the term of such
quarantine without the consent of the Health. Officer. Any quaran-
tine provided in this section shall be for a term of not less than
ten (10) days unless otherwise specified by the Health Officer.
During the period, it shall be the duty of the Health Officer, upon
being notified by the Poundmaster that the dog has been impounded ,
to determine whether or not such dog is suffering from any disease.
If a duly licensed veterinarian designated by the Health Officer
shall determine dog is diseased and, by reason of such disease , is
dangerous to persons or to other animals, he shall so notify the
Poundmaster in writing, to destroy the dog. A copy of the notice
may also be served upon the owner or person having control of the
dog. If the veterinarian shall determine that the dog is not so
diseased, the Poundmaster shall notify the person owning or having
control of the dog at the address from which the dog was surrendered
to the Poundmaster and shall, upon demand, release the dog to the
owner or person lawfully entitled thereto, upon payment of any
charges provided therefor, including expenses of quarantine and
veterinary care; provided, however, that if no person lawfully
entitled to such dog shall within three (3) days after the date
of giving the last mentioned notice, appear at the public pound
and request the release of the dog, and pay the charges, the dog
• may be sold or destroyed by the Poundmaster in the same manner there
inbefore provided.
When a dog is ordered to be quarantined on the premises of the
- 11 -
ORDINANCE NO. 33
owner, an administrative fee to cover the expense of monitoring
the quarantine will be charged.
4-1. 215. Violation of quarantine.
It is unlawful for any person to suffer or permit any dog or
cat owned, harbored, or controlled by him to violate any written
quarantine notice.
4-1. 216. Symptoms of rabies.
Whenever the owner or person having the custody or possession
of an animal shall observe or learn that such animal shows symp-
toms of rabies, or acts in a manner which would lead to a reasonable
suspicion that it may have rabies, the owner or person having the
custody or possession of such animal shall immediately notify the
Health Officer. The Health Officer shall make or cause an in-
spection or examination of such animal to be made by a licensed
veterinarian until the existence or nonexistence of rabies in such
animal is established by the veterinarian. Such animal ' shall be
kept isolated in a pound, veterinary hospital , or other adequate
facility in a manner approved by the Health Officer and shall not
be killed or released for at least ten (10) days after the onset
of symptoms suggestive of rabies, after which time the animal may
be released by the Health Officer, provided the Health Officer has
first determined that the animal does not have rabies. If the •
Health Officer determines that the animal does have rabies, the
Poundmaster shall destroy the animal at the direction of the Health
Officer.
The Health Officer, or his duly authorized representative, is
authorized and empowered to enter in a manner authorized by law,
upon private property where any dog or other animal is kept, or
believed by him to be kept, for the purpose of ascertaining whether the
dog or other animal is afflicted or infected with rabies or other
contagious disease.
4-1. 217 . Dog registration and licenses.
Except as provided in Section 4-1. 226 , it is unlawful to own,
keep or control any dog unless and except a license has been pro-
cured therefor as herein provided. This section shall have no
application to dogs under the age of four (4) months fastened se-
curely by a rope, chain, or leash, or confined within the private
property of the owner or person having control of the dog.
4-1. 218 . Dog - Vaccination required.
It is unlawful for any person owning, harboring, or having
the care, custody, or possession of any dog to keep or maintain
such dog in any place in the City, or except as provided in Section •
4-1. 219 . , unless such dog has been vaccinated as provided herein.
This section shall have no application to dogs under the age of
- 12 -
ORDINANCE NO. 33
• four (4) months, who are fastened securely by a rope, chain or leash,
or confined within the private property of the owner or person hav-
ing control of the dog.
4-1. 219. No licensing without vaccination.
The Department of Animal Regulation shall not license any dog
until it has been vaccinated with canine rabies vaccine by injec-
tion or other method approved by the Health Officer during the time
prescribed by State law or the rules and regulations of the State
Department of Public Health, unless the owner or person in posses-
sion of the same submits a certificate from a licensed veterinarian
issued within the preceding sixty days, stating that, in his opinion,
the rabies vaccination would be likely to seriously injure the dog.
Any dog so excepted from rabies vaccination shall be restricted to
the enclosed yard of the owner or person in possession of the same
except when held upon a rope, chain, or leash.
4-1. 220. Vaccination performance
The vaccination shall be performed by a duly qualified and
licensed veterinarian. The veterinarian vaccinating the dog shall
issue to the owner or person in possession of the dog a rabies
vaccination tag and a certificate of vaccination, which certificate
shall include:
• (a) The type of vaccine used;
(b) The date of vaccination;
(c) Description of dog, including age, breed and color;
(d) Serial number of rabies vaccination tag issued to dog;
(e) Name and address of dog;
(f) Statement that the dog is male, neutered male, female ,
or spayed female. A copy of this certificate shall be
sent to San Luis Obispo County Department of Animal
Regulation.
4-1. 221. Registration record.
The San Luis Obispo County Department of Animal Regulation
shall maintain a record in which it shall , upon the application of
any person owning or having the custody of any dog in the City,
and the payment to it of the license fee hereby prescribed, regis-
ter the dog by entering in the record its name (if any) , its sex
and general description, whether it has been spayed or neutered, the
name of its owner or custodian, the number of the tag issued there-
for, the date of expiration of the rabies vaccine , the date of
issuance and the amount received for the license fee.
- 13 -
ORDINANCE NO. 33
4-1 . 222 . Dog tags •
Upon exhibition of the proper evidence of vaccination and
payment of the license fee, there shall be delivered to the person
making such payment a metal tag with the number and year stamped or
cut thereon, and the words "DOG TAG County of San Luis Obispo"
stamped thereon, which dog tag shall be securely fastened to a collar
or harness which must be worn at all times by the dog for which the
tag was issued. If the dog is exempted from vaccination, the dog
tag shall have a distinguishing mark as evidence of such fact.
This tag, while attached to a dog' s collar or harness, shall be
prima facie evidence that the dog for which the tag was issued has
been licensed during the calendar year for which the tag was issued,
and has been vaccinated.
4-1. 223 . Annual registration of dogs.
On January lst of each year, all prior licensing made under the
provisions of this Chapter shall be cancelled and all tags there-
tofore issued shall become null and void and of no effect and all
dogs kept or permitted to remain in the City must be again licensed.
The new license fee shall become due and payable on January lst of
each year.
4-1. 224 . License fees.
All license fees shall be set by Resolution of the City Council;
provided, however, that the fees previously set forth by adoption
of the Atascadero *Municipal Code shall be applicable until
superseded by such Resolution.
(a) For licensing each altered dog, male or female, the
Poundmaster shall collect and receive a fee , and for
licensing each unaltered dog, male or female, he shall
collect and receive a fee, unless the owner or custodian
of the dog chooses to place a deposit for the spaying or
neutering of said dog, with the Poundmaster. This de-
posit shall be forfeited to the Poundmaster if said
operation is not performed by the expiration date of the
license issued.
(b) The license fee shall be paid by March 8th of each year.
After this date a late penalty shall apply and the late
license fee shall be twice the pre-penalty fee.
(c) Puppies must be licensed upon reaching the age of four (4)
months. A spay-neuter deposit may be placed with the
Poundmaster, at which time the lesser fee shall be charged.
(d) Any dog brought within the City after March 15th of each
year shall be registered within thirty (30) days or these •
penalties shall attach from date of entry into the City;
- 14
ORDINANCE NO. 33
• provided that any dog which has a valid license from any
other county or city within the State of California shall
be so registered upon a fee of one-half the established
fee.
(e) Proration of license fee. Any person acquiring ownership,
care or custody of a dog, or having a dog reaching the
age of four (4) months between June 1 - December 31 , shall
pay a license fee of one-half the established fee.
4-1. 225. Lost tag.
If the tag issued for any duly registered dog is lost or acci-
dentally destroyed during the year it is issued, the owner or
custodian of such dog, upon making proof to the satisfaction of the
Chief Animal Control Officer of its loss or destruction, shall , upon
payment of a fee of two ($2) dollars, receive for such dog another
tag; whereupon the Chief Animal Control Officer shall enter the
number of the tag so issued on the register and cancel the tag prev-
iously issued for such dog.
4-1. 226 . License exceptions.
The provisions of this Chapter requiring the licensing of dogs
• shall not apply to:
(a) Dogs under the age of four (4) months if fastened securely
by a rope, chain, or leash, or confined within the private
property of the owner or person having control of the dog;
(b) Dogs owned by or in custody or under the control of per-
sons who are nonresidents of the City of Atascadero travel-
ing through the City or temporarily sojourning therein for
a period not exceeding thirty (30) days;
(c) Dogs brought into the City exclusively for the purpose of
entering the dogs in any dog show or exhibition, and which
are actually entered in a kept at such show or exhibi-
tion;
(d) Dogs on sale in duly licensed pet shops, or dog kennels;
(e) Dogs under the ownership, custody and control of the owner
of a dog kennel duly licensed under the provisions of
Section 4-1. 114 , or his duly authorized employee or agent
when such dogs are removed from such kennel in the bona
fide operation thereof for the purpose of exercise or
training, provided that any such dog bear an identifi-
cation tag attached to its collar, which tag shall set
forth the name of the licensed kennel . A dog bearing
• such identification tag shall be treated in all respects
as any other dog in the event of its escape and subse-
quent impoundment.
15 -
ORDINANCE NO. 33
4-1. 227. License fee exemptions.
(a) All seeing eye dogs and all dogs which have served with
the armed forces of the United States of America during
any period of actual hostilities must be licensed and
vaccinated under the provisions of this Chapter but their
owner shall be exempt from the license fee as therein
imposed, providing adequate evidence can be furnished at
such time the license is issued;
(b) Dogs used by any governmental agency for the purpose of
law enforcement must be licensed and vaccinated under the
provisions of this Chapter but their owners shall be
exempt from the license fee as herein imposed, providing
adequate evidence can be furnished at such time the li-
cense is issued;
(c) All dogs being raised and trained specifically to perform
as a seeing-eye dog must be licensed and vaccinated under
the provisions of this Chapter, but their owners shall be
exempt from the license fee as therein imposed, providing
adequate evidence can be furnished at such time the li-
cense is issued.
4-1.228 . Failure to pay license fee or provide information.
It is unlawful for any person owning or having the care, •
custody or control of any dog in the City, to refuse, fail or neglect
to pay the license fee at the time and in the manner herein provided,
or to refuse, fail or neglect to furnish to the Chief Animal Control
Officer, the Health Officer, or any of their duly qualified and
authorized deputies or employees, the information necessary to prop-
erly license the dog.
4-1. 229. Counterfeiting.
No person shall imitate or counterfeit such registration tags
or rabies vaccination tags. It is un-lawful for any person to re-
move any tag from any dog not owned by him or not lawfully in his
possession or under his control or to place on any dog any such
license tag not issued as provided for above for that particular
dog for the then current year or to make or to have in his posses-
sion or to place on a dog any counterfeit or imitation of any li-
cense tag or vaccination tag.
ARTICLE 3. Cats
4-1. 301. Impounding and disposition of stray or abandoned cats.
It shall be the duty of the Poundmaster to receive and impound
all cats believed to have been abandoned by their owners. The
Poundmaster shall provide proper care and attention, food and water, •
for all cats impounded and shall keep such cats for a period of
16
ORDINANCE NO. 33
three (3) days unless the cats be sooner reclaimed or redeemed by
the owner or person having control thereof. Such redemption shall
be made by paying the Poundmaster charges imposed to recover actual
costs of feeding and caring for the impounded cat.
No fees whatsoever shall be charged or collected for or on
account of any cat which has been unlawfully taken up or impounded.
The owner of a cat who believes the cat has been unlawfully seized
may request a hearing in accordance with the procedure set forth in
Section 4-1. 207 .
At any time after the expiration of the period of three (3)
days, the Poundmaster may, without notice and without advertising
in any manner, sell , give away, or dispose of the cats; provided,
however, the Poundmaster may not sell , give away, or transfer title
to any cats for any purposes as set forth in Section 4-1 .209 . ; pro-
vided further, however, the Poundmaster may not sell or give away
any female cat that has not been spayed, or any male cat that has
not been neutered, unless the cost of spaying or neutering such cat,
as determined and promulgated by the Department of Animal Regula-
tion, has been deposited with the pound.
ARTICLE 4 . Animals, Poultry and Household Pets
4-1. 401. Animals and poultry at large.
• No person shall allow or permit animals or poultry, other than
household pets, to run at large upon any public street or place , or
to trespass upon the property of another. This provision shall not
be construed as permitting the running at large of any household
pets who are restricted by the provisions of this Chapter, or by any
law applicable thereto.
4-1. 402 . Unsanitary conditions.
No person shall keep upon any premises, any animals , poultry
or household pets in a foul, offensive, obnoxious , filthy or un-
sanitary condition.
Section 2 . The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be pub-
lished once within fifteen (15) days after its passage in the Atas-
cadero News, a newspaper of general circulation printed, published
and circulated in the City in accordance with Section 36933 of the
Government Code; shall certify the adoption of this ordinance and
shall cause this ordinance and this certification to be entered into
the Book of Ordinancesofthis City.
Section 3 . This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full
force and effect at 12 : 01 a.m. on the 31st day after its passage.
•
17 -
ORDINANCE NO. 33
The foregoing ordinance was introduced on November 10 , 1980
and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council held on
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ROBERT J . WILKINS, JR. , Mayor
ATTEST:
MURRAY L. WARDEN, City Clerk
APPROVED AS FORM:
APPROVED
ALLEN GRIMES, City Attorney •
•
18 -
_I_N_D_E_X_
• Ordinance No. 33 Animals
Page
ARTICLE 1. General Provisions
4-1.101 Establishment of public pound . . 1
4-1. 102 Contract for animal control services 1
4-1. 103 Authority of Chief of Police . . . . . . . 1
4-1. 104 Animal Control Officer - Duties . 1
4-1.105 Animal Control Officer - Citation authority -
Authority to carry weapons . . . . . 2
4-1.106 Badges . . . . . . 2
4-1. 107 Record of poundmaster . . . . . . 2
4-1.108 Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
4-1. 109 Unnecessary noise . . . . . . . . . 2
4-1.110 Abatement of noise or nuisance . . 3
4-1. 111 Unlawful disposal of dead animals, dogs, cats,
poultry and household pets . . . . . 3
4-1. 112 Disposition of dead animals, dogs, cats, poul-
try and household pets . . . . . . . 3
4-1. 113 Definitions . . . . . . . . 3
4-1.114 Dog Kennels, Pet Shops, Regulations . 4
4-1.115 Requirement of Business License - Posting of.
emergency notices . . 5
4-1. 116 Kennel and Pet Shop Permits - Refusal, Sus-
pension or Revocation Thereof 5
4-1. 117 Interference with performance of duties . . . 6
4-1. 118 Violation of Order . . . . 7
4-1.119 Keeping Animals -- Limitations . . . . 7
4-1. 120 Violation . . . . . . . . . . . 7
ARTICLE 2. Dogs . . . . . . . . . 7
4-1.201 Stray dogs defined . . . . . . . 7
4-1.202 Leash law . . . . . . . . . .
. . • 7
4-1.203 Duty of Poundmaster to seize and impound
stray dogs . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4-1. 204 Dogs running at large . . . . . . . . . 8
4-1. 205 Delivery to Poundmaster by private persons 8
4-1.206 Notice of impounding dog . . . . . . 8
4-1. 207 Redemption of impounded dogs . . 8
4-1. 208 Redemption fees . . . . . . 9
4-1. 209 Sale, gift, or destruction of dogs . . 9
4-1. 210 Injured and diseased dogs . . . . 9
4-1.211 Care of dog while impounded . . . 10
4-1.212 Vicious and dangerous dogs . . . . . 10
4-1. 213 Biting dogs . . . . . . . 10
4-1.214 Impounding of biting dogs . . . . 11
4-1. 215 Violation of quarantine . . . . 12
• 4-1. 216 Symptoms of rabies . . . . . . . . 12
4-1. 217 Dog registration and licenses • . . . 12
4-1.218 Dog - Vaccination required . . . . . . . 12
i
INDEX
Ordinance No. 33 - Animals •
Page
ARTICLE 2. Dogs (cont. )
4-1.219 , No licensing without vaccination . . 13
4-1. 220 Vaccination performance . . . . . . 13
4-1.221 Registration record . . . . . 13
4-1.222 Dog tags . . . . . . . 14
4-1. 223 Annual_ registration of dogs . . . . . . . 14
4-1. 224 License fees . . . . . . 14
4-1. 225 Lost tag . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4-1.226 License exceptions . . . . . . . . 15
4-1.227 License fee exemptions . . . . . . . . . 16
4-1. 228 Failure to pay license fee or provide
information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4-1.229 Counterfeiting . . . . 16
ARTICLE 3. Cats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4-1. 301 Impounding and disposition of stray or
abandoned cats . . . . . . . . . 16
ARTICLE 4.. Animals, Poultry and Household Pets . . . 17
4-1.401 Animals and poultry at large . . . 17
4-1. 402 Unsanitary conditions . . . . . . . . . 17 •
•
ii
ORDINANCE NO. 34
• AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO CREATING
CHAPTER 3 TO TITLE 4 OF THE ATASCADERO MUNICIPAL CODE,
ENTITLED TRAFFIC REGULATION
The Council of the City of Atascadero ordains as follows:
Section 1. Chapter 3 of Title 4 is added to the Atascadero
Municipal Code to read as follows:
TITLE 4. PUBLIC SAFETY
Chapter 3. Traffic Regulation
Article 1. Words and Phrases Defined
4-3. 101. Definition of words and phrases.
The following words and phrases when used in this ordinance shall,
for the purpose of this ordinance, have. the meanings respectively
ascribed to them in this Article.
Whenever any words and phrases used herein are not 'defined herein,
but are defined in the Vehicle Code of the State of California and
amendments thereto, such definitions shall apply.
• (a) "Coach" - Any motor bus, motor coach, trackless trolly or
passenger stage used as a common carrier of passengers.
(b) "Council" - The Council of the City of Atascadero
(c) "Curb" - The lateral boundary of the roadway whether such
curb be marked by curbing construction, or not so marked;
the word "curb" as herein used shall not include the line
dividing the roadway of' a street from parking strips in
the center of a street, nor from tracks or rights of way
of public utility companies.
(d) "Divisional island" - A raised island located in the road-
way and separating opposing or conflicting streams of
traffic.
(e) '.'Gross weight" - The weight of a vehicle without load plus
the weight of any load thereon.
(f) "Holidays Within the meaning of this chapter, holidays
are the first day of January, known as "New Year' s Day" ;
the twelfth day of February, known as "Lincoln's Birthday";
the third Monday in February, known as "Washington' s Holi-
day" ; the last Monday in May, known as "Memorial Day"; the
• fourth day of July, known as "Independence Day" ; the first
Monday in September, known as "Labor Day" ;
the last Thursday in
Ordinance No. 34
November, known as "Thanksgiving Day" ; r •
" , _ " ; and the twenty-fifth day of December,
known as "Christmas.
(g) "Loading Zone The space reserved for the exclusive use
of vehicles during the loading or unloading of passengers
or freight.
(h) "Official time standard" - Whenever certain hours are named
herein, they shall mean standard time or daylight-saving
time as may be in current use in this City.
(i) "Ordinance The ordinance, rule or regulation adopted by
the Council relating to the movement of traffic and enforce-
ment thereof:
(j ) "Parkway" - That portion of street right of way other than
a roadway or a sidewalk.
(k) "Passenger loading zone" The space reserve for the exclu-
sive use of vehicles while receiving or discharging passengers.
(l) "Police Officer" Every officer of the Police Department
of this City or any officer authorized to direct or regulate
traffic or to make arrests for violations of traffic regu-
lations.
(m) "Railroad train" - A steam engine, electric or other motor,
with or without cars coupled thereto, operated upon rails,
except streetcars.
(n) "Traffic Engineer The Public Works Director of the City is
designated the Traffic Engineer and charged with the duties
thereof, as hereinafter provided.
(o) "Traffic Enforcement Unit" - A unit within the Police Depart-
ment.
(p) "Traffic Engineering Division" A division within the
Public Works Department.
(q) "Vehicle Code- - The Vehicle Code of the State of California.
Article 2. Traffic Administration
4-3. 201. Police Administration - Traffic Enforcement Unit.
There is hereby established in the Police Department a Traffic
Enforcement Unit to be under the control of a police officer appointed
by and directly responsible to the Chief of Police. •
Ordinance No. 34
•
4-3. 202.. 02. Duty of Traffic Enforcement Unit.
It shall be the duty of the Traffic Enforcement Unit with such
aid as may be rendered by other members of the Police Department to
enforce the street traffic regulations of this City and all of the
State vehicle laws applicable to street traffic in this City, to
make arrests for traffic violations, to investigate traffic accidents
and to cooperate with the Traffic Engineer and other officers of the
City in the administration of the traffic laws and in developing ways
and means to improve traffic conditions, and to carry out those
duties specially imposed upon said division by this Ordinance.
4-3. 203. Traffic Engineer.
The Traffic Engineer shall exercise the powers and duties as
provided in this Chapter. He shall be responsible for all traffic
engineering division functions in the Public Works Department.
4-3.204. Powers and duties of Traffic Engineer - Delegation.
It shall be the general duty of the Traffic Engineer to determine
the installation and proper timing and maintenance of traffic control
devices and signals , to conduct engineering analysis of traffic acci-
dents and to devise remedial measures, to conduct engineering and
• traffic surveys of traffic conditions and to cooperate with other
City officials in the development of ways and means to improve traffic
conditions , and to carry out the powers and duties imposed by the
laws of this City..
Whenever the Traffic Engineer is required or authorized to place
or maintain official traffic control devices or signals, he may cause
such devices or signals to be placed or maintained.
Whenever, by the provisions of this Chapter, a power is granted
to the Traffic Engineer or a duty imposed upon him, the power may
be exercised or the duty performed by a person authorized by him.
4-3. 205. Traffic accident studies.
Whenever the accidents at any particular location become numerous ,
the Traffic Enforcement Unit shall cooperate with the Traffic Engineer
in conducting studies of such accidents and determining remedial
measures.
4-3.206 . Traffic accident reports .
The traffic enforcement unit and/or the traffic engineering divi-
sion shall maintain a suitable system of filing traffic accident reports.
Such reports shall be available for the use and information of the
• supervising officer of the Traffic Enforcement Unit and the Traffic
Engineer.
3 -
• •
Ordinance No. 34
4-3. 207. Annual traffic safety report.
The Traffic Enforcement Unit and Traffic Engineering Division
shall jointly submit an annual traffic report to the City Manager.
Such a report shall contain information on traffic matters as follows:
(a) The number of traffic accidents, the number of persons
killed, the number of persons injured, and other per-
tinent traffic accident data.
(b) The number of traffic accidents investigated and other per-
tinent data of the safety activities of the police.
(c) The plans and recommendations of the Traffic Enforcement
Unit and the Traffic Engineering Division of future traffic
safety activities.
4-3.208. Emergency and experimental regulations.
(a) The Traffic Engineer may test traffic control devices under
actual conditions of traffic.
(b) The Chief of Police may authorize the temporary placing of
official traffic control devices when required by an
emergency. The Chief of Police shall notify the Traffic
Engineer of his action as soon thereafter as is practicable•
4-3.209. Traffic committee.
The City Manager may establish an advisory traffic committee to
serve, without compensation, consisting of the Chief of Police or his
representative, the supervising officer of the Traffic Enforcement
Unit, the Traffic Engineer, the Planning Director or his representative,
and other such technical representation as may be required. The chair-
man of the committee shall be the Traffic Engineer.
4-3.210. Duties of traffic committee.
It shall be the duty of the traffic committee to suggest the
most practicable means for coordinating the activities of all officers
and agencies of this City having authority with respect to the admin-
istration and enforcement of traffic regulations; to stimulate and
assist in the preparation and publication of traffic reports ; and to
recommend to the City Manager means for improving traffic conditions
and the administration and enforcement of traffic regulations.
Article 3. Enforcement and Obedience to
Traffic Regulations
4-3. 301. Authority of Police and Fire Department officials. •
Officers of the Police Department and such officers as are
assigned by the Chief of Police are hereby authorized to direct all
4 _
Ordinance No. 34
• traffic by voice, hand, audible or other signal in conformance with
traffic laws, except that in the event of a fire or other emergency
or to expedite traffic or to safeguard pedestrians , officers of the
Police Department or members of the Fire Department may direct traffic
as conditions may require, notwithstanding the provisions to the con-
trary contained in this Chapter or the Vehicle Code.
4-3. 302. Obstruction or interference with police or authorized
officers.
No person shall interfere with or obstruct in any any police
officer or other officer or employee of this City in their enforce-
ment of the provisions of this Chapter. The removal, obliteration
or concealment of any chalk mark or other distinguishing mark used
by any police officer or other employee or officer of this City in
connection with the enforcement of the parking regulations of this
Ordinance shall, if done for the purpose of evading the provisions
of this Chapter, constitute such interference or obstruction.
4-3. 303. Exception of certain vehicles.
(a) The provisions of this section regulating the parking or
standing of vehicles shall not apply to any vehicle of a
City department or of a public utility while necessarily
• in use in construction or repair work, or any vehicle
owned or operated by the United States Postal Service while
in use for the collection, transportation, or delivery of
United States mail.
(b) The foregoing exception shall not, however, relieve the
operator of any such vehicle from the obligation to exer-
cise due care for the safety of others, or the consequences
of his willful disregard for the safety of others.
4-3. 304. Removal of vehicles from streets.
Any regular sworn police officer of-the Police Department may
remove or cause to be removed any vehicle:
(a) That has been parked or left standing upon a street for
seventy-two (72) consecutive hours
(b) Which is parked or left standing upon a street between any
specified hours when such parking or standing is prohibited
by the Municipal Code or by authorization of the Traffic
Engineer and signs are posted giving notice of such prohi-
bition and removal
(c) Which is parked or left standing upon a street where access
to such street or a portion thereof is necessary for cleaning,
• repair, or construction thereof or therein, or when the use
of the street or portion thereof is authorized for a purpose
other than for the normal flow of traffic, or when the use
- 5 -
Ordinance No. 34
of the street or portion thereof is necessary for the movement of •
equipment, articles, or structures of such size that such movement
would be impeded by parked vehicles , provided that signs giving
notice of prohibition of parking and removal of vehicles are posted
at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to the beginning of the period
of prohibition.
Article 4. Traffic Control Devices
4-3.401. Authority to install traffic control devices.
The Traffic Engineer, as authorized by the Council,shall place
and maintain or cause to be placed and maintained official traffic
control devices upon streets and highways as required under the
Vehicle Code or the traffic laws of this City to make effective the
provisions of the Code or the laws and may place and maintain or
cause to be placed and maintained, such appropriate official traffic
control devices as may be deemed necessary to properly indicate and
to carry out the provisions of the Vehicle Code or the Municipal
Code or to warn or guide traffic.
4-3. 402 . Official traffic control devices required for enforcement
purposes.
No provision of the Vehicle Code (unless expressly stated therein
or of the Municipal Code which require official control devices shall*
be enforced against an alleged violator unless appropriate official
traffic control devices are in place giving notice of such provisions
of the traffic laws.
4-3. 403. Installation of traffic signals.
(a) The Traffic Engineer, as authorized by the Council, shall
install and maintain official traffic signals.
(b) The Traffic Engineer shall ascertain and determine the
locations where such signals are required by an engineering
and traffic survey and his determinations therefrom shall
be made in accordance with those traffic engineering and
safety standards and instructions set forth in the California
State Department of Transportation Traffic Manual.
4-3. 404. Traffic Engineer to establish crosswalks.
(a) The Traffic Engineer as authorized by the Council shall
establish, designate and maintain crosswalks at intersec-
tions and other places by appropriate devices , marks or
lines upon the surface of the roadway where, in his opinion,
it is essential to the effective and safe flow of vehicular
and pedestrian traffic.
.(b) The Traffic Engineer is authorized to install signs at or •
adjacent to an intersection in respect to any crosswalk
_ 6 ,
Ordinance No. 34
•
directing that pedestrians shall not cross in the cross-
walk so indicated.
4-3. 405. Traffic lanes.
The Traffic Engineer shall have authority to mark traffic lanes
upon the roadway of any street or highway where a regular alignment
of traffic is necessary.
4-3. 406 . Distinctive roadway markings.
The Traffic Engineer is authorized to place and maintain upon
highways distinctive roadway markings as described in the Vehicle `
Code.
4-3. 407. Authority to remove, relocate and discontinue traffic con-
trol devices .
The Traffic Engineer, as authorized by the Council,-"may remove,
relocate or discontinue the operation of any traffic control device
not specifically required by the Vehicle Code or this Chapter when-
ever he shall determine in any particular case that the conditions
which warranted or required the installation no longer exist or apply.
• 4-3. 408. Traffic control devices: Hours of operation.
The Traffic Engineer, as authorized by the Council, shall deter-
mine the hours and days during which any traffic control device shall
be in operation or be in effect, except in those cases where such
hours or days are specified in this Chapter.
4-3. 409. Unauthorized painting of curbs.
No person or agency, other than the City, unless authorized by
the Traffic Engineer, shall paint any street or curb surface.
4-3. 410. Construction of traffic control devices.
Any person or agency performing construction or maintenance work
within a roadway shall provide and maintain temporary traffic control
devices as set forth in the California State Department of Transpor-
tation Traffic Manual. The traffic control devices are to be main-
tained during such time that construction or maintenance work creates
a hazardous or unsafe condition in the vehicle or pedestrian travelway.
Article 5. Speed _Regulations
4-3. 501. State speed laws applicable.
• The State traffic laws regulating the speed of vehicles shall be
applicable upon all streets within this City except where the Traffic
7 -
•
Ordinance No. 34
Engineer, as authorized by the Council, upon the basis of an engi-
neering
ngi neering and traffic survey, determines that other speed limits shall
be applicable on specified streets or in certain areas.
4-3. 502 . Authority of Traffic Engineer.
(a) Whenever the Traffic Engineer, as authorized by the Council,
determines, based upon engineering artd traffic survey, that
a speed greater than twenty-five (25) miles per hour would
facilitate the orderly movement of vehicular traffic and
would be reasonable and safe upon any street other than a
State highway otherwise subject to a prima facie limit of
twenty-five (25) miles per hour, the Council may declare a
prima facie speed limit of thirty (30) , thirty-five (35)
forty (40) , forty-five (45) , fifty (50) , or fifty-five
(55) miles per hour or a maximum speed limit of fifty-five
(55) miles per hour, whichever is found most appropriate
to facilitate the orderly movement of traffic and is rea-
sonable and safe.
(b) Whenever the Traffic Engineer, as authorized by the Council,
determines , upon the basis of an engineering and traffic
survey, that the limit of fifty-five (55) miles per hour
is more than is reasonable or safe upon any portion of
any street other than a State highway where the limit of •
fifty-five (55) miles per hour is applicable, the Council
may declare a prima facie speed limit of fifty (50) ,
forty-five (45) , thirty-five (35) , thirty (30) , or twenty-
five (25) miles per hour whichever is found most appro-
priate to facilitate the orderly movement of traffic and
is reasonable and safe.
(c) Whenever the Traffic Engineer, as authorized by the Council,
determines, upon the basis of an engineering and traffic
survey, that the limit of fifty-five (55) miles per hour
is more than is reasonable or safe upon any portion of a
highway other than a State highway for a distance of not
exceeding two thousand (2 ,000) feet in length between dis-
tricts, either business or residence, the Council may de-
clare a reasonable and safe prima facie limit thereon lower
than fifty-five (55) miles per hour, but no less than
twenty-five (25) miles per hour, which is the declared prima
facie speed limit.
(d) Speed limits established pursuant to this section shall
be effective when appropriate signs giving notice thereof
are erected upon said street or highway.
4-3. 503. Speed contests and exhibition of speed.
(a) No person shall engage in any motor vehicle speed contest i
on any public or private property within the City except
- 8 -
Ordinance No. 34
•
as otherwise authorized by zoning regulations.
(b) No person shall aid or abet in any motor vehicle speed
contest on any public or private property within the City
except as otherwise authorized by zoning regulations.
(c) No person shall engage in any motor vehicle exhibition of
speed on any public or private property within the City.
(d) No person shall aid or abet in any motor vehicle exhibi-
tion of speed on any public or private property within
the City.
Article 6. Turning Movements
4-3. 601. Authority to place devices altering normal course for turns.
The Traffic Engineer is authorized to place official traffic
control devices within or adjacent to intersections indicating the
course to be travelled by vehicles turning at such intersections , and
such course to be travelled as so indicated may conform to or be
other than as prescribed by law.
4-3. 602 . Authority to place restricted turn signs.
• The Traffic Engineer is authorized to determine those inter-
sections at which drivers of vehicles shall not make a right, left
or U-turn, and shall place proper signs at such intersections. The
making of such turns may be prohibited between certain hours of any
day and permitted at other hours, in which event the same shall be
plainly indicated on the signs or they may be removed when such turns
are permitted.
4-3. 603. Signal controlled intersections - Right turns.
The Traffic Engineer is authorized to erect appropriate signs
prohibiting right turnsagainsta red or "stop" signal at any inter-
section.
Article 7. One-way Streets and Alleys
4-3. 701. Authority to sign one-way streets and alleys .
The Traffic Engineer, as authorized by the Council, shall deter-
mine and designate one-way streets or alleys and shall place and
maintain official traffic control devices giving notice thereof. No
such designation shall be effective unless such devices are in place.
4-3. 702 . Authority to restrict direction of movement on streets
• during certain periods.
The Traffic Engineer, as authorized by the Council, shall deter-
_ g _
Ordinance No. 34
mine and designate streets , parts of streets or specific lanes thereo
upon which vehicular traffic shall proceed in one direction during
one period and the opposite direction during another period of the
day and shall place and maintain appropriate markings, signs, barriers
or other devices to give notice thereof. The Traffic Engineer may
erect signs temporarily designating lanes to be used by traffic
moving in a particular direction, regardless of the centerline of
the roadway.
Article 8. Stop and Yield Intersections
4-3. 801. Authority for stop signs and yield signs.
The Traffic Engineer, as authorized may erect and maintain stop
signs, yield signs, or other official traffic control devices to
designate through streets or to designate intersections or other
roadway junctions at which vehicular traffic on one or more of the
roadways should yield or stop and yield before entering the inter-
section or junction.
Article 9. Miscellaneous Driving Rules
4-3. 901. Stop when traffic obstructed.
No driver shall enter an intersection or a marked crosswalk
unless there is sufficient space on the other side of the intersectio
or crosswalk to accommodate the vehicle he is operating without
obstructing the passage of other vehicles or pedestrians, notwith-
standing any traffic control signal indication to proceed.
4-3. 902. Driving through funeral or other procession.
No driver of a vehicle shall drive between the vehicles comprising
a funeral or other authorized procession while they are in motion and
when such vehicles are conspicuously designated as required in this
ordinance. This provision shall not apply at intersections where
traffic is controlled by traffic control signals or police officers.
4-3. 903. Driver in a procession:.
Each driver in a funeral or other procession shall drive as near
to the right-hand edge of the roadway as practicable and shall follow
the vehicle ahead as close as is practicable and safe.
4-3. 904. When permits required for parades and processions .
No procession or parade shall occupy, march or proceed along any
street except in accordance with a permit properly issued by the City.
4-3. 905 . Obedience to barriers and signs .
No person, public utility, or City employee shall erect or place •
any barrier or sign on any street unless of a type approved by the
- 10 -
Ordinance No. 34
Traffic Engineer or disobey the instruction, or remove, tamper with,
or destroy any barrier or sign lawfully placed on any street.
4-3. 906. Shrubbery obstructing visibility of intersections .
Whenever the Traffic Engineer finds that any hedge, shrubbery,
or tree growing in a parkway obstructs the view of any intersection
or any traffic upon the streets approaching such intersection, he
shall give written notice to the owner of the property to remove or
trim such obstruction together with an appropriate time limit for
such actions and, if not properly performed in the time limit, he
shall cause the hedge, shrubbery, or tree to be immediately removed
or reduced in height and the cost of such removal or trimming shall
be collectable in the manner provided by lata.
Article 10 . Regulations for Bicycles
4-3. 1001. Effect of regulation.
(a) The parent of any child or guardian of any ward shall not
authorize or knowlingly permit any such child or ward to
violate any of the provisions of this Chapter.
• (b) Regulations applicable to bicycles shall apply whenever a
bicycle is operated upon any street within the City or
upon any path therein set aside for the exclusive use of
bicycles , subject to the exceptions stated therein.
4-3. 1002 . Bicycle license optional.
The licensing of bicycles shall be at the option of bicycle
owners within the City.
4-3. 1003. License application.
Application for a bicycle license shall be made upon a form
provided by the City and shall be made with the Fire Department. A
license fee as prescribed by the City Council shall be paid before
, each license or renewal thereof is granted.
4-3. 1004 . Issuance of license.
(a) Upon receiving an application, the Fire Department is auth-
orized to issue a bicycle license.
(b) Licenses shall be effective for one (1) calendar year from
date of issuance.
• (c) A license shall not be issued when reasonable grounds exist
to believe that the applicant is not the owner of or entitled
to the possession of such bicycle.
- 11 -
Ordinance No. 34
(d) A record shall be kept of the number of each license, the •
date issued, the name and address of the person to whom
issued, and a record of all bicycle license fees collected.
4-3. 1005. Attachment of license.
(a) Licenses shall be affixed to the front of the seat tube
of the bicycle frame.
(b) No person shall remove a current license from a bicycle
except upon a transfer of ownership or in the event the
bicycle is dismantled and no longer operated upon any
street or bicycle path in the City.
4-3.1006 . Riding on sidewalks prohibited.
No person shall ride a bicycle upon and along a sidewalk, or in
violation of any of the provisions of the Vehicle Code.
4-3. 1007. Bicycle parking.
A person shall not park a bicycle on a roadway or on a public
sidewalk in such a manner as to obstruct the movement of a legally
parked motor vehicle.
Article 11. Stopping, Standing or Parking •
Prohibited in Specified Places
4-3. 1101. Traffic Engineer to designate no stopping zones and no
parking areas.
(a) The Traffic Engineer, as authorized to determine the loca-
tion of no stopping zones and no parking areas, shall
place and maintain appropriate signs or markings indicating
the same and stating the hours during which the provisions
of this Article are applicable.
(b) No stopping zones and no parking areas shall be indicated
by red paint upon the top of all curbs in said zones and
areas.
4-3. 1102. Prohibited stopping, standing or parking.
No person shall stop, park, or leave standing any vehicle whether
attended or unattended, except when necessary to avoid conflict with
other traffic or in compliance with the directions of a peace officer
or offical traffic control device, in any of the following places:
(a) Within any division island unless authorized and clearly
indicated with appropriate signs or markings.
(b) In any area established as a no parking area, when such •
12 -
• •
Ordinance No. 34
area is indicated by appropriate signs or by red paint upon
the curb surface.
(c) Within any parkway.
(d) On any street or highway where the use of such street or
highway or a portion thereof isnecessaryfor the cleaning,
repair or construction of the street or highway or the
installation of underground utilities or where the use of
the street or highway or any portion thereof is authorized
for a purpose other than the normal flow of traffic or
where the use of the street or any portion thereof is
necessary for the movement of equipment, articles, or struc-
tures of unusual size, and the parking of such vehicle
would prohibit or interfere with such use or movement;
provided that signs giving notice of such no parking are
erected or placed at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to
the effective time of such no parking.
(e) At any place within twenty (20) feet of a crosswalk at an
intersection when such place is indicated by appropriate
signs or by red paint upon the curb surface except that a
bus may stop at a designated bus stop.
(f) Within twenty (20) feet of the approach to any traffic
• signal, boulevard stop sign, or official electric flashing
device.
(g) Within any appropriately designated fire lane and access
roads as established by the City Fire Code when appropriate
signs or markings are posted.
4-3. 1103. Parking in alleys.
No person shall stop, stand, or park any vehicle for any purpose
other than the loading or unloading of passengers or freight in any
alley. No person shall position any vehicle in any alley in such a
manner or under such conditions as to leave available less than ten
(10) feet of the width of the roadway for the free movement of vehi-
cular traffic, while that vehicle is being loaded or unloaded. No
person shall position any vehicle in any alley in such a manner as
to block or restrict access to any driveway entrance.
4-3. 1104. Parking adjacent to schools .
The Traffic Engineer is authorized to place signs or markings
indicating no parking upon either or both sides of any street adjacent
to any school property when such parking would, in his opinion, inter-
fere with traffic or create a hazardous situation.
• 4-3. 1105. Parking prohibited on narrow streets.
The Traffic Engineer is authorized to place signs or markings
- 13 -
Ordinance No. 34
indicating no parking upon any street when the width of the roadway
does not exceed twenty (20) feet, or upon one side of a. street as
indicated by such signs or markings when the width of the roadway
does not exceed thirty (30) feet.
4-3. 1106. Standing or parking on one-way streets.
The Traffic Engineer isauthorizedto erect signs upon the left-
hand side of any one-way street to prohibit the standing or parking
of vehicles.
4-3. 1107. Standing or parking on one-way roadways.
In the event a highway includes two or more separate roadways
and traffic is restricted to one direction upon any such roadway, no
person shall stand or park a vehicle upon the left-hand side of such
one-way roadway unless signs are erected to permit such standing or
parking. The Traffic Engineer is authorized to determine when standing
or parking may be permitted upon the left-hand side of any such one-
way roadway and to erect signs giving notice thereof.
4-3.1108. Parking on grades.
No person driving, or in control of, or in charge of, a.motor
vehicle shall permit it to stand on any highway unattended when upon
any grade exceeding three percent (3%) within any business or resi-
dence district without blocking the wheels of the vehicle by turning
them against the curb or by other approrpiate means.
4-3.1109. Unlawful parking - Peddlers, vendors.
Except as otherwise provided in this section, no person shall
stand or park any vehicle, wagon, or pushcart from which goods , wares,
merchandise or foods are sold, displayed, solicited or offered for
sale or bartered or exchanged, or any lunch wagon or eating car or
vehicle, on any portion of any street except that such vehicles,
wagons , or pushcarts may stand or park only at the request for a bona
fide purchaser for a period not to exceed fifteen (15) minutes at
one place. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to
persons delivering such articles upon order of, or by agreement with
a customer from a store or other fixed place of business or distribution.
4-3.1110. Emergency parking signs.
Whenever the Traffic Engineer determines that an emergency traffic
congestion is likely to result from the holding of public or private
processions or assemblages, he shall place temporary signs indicating
that the operation, parking or standing of vehicles is prohibited on
such streets and alleys. Such signs shall remain in place only during
the existence of such emergency and the Traffic Engineer shall remove •
such signs thereafter.
14 -
Ordinance No. 34
Article 12. Stopping for Loading or Unloading Only
4-3. 1201. Traffic Engineer to designate loading zones and passenger
loading zones.
(a) The Traffic Engineer is authorized to determine the loca-
tion of loading zones and passenger loading zones and
shall place and maintain appropriate signs or markings
indicating the same and stating the hours during which the
provisions of this Article and the Vehicle Code are applicable.
(b) Loading zones shall be indicated by yellow paint upon the
top of all curbs in said zones. Yellow shall mean no
stopping, standing or parking at any time between 7 : 00 a.m.
and 6 : 00 p.m. of any day except Sundays and holidays for
any purpose other than the loading or unloading of passengers
or freight, provided that the loading or unloading of passen-
gers shall not consume more than thirty (30) minutes and the
loading or unloading of freight more than twenty (20)
minutes.
(c) Passenger loading zones shall be indicated by white paint
upon the top of all curbs in said zones. White shall mean
no stopping, standing or parking for any purpose other than
loading or unloading of passengers, or for the purpose of
• depositing mail in an adjacent mail box, which shall not
exceed three (3) minutes and such restrictions shall apply
between 7 : 00 a.m. and 6 : 00 p.m, on any day except Sundays
and holidays and except as follows :
When such zone is in front of a hotel or in front of a mailbox,
the restrictions shall apply at all times. When such zone is in
front of a theater, the restrictions shall apply at all times except
when such theater is closed.
4-3. 1202. Effect of permission to load or unload.
(a) Permission herein granted to stop or stand a vehicle for
purposes of loading or unloading of freight shall not
extend beyond the time necessary therefor, and in no event
for more than twenty (20) minutes.
(b) Permission herein granted to stop or park for purposes of
loading or unloading of passengers shall include the
loading or unloading of personal baggage, but shall not
extend beyond the time necessary therefor and innoevent
for more than three (3) minutes.
(c) Within the total time limits above specified, the provi-
sions of this section shall be enforced so as to accommo-
• date necessary and reasonable loading or unloading but
without permitting abuse of privileges hereby granted.
15 -
Ordinance No. 34
4-3. 1203. Standing in any alley.
No person shall stop, stand or park a vehicle for any purpose
other than the loading or unloading of passengers or freight in any
alley.
4-3. 1204. Traffic Engineer to designate public carrier stops and
stands.
The Traffic Engineer is authorized to establish bus stops, bus
stands, taxicab stands and stand for other passenger common-carrier
motor vehicles on such streets in such places and in such number as
he shall determine to be of the greatest benefit and convenience to
the public, and every such bus stop, bus stand, taxicab stand or
other stand shall be designated by appropriate official traffic con-
trod devices.
4-3.1205. Restricted use of bus and taxicab stands.
No person shall stop, stand or park a vehicle other than a bus
in a bus stop, or other than a taxicab in a taxicab stand when any
such stop or stand has been officially designated and appropriately
signed, except that the driver of a passenger vehicle may temporarily
stop therein for the purpose of and while actually engaged in loading
or unloading passengers when such stopping does not interfere with
any bus or taxicab waiting to enter or about to enter such zone. •
Article 13. Stopping, Standing or Parking Restrictions
4-3. 1301. Time limit parking.
(a) The Traffic Engineer is authorized to designate by appro-
priate signs or curb marking, locations where it shall be
unlawful for the operator of any vehicle to stop, stand,
or park said vehicle adjacent to any such legible curb
marking or signs for a period of time in violation thereof.
(b) Time limit parking zones shall be indicated by green paint
upon the top of all curbs in said zones. Green shall mean
no standing or parking for a period longer than indicated
at any time between 9:00 a.m. and 5 :00 p.m. for any day
except Sundays and holidays.
4-3.1302. Handicapped parking.
(a) The Traffic Engineer is authorized by the Council to deter-
mine and mark, with blue curb and appropriate signing, loca-
tions on public streets and in publicly owned, leased, or
controlled off-street parking facilities for the exclusive
use of physically handicapped persons.
(b) The privately owned and operated parking facilities in •
the City may reserve parking stalls for exclusive use by
16
Ordinance No. 34
•
physically handicapped persons.
(c) No person shall stop, stand, or park any vehicle in any
parking space marked by blue curb and appropriate signing
unless said vehicle bears a special license or displays
a special placard issued under the provisions of the
Vehicle Code.
4-3. 1303. Commercial vehicles street parking prohibited.
(a) No person shall stop, stand or park a commercial vehicle
on any street except a designated truck route except when
such vehicle is parked temporarily in connection with the
performance of a service or for loading and unloading.
(b) When the Traffic Engineer determines that the parking of
commercial vehicles constitutes a public nuisance or
safety hazard in any street, the Traffic Engineer shall
install appropriate signing or markings prohibiting the
stopping, standing or parking of commercial vehicles in
the areas so designated.
4-3. 1304 . Parking of non-motorized vehicles.
• No person shall park or leave standing a non-motorized vehicle
or camper, regardless of width or length, when it has been detached
from its motor vehicle on any street or highway in the City.
Article 14 . Regulating Classes and Kinds of Traffic on
Certain Highways
4-3. 1401. Gross weight limits.
The Traffic Engineer is authorized, on the basis of an engi-
neering and traffic survey, to erect and maintain official traffic
control devices on any streets or parts of streets to impose gross
weight limits as prescribed by the Vehicle Code.
4-3. 1402. Size restrictions.
The Traffic Engineer is authorized, on the basis of an engi-
neering and traffic survey, to erect and maintain official traffic
control devices on any streets or parts of streets to impose vehicle
size restrictions as prescribed by the Vehicle Code.
Section 2. The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be pub-
lished once within fifteen (15) days after its passage in the Atas
cadero News, a newspaper of general circulation printed, published
• and circulated in the City in accordance with Section 36933 of the
Government Code; shall certify the adoption of this ordinance and
shall cause this ordinance and this certification to be entered into
17
Ordinance No. 34
the Book of Ordinances of this City. •
Section 3. This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full
force and effect at 12:01 a.m, on the 31st day after its passage.
The foregoing ordinance was introduced on November 10, 1980
and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council held on
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ROBERT J WILKINS, JR. , Mayor
ATTEST:
MURRAY L. WARDEN, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ALLEN GRIMES, City Attorney
•
- 18 -
I N D E X
• Ordinance No. 34 - Traffic Regulation
Page
ARTICLE 1. Words and Phrases Defined . . . . . . 1
4-3. 101 Definition of words and phrases . . . 1
ARTICLE 2 . Traffic Administration . . . . 2
4-3. 201 Police Administration - Traffic Enforcement
Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
4-3. 202 Duty of Traffic Enforcement Unit . . . . 3
4-3. 203 Traffic Engineer . . . . . . . . . 3
4-3. 204 Powers and duties of Traffic Engineer -
Delegation . . . 3
4-3.205 Traffic accident studies . . . . . . . . 3
4-3.206 Traffic accident reports . . . . . . . 3
4-3.207 Annual traffic safety report . . . . . 4
4-3.208 Emergency and experimental regulations . . 4
4-3. 209 Traffic committee . . . 4
4-3. 210 Duties of traffic committee . . . . 4
ARTICLE 3. Enforcement and Obedience to Traffic
Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . 4
• 4-3. 301 Authority of Police and Fire Department
officials . . . . . . 4
4-3. 302 Obstruction or interference with police ,or
authorized officers . . . . . . . . . 5
4-3. 303 Exception of certain vehicles . . . . 5
4-3. 304 Removal of vehicles from streets . . . 5
ARTICLE 4. Traffic Control Devices
4-3. 401 Authority to install traffic control
devices . . . . . . . 6
4-3. 402 Official traffic control devices required for
enforcement purposes . . . . . . . . 6
4-3. 403 Installation of traffic signals . . . 6
4-3.404 Traffic Engineer to establish crosswalks . 6
4-3. 405 Traffic lanes . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4-3. 406 Distinctive roadway markings . . . 7
4-3. 407 Authority to remove, relocate and discontinue
traffic control devices . . • . . 7
4-3. 408 Traffic control devices: Hours of
operation . . . . . . . . . 7
4-3.409 Unauthorized painting of curbs . . . . . . . 7
4-3. 410 Construction of traffic control devices 7
• ARTICLE 5. Speed Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4-3. 501 State speed laws applicable . . . . 7
4-3. 502 Authority of Traffic Engineer . . . . 8
i
INDEX
Ordinance No. 34 - Traffic Regulation •
Page
ARTICLE 5. Speed Regulations (cont. ) . . . 8
4-3.503 Speed contests and exhibition of speed . . . . 8
ARTICLE 6. Turning Movements . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4-3.601 Authority to place devices altering normal
course for turns . . . . . . . . 9
4-3.602 Authority to place restricted turn signs 9
4-3.603 Signal controlled intersections - Right
turns . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
ARTICLE 7. One-way Streets and Alleys . . . . . . 9
4-3.701 Authority to sign one-way streets and
alleys . . . . . . . . . . 9
4-3. 702 Authority•to restrict direction of movement
on streets during certain periods , 9
ARTICLE 8. Stop and Yield Intersections . . . 10
4-3. 801 Authority for stop signs and yield signs 10
ARTICLE 9. Miscellaneous Driving Rules . . . 10 •
4-3. 901 Stop when traffic obstructed . . . . . . 10
4-3.902 Driving through funeral or other procession 10
4-3.903 Driver in a procession . . . . . . .
10
4-3.904 When permits required for parades and
processions . . . . . , . 10
4-3.905 Obedience to barriers and signs 10
4-3.906 Shrubbery obstructing visibility of
intersections . . . . . . . . . . 11
ARTICLE 10 . Regulations for Bicycles . . . . . . 11
4-3.1001 Effect of regulation . . . . . . . 11
4-3.1002 Bicycle license optional . . . . . . 11
4-3.1003 License application . . . . . . . 11
4-3. 1004 Issuance of license . . , . . . . . . . . 11
4-3.1005 Attachment of license . . . . . . 12
4-3.1006 Riding on sidewalks prohibited . . . . . . . . 12
4-3. 1007 Bicycle parking . . . . . . . . . . . 12
ARTICLE 11. Stopping, Standing or Parking Prohibited in
Specified Places . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4-3.1101 Traffic Engineer to designate no stopping •
zones and no parking areas . . . . 12
4-3.1102 Prohibited stopping, standing or parking . . . 12
ii
INDEX
Ordinance No. 34 - Traffic Regulation
Page
ARTICLE 11. Stopping, Standing or Parking Prohibited in
Specified Places (cont. ) . . . . . 12
4-3. 1103 Parking in alleys , . . . . . . 13
4-3.1104 Parking adjacent to schools 13
4-3.1105 Parking prohibited on narrow streets . 13
4-3. 1106 Standing or parking on one-way streets . 14
4-3.1107 Standing or parking on one-way roadways 14
4-3.1108 Parking on grades . . . . . . . 14
4-3.1109 Unlawful parking - Peddlers , vendors . . 14
4-3. 1110 Emergency parking signs . . . . . 14
ARTICLE 12. Stopping for Loading or Unloading Only . . 15
4-3.1201 Traffic Engineer to designate 1oading, zones.
and passenger loading zones . . . . . . 15
4-3. 1202 Effect of permission to load or unload 15
4-3. 1203 Standing in any alley . . . . . 16
4-3. 1204 Traffic Engineer to designate public carrier
stops and stands • . . 16
4-3. 1205 Restricted use of bus and taxicab stands . 16
• ARTICLE 13. Stopping, Standing or Parking Restrictions . 16
4-3. 1301 Time limit parking . . . . . . . . . . 16
4-3. 1302 Handicapped parking . . . . . . . . 16
4-3. 1303 Commercial vehicles street parking
prohibited . . . . . . . . 17
4-3.1304 Parking of non-motorized vehicles 17
ARTICLE 14 . Regulating Classes and Kinds of Traffic on
Certain Highways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4-3.1401 Gross weight limits . . . . . . . 17
4-3.1402 Size restrictions . . . . 17
•
iii
M E M O R_A N_D U M_ D /
•
TO: City Council
FROM: City Manager
SUBJECT: Election procedures for City Clerk and City Treasurer
Attached is a memo from the City Attorney concerning the Code
requirements for holding special elections. His memo, dated
November 7 , 1980, and attached hereto, deals with the holding of
the City Clerk/Treasurer election in 1982 . You requested informa-
tion as to the requirements for holding ,these elections.
As of today, the County is not aware of any election to be
held prior to November of 1981. Accordingly, that is the earliest
date on which a consolidated election could be held. Please note
that the Attorney's memo emphasizes that we can only have our
elections at the times specified for such purpose. The costs for
holding our own election are estimated to be between $6 ,000 and
$8,000. This amount would be less, and I cannot determine how much
less, if the election was consolidated with a County election.
According to the City Attorney' s memo, you have the option of waiting
until the 1982 election: at which time the Council election will be
held.
• Although a different issue, I will be presenting to you new
ordinances, as mentioned in the Attorney' s memo, re-defining the
functions of the Clerk and Treasurer. Our ordinances are now written
with the condition that the Treasurer' s functions are performed by
the Finance Director and the Clerk' s functions performed by the
City Manager. There are some procedural differences which will have
to be defined as a consequence of having elected officers.
Should you decide to call a special election, the appropriate
enabling actions must be taken not less than 90 days prior to the
regularly established election date; that is to say, if you decide
November of 1981 should be the election date in order to consolidate
with the County, your enabling resolution must be enacted in July
of that year. If you decide to wait until the regular City election
in April of 1982, then the enabling resolution and other actions
must be taken in November or December of 1981
Another available alternative is to hold a special election on
the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March, 1981. Since the
County is not aware of any elections to be held by them, this would
have to be held by the City alone with all costs borne by the City.
The Council would have to call the election no later than December 3rd,
which means that if you wanted to hold the election in March, we
would either have to have a special meeting prior to December 3rd or
call such an election Monday night, November 24th. Paso Robles just
recently concluded a special election and, although their costs are
not all in, they have spent $6 ,000 with further costs yet to be
0 •
Memorandum - City Clerk/Treasurer election
Page two
•
determined. Atascadero, having more .voters, may. have higher costs
but I cannot give you any definite figures . With the County not
having an election in March, we would have to contract with an,
elections -firm- and also have to contract for computer use with the
County in order to count the ballots. All of this, of course, can
be done in the time available should you choose to have a March
election.
Your action is to:
1. Declare a City-conducted election for March, 1981; or
2. Decide to hold off until the November, 1981 election
which could be consolidated with the County; or
3. Decide to hold off until the 198,�k'municipal election
4-MUY7.
14LW:ad
11-20-80
•
ROBERT J.WILKINS,JR.
MAYOR CITY ATTORNEY
P' 0. BOX 749
WILLIAM H.STOVER ATASCADERO.CA 93422
MAYOR PRO-TEMPORE (605) 466-5678
GEORGE P. HIGHLAND S
MARJORIE B. MACKEY INCORPORATED JULY 2, 1979
POLICE DEPARTMENT
ROLFE NELSON
(805) 466.8600
HURRAY L.WARDEN
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
<
CITY MANAGER/CLERK POST OFFICE BOX 747
ATASCAOERO, CALIFORNIA 93422 FIRE DEPARTMENT
PHONE (885).466.8000 6005 LEWIS AVENUE
ATASCADERO,CA 93422
(805) 466-2141
MEMORANDUM November 7, 1980
To: Murray Warden, City Manager
From: Allen Grimes, City Attorney
Subject: Election of City Clerk and City Treasurer
Now that the electorate has spoken and indicated that they do not wish the offices
of City Clerk or City Treasurer to be appointed, what action is next indicated?
Vacancies in the elective offices of a general law city are controlled by Section
• 36512 of the Government Code, which says:
"Section 36512. Vacancies; appointment or election to fill; term.
The city council shall take the action specified by this section to
fill any vacancy occurring in the offices provided for in this chapter.
If the vacancy is in an appointive office, the council shall fill the
vacancy by appointment. If the vacancy is in an elective office, the
council shall, within 30 days from the commencement of the vacancy,
either fill the vacancy by appointment or call a special election to
fill the vacancy. Such a special election shall be held on the next
regularly established election date not less than 90 days from the
call of the special election. A person appointed or elected to fill
a vacancy holds office for the unexpired ,term of the former incumbent."
It is my conclusion that the elective offices of City Clerk and City Treasurer in
the City of Atascadero, having been vacant following the organization of the City
on July 1, 1979, and such vacancies having been filled de facto by appointments
of the Council within the meaning of Government Code Section 36512, these offices
must be put up for election when the elective terms of the offices would normally
have expired, which shall be in the spring of 1982.
I do not believe the law requires that a special election now be called for the
purpose of electing a City Clerk and City Treasurer to serve for the balance of
the original term.
However, should the Council desire to proceed with the calling of a special
• election to elect a short-term City Clerk and City Treasurer, I see no legal
objections.
AG:fr
Cc: Robert Wilkins, Mayor
Memorandum: Murray Warden, City Manager •
Election of City Clerk and City Treasurer
November 12, 1980
Elections Code Section 2650 requires that all special elections
be held on one of the election dates set by Elections Code Section 2500.
Thus, there are exceptions as provided in Elections Code Section 2503, none of
which applies to this case. One of these exceptions, however, applies to
initiative,referendum, or recall elections.
There is no restriction on the number of elections a City may call, merely on
the time at which they are held.
The present provisions of the Atascadero Municipal Code relating to the offices
of City Clerk and City Treasurer are contained in Ordinance No. 5 (July 9, 1979)
and Ordinance No. 6 (July 9, 1979) .
It appears desirable that these ordinances be amended to more clearly reflect the
present situation. I am attaching a draft of amendatory ordinances covering
both the offices of City Clerk and City Treasurer for your review.
•
AG•f
Enclosures